It goes without saying that the death of Elizabeth II is a cultural milestone. It's unsettling for many as one of the foundational pillars of British society has been removed. The monarchy continues but because of the length of her reign and the stability it brought during the tumultuous cultural upheaval of the post-war period – the stability is associated less with the monarchy as a whole but is instead associated specifically with her person. And now she's gone.
It's unsettling for many Americans and other people around
the globe. I can only imagine how upsetting it is for many people within
Britain itself. And many believe that a change is at the door, the nature of
the monarchy is undergoing yet another transformation and as such they lament
and mourn in a state of grief and uncertainty. Elizabeth's reign straddled the
period of official empire and its decline – or as mentioned previously its
recasting. I wonder how Evangelical and Reformed leaders are reacting? As
mentioned recently there's been a resurgence in Evangelical appreciation for
the monarchy that hitherto had not been present – in no small part due to the
Queen's questionable title as head of the Church of England.
As Evangelicals have shifted from their erstwhile
Left-leaning political positions and appreciation for the likes of Cromwell,
the embrace of Toryism has also meant an embrace of monarchy and an
increasingly romantic view of the British Empire. For others the feelings have
always been mixed and yet those of that camp (or more properly camps) are
undoubtedly sad and reflective to see this monarch pass.
I immediately thought of several Calvinists – Iain Murray,
Maurice Roberts, and David Murray who have all preached sermons and written
fervently defending and praising the British Empire, and lamenting its fall.
These are men that have seared their consciences concerning the evil the
British Empire represented and have in fact equated its evils with godly
Christian culture and as such they have whitewashed, justified, and even
participated in its sins. They believe Britain lost its empire because if
forgot or abandoned God – a ridiculous and even offensive notion.
How empty they must feel this day as their idol continues to
crumble and its last vestiges are swept away. They are to be pitied but not as
much as those who sit at their feet.
As mentioned, the monarch is the head of the Church of
England, an unfortunate peculiarity linked back to the days of Henry VIII. The
Anglican Church was born in sin and the whims of a wicked adulterer and
murderer but it underwent some transformation as the Magisterial Reformation
sought to capture and appropriate it to its larger cause. This tortured process
led to more than a century of upheaval, war, and revolution. The end result was
a quasi-Protestant Church built on dubious theological foundations and a
Puritan defeat. Today, the Anglican body is dominated by theological liberalism
and is largely in a state of functional apostasy – no longer even remotely
connected to the religion of the New Testament. It is at best a house of empty
rituals and pageantry, words spoken but devoid of content.
Despite the pathetic state of this ecclesiastical body, the 'head
of the Church' claim must still be reckoned with and all Christians should find
it offensive and must reject it. That said, I understand that on a practical
level this is complicated. I have attended many Anglican services and even
participated in them. I have gone back and forth on some of these issues – not
where I stand regarding Anglican ecclesiology but to what degree these things
can be tolerated. I have been in churches in England and been amazed at the
little old ladies who know the Prayer Book by heart. The liturgical forms
contain the gospel and yet in many respects I always felt like these people
were being sung to sleep. They knew the forms and practice a type of piety but
then they walk out the door and are ill-equipped to contend with the world and
the power of its influence. The Church is indistinguishable from England and as
England has slipped into decadence and depravity, the Church has simply
followed suit.
And as the Anglican body is an Established Church it is in
the end a servant of the state. The revival of Anglicanism in the United States
is interesting and something I've written about – once again people are looking
for stability and yet misunderstanding the doctrine of the New Testament, they
continue to look in the wrong place.
The Queen's death is a cause for reflection to be sure and
even sad on one level, but Christians should not celebrate this person. She
inherited the ecclesiology but did nothing to change it. It's not her fault one
might say but the claims are blasphemous and must be rejected – claims now
inherited by Charles III.
I recall that years ago some lamented that Charles had
expressed an interest in changing the wording of one his Tudor-era titles from
'Defender of the Faith' to 'Defender of Faith' – a move meant to acknowledge
the religious diversity of the modern UK – itself a result of the Empire. Of
course I don't believe such a move would really provide any kind of comfort or
solace to British Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, or Muslims, and as (in Christian terms)
the claim is absurd to begin with (and frankly obscene considering the
character of Charles) – it's a non-issue to New Testament Christians or ought
to be. These are more empty and meaningless forms that only muddy waters and
weave a mist of confusion.
In the end, the death of Elizabeth II is a cultural moment, a
cause for reflection, and little else. I have no love for the royals but at the
same time there's a certain degree of delight in the perseverance of old order
forms which fly in the face of modernity – an irony that played out in 2006's The
Queen which depicted the dynamics between Blair, the modernist iconoclast and
the monarchy. His 1997 ascension was a threat to the monarchic order and yet in
many respects his populist sensitivities drove his intervention and he helped
to save the institution during a particularly precarious and vulnerable moment.
