The British Monarch as Defender of the Faith

https://firstthings.com/no-faith-worth-defending/

Trueman continues to baffle me. I once appreciated this man and considered him to be rather insightful - even when I disagreed with him. But something has changed and now he's teamed up with the Colson people and Grove City College, and has become seriously engaged in the Culture War.

The man who in 2010 wrote Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative, seems to no longer exist.

In this recent First Things article he's troubled by the British Monarch's tweaking of his role as 'Defender of the Faith'.

Since when was any serious Biblically-grounded Christian excited about or interested in the blasphemous claims of the British Monarchs and the Church of England? It's always been problematic and even ridiculous. The British Monarch is not head of the Church and so all claims of being 'defender' or otherwise are to be rejected.

Britain has (despite the outward forms) become a nation and culture committed to Enlightenment Liberalism and as such it has become pluralistic and secular. Whether one likes it or not (or regardless of the reasons one might not like it), that's the reality and the monarchy is trying to stay relevant even as it exists on thin ice. Ruling by the grace of God or Divine Right no longer works, really not even in a legal capacity. Let's not pretend there's something really profound happening here in terms of ideology. We're talking about people whose religion is Britain - they really couldn't care less about the Church and its message. This is all the more true given the Church lost any substantial message generations ago. The Church of England exists as an institution to give ritual credence to the institutions of state and society. It has nothing to do with the Church founded by Christ and the Apostles and hasn't for generations.

As far as the 'positive role' played by Christianity in English culture, I'm sure Trueman would admit that's a rather complicated statement to make. For most of the Christians of his stripe, the relationship with the crown and culture has been complicated. For most of its history both elements have been opposed to Biblical Christianity (however one defines that). Long terrible wars and struggles were fought which in the end helped to undermine the faith. At other times the churches often supported the Establishment and blessed its deeds even as it behaved in a way contrary to the Biblical teaching - such as building an Empire which (it should be pointed out) are built upon foundations of covetous presumption, theft, and murder. And no patronage or pretended humanitarianism can whitewash these sheer evil that all empires represent.

While it's sad (in one sense) to see old church buildings empty and give way to being community centres or mosques - there's kind of a dark poetic justice to it. A small, robust, and real Church is to be preferred, one in which the distractions of British Ecclesiastical form are not a distraction, one in which the myth of Christendom (nay, the heresy of Christendom) is dispensed with.

The Church living in antithesis as pilgrims in the world is the New Testament model. In one real sense I'm thankful that the apostasy of the Church of England (and its monarchical forms) is now absolute. Now the Church (the one that is constantly seeking to conform itself to the Oracles of God) can get on with the real business and dispense with the play-acting and the side-shows which for centuries led Christians into anti-Christian behaviour, celebrating violence and mammon.

I find Trueman's thinking to be confused and unhelpful on these points. I think he's caught up in a kind of sentimentality which is (to some extent) understandable. As a Presbyterian is he still holding out hope that the monarch will take up the Westminster Confession? It's not going to happen and frankly I'm glad for it. It would simply create more spiritual chaos - the kind of chaos that had Covenanters murdering bishops and the King's troops raiding worship services - which had become acts of political defiance.

He doesn't want to blame Charles - he's almost a victim it would seem. In actuality if the man had any conviction he could have intervened and rejected Sarah Mullally. It would have caused a crisis and scandal but so be it. But let's be clear, the piety of the British monarchy has never been very impressive - at least not since Edward VI who never made it out of his teens.

I find Trueman's whole mindset to be baffling and less than helpful.