Thursday, May 11, 2023

In Opposition to Monarchism (and Christian Nationalism)

It is Saturday morning on May 6 as I am writing this. Perhaps many of you are watching the coronation of King Charles III at this time. I am not, intentionally, for I am among the growing number of people who stand in opposition to monarchies in this modern world. 

Archbishop Welby crowning Charles III 

Opposition to the British Monarchy

“God Save Us from Christian Empire” is the name of a May 4 article by Adam Russell Taylor, the president of Sojourners. (It was because of reading that thought-provoking piece that I decided to write this one.)

According to CNN, the coronation in Westminster Abbey was “a symbolic coming together of the monarchy, church, and state for a religious ritual.” The Archbishop of Canterbury anointed Charles III with oil and placed a heavy crown on his head.

Since the days of Henry VIII, the British monarch has been the supreme head of the Church of England and often referred to as the “defender of the faith.”

Taylor calls attention to the problematical “global legacy” of the British Empire. That legacy “includes centuries of exclusion; racism; and plundering of land, resources, and human beings on nearly every continent—a legacy that is inseparable from both the British monarchy and the church.”

In recent years, Barbados and Jamaica have both announced their intention to sever ties with the British crown. Quoting Taylor again,

In both nations, enslaved people were forcibly brought from Africa and toiled in brutal conditions for hundreds of years, all to the economic benefit of the empire and its sovereigns—just one chapter of a long history of the royal family’s role in financing human enslavement that goes back to Queen Elizabeth I.

This is a large part of my ongoing opposition to the British monarchy—but there are other reasons that I will not mention at this time.

Opposition to the Japanese Monarchy

As Wikipedia accurately explains, the “Japanese monarchy is the oldest continuous hereditary monarchy in the world. The Imperial House recognizes 126 monarchs, beginning with Emperor Jimmu (traditionally dated to 11 February 660 BC), and continuing up to the current emperor, Naruhito.”

I remember well the opposition to the monarchy in Japan when Emperor Showa (Hirohito) died in early January 1989, and his son, Emperor Akihito (the present emperor’s father), ascended to the Chrysanthemum Throne.

Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the current constitution of Japan, which went into effect on May 3, 1947 (and May 3 is now Constitutional Memorial Day, a national holiday). There is no state-sanctioned religion in Japan, and the constitution prohibits any religious group from exercising political power.

Accordingly, Japanese Christians, among others, expressed strong opposition to the enthronement ceremonies of the new Emperor in 1990, which was couched in Shinto rituals.

Part of that criticism was linked to the role of the Emperor in the ruthlessness of Japan in expanding the Japanese Empire in the 20th century, which was partly modeled after the colonial expansion of the British Empire in the previous centuries.

Opposition to Christian Nationalism in the U.S.

Last week my friend Brian Kaylor, president and editor-in-chief of the Baptist periodical Word&Way, posted an article titled “Coronating Christian Nationalism,” indicating how the coronation of George II was giving Christian nationalism “a global spotlight.”

The U.S. fought the Pacific War in opposition to the Japanese monarchy and the concomitant excesses of the Japanese Empire. The U.S. colonists fought the Revolutionary War against King George III and the British Empire which wanted to rule as much territory as possible in North America.

But now there is a dangerous movement of right-wing Christians and politicians to override the principle of the separation of church and state in the U.S. That would make it more like Great Britain now and like Japan of the 1930s in its union of the nation with State Shinto.

Let’s not go there. It’s too late in the world for a King as a religious leader and national allegiance given to that King as a defender of the faith. I stand with the early religious dissenters to the British monarchy and the state church, men such as John Bunyan and Roger Williams.

What about you?

23 comments:

  1. Over an hour ago, local Thinking Friend sent me the following comments in praise of King Charles's coronation and the British monarchy, with permission to post those comments here.

    "I did watch the Coronation. It was a marvelous work of liturgy, statecraft, and patriotic commitment and celebration. Especially touching was the kiss the son gave the father. The placement and dedication of the head of state within a profound and Christ-like call to public service and the welfare of all is a much-needed spiritual model. Amen.

