The
Prince - Defender of all Faiths
Rev
John MacLeod
Jonathan Dimbleby's authorised biography of the Prince of Wales informs us that,
while he is very broadminded when it comes to accepting the validity of non-Christian
religions, "he has long deplored the schisms within the Christian Church and
has been scathing about the exclusive forms of evangelism represented by Protestant
sects like the Free Presbyterians". (1) In
his view, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism are
all equally acceptable and the title "Defender of the Faith" ought, in his own
words, to be defined as the "Defender of the Divine in existence, the pattern
of the Divine which is, I think, in all of us but which, because we are human
beings, can be expressed in so many different ways". (2) Holding
this view, which savours so strongly of Eastern mysticism, it is no surprise
to find it stated that the Prince "finds himself at ease walking between and
within all those religions in addition to being a practising Christian". In