Why did King Charles choose to highlight Ramadan while ignoring Lent? By Gavin Ashenden

An Ass For A King

Catholic Herald : Ash Wednesday is intended to be an annual crossroads in the life of a Christian. This year it may also have acted as a crossroads in the life of the monarchy and of the British establishment.

For a Christian, Lent operates as a moment to renew the choice to be a disciple. The ministry of Jesus begins in the early part of the Gospels, with an overt confrontation with the devil. Three archetypal temptations are played out. Jesus exposes the pattern of temptation, overcoming and rejecting it. He leads the way through the blandishments of evil, through death, and towards eternal life; on Ash Wednesday, Christians renew their commitment to follow him. 

But the second temptation might have caught the eye of the establishment this year in particular. It warns that political power and influence must not be gained at the expense of spiritual integrity. That seems to have posed a dilemma to King Charles, which he may have failed to understand.

When the King was crowned, there was a great deal of interest in the way in which he intended to exercise his constitutional role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England – the state church. 

He had already, over the years, expressed an interest in the rights of all religions. He spoke of being a defender of faith in general, which, at first sight, seemed a noble and wise cause. But having made the choice to defend faith in general, a second choice then appeared swiftly on its heels.

Despite the relativism of our culture, it is clear to any reasonably well-read observer that the different religions present different gods with different goals and different ethics. And while they do share some universal values in common, at certain points they stand against and contradict one another, and the would-be pilgrim is forced to choose between them.

It is deeply unpopular to point out that Mohammed and Jesus present two different gods, with two different sets of ethics, requiring two different modes of surrender. 

The saviour and the warlord do not follow the same road. Indeed, the warlord claims that the records describing the saviour and his work have been falsified. The warlord claims the saviour did not overcome death, nor does he have the right to forgive sins. 

The warlord tells the followers of the saviour that they have been misled by their documents, that they are to revoke them and to submit to him and his different God. The warlord declares that the saviour was wrong in offering a relationship with God as a tender father. God is instead beyond reach and unknowable: a fierce ethical power that requires submission as the response to an encounter with his warlord prophet.

This presents a serious conundrum to anyone promoting a multicultural society. The essential problem is that the religions founded by Mohammed and Jesus are antithetical to one another. The history of Islam is one of conquest and control. When it constitutes a majority in society, it will tolerate the followers of Jesus only in very strict and humiliating conditions.

Christianity is more generous. It is more confident that when faced with a choice between the warlord and the saviour, the human heart is more vulnerable to love and forgiveness than it is to the presentation of power and control.

Read it all here.......