    "I sometimes wonder if the minority of greedy American Colonists had not engaged in an unnecessary War of Revolution, whether our nation of violence (and, for a time, slavery) today might have advanced, evolving toward peace and justice, more successfully than we have. Our heritage of guns and racism are examples, lesser problems in England.

    "Please note that the English constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and Charles III made a point of recognizing Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc., faiths, as well as various Christian denominations, during the Coronation event. A Hindu, the PM, read a passage from the New Testament. I think a good argument can be made for such a tolerant State Church in historical context. The ensuing literature, music, architecture provides a rich cultural fabric that benefits all faiths. Also the performative character of royalty provides, in my view, an often safer excursion into excess than many sporting franchises. And the wealth of the royals can be defended by the work they do, and the wealth is trivial compared to some private holdings.

    "As for royalty itself, again, evolving history suggests the value of separating the functions of head of state from head of government. While I do not wish the US to have an heritable head of state, I think combining both functions in the President is a mistake, an awkward and often unworkable burden on one person.

    "I suggest studying the commentary in 42-page Coronation program might enlarge one's perspective on the event."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Vern, for taking the time to write these thoughtful comments. While you and I have many disagreements about this subject, I am happy to post your comments here for others to read and consider. I don't think that there is any reason for me to address most of the disagreements, so I will just make a few brief comments here.

      While not being in favor of monarchy, now or in the 18th century, I also question the wisdom of the Revolutionary War, largely because of my belief in pacifism.

      I do realize that there is freedom of religion in England, just as there has been in Japan since 1947. But that doesn't mean that those who are not Christians in Great Britain are not disadvantaged by being adherents of other religions just as the Christians in Japan in 1990--as well, of course, before and after then--have felt at a disadvantage because of not being a part of the dominant Shinto culture, even though Shinto since WWII has been mostly cultural, a "civil religion" and not a religious faith as such. I did know before the coronation of Charles III that other religious were going to be included, in keeping with the diversity of the British population now. But, still, it seems clear that Great Britain is still a "Christian nation"--and because of my belief in full religious freedom for all, I am opposed to the efforts of conservative Christians to make the U.S. more like Britain has been for centuries, and still is, to a large degree.

      Delete
    2. [Six lines from the bottom of my comments. "religious" should be "religions."]

      Delete
  2. Then I received the following brief comments from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:

    "I share your opposition to monarchy and Christian nationalism, Leroy. The latter poses a great threat to our democracy. The British monarchy is benign today, but it seems a high price to pay for a symbol of what used to be."

    ReplyDelete
  3. A local Thinking Friend who has strong Baptist roots as does Dr. Hinson, wrote,

    "To tie monarchy in with separation of church and state was a timely and important point in your argument. I had not tied 'the right-wing
    Christians' and the monarchy so neatly together in my mind. Thanks."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Leroy,
    Thanks for raising questions about king-/queen-ship in 21st century USA context.
    We have no king but Caesar. We have no king but Christ. We have no king but God. We have no king.
    What if God is not well imaged by “king” or “lord” language?
    Shalom, Dick

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to be so slow in responding to your pertinent comments, Dick. I think you raise an important point that I have struggled with, but to this point I have not found a completely satisfactory answer. I think the concept of the Kingdom of God is a bedrock theological idea that needs to be constantly emphasized--but the terminology does create a problem. Sometimes I have referred to the Reign of God, but that is not much better. There is some appeal when feminist scholars and others often refer to the Kin*dom of God or just the Kindom of God, but those terms are likely not universally understood. But, yes, I agree that God is most likely not "well imaged" by king or lord language.

      Delete
  5. It was also just before noon when local Thinking Friend Lonnie Buerge sent me the following comments by email:

    "Thanks, Leroy. . . . This helped me understand a bit about these monarchies to which I pay little attention except as a piece of historical 'kitsch.' I realize my own humor at them hides the horrible history that they represent so I need to rethink that bit of tolerance it appears. I did not watch the coronation, but I did watch an hour of 'highlights.' Mostly it seems terribly anachronistic and has some parallels to the 'Dixieland' myth that continues to cause us such harm in this country."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Lonnie. I appreciate you taking the time to read and then to respond to my blog post. (Thanks, too, for your letter to the Kansas City Star that I was happy to see in the paper yesterday.)

