How unlike his mom. . .

I don't know how I missed this.  In previous years, I had always looked forward to the Queen's greetings at Christmas and other holy days, especially Easter of 2020.  But this year King Charles III of England declined to give Easter greetings to the Christians of the church of which he is supposedly head.  Odd.  Charles has gone to great lengths to assure folks that he is not simply Defensor fidei but defender of faith in general -- no matter what it is called or which God is believed.  That said, he is defender of the Christian faith and, in particular, of the Church of England.  He had at one point shown interest in Orthodoxy, similar to his father.  He also seems to have great interest in Islam, having marked Islamic holidays with greetings from the throne.  So what are we to make of him?

There are many things to complain about in the long tenure of Elizabeth II but she seemed personally not simply spiritual but deeply religious.  She was known to regularly attend worship services and to pray and her messages at Christmas and Easter were written out of an implicit faith -- if not as explicit as some would have liked.  She was an anchor to the religious history of her people and preserved it even when some of those subjects had abandoned it.  Charles seems too at ease with the void of overtly Christian shape to the monarchy and to his particular role as head of the Church of England.  I fear he has passed this on to William who will succeed him.  Though I have read that William has committed to some sort of religious renewal, neither William nor Charles has yet shown the Christian resolve of Elizabeth.  That is sad.  It is a sign of the times, to be sure, but a sad one.

Some would decry state religion and insist that it is not a true faith.  I am not going to suggest that it is all that it should be but I do bemoan the rise of the nones and the norm of secularism that seems to be the wave passing over Europe and Canada and even the US which is not too far behind.  A state religion may not save one before the judgment seat of Christ but that does not mean that it did not contribute to the health and moral certainty of nations and peoples along the way.  Charles seems not even interested in this aspect and I fear too many are willing to let me off the hook for it.

Funny how we seem more comfortable confessing the things we are not sure about than the things we believe, teach, and confess.  I guess that is the shape of liberalism and progressivism.  We are so very full of steam when we speak of the things government needs to do but not so passionate about what we are called to do.  We love for the government to love the poor but treat charity as if it were a welfare program administered by the state instead of a reflection of the love God has revealed to us and for us.  Charles has his causes -- from animals to climate change among them.  It is as if he thinks that Islam is better suited to loving the neighbor than Christianity or Christians.  Christmas is the more familiar Christian holy day but Easter is the Queen of Feasts and a king who is head of a Christian communion should know that. If that is what he thinks, it is no wonder he smiles quietly without bothering to address his subjects with an Easter greeting.  He is in company with many folks today but I would not call it good company.  Give me some good old-fashioned state religion any day of the week over the kind of impious piety Charles has shown us.  I guess I expected it from him but I had hoped to be surprised.