This from The Evangelical Times,
There has been a minor storm in a teacup this Easter. King Charles III hasn’t issued an Easter message this year, even though he sent warm greetings to Muslims at the start of Ramadan. The charge, implied or explicit, is that we have a ‘Christian’ king who seems more eager to acknowledge other faiths than his own.
The optics are awkward. The monarch did indeed publicly wish Muslims a “blessed and peaceful Ramadan,” and even marked Eid with a message of goodwill. Meanwhile, an Easter communiqué was conspicuous by its absence. In a nation with an established church, that has raised some eyebrows. But before we reach for the smelling salts, a question must be asked: Does it really matter?
Some Christians appear to have invested more spiritual significance in a Buckingham Palace press release than it can possibly bear. What, after all, is an “Easter message” from the Crown? In recent years it has tended toward the anodyne: carefully balanced, interfaith-conscious reflections on “love,” “hope,” and “shared values.” Perfectly pleasant. Entirely harmless. And, if we are honest, often theologically thin...
...The New Testament offers no hint that the advance of the gospel requires endorsement from the palace. Christ builds His church. Not kings. Not governments. Not communications teams drafting seasonal greetings. Indeed, history suggests that the church is often strongest when it is least entangled with the machinery of the state. So yes, it is worth noting inconsistency. Yes, it is legitimate to question priorities. But it is a profound category error to imagine that a missed royal message constitutes a spiritual crisis...
...There is a curious irony in all this. Some who are rightly wary of theological compromise seem suddenly anxious for a royal message which, in all likelihood, would have embodied precisely that compromise—broad, inclusive, and carefully non-offensive. Is that really what the church needs? Another wishy-washy reflection on spirituality, trimmed to fit the sensibilities of a pluralistic age? Or does it need what it has always needed: bold preaching, faithful witness, and confidence that the risen Christ reigns—whether or not the King says so?
The British monarchy has its place. It may even, at times, speak helpfully into the nation’s moral life. But it is not the engine of the church’s vitality. So let us keep things in proportion. By all means, note the inconsistency. By all means, engage in public debate. But do not confuse the absence of a royal Easter message with the absence of Christian witness. The former may come and go. The latter must never cease. For the church’s strength does not lie in the favour of King Charles III—but in the power of the risen Christ, who needs no endorsement from any earthly throne.
Well put, but it still seems like a royal snub of our real King as opposed to an endorsement of a false prophet.
Posts