The film undoubtedly played a little loose with the facts and specifics but
it's an interesting story and Blair himself is interesting in this regard. He
rode the same 1990's wave of social change that brought Bill Clinton to office
five years earlier and yet both men ended up triangulating their views. Power
corrupted them and both became solid members of the Establishment – or sell-outs
as some would say. It's an old story about the corruption of power and the
irony of those who rose to power challenging it – end up being effectively won
over even while retaining the trappings of their supposedly progressive views
that were meant to challenge the order – yet another case of political smoke
and mirrors.
The monarchy emerged from the nadir of the 1990's and yet
recent scandals and now the absence of the queen may once more engender
instability.
Such a crisis moment just might return in the years to come.
It's not hard to envision in the coming years (or even near future) a period of
austerity and social turmoil leading to a popular questioning regarding the
expense related to the monarchy. Will Charles have a Blair-type advisor? He
will have to tread lightly. And while the Queen was popular, the announcement
of Charles in Edinburgh elicited both cheers and boos from the crowd. And the
SNP is still pushing for independence. The first referendum failed in 2014 but
Brexit has changed the dynamics and how Liz Truss will stand in light of the
pressure is yet to be seen.
The fear within the monarchy is evident. There's a noticeable
uptick in the aggressive campaign to reach the public. Charles knows the young
members of the family have a connection to the public that he lacks and he is
going to encourage them to that end. Every handshake secures support and
engenders affection. The royals have in some respects turned politician. An
earlier generation of aristocrats would have viewed such walkabouts as
demeaning, but it's a sign of changing times.
In actuality the family is mired in corruption, scandal, and even
debauchery. The scope and nefarious nature of their financial holdings and
influence are not fully understood. They're not very nice people but in true
demonic fashion, the evil they represent is dressed up in the trappings of respectability,
Christianity and morality. Charles, Diana, and Andrew have all testified to
this hypocrisy in their own way. In many respects William and Kate are the hope
of the future as they are untarnished by scandal though we would be wrong and
foolish to think they represent some kind of morality. They are simply the
fresh faces of a wicked system that has been involved in theft, murder, and
oppression for more than a thousand years.
It's all captivating to be sure and it's easy to get emotional.
I'm sure they do as well even while they attempt to hide it behind the
proverbial stiff upper lip. While they have their moments of heady fame and
intoxicating glory, we know that many people who inhabit these positions of
fame and power are often unhappy. Living in golden cages they are burdened by
stress and the fear of a misstep or exposure. For some it becomes a living but
golden misery, almost like a drug controlling an addict they cannot dream of
giving it up. Even Harry is struggling to stay true to his professed ideals and
convictions. They can't let go as losing it would destroy them. All of this is
couched in terms of 'duty' and the like. I suppose some of them really believe
it but I don't doubt there's a pervasive cynicism that also rots from within.
If Charles follows in the footsteps of his parents he'll be
king another twenty or twenty five years and yet his death won't be like this –
it won't be the cultural moment that the death of Elizabeth represents. We
won't see this again, not in our lifetimes. If Charles indeed lasts into his
nineties, William and Kate will be in their sixties and the glamour and vibrancy
they now possess (and could have brought to the throne) will be diminished. And
one wonders if the seeming innocence they now possess will survive those
decades or will they too be plagued by rumour and scandal.
If Charles had really cared about the monarchy he would have
stepped aside and let William and Kate step in, but he didn't and the
ramifications of that decision are yet to be seen.
As said, austerity, financial struggle, social upheaval, and
an unpopular king when connected to the crushing costs of monarchy create a
scenario in which it's not hard to imagine that Charles may breed severe criticism
and his unpopularity may revitalise the calls to end the monarchy. Those voices
had picked up steam in the 1990s and in many respects it was William and Kate (and
the certainly the queen herself) that saved the day. Now with the Andrew-
Jeffrey Epstein scandal, some of the confusion and ire generated by Harry and
Meghan, and the general dislike for Charles – which those of us who are old
enough can remember some of the really tawdry stuff with him – it might bode
ill for the House of Windsor. Time will tell but this moment is unique.
A friend and I were talking about these moments – his mother was compelled by her parents to watch the coronation in 1953. With millions of others I watched the Charles and Diana wedding in 1981. I insisted my kids watch the wedding of William and Catherine in 2011 – simply because it was a cultural moment that they would remember for the rest of their lives. The funeral of Elizabeth II is such a moment, a vanity fair in all its glory, a spectacle, a historical marker. One is reminded of Victoria's funeral although in many respects Edward's (in 1910) was more of the watershed as the world careened toward the events of World War I – the last hurrah of the old world order that would soon pass away and descend into the madness of 1914. One wonders as the world leaders gather in London if we're witnessing something similar as indeed the world is on edge and deep structural changes are afoot.