Wisdom is not the pursuit of the old and gray in hair, but is best found in the formative years of development — from childhood onward. In the pages of the Bible the voice of wisdom cries aloud: “Young Men, Listen!”Parents and churches need to harmonize their voices with wisdom. Boys and men, enlisted in the ranks of Jesus Christ, need to be exhorted to move forward like an advancing army.

Very little is known about Jesus’ early life. Aside from his infancy — as recorded by Matthew and Luke — there’s an important episode when Jesus was twelve years old. Having gone to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover his parents, Mary and Joseph, lose their son only to find him in the temple being instructed by the teachers. In a moment of profound self-identification, Jesus’s response seeks to dispel the ignorance of his parents: “I must be about my Father’s business.” Simultaneously he’s the son of Mary and Joseph and the Son of the Father.
After this experience, the Evangelist summarizes the rest of Jesus’ most formative years: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52). This is a remarkable statement about the normal human development of Jesus, and how, as he matured in age and body, in his soul he advanced in wisdom.
Wisdom, simply and biblically defined, is the godly application of truth to a specific situation. It’s not merely the accumulation of facts and knowledge but it’s putting knowledge to work. Or, to define it this way, wisdom is the skill of godly living.
From his childhood the boy Jesus learned wisdom — he became skillful in godly living. While the Bible doesn’t say exactly how he became skillful, it’s not useless speculation to conclude he did so the way any person is made wise: through instruction in the Word of God: “For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding; he stores up sound wisdom for the upright” (Proverbs 2:6-7). As Jesus learned the Scriptures he learned wisdom.
Read More
Related Posts:

Young men should be encouraged to be thoughtful in their consciences. Simply put, the conscience is our moral awareness. Young men are being taught by the world that the difference between right and wrong, good and bad is a difference of opinion or mere preference. Against this they need to be urged to form a sense of moral goodness as informed and rooted in the Bible. In fact, this is a true mark of maturity.

In human history there’s been any number of memorable speeches. They’ve been spoken by philosophers and orators, military leaders rushing onto the battlefield, or statesmen and politicians. In many of them there is a common theme – they often given an ideal to strive after with manly strength.
When I was in basic training a poster hung on the dormitory wall containing an excerpt from Theodore Roosevelt’s famous “Man in the Arena” speech. With rhetorical flare, Roosevelt said: “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly.” Cliche and overused as the quote may be, Roosevelt harnessed the power of words to inspire and refine the character of a man.
To his true child in the common faith, the Apostle Paul — without the artistry of rhetoric but in a demonstration of the Spirit and power — gave a direct word of exhortation to young men. Writing to Titus he said: “Likewise, exhort the young men to be sober-minded.” The word used for sober-minded can mean similar things — self-controlled, thoughtful, or careful. Perhaps why this is particularly urged for younger men, is that it’s a rare grace to be found in them. The young are often marked by carelessness, thoughtlessness, and a lack of control. But in Jesus Christ this is the ideal young men are to strive after in the strength of the Holy Spirit.
In a way that matches Paul’s instruction to Titus, I want to write eight encouragements to young men to urge them toward this ideal.
First, young men should be encouraged to be thoughtful in their perspective on life. We live in a cultural context that resembles, in many ways, the days before the world-wide flood. God had given Noah a warning about coming judgment and a means of escape, yet the people of his generation, we are told, were busy eating and drinking. Jesus said that they were unaware “until the flood came and took them all away” (Matthew 24:39). Young men aren’t being encouraged to live prospectively but to live in and for the immediate moment, and almost everything around them is lulling them into a stupor to be unaware of what lies ahead. Against that, the Wise Preacher said: “Rejoice, O young man, in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth. Walk in the ways of your heart and the sight of your eyes. But know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment” (Ecclesiastes 11:9).
Second, young men need to be encouraged to be careful in their estimate of themselves. With youth — often which is untainted with any real sense of failure, defeat, and loss — there can be a certain degree of boastful pride and arrogance. Youthful egoism isn’t a virtue esteemed by Christ and is contrary to the basic law of love, as love doesn’t boast and isn’t arrogant (1 Corinthians 13:4). Young men need to restrain their self-inflated opinions of themselves. While wisdom teaches: “Let another man praise you” (Proverbs 27:2), it should also be kept in mind that the true measure of a man is never what he or others think of him, but only what the Lord approves: “For not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends” (2 Corinthians 10:18).
Third, young men should be encouraged to be thoughtful in their consciences. Simply put, the conscience is our moral awareness. Young men are being taught by the world that the difference between right and wrong, good and bad is a difference of opinion or mere preference. Against this they need to be urged to form a sense of moral goodness as informed and rooted in the Bible. In fact, this is a true mark of maturity.
Read More
Related Posts:

Reformed theology understands that God has chosen to relate to us by means of covenant — a relationship established by a promise. There are two divine covenants, namely the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Witsius wrote: “[The law] served the covenant of works of old: and still it serves the covenant of grace.” Obedience to the law became the condition of what was promised in the covenant of works – do this and live, a covenant broken by our first parent’s sin. God’s redemptive way of relating to his people is through the covenant of grace in which the law still has an important place.

I was sitting across the table from my pastor when he asked what I thought the weakest part of his preaching was. As someone who is prone to a critical spirit I was hesitant to answer. But, at his prodding, I gave my opinion: “I think the weakest part of your preaching is that you’re scared to tell Christians what they need to do.” He responded by saying: “That’s a very fair observation.” He went on to admit that he’d rather tell people what Christ did for them than tell them what they need to do for Christ.
It’s a short anecdote but it illustrates what is often a perceived tension in preaching — the distinction between law and gospel. This distinction is important in Reformed theology. In his excellent book Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions, Dutch theologian Herman Witsius helpfully defined the “strictest notion” of both words. He wrote: “The law signifies that part of the Divine word which consists in precepts and prohibitions, with the promise of conferring a reward upon them who obey, and threatenings of punishment to the disobedient.” He went on to say: “The gospel signifies the doctrine of grace, and of the fullest salvation in Christ Jesus, to be received by elect sinners by faith.” According to these narrow definitions we might say that law is command and gospel is promise.
The distinction between law and gospel finds its way into many questions — not the least of which is pulpit ministry. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once famously quipped that preaching the gospel faithfully will likely get you accused of being antinomian — that is, anti-law. But the reciprocal is true too. Faithfully preaching the law can get you accused of being moralistic or, what is sometimes called neonomian — making the gospel a new law. Neonomianism and antinomianism are significant threats to the truth of Jesus Christ. On the one hand, those who pervert grace to lawlessness are designated for condemnation (Jude 4, and Matthew 7:23, Titus 2:14, 2 Peter 3:17, and 1 John 3:4), and on the other hand those who undermine grace by works are also under a curse (Galatians 3:10, see also 2:16 and Romans 3:20, 28).
How should law and gospel relate in preaching? One simple answer might be to say that the law should be used to show us our need for Jesus — the law is preached in order to make hearers desire the promise of the gospel. To borrow the expression of the Apostle, that is a lawful use of the law. After all, this same Apostle said: “I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet’” (Romans 7:7).
But this simple formula — preaching the law to preach the gospel — isn’t the only way that law and gospel should relate in the pulpit. Here, Herman Witsius is a great guide as he lays down several things that aid an understanding of preaching law and gospel.
First, while it’s true that law and gospel can be defined strictly, it’s also biblically true that they can be defined more broadly. Witsius says “all who are acquainted with theology” recognize a more extensive definition.
Read More
Related Posts:

Faithful Christians are going to face increasing inconveniences and sacrifices. But it’s a cost they incur in their lives. If people are going to listen to the advice given and pay those costs, we’d better be sure that the advice is biblical. Despite the significant responsibility, it’s a blessing to be brought into the questions that concern people, and to seek to help them with the answers. We need that in the Christian life. 

I do not remember who said it, but someone once said: “When I was young I gave advice to everyone fearful no one would listen. Now that I’m older I give advice to no one fearful everyone will listen.” There’s a note of wisdom in that self-experience. The Bible praises and commands the need for counselors and counsel. But those most equipped to give advice are those guided by humility in this work of stewardship.
I thought about this yesterday as a piece of advice from a well-known evangelical pastor got attention (and ire) on social media. The pastor was retelling how a grandmother came to him and asked if she should attend the transgender wedding of her grandson. He asked her if her grandson knew of her commitment to Jesus and that this commitment meant she couldn’t countenance his choices. The grandmother said her grandson did, and so in this scenario the pastor said she should go to the wedding and even bring a gift. Immediately, the pastor added the challenge of these kinds of questions saying: “It is a fine line, it really is. And people need to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.”
There’s few living pastors I respect as much as this man — he’s a gifted preacher and sincere shepherd. However, I strongly disagree with the advice this father in the faith gave in this situation. I think it’s wrong. But I’m not interested in assessing the question itself. There’s plenty of pushback happening and some of it is more useful than the mindless ranting of social media warriors.
Rather, my concern in this moment is thinking about the role of pastoral advice in general. With humility, this pastor recognized the responsibility in speaking counsel to people in the situations of life. When people ask elders these kinds of questions it’s because they need help — their consciences need shepherding. Shepherding the conscience is a significant pastoral responsibility.
Read More
Related Posts:

If someone had penned an obituary for Jesus the day after his death, it might have very well concluded with the same words: “He failed.” But such a memorial would betray an ignorance of the God of resurrection. Often what appears to be failure and defeat is, in fact, success and victory. What was Machen’s success? With clarity and consistency he drew a line in the sand. He sharpened the creedal edge that had long been blunted by compromise. You either stand on the side of biblical Christianity or you don’t. 

Appearing in the Baltimore Evening Sun on January 18, 1937 was an obituary for J Gresham Machen written by cultural critic and essayist HL Mencken. It’s an interesting tribute from an unlikely source. Machen’s life was a heroic struggle against the influence of Modernism within the mainline Presbyterian church, and a tireless attempt to contend against fake Christianity that revised and rejected the Bible. For his part, Mencken wasn’t a Christian and believed that the doctrine Machen espoused was a horror little removed from cannibalism. Yet, Mencken highly praised Machen as more clear, cogent, and consistent than his adversaries. The closing words of the epitaph simply read: “He failed — but he was undoubtedly right.”
In one sense, that assessment is understandable. If we measure success in human terms then Machen did appear to fail. His compelling and intellectual defense of the orthodox faith — summarized so well in his book Christianity and Liberalism — didn’t persuade most of his contemporaries. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and Princeton Seminary theologically collapsed forfeiting biblical Christianity, and America’s other mainline denominations followed a similar course.
The inability to stem the tide is still felt today. One hundred years after first being published, World Magazine named Christianity and Liberalism as their 2023 book of the year. Why? They explained: “If you want to explore the background of the moral collapse in churches today over same-sex marriage and other LGBTQ issues, this book is a good place to start. That collapse follows logically from the more important and foundational fight of 100 years ago.”
Read More
Related Posts:

That’s a question that needs to uncomfortably confront any of our commitments and loyalties. We don’t stand at the foot of Sinai in the shadow of the golden calf, but there’s plenty of calves erected in our society and hearts and many are willing to break loose before them — there are idols before whom we celebrate, laugh, and dance.

On top of Mount Sinai, Moses received a revelation of Jehovah. The one, true, and living God delivered to him two tablets of stone inscribed by the divine finger that summarized his moral will — epitomized in a love to God and a love to neighbor. But as Moses tarried on the mountaintop the people of Israel grew restless and fashioned for themselves a golden calf and celebrated, laughed, and danced. Moses’ anger burned hot and in a symbolic gesture he shattered the tablets of stone at the foot of the mountain – the covenant was broken. Then he challenged the people of Israel asking: “Who is on the Lord’s side” and only the sons of Levi crossed over, and that day three thousand men on the other side were killed at their hands.
Who is on the Lord’s side? That’s a question that needs to uncomfortably confront any of our commitments and loyalties. We don’t stand at the foot of Sinai in the shadow of the golden calf, but there’s plenty of calves erected in our society and hearts and many are willing to break loose before them — there are idols before whom we celebrate, laugh, and dance.
As summer fades and we slip into our fall routines there’s nothing that will dominate the first day of the week like professional football. Beginning with the NFL draft and marching toward “Superbowl Sunday,” there will be more than 100 million viewers of America’s most popular sport — with last year’s end of the season game drawing 115 million viewers. With religious excitement and commitment the masses will gather in stadiums or around screens to watch what the Wall Street Journal estimated to be a per-game average of eleven minutes of actual action. Those eleven minutes will determine how many Americans decide to spend their Sunday orienting hours around them.
Read More
Related Posts:

The unnamed author of the letter of Hebrews gives us that kind of fatherly exhortation. The Christian life isn’t a training ground it’s the trenches, and we need to persevere. In fact, the Apostle reminds his readers that they have had “a hard struggle with sufferings” (10:32). The word “struggle” is related to the word we get athlete from — as if to say we’re in an athletic contest where suffering is trying to outdo, outpace, or overpower us.  That isn’t easy. 