      Delete
  6. Here are comments about nationalism received this afternoon from Thinking Friend Craig Doeden, whom I knew as a boy in Japan decades ago.

    "Nationalism is a disease. It's the disease that convinces us we're better than others and allows us to look down our respective noses at others, because of our nationality. It's a prejudice that allows horrible behavior towards others with other less blessed or enlightened national identities. Combined with our religious beliefs, nationalism gets even uglier. God doesn't care about our national borders. God cares about the people that live within all national borders. The people in a country can lead that country to do God's work, or drift far away from God's purpose.

    "Always enjoy being able to receive your well thought through thoughts."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for writing, Craig. It was good to hear from you again. I think your comments about nationalism are significant, and I appreciate you sharing them with me and other Thinking Friends who will read them here. During my last many years in Japan, I had regular contact with a young Japanese man who asked more than once why American politicians (and others) said "God bless America!" so often. Didn't they think God should bless Japan and other countries, too? I thought he had a good point, and he would surely agree with you about God not caring about our national borders. When will most people ever come to realize the truth of that statement and overcome divisive (and unjust) nationalism?

      Delete
  7. And then these comments from local Thinking Friend Carole Zahnd:

    "I definitely agree with you and Brian. Christian Nationalism is a serious issue and should not be ignored."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for reading and responding to my blog post, Carole. I didn't know whether you meant Brian Kaylor, whom I cited in the blog post, or your husband's nephew Brian Z., who has also written important pieces in opposition to Christian nationalism, such as in this piece: https://brianzahnd.com/2021/01/the-dangerous-heresy-of-christian-nationalism/. (I am happy to be linked to either, or both, of these Brians.)

      Delete
  8. Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago sent the following comments by email a few minutes ago:

    "Thanks, Leroy, for your observations, especially about the Japanese monarchy.

    "Declaring the US to be a 'Christian nation' (a dubious distinction to say the least) would be a disaster for Christianity. Fundamentalist Christians have already done much to destroy Christian faith among our younger citizens, and eliminating the separation of church and state would only further the exodus of young people from Christianity. (Europe provides many examples of this phenomenon.) Churches, or any voluntary organizations, are much more vigorous when they are forced to stand on their own without government support or sanction.

    "I watched a few minutes of the coronation ceremony. It struck me as rather obscene. Charles, however, is now the 'defender of the faiths' rather than 'of the faith' in recognition of the religious plurality now present in the UK. I saw a poll, which showed that about 40 percent of Brits favor abolishing the monarchy. I wonder if there is a similar percentage in Japan, or in other monarchies.

    "Viva le republique!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Eric. -- Since Japan is such an aging society, the percentage of Japanese opposing the imperial system of Japan is probably less than the 40% figure you cited, but my guess is that the percentage of people under 40 years old is probably greater than 40%.

      Delete
  9. Is is not the fear and loathing of history (I might have to confront something I do not like!) that aids and abets Christian Nationalist notions? That is, unless one is sucked into the vortex of ("classy" - slick) providential histories like that of Barton and his crew. It's dominant across the South, even among BAPTISTS who should know better. But, oh! There's that matter of accurate history in which Baptists would rather face jail than to kowtow to the colonial religious authorities.

