Tag: United Kingdom

Guest Post: Why I Miss Queen Elizabeth II – by Rosemary Cady

Published on by nickcady1 Comment

September 8, 2023 marks one year since the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. The late Queen Elizabeth II was remarkable in many ways. She reigned for seventy long years as the sovereign of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth. One of the most well-known people in the world, Queen Elizabeth was popular because of her consistency and the way she fulfilled her role as a leader. What intrigued me about her, is the way she led. Elizabeth showed over her long reign, through her quiet and deliberate leadership, that she considered herself a servant to her people.

In a speech made on her 21st birthday, the Queen (then Princess Elizabeth) pledged her commitment to duty in these memorable words, “I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.” She held true to that pledge over her seventy-year reign, which began when she was just 26 years old. Though she could not know what the future held, she dedicated to give her life in service for her people. And that she did. Instead of spending frivolous time on herself as queen or enjoying entertainment above duty, what was known about Queen Elizabeth II was how she worked hard traveling as a diplomat and acting as Head of state, Head of the armed forces, Head of the Commonwealth, and head of the Church of England.

The Queen lived 96 years, seeing the world change, seeing the United Kingdom change, and seeing her own family change. She began her reign over a large empire which stretched across the world, but at her death, the Commonwealth was much smaller. She allowed the monarchy to modernize and be televised, and even had a Twitter account by the end of her life. She realized that she must not resist change, lest she become unrelatable to the people she served and led. She allowed the public to have access to the royal family, letting them into her life to see what she was like as a person, where she lived, and how she fulfilled her duties. With all of the change Queen Elizabeth II saw in her seventy years as sovereign, she  remained dedicated to service and true to who she was as a person. She did what was best to lead as Queen and be connected to the people.

In her family, the Queen had to navigate numerous scandals and make some difficult decisions. Of her four children, three divorced. Elizabeth decided to strip her own son of his titles due to his association with a convicted felon. Elizabeth’s deeply held Christian values were not embraced in the same way by her family members, and yet the Queen did not waver in her faith. Personally, I started paying closer attention to the Queen’s leadership at the time when she was facing these challenges. I paid attention when her home at Windsor Castle caught fire and the family ran out carrying art and heirlooms. I watched to see how the Queen would react as her grandson, Prince Harry, gave up his royal duties and moved to California.

I wanted to see each time which emotion the Queen would emote and how she would respond when Prince Harry and his wife gave public interviews about why they left royal duties and what they did not like about the royal family. To my surprise, the royal family did not respond immediately, and refused to answer questions directed at them by the media. The Queen later issued a response that was unemotional and kind, that she was “saddened” and that the family would privately discuss the accusations. In these days of outrage and arguments on social media, I was happy to see the restraint the Queen exhibited in such an emotionally-charged situation; she was not defensive or retaliatory when attacked.

In this way, Elizabeth was an example of how to conduct oneself in difficult situations. Queen Elizabeth’s quiet but strong leadership was shown in how, as a woman with cameras always on her, and with so much influence, she did not use many words. Although she held weekly audiences with the British Prime Minister, we will never know what they talked about. Her words were not disclosed by the Prime Ministers, though we can assume she had an influence over them, as her words held weight.

Quiet leadership can be profoundly powerful. Many leaders seem to exemplify the opposite of quiet leadership, and yet, the Queen’s influence was huge. She was the one people looked to for a response in times of tragedy or need. Yet it was not her words that made the greatest impact on people, but simply her presence, which conveyed strength and confidence. Her consistent, powerful presence will be missed. It requires meekness to be one of the most influential and popular people in the world, and to not say much, but keep smiling, waving, and appearing, in the midst of other duties.

The Queen had a unique perspective on her life of service, wanting to give her entire life to it, whether her life was long or short. I watched her celebrate her seventy year jubilee in amazement of her longevity in service. Elizabeth seemed to have kept her sense of humor. Despite the pomp and adoration she received, she had the humility and grace to never forget to smile, be kind, trust in God, and continue being a servant. The Queen knew that she would be in her role for a long time, and it gave her the perspective of playing the “long game.” She was committed to fulfilling her goal of a life of service. She endured challenges, family difficulty, and more, yet she continued to do what was right, knowing that those pains would eventually be in the past as she moved forward in duty.

The ability to restrain one’s tongue is addressed in Proverbs 17:9, “He who covers over an offense promotes love, but whoever repeats the matter separates close friends.” When there is a challenging situation in which someone has done wrong, a person who has restraint and a “long game” focus will protect the institution they lead. Retaliation or talking negatively about the person who committed the wrong is short-sighted and does not truly help the well-being of our church or relationships. These principles the Queen exemplified in her leadership of the United Kingdom are transferable to us who lead in the local church.

