Staff Articles
What The? - Thursday, December 18, 2008
When England's Prince Charles celebrated his 60th birthday in October, it was reported that he would like to change the title he would receive if he assumes the throne. Rather than being known as "Defender of the Faith"--as England's monarchs have been called for centuries--he would like to be crowned as "Defender of Faith." Such as change--dropping the "the"--is no small matter. The thing about the word "the" is that as a definite article it is makes things so, well, definite. There is no ambiguity. As the "Defender of the Faith," the monarch is supposed to be the chief advocate of one specific faith--the Church of England. This is ironic since the phrase was originally given to King Henry VIII by Pope Leo X to designate the King as the defender of the Catholic faith. When Henry VIII sparked the creation of the Anglican Church (often known as the Episcopalian Church in the U.S.), he was stripped of the title, but England's Parliament later granted the title to monarchs to be the defender of the Anglican faith. Dropping that specific reference--as Prince Charles now proposes--completely changes the meaning of the phrase. One is no longer defending a specific faith, but faith in general.
This is not the first time Prince Charles has suggested a change. Several years ago he floated the idea of being called the "Defender of the Faiths." Adding the "s" created some controversy as it suggested that Charles would defend not only the Anglican Church, but also other Christian denominations and even non-Christian religions. It seems hard to imagine how this could happen since it would be difficult to be an advocate for all faiths since they have contradictory beliefs and values. Some Christians have attacked the proposal to be called the "Defender of Faith" as a postmodern attempt to water down Christianity just as it would have been to use the title "Defender of the Faiths." However, the two phrases are significantly different from each other, much as they are both quite different from the current title "Defender of the Faith." With the new proposal, Charles would not be the advocate of a specific denomination nor the advocate for all religions, but rather an advocate for faith in general. Such a concept is quite revolutionary in England as it moves much closer to the ideal of religious liberty.
When Baptists began nearly four centuries ago, they were not free to practice their faith in England. Since they were not part of the faith, they were not defended by the monarchs. In fact, Baptists were often persecuted by the monarchs and other officials. Baptists like John Leland were influential in seeing religious liberty established in the United States. We have no state church, nor any defender of the faith (or of the faiths). Instead, each religious group--including Baptists and Episcopalians--are free to practice their own faith. As Baptists have argued for centuries, true faith is faith that is freely chosen. John Leland put it well when he wrote about the problem of state-established churches: "These establishments metamorphose the church into a creature, and religion into a principle of state, which has a natural tendency to make men conclude that Bible religion is nothing but a trick of state."
Although Prince Charles will not likely be allowed to drop the "the" from the monarch's title, this incident should lead us to pause and give thanks for our Baptists ancestors who fought for true religious liberty. May we continue their work and defend the religious freedoms of all people--no ifs, ans, buts, or thes about it.