    I frequently comment in Baptist contexts that the Puritans of various stripes and the Baptists (in England AND the American colonies) were jailbirds at government hands for the atrocious crime of personal conscience in religious matters such that they resisted Ye Olde Ecclesiae Anglicanae under the Great Heads of the English (the Real Kings) Hank I, Liz I, Jimmy I, and Charlies I &II -- (hey, even Ollie Cromwell could be and was oppressive to dissenters!) But it took the English Civil War to "settle matters" plus the "Glorious Revolution" that made it so only Protestants could ever sit the British throne. (Watching recording of Charles III's coronation, I noted the constitutional admonition and oath that the new king uphold the essential Protestantism of the realm--that, plus rituals and symbols recognizable in the coronation of Constantine the Great were present.
    I think, if only people knew any of this, they might not be so blithe with their Christian Nationalist assertions. With their assertions contradicting the truth that the American constitutional founding took away the possibility of a national religion. May it be ever thus.
    I recommend by the way Keith Durso's No Armor for the Back: Baptist Prison Writings 1600s, 1700s --https://www.amazon.com/No-Armor-Back-Writings-1600s-1700s/dp/0881460915/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2P3SFGDPZSFT2&keywords=Keith+Durso&qid=1683896421&sprefix=keith+durso%2Caps%2C114&sr=8-3

    and John M. Barry, Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul: Church, State, and the Birth of Liberty -- https://www.amazon.com/Roger-Williams-Creation-American-Soul/dp/0143122886/ref=sxts_entity_rec_bsx_s_def_r00_t_aufl?content-id=amzn1.sym.4afc730c-c08d-48ba-8a05-81aa212c56f6%3Aamzn1.sym.4afc730c-c08d-48ba-8a05-81aa212c56f6&crid=25FVKGXE6SG7C&cv_ct_cx=John+M.+Barry&keywords=John+M.+Barry&pd_rd_i=0143122886&pd_rd_r=a350c5fd-fb46-4afc-85f7-5e51842cea7a&pd_rd_w=cSxLF&pd_rd_wg=B3U3s&pf_rd_p=4afc730c-c08d-48ba-8a05-81aa212c56f6&pf_rd_r=DHAYYB363P0F6E05VDED&qid=1683896549&sbo=RZvfv%2F%2FHxDF%2BO5021pAnSA%3D%3D&sprefix=john+m.+barry%2Caps%2C113&sr=1-4-42c1d7c4-51c2-42cf-80a4-c0488607bdfe

    and Edwin S. Gaustad, Liberty of Conscience: Roger Williams in America -- https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Conscience-Roger-Williams-America/dp/0817013385/ref=sr_1_2?crid=14I77ZEGPX3H2&keywords=Edwin+S.+Gaustad&qid=1683896630&s=books&sprefix=edwin+s.+gaustad%2Cstripbooks%2C104&sr=1-2

    Oh, would that Baptists (and others) in the pew and behind the pulpit had ever read anything like these valuable books!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like the Christians who fought tooth and nail against religious establishments in North America--that mix of religion and state authority--I am grieved that more leaders cannot see the sense of maintaining true religious liberty--for all.

      Delete
  10. Yesterday evening, local Thinking Friend Linda Schroeder sent this brief comment:

    "I agree, Leroy, and appreciate your clarity on the topic."

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have received splendid "evaluative reflections" on the coronation of King Charles III by Thinking Friend Andrew Bolton, one of Charles's "subjects" who lives in Leicester, two hours north of London. Even though it is more than 600 words, I am pasting it here (in two parts) with the hope that many of you will take the time to read and to think about what Andrew has written.

    "The Coronation of King Charles III and the Sword"
    By Andrew Bolton

    "The coronation ceremony of King Charles III was flawlessly choreographed, and some words were thoughtfully challenging. 'Serve! Defend the poor! Christ is the exemplar King of kings, who wore a crown of thorns!' Archbishop Justin Welby presided with dignity. It was a visual feast, the music and choirs were magnificent, and even the congregation sang well. It was a Christian service for the enthroning of a Christian King in the Anglican tradition, centuries old.

    "The new king was blessed ecumenically by representatives of other Christian traditions, but representatives of Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, and Muslim communities were greeted on the way out. Included yes, but marginal - as they were in Empire days.