The Queen’s example of quiet leadership contains many qualities worth emulating. Showing up in time of need, being consistently present, and being slow to speak, are qualities which are worth employing in church leadership. What people may need most in times of tragedy man not be our words primarily, but our presence, reminding them that they are not alone, but that we are standing with them to show that they are cared for and loved. Our meek attitude can help them learn to lean on Christ as the one who cares for them and supplies all that they need.

Queen Elizabeth II was well-loved and respected as the longest-reigning British monarch. Britain changed tremendously during her seventy year reign, but we learned from her example that a leader can be faithful and continue in service while being a strength for the people by never changing focus. Her focus was to consider herself a servant to the people. Few will forget where they were when they heard of the passing of Queen Elizabeth II on September 8, 2022. She was an example in leadership for us all. As a woman in leadership in my local church, I will miss her, and I have been changed by her example.

A “Christian Nation” and the End of an Era

Published on by nickcady3 Comments

Have you ever heard the term “Christendom”? I have often heard it used to refer to the “invisible community of Christians everywhere” – kind of along the lines of the term “blogosphere”.

While that use of Christendom isn’t wrong – it isn’t the historical use of the word either. Historically, Christendom referred to the “Christian nations.” It was a way of dividing up the globe, into “Christendom” and “heathendom”.

One of my professors from seminary, Llyod Pietersen, recently wrote a book titled Reading the Bible After Christendom.

In the book he includes two lists: the first is a list characterizing Constantinian Christianity and culture, and the second characterizes the shift away from it. They are particularly interesting in regard to thinking of the United States or the United Kingdom (or any country for that matter) in our modern era as a “Christian nation.”  Whether or not our founders were God-fearing people, or whether we have a history of movements of God in our country – we need to assess the reality of the modern situation. Sweden, for example, like a number of other European countries, is still technically a Christian nation, whilst practically they shifted away from Christendom long ago.

The other thing you realize from these lists is that maybe Christendom wasn’t actually as great as people think it was. One of the great downfalls of a “Christian nation” is that you give people a false sense of security in their salvation – simply because they were born into a “Christian” culture or society. At least in a pluralistic society (which is what we are in – but was also the situation Paul the Apostle and the Christians in the Book of Acts were in!) people realize the immediate and pressing need for them to make a choice to follow Jesus, and the radical implications that come with it!

Rather than bemoaning the end of Christendom, I believe that Christians are faced with a great new opportunity in pluralistic society – the opportunity to bring to bear on all people the challenges of the Gospel and the call to follow Jesus Christ, because being a Christian is no longer a “given”.

Here are those lists:

Characteristics of the shift to Christendom:

  • The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of city, state, or empire.
  • Movement of the church from the margins to the center of society.
  • The creation and progressive development of a Christian culture or civilization.
  • The assumption that all citizens (except Jews) were Christian by birth.
  • The development of a “sacral society,” corpus Christianum, where there was no freedom of religion and political power was divinely authenticated.
  • The definition of “orthodoxy” as the belief all shared, determined by powerful church leaders with state support.
  • Imposition, by legislation and custom, of a supposedly Christian morality on the entire society (though normally Old Testament morality was applied).
  • Infant baptism as the symbol of obligatory incorporation into Christian society.
  • The defense of Christianity by legal sanctions to restrain heresy, immorality, and schism.
  • A hierarchical ecclesiastical system based on a diocesan and parish arrangement, analogous to the state hierarchy and buttressed by state support.
  • A generic distinction between clergy and laity, and relegation of laity to a largely passive role.
  • Two-tier ethics, with higher standards of discipleship (“evangelical counsels”) expected of clergy and those in religious orders.
  • Sunday as an official holiday and obligatory church attendance, with penalties for non-compliance.
  • The requirement of oaths of allegiance and oaths in law court to encourage truth telling.
  • The construction of massive and ornate church buildings and the formation of huge congregations.
  • Increased wealth of the church and obligatory tithes to fund the system.
  • Division of the globe in “Christendom” and “heathendom” and wars waged in the name of Christ and the church.
  • Use of political and military force to impose Christianity, regardless of personal conviction.
  • Reliance on the Old Testament, rather than the New, to justify these changes.

Characteristics of the shift into post-Christendom:

  • The Christian story and churches have moved from the center to the margins.
  • Christians are now a minority.
  • Christians therefore no longer feel at home in the dominant culture.
  • Christians no longer enjoy automatic privileges but find themselves as one community among many in a plural society.
  • The church no longer exercises control over society but instead Christians can exercise influence only through faithful witness to the Christian story and its implications.
  • The emphasis is now no longer on maintaining the status quo but on mission in an contested environment.
  • Churches can no longer operate mainly in institutional mode, but must learn to operate once again as part of a movement.

 

What do you think?  Are there any Christian nations these days?  Do we really want to be one?

Jesus didn’t live in a Christian nation, neither did Paul. And I don’t think they thought our goal as Christians was to establish them either.