Throne and Altar

Modern states sometimes struggle over the optimal relationship between "church" and "state," more broadly between "religion" and "society." History provides many models. Until relatively recently, however, some sort of organic (and often institutional) connection was generally taken for granted. The original U.S, Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing a Church, but that did not undo the arrangements already existing in some states which still had established Churches, and it said nothing about what the relationship between religion and society should be in individual states. 

Karl Marx (On The Jewish Question, 1843) famously characterized the U.S. as an "atheist state," in the sense that its citizens had emancipated themselves from religion politically through the intermediary of the state. Even so, Marx recognized, with Alexis de Tocqueville, the ubiquity of religion in America and so considered Americans' political emancipation from religion to be "roundabout," "abstract," "narrow," and "partial." In fact, the only societies to have tried to establish themselves as truly atheist states were the Communist states of the 20th century. Of those, only one, Albania, actually went so far as to try to abolish completely all traces of religion within its borders. With the subsequent collapse of communism in Europe and its relatively vestigial survival in Asia, it would seem that the 20th-century experiment in creating a completely irreligious society cannot be alleged to have seriously succeeded.

That said, contemporary societies, outside the ambit of the Muslim world, have largely opted for increasing secularism - however religious or secular their citizens may actually be. In Europe, there exists a continuum of relations between "church" and "state," and more broadly between "religion" and "society" - everything from French laïcité to formally established Churches in England and Scandinavia and intermediate stops in-between, e.g., the German bi-confessional ("Church Tax") regime.  The reality of Europe's Christian origins,  ideologically denied by some, nonetheless remains a reality at the heart of all European nationhood.

This week, with the coronation of King Charles III, the distinctly English experiment in inherited religious establishment combined with contemporary pluralism is on display for the world to admire. (One British publication has called the coronation "the United Kingdom's central constitutional ritual, and the cornerstone of tis political traditions.") Like the British constitution itself, the existing religious arrangement seems to try to marry the best of both worlds - public religion for the dignified dimensions British public life, alongside religious tolerance, pluralism, and even secularism for the private lives of ordinary Britons. It is the ultimate institutionalized expression of what was said decades ago that, while the average Briton might personally be content to stay comfortably at home on Sunday morning, he was nonetheless happy that the King and Queen should go to church on his behalf.

To some that may suggest hypocrisy. Better, it suggests a certain division of labor in society, which recognizes (albeit in a "roundabout," "abstract," "narrow," and "partial" way) the real benefits a society still derives from its formal profession of religion. The fact that it has lasted so long and survived so well, while the 20th-century's more extreme experiments in formal political atheism have proved so much less successful and so unsatisfactory, ought at least to give contemporary religious establishment's critics some pause - notwithstanding the loud noises made by religion's contemporary "cultured despisers."

The Church of England's official commentary on the Coronation Liturgy states: "behind the pageantry lies another message which the words and ceremonies to come will demonstrate - our King commits himself, through prayers and oaths, to follow the Lord he serves in a life of loving service in his role as Monarch."

For the first time in history, the religiously pluralistic character of the modern United Kingdom will be reflected in the official inclusion of other Christians and of non-Christians in ritual roles at the coronation. At Queen Elizabeth's coronation in 1953, the kingdom's historic religious pluralism was acknowledged by the participation, for the first time, of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. A lot has happened since then, and the changed religious landscape is reflected in the participation of the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and other Christian leaders in the formal blessing of the newly crowned King and in the participation of others who are not Christians. Among the latter will be the Prime Minister (a Hindu) who will read the Epistle - in keeping with the modern custom, already seen at other state ceremonies, of the Prime Minister's performing this role. And, at the very end of the ceremony, before leaving the Abbey, the King will receive formal greetings from Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, and Buddhist representatives. 

If the Anglican form of the coronation rite itself reflects the historically Christian character of the country and the personal religious commitment of the monarch, the participation of other Churches and faith communities highlights the universal relevance of religious consecration in expressing unique and irreplaceable meaning for serious human commitments and relationships, including and particularly the political pursuit of the common good of all citizens.

Photo: St. Edward's Crown, the crown used at the actual moment of coronation and never worn on any other occasion. The present St. Edward's Crown, modeled on the crown associated with England's only canonized King, St. Edward the Confessor, was made for Charles II in 1661, as a replacement for the medieval crown which had been destroyed by the Puritan revolutionaries in 1649.