    "Christianity’s peace tradition was seriously absent. The sword, symbolizing the justified violence of government, was ever present. Penny Mordaunt MP, and leader of the House of Commons, carried a heavy bejeweled ceremonial sword with poise for about an hour through the ceremony. There was not a whisper about non-retaliation and loving your enemies (Matthew 5:38-48), nor the danger of worshipping mammon (wealth) (Matthew 6:24). The largest military parade in seventy years after the coronation made that point very clearly, as did the arrest of peaceful republican protesters calling for an end of the monarchy. The repeated emphasis on serving, protecting and advocating for the poor and vulnerable was significant, but perhaps also hypocritical. Charles is worth at least £1.8 billion ($2.27 billion) The cost of the coronation, at a time when many British homes are struggling with cost of living increases, is estimated possibly £250 million ($315 million). The institution of the monarchy justifies and provides cover for inherited wealth and privilege.

    "Sword justifying Anglicanism is close to home here in Leicester, two hours north of London, where I live. The cathedral has a statue of Richard III wielding a sword on its grounds. The defeated king, who died swinging the sword with murderous intent in 1485 on Bosworth Fields, was buried recently with great fanfare in a prominent place inside the cathedral. This is despite Leicester cathedral being named after St Martins of Tours (c316/336-397). As a soldier Martin cut his cloak in half to warm a ragged beggar in the middle of winter – he understood sharing. He served as soldier for nearly two years after being baptized, then left saying, 'I am the soldier of Christ: it is not lawful for me to fight.' Today he is patron saint of conscientious objectors. The sad thing is that the church could not leave Martin at that. It made him also patron saint of soldiers, confusing his witness. I am grateful that George Fox, founder of the Quakers, was born and grew up in Fenny Drayton, 15 miles away from the cathedral. I am even more grateful that Fox came and argued with the vicar of St Martins, for which he was jailed.
    [to be continued]

    ReplyDelete

  12. [continuation of Andrew's comments]

    "The coronation was ‘full on’ Christendom; the fusion of state, church and the military was clear. The Anglican church was clearly legitimizing the new king as God’s anointed. For instance, Charles III was referred to as ‘your undoubted king’, his coronation was a holy event, cast in much Christian language and symbolism. For this holy legitimizing of the king, the Church of England continues to be privileged, the military sacred in its role, and the words of Jesus to the rich ruler, “Sell all that you have, give to the poor, and then come and follow me” (Matthew 19:21) were missed out.

    "Gandhi loved the Sermon on the Mount and read it every day for 40 years. It would be good for Anglicans to rediscover Anglican Charlie Andrews, friend of Gandhi, friend of the poor, and also opposed to sword and imperialism."

    ReplyDelete
  13. This borderline fundamentalist leaves his fundamentalism behind on this subject. I love history and the beauty we find in great architecture, paintings, statuary, and music. I love the pageantry and color of these celebrations. Then I remember at what cost all of this has come into existence. Little of the beauty created by man over the centuries was not created on the backs of slaves, serfs, and servants who received little for their work beyond scars. Perhaps we need to spend more time admiring the beauty of God's natural world and then man's efforts might not seem so grand.

    I grieve over this concept of religious nationalism. It contributed much of the art we consider beautiful. It has also contributed to the elitism that has allowed a people group or nation to feel superior to and exercise a power over others. What war or persecution has not started in human history because one group felt a nearly divine right to conquer another? In serving this local group of Baptist churches, I perhaps did not say often enough the American flag should not be flown on church property, much less higher than the Christian flag. Jesus' teaching and his actions all said real power comes from servanthood, not mastership. I did not watch the coronation. The money spent crowning the king could have been used to reveal the divine value of the outcasts of our society. That is Christian power in action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, Tom, I am impressed with by what you, a "borderline fundamentalist," wrote here. You expressed powerfully what many "borderline liberals" think but don't state as well as you did. I am embarrassed that when I was pastor at Ekron when you were a boy, we always had an American flag (as well as a Christian flag) in the sanctuary (although not higher than the Christian flag). I am gratified that you learned, as I did later, that such is not appropriate, especially for those of us in the Anabaptist/Baptist tradition.

      Delete
  14. Nice and informative blog! This type of information is dedicated to talent acquisition, employee development, and fostering a positive work environment.
    If you want to know about Human Resources in Bolton UK then you can click here.
    Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete