Public Christianity in England has long since been evacuated of any doctrinal content or counter-cultural pungency. The fact that the Church of England remains established and yet only a fraction of the country bothers to attend even once a year means that it is in a permanent state of having to justify its own existence on grounds other than the strictly doctrinal and liturgical. And multiculturalism has proved a merciless master, demanding cultural relevance wedded to a dogmatic anti-dogmatism. 

Buckingham Palace has updated the official description of the monarch’s role vis-à-vis the Church of England. No longer is the king the “Defender of the Faith”; rather, “His Majesty is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.” The description is inspiring in rhetoric but rather empty of dogmatic content. 

This shift in language is not a minor drafting choice. It points to a deeper problem at the heart of English culture. Not only does the new formula repudiate the idea that any form of robust Christianity played a positive role in English history; it also reveals that English culture now lacks the tools to negotiate the country’s current religious spectrum except through relativistic pieties of multiculturalism—pieties that the other religions of significance, most notably Islam, reject.   

The king’s ambition for his role should be no surprise. It is consonant with his long-held convictions. For many years, then-Prince Charles made it clear that when he succeeded his mother as the British head of state, he would reinterpret “Defender of the Faith” as “Defender of Faith” or, to make the point explicit, “Defender of Faiths.” The title, originally granted by the pope to Henry VIII for his defense of Catholicism against Martin Luther, rapidly morphed in the Reformation to refer to the monarch’s role in defending the teaching and liturgy of the Church of England as its supreme governor. Today, the role of the monarch in this regard has become rather complicated. And it’s not the king’s fault.

There are at least two problems for the king that should elicit our sympathy. First is the parlous state of the Church of England. When it comes to defining the faith he is supposed to defend, the Church offers little help. Progressive Anglicanism is a subset of the wider culture’s moral chaos; apparently queer and proud, it panders to the weird fringe with no positive vision beyond an inclusivity that excludes orthodox Christians.

Read More