Tag Archives: politics

About King Charles the Martyr

King Charles the Martyr
King Charles the Martyr

Wednesday, January 30th, is the feast of King Charles the Martyr.  This is not a feast in the Episcopal Church Calendar, but it is observed in other parts of the Anglican Communion.  There is a chapter of the Society of King Charles the Martyr in the Diocese of Tennessee, a group that advocates for observance of this feast by Episcopalians.

Historically, the puritan leanings of the US, as well as the republican triumph of the Revolutionary War, mean that Americans have been at the least ambivalent about the commemoration. That said, I believe that if some among us can hod their nose and accept the inclusion of Archbishop William Laud in the calendar, then we can certainly look again at King Charles the Martyr. Below are some articles and blog posts on the topic.

The Case for Charles, by J. Robert Wright

“Be ready always to give account to anyone who asks of you a reason for the hope that is within you, but do it with gentleness and reverence.” I Peter 3:15.The Commemoration in which we are engaged this morning is part of an international movement for the recovery of Anglican identity. King Charles the Martyr d. 1649 was commemorated in the Prayer Book of the Church of England from 1662 to 1859, then he was dropped. He never quite made it to the first American Prayer Book of 1789-90 because of our country’s need for distance from monarchy at that time. Whether or not the Queen’s Printers had statutory authority to remove his name from the English Kalendar in 1859 when the State Services were terminated [I think they did not], he did finally re-enter an official English liturgical calendar in 1980 with the publication of the Alternative Service Book of the Church of England in that year. Of course he has also entered the calendars of some other Anglican churches throughout the world, such as Canada. But most remarkable of all is the fact in this 21st-century post-deconstructionism world of searches for identity, that Charles as “King and Martyr” has been clearly and explicitly retained in the new calendar of the very modern Common Worship volume of the Church of England, just published in the year 2000. Whatever the word “martyr” may mean, and there are various acceptable definitions, the modern-day Church of England clearly recognizes him as a “martyr.” The Commemoration of King Charles the Martyr is on the rise, even in official circles, in liturgical calendars, in special services, in shrines and memorials, and in other ways. There is a growing realization that he is part of who we are as Anglicans, and even in the Episcopal Church, in addition to the long-standing witness of the Society of King Charles the Martyr and other groups, The Anglican Society, which I serve as President, has by official action of its Executive Committee resolved to work for the addition of his name to the calendar of the Episcopal Church.Charles could have avoided martyrdom if he had agreed to give up his witness to the catholic faith and order that is an essential ingredient of classical Anglicanism, in particular if he had agreed to settle for a church without bishops.

via The Case for Charles, by J. Robert Wright.

Re-thinking Charles the Martyr, by Fr. Sam Keyes

This Saturday past I took the rare opportunity to attend the Annual Mass of the Society of King Charles the Martyr, held at All Saints, Ashmont. (All Saints is, by the way, a delightful Anglo-Catholic parish with a wonderful choir ministry with boys from the neighborhood.) I’ve never had any particular devotion to Charles. I confess that I went — and I probably wasn’t the only one — for the spectacle of it all. Strange as they can be (and SKCM is probably the strangest, from most perspectives), there is something deeply appealing about these old Catholic societies in Anglicanism. It thrills me that they exist at all, and that they continue to exist.

via Re-thinking Charles the Martyr, by Fr. Sam Keyes.

For a longer treatment, check out this article from The Living Church archive.

George Packer: The Political Isolation of the American South : The New Yorker

“Northern liberals should not be too quick to cheer [as the South becomes more isolated again], though. At the end of “The Mind of the South,” Cash has this description of “the South at its best”: “proud, brave, honorable by its lights, courteous, personally generous, loyal.” These remain qualities that the rest of the country needs and often calls on. The South’s vices—“violence, intolerance, aversion and suspicion toward new ideas”—grow particularly acute during periods when it is marginalized and left behind. An estrangement between the South and the rest of the country would bring out the worst in both—dangerous insularity in the first, smug self-deception in the second.”

via George Packer: The Political Isolation of the American South : The New Yorker.

The Blindness of Tax Purists » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Rusty Reno nails it:

Daniel Henninger has gone down the rabbit hole. In his column for the Wall Street Journal he inveighs against the countless ways in which the tax code is manipulated by legislators to reward this or that constituency—or donors and lobbyists, as the case may be. The whole mess has been reaffirmed in the bill that was just passed to avert going over the fiscal cliff.