Almost twenty years ago, when I was in basic military training, my dad sent me a letter. My mom wrote to me almost every single day but dad penned one letter and it reached me at about the half-way point of my training. Admittedly, I was worn out, uncertain of why I had joined the Air Force, and I feared I’d “wash out” like many of the recruits I had joined with. Into that discouragement dad’s letter came and while I don’t remember every detail I do remember the simple fatherly encouragement to keep going. It’s what I needed. And every time I grew discouraged I’d unfold the letter and re-read my dad’s words.
The unnamed author of the letter of Hebrews gives us that kind of fatherly exhortation. The Christian life isn’t a training ground it’s the trenches, and we need to persevere. In fact, the Apostle reminds his readers that they have had “a hard struggle with sufferings” (10:32). The word “struggle” is related to the word we get athlete from — as if to say we’re in an athletic contest where suffering is trying to outdo, outpace, or overpower us. That isn’t easy. CS Lewis once observed: “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.”
Specifically, the sufferings with which they had a hard struggle were three. The Apostle reminds them that they were sometimes “publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property” (verses 33-34). In short order, they suffered reproach, they suffered for their associations and friendships, and they suffered the loss of personal property.
This, of course, wasn’t unique to them. If you look down the corridor of history it’s easy to spot a multitude of Christians who have endured severe consequences for the sake of Jesus Christ — a good reminder that Jesus’ words are fulfilled in every generation of the church: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18). Even today with increasing measure this is becoming the experience of Christians. Society has transitioned from treating Christianity with a degree of apathetic neutrality to seeing it negatively. Aaron Renn has offered a compelling analysis of our contemporary culture: “Society has come to have a negative view of Christianity. Being known as a Christian is a social negative, particularly in elite domains of society. Christian morality is expressly repudiated and seen as a threat to the public good and new public moral order.” A negative world will yield negative consequences for Christians.
Read More
Related Posts:

Impartiality is one of the most needed and maybe one of the most neglected aspects of faithful ministry. The closer our relational bonds are the more easily we can be tempted by line drawing, blind loyalty, party spirit, or clouded judgment. These things have no place among those who account themselves servants of Christ — and that includes within ministerial friendships.

The St. Crispin’s Day speech given by Henry V in Shakespeare’s historical play is well remembered. The French vastly outnumbered the English, and the King had one chance to persuade his men to do what none of them wanted — “to make us fight cheerfully.” And on the muddy fields of Agincourt the King roused and commanded his men for the fight:
From this day to the ending of the world,But we in it shall be remember’d;We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;For he to-day that sheds his blood with meShall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile.
The imagery of the band of brothers has been used for wartime propaganda. In popular culture it’s most recognizable by Stephen Ambrose’s record of Easy Company of the 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment assigned to the 101st Airborne Division in World War II. Those who have battled in blood together share a close kinship and loyalty that transcends many relationships in life.
From one angle it’s also reflective of the relationships cultivated in the service of the gospel. The Apostle Paul speaks of the ministry as warfare and the destroying of strongholds (2 Corinthians 10:4). He reminded Timothy to be a “good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 2:3). He commended Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:5) and Archippus (Philemon 2) as “fellow soldiers.” Aristarchus was Paul’s “fellow prisoner,” which more literally means a fellow-prisoner-of-war (Colossians 4:10). He also identified Prisca and Aquila as those who risked their necks for him (Romans 16:3) — and often made mention of many fellow workers, brothers, and kinsmen.
Pastors and elders can likely identify quickly with Paul’s love for his co-laborers. Writing to William Farell and Peter Viret, John Calvin said: “I think there has never been, in ordinary life, a circle of friends so sincerely bound to each other as we have been in our ministry.” Sharing the experiences and burdens of the pastorate, contending for the faith, and taking the kingdom of heaven by storm has a way of forging battle-like relationships, knitting Christians together in the bonds of love, courage, and loyalty. These friendships are needed in the ministry, and many pastors have been strengthened by such affectionate bonds. After all “a brother is born for adversity” (Proverbs 17:17).
But the band of brothers can have an insidious effect too. On March 16, 1968 it’s reported that 504 people — including elderly, women, children, and infants — were brutally murdered by United States troops in South Vietnam. This became known as the My Lai Massacre and remains the largest publicized massacre of civilians by US forces in the 20th century. Not every soldier in the company participated in the killings, but they also didn’t protest or file complaints with their superiors. Three US service members tried to stop the massacre and help the Vietnamese. These men were shunned, ignored, and denounced as traitors. In particular Hugh Thompson faced death threats and was vilified for his efforts….
…Sacrificing friendship for the sake of Christ isn’t easy. But sometimes it’s necessary. In March of 1887, Charles Spurgeon was drawn into an immense conflict known as the Down-Grade Controversy. He perceived that the Baptist Union was being threatened and it required him to set himself against some with whom he’d labored for decades. In the heat of the conflict Spurgeon wrote that he had “suffered the loss of friendship and reputation,” and went on to say “the pain it has cost me none can measure.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Gerry Bowler observed in his book Christmas in the Crosshairs, that while the birth of Jesus has always been important to the gospel, the first generations of Christians “lived in profound expectation of [Jesus’] imminent return.” He suggested that, among other things, when those eschatological hopes weren’t immediately fulfilled, the birth of Jesus began to get more attention. When Constantine issued the Edict of Milan making Christianity a legal religion, the annual celebration of festivals and holy days soon followed.

