One of the reasons for divisiveness and fear that can sometimes be present in evangelicalism is the assumption that faith is something that needs to be defended. Have you come across this idea?
It is not uncommon for evangelical preachers and leaders to speak about faith as something that is in danger from the perils of the world. This idea that faith needs defending implies that it is at threat from some external force or from an internal force. Defense can also come to mean protection of what once was or what used to be. You may be familiar with the lament that if only people believed what they used to believe and how they used to believe, then things would be better than they are. I can’t recall what good old days such people are speaking about; the time that is being idealized when things were, supposedly, more moral. Even a cursory examination would show that, in many places, moral progress has been made. We might hope that not only will morality move forward, but that theology should do the same. Believing just exactly what and how we used to believe should not be considered virtuous, by default. We should be aiming to think better about others, about God and about the world than we used to.
Karl Barth called for a “theology of freedom” that “looks ahead and strives forward.” Faith is not primarily something to be defended, but something dynamic that finds its expression in looking forward, not back. The idea that faith needs a defender is also indicative of a lack of confidence in the reality and truth of the faith itself. For those who are familiar, there are Bible verses about this.
Remember?
“Forgetting what is behind and striving towards what is ahead …” (Philippians 3:13) Often it seems that some expressions of Christian faith would rather say, “Being fearful of what is ahead and striving towards what is behind …”
I was thinking of this when I came across an article in the Globe and Mail about King Charles and his official title in Canada. His new title does not include the traditional “defender of the faith” moniker. Does this upset you? I don’t think that it has to upset you. It might actually be good news for faith.
This was Queen Elizabeth’s official title in Canada:
“Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.”
This is King Charles’ title:
“Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.”
This change might stir the angst of those who see faith as something that needs to be defended and something that finds its expression primarily in looking back.
Being able to speak about your faith, or in the words of the Bible, “being ready to give a reason for the hope that you have” does not quite mean the same thing as being a defender of the faith. Over and over again, in the history of the Christian faith, we have seen how things go when Christians start to see themselves as Jesus’ defenders. I call this the “I got your back, Jesus” syndrome. It shows up in the Bible as well. When Peter tried it Jesus replied by saying, “Get behind me, Satan.” It seems, at times, that while Peter eventually got the message, scores of Christians since have opened up all kind of institutions to take up the task the Jesus so directly told Peter to drop.
Maybe King Charles is quite nice, I don’t know. From afar it looks as if his life has been rather unfortunate in some gilded cage kind of ways. I, for one, from my faith, feel no threat to my faith that his “defender of the faith” title has been removed in Canada.
Does this change reflect a growing secularism? I suppose it might, depending on how you define secular. My appreciation of the removal of the moniker, though, comes not from a secular argument, but from a faith argument. A faith that signs up a wealthy old “by divine right” monarch to be its defender and champion, might not be a faith that is looking forward.
I’ll be in London during the coronation of King Charles in early May. If I get a chance to speak with him, I’ll maybe ask for his opinion on all of this.
Good words Todd…Nicely done.