All to the good. Where he goes wrong is lumping this insider game with various efforts to use the tax code to encourage socially productive behavior. He writes: “The bill has $335 billion for the child tax credit, the sort of expenditure some conservatives like. But then no complaining about the rest of it.” He goes on, “You can’t pick and choose which tax heist to join. You’re in for all of them. In time everyone’s a tax gangster.”

Only a very ideological person can fail to distinguish between a tax code designed to subsidize the extraordinary costs of being a parent—the single most important act of citizenship anyone can perform—and one that subsidizes the production of ethanol. Unfortunately, many so-called conservatives think the way he does. For them, having a child is a “lifestyle choice” among many. Why should government be in the “social engineering” business of encouraging people to have children?

Purity, yes, but at the price of anything resembling political responsibility.

via The Blindness of Tax Purists » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog.

Just in time for election day

I’ve been reading up on election news lately, dealing alternately with feelings of disgust and the desire to participate (isn’t that the way it goes with so many things in life?).  One of the things that always amuses me around election season are the charges of dirty politics, complaints about the use of attack ads etc… Thankfully, there are things round to remind us that attacks are not the best evidence that the political discourse in our country has declined (sound bites and “debates” are better evidence of that).  One of these is a great video the folks at Reason put together (passed along by First Thoughts, the blog at First Things) to talk about the polemics of the election of 1800.  Check it out:

Continue reading

Trapped in the 1960’s

I recently came across an article from the New York Times observing that our political debates often get sucked into the vortex of 1960’s politics.  Of course, what can be said of politics specifically is often true of the society generally.  In this case, I definitely believe it is true of the institutional Church:

It is your classic self-fulfilling prophecy: the more the ’60s generation dominates the political discourse, the less that discourse engages younger voters, and the longer the boomers hold sway over our politics.

{Read it all}

Has anyone else observed this phenomenon?

Obama: Friend or Foe of Faith? at Per Caritatem

I realize that many of my good friends, Roman Catholic, Anglican, evangelical, and others will not understand why I have chosen to try to find common ground with our President-Elect Barack Obama given his views on Roe v. Wade. Let me say very clearly that I disagree with Obama’s support of Roe v. Wade and his pro-choice position; however, I find disturbing the way in which Obama’s views on abortion have been misrepresented by well-meaning Christians. For example, the complexities of Obama’s reasoning for choosing to sign or not to sign Born Alive legislation have been flattened and presented in a way that paints his position in the worst possible light. If you examine Obama’s vote on this legislation, what you find is that the Illinois and Federal “Born Alive” legislation had different clauses added and that the two bills were not the same legislation, which is why e.g., NARAL did not oppose the federal legislation.

{Read it all}

My favorite election comment in literature

While it was certainly much more applicable in 2000, I always like to share this selection from my fellow Ashevillan Thomas Wolfe‘s O Lost (the original, longer version of Look Homeward Angel) during election season:

“Oliver Gant had cast his first vote in Baltimore.  It was for Ulysses Grant.  Now he rode southward under the threatening mutter of a new civil war.  Two men named Hayes and Tilden had contested the Presidency with a spirited exchange of vitriol.  Mr. Tilden had been given the most votes, but Mr. Hayes had been given the Presidency.  And the rabble whose large intelligence had ordained this miracle now stood shirtily around with opened mouths, or went bawling through the streets by torch light in pursuit of the lucid simplicities of democratic government.” (O Lost, p27)

O Lost: A Story of the Buried Life – Google Book Search.

O Lost
Look Homward Angel

how the world goes | Politics | The American Scene

Amen to Mr. Jacobs:

I don’t understand my fellow Christians who are enthusiastic Republicans; I don’t understand the ones who are enthusiastic Democrats either. When I try to talk to either group about the ways their preferred party upholds — indeed, even celebrates — policies that simply cannot be reconciled with Christian teaching, I get the same shrug. Yes, they are certainly more “realistic” than I am; they may have a better understanding of what it means to live in a fallen and broken world. But they are all too sanguine for me. They aren’t sad enough. There aren’t enough — I recently taught the Aeneid, which brings this line to mind — there aren’t enough lachrimae rerum, tears for how the world goes.

how the world goes | Politics | The American Scene.