The history surrounding Christmas has been anything but peace on earth and goodwill toward men. While contemporary religious and cultural traditions may evoke a certain nostalgia for its celebration, its history is actually a mess! One big mess—with feverish disagreements, hostility, and even rioting. In Christmas in America, Penne Restad wrote: “Christians [have] wrestled for centuries with questions of if, when, and how to celebrate Jesus’ birth.”
Stop the sleigh! Christians have wrestled with if Christmas should be celebrated? To some that might be a bigger surprise than the presents under the tree. After all, according to Gallup polling, ninety-three percent of people across all demographics celebrate Christmas in the United States, and of those who are fairly religious that number rises to ninety-six percent. In a society that’s deeply divided on any and every issue, Christmas is a near-universal observance. But it wasn’t always so. Paul VM Flesher said: “The notion that Christians of any stripe should not want to celebrate Christmas is so foreign to our present concept of the holiday that we need to review some history to understand it.”
The incarnation—the act of the eternal and only begotten Son becoming man—is foundational to the Christian faith. As John Chyrsostom preached: “Truly wondrous is the whole chronicle of the Nativity.” For some, the yearly commemoration of that event is one of the most important days of the year. Yet Jesus never indicated that this redemptive act was to be annually celebrated, and its yearly observance didn’t enter into the way the Apostles ordered the worship and life of the church. Early Christian scholar Origen (d. 253) asserted that celebrating birthdays was foreign to Christianity, saying: “It has not come from the thought of any of the saints; not one from all the saints is found to have celebrated a festive day or a great feast on the day of his birth” (Homilies on Leviticus 8).
Gerry Bowler observed in his book Christmas in the Crosshairs, that while the birth of Jesus has always been important to the gospel, the first generations of Christians “lived in profound expectation of [Jesus’] imminent return.” He suggested that, among other things, when those eschatological hopes weren’t immediately fulfilled, the birth of Jesus began to get more attention. When Constantine issued the Edict of Milan making Christianity a legal religion, the annual celebration of festivals and holy days soon followed.
Emperor Constantine commissioned that the Church of the Nativity be built in Bethlehem over the cave where it was believed Mary had given birth to Jesus. Historians debate the role of Constantine in the precise development of Christmas, but it has been suggested that he had a personal interest in the festival of the nativity. Nevertheless, it was in the 4th-century when the Roman Church began celebrating December 25th as the birthdate of Jesus. In the spirit of celebration Maximus of Turin (d. 465) said: “Brothers and sisters, our hearts still echo with the joy of the Lord’s birth, and our continuing gladness creates in us a sense of heavenly festivity. For, though the joyous day itself has passed, the sanctification that joy brought is still with us” (Sermo 6).
As that spirit grew around this man-created holy day, so too did traditions, superstitions, and syncretism. Leading to centuries of trouble was the struggle to keep the celebration set apart from worldly activities. For example, warning of the dangers of celebrating the feast in a worldly way, Augustine (d. 430) preached: “For our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became Man for our sake, paid a price for us. He gave Himself as a price and He did so for the purpose, namely, to redeem and separate you from the pagans. But if you wish to intermingle with the pagans, you do not wish to follow Him who redeemed you” (Sermon 198 on New Years Day). He went on to say: “Therefore, in order to follow your Redeemer, who bought you back with His own blood, do not mix with the pagans by aping their customs and deeds.”
Again, Bowler wrote: “Time after time, century after century, clergy would warn against unseemly folk rituals being practiced by Catholic believers; Christmastide was not the only battlefield but was a particularly contested one.” It seems, however, it was a losing battle. At first, Christians and the church adopted rituals they deemed harmless, but soon even practices once condemned (like gift giving and feasting) became high points of celebration. By the sixteenth century Christmas celebration was well established.
Then the Reformation happened. Often, when we think of the Reformation we think of reclaiming the biblical gospel especially as its related to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. But the Protestant Reformation was also about worship. In his The Necessity of Reforming the Church, John Calvin wrote: “The whole substance of Christianity [is] a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly of the source from which salvation is to be obtained.” As Sinclair Ferguson concluded: “[The Reformers] well understood that the rediscovery of the gospel and the reformation of worship were two sides of the same coin.”
Following the Protestant Reformation certain branches within Protestantism retained the celebration of Christmas. For example, the Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran churches states: “Of Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquility and good order in the Church, as particular holy days, festivals, and the like” (Article 15.1).
Even some of those Protestants who followed a Reformed doctrine of worship gave place to its observance as helpful to piety although not given by God. The Church Order of Dort (1619) prescribed: “The congregations shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter and Pentecost”—and they threw in the circumcision of Jesus for good measure (Article 67). Francis Turretin (d. 1687), a Reformed scholastic, said “anniversary days” for the nativity, passion, or ascension should, according to the orthodox, “be left to the liberty of the church.” He argued this even while recognizing the festivals “were kept neither from the institution of Christ nor of the apostles.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Given the current state of the Church of Scotland and uncertainty of King Charles III’s sincere commitment to Protestantism, today’s pageantry may prove to be mere formality and tradition. Nevertheless, Jesus Christ, the only King and Head of the Church, has taught us to pray: “Thy kingdom come,” which, in part, is a petition that the church would be “countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate” (Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 191).With the death of Queen Elizabeth II the United Kingdom and a watching world are preparing for a lot of royal pageantry. It’s a pageantry that comes with a lot of history and even a little bit of theology. This morning in London, according to an old tradition dating back centuries, King Charles III was officially proclaimed King in the presence of the Ascension Council. For the first time in history people were able to view the event and the simple but profound process by which this is done. With impressive activities and ceremonies the proclamation of the new monarchy will be made throughout the country.
One of the first things King Charles III did — and it was his stated intention to do so at the first opportunity — was to make a formal oath to the security of the Church of Scotland. He did so in the following words:
I, Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of My other Realms and Territories, King, Defender of the Faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an Act intituled “An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government” and by the Acts passed in the Parliament of both Kingdom for Union of the two Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland. So help me God.
What does all of this mean? As King of the United Kingdom, Charles III bears the title “Defender of the Faith.” As such, he is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. By and large this position is mostly ceremonial and symbolic. However, even as the titular head of the Church of England, King Charles III will appoint high-ranking members of the church.
Historically, this position for the British Monarchy dates back to the Act of Supremacy in 1534. That act confirmed the king’s supremacy over the church. By 1536 King Henry VIII — who wanted out of his first marriage — broke with the Catholic Church and declared the Church of England as the established church and named himself the supreme head.
An “established” church is a church that is officially endorsed by the state – government sanctioned religion. This isn’t to be confused with theocracy, but simply means that a state is not secular and has an official religion. This may seem strange to Americans who value the First Amendment and the freedom of religion. The First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” What has been true of the federal government since 1791 became true of every state by 1833. This has not, however, been true in the United Kingdom. Still today the Church of England is the established church in England, and the Church of Scotland in Scotland.
Read More