Three years ago, I wrote a blog post about the merits of calling King Charles I of England a Saint. I recognize fully he was a lousy king. But a lousy king can still, even in their final moments, be a faithful Christian. To read the initial blog post, click the link below:
http://smokingthurible.blogspot.com/2012/01/stcharles-stuart.html
I have been in seminary now for nearly three years now. My own faith and theology have been transformed as I have delved deeper and deeper into the traditions and practices of the Church. I have learned much, I have changed , and I have grown. In reflecting upon the state of the Episcopal Church, I find that one thing that can help us maintain our faithfulness to God, the Gospel, and to the Church that Christ called to be is to celebrate the Feast of S. Charles, King and Martyr. I would like to expand on my initial thoughts of that earlier blog post.
I am a proponent of what could be called the cult of S. Charles, King and Martyr. I have come to believe that veneration of him, along with all the Saints, is an important part of Christian life. They pray with us in our needs, in our joys, and in our distresses. Yes, all Christians are saints by virtue of their baptism, but certain women and men throughout history are lifted up by the Church Catholic as faithful witnesses and exemplars of Christ.
Here is another example of an unlikely saint, my own patron saint, S. Genesius. S. Genesius did not exhibit Christian faith until he was converted to the faith a matter of days, maybe even hours, before his death by the Emperor Diocletian. He was an actor who spent his career mocking Christianity on stage, and yet during one performance, came to believe in Christ, and openly desired baptism in the midst of the performance. His embrace of the faith, and unwillingness to recant, while on stage with the Emperor in the audience, lead his to his death. I believe that even if a person has sinned greatly in life, their willingness to be faithful to Christ in death outweighs the sins they committed, whether that be for S. Genesius or S. Charles.
So many of our figures in our Kalendars like that of Holy Women, Holy Men that we are called to commemorate are problematic. Some, like John Calvin, would be aghast at being listed as a saint in a Kalendar of a Catholic Church. Some, like William Mayo, may have done some good in the world, but are lacking in any sense of Christian virtue that draws people towards belief in Jesus Christ. Some, like Fredrick Douglas, were people who fought against injustice in their midst, but I sometimes wonder if we include them to assuage our own guilt about how we as the Episcopal Church contribute to structural racism and other forms of oppression both in the past and in the present. Finally, some, like Gregorio Aglipay, deny fundamental theology of the Christian faith like the Trinity.
Though there are many other examples as to why there may have been some poor thought in the inclusion of certain persons into the Kalendar, the most troubling aspect is the lack of a theology of sainthood present within Holy Women, Holy Men. In essence, just because someone is a good person, did some great things while alive, or makes us feel good about ourselves, does not necessarily mean they were a saint. The question should be whether or not this person demonstrated in their life and in their death a faithfulness to Jesus Christ, and served as a living example of Jesus Christ that leads others to him. Furthermore, does a local community within the Church raise the person up as someone to commemorate as an example of a life of faithfulness to Jesus and to the Church. If the memory and legacy of this person continues to bear good fruit, then we as a Church universal should join in that commemoration.
S. Charles fulfills the standards for sainthood in so many ways. Yes, he may have been a poor king, but he laid down his life for the Church before the powers of the world. He could have easily chosen to give into the demands of the Puritans, and abolished the episcopacy in England. Christianity in England would have probably become a Reformed-Protestant sect like those in Switzerland, the Netherland, or Scotland. Instead, the choice to lay down his life serves as a faithful witness to Christ and to the Apostolic Church he called into being. Yes, under Cromwell there was no Church of England, and officially no episcopacy, and so one could say his death was meaningless. But the bishops survived, and they kept ordaining people, and when Charles II returned to England, amid much fanfare of the people, there were those who kept the faith and the legacy of the Apostles alive to restore the fullness of the Church of England. He is remembered and celebrated on the Kalendar of the Church of England and in other communities within the Anglican Communion. His martyrdom ensured that the Catholic Church in England would survive, and by extension, ensured that the Catholicism of the Anglican Communion that would emerge would be a faithful witness to Christ.
Speaking as a member of the Episcopal Church of the United States, I do not believe that there would be an Episcopal Church of the United States were it not for the martyrdom of S. Charles, King and Martyr.
Let us join with our Anglicans sisters and brothers in celebrating the Feast of S. Charles, King and Martyr.
No comments:
Post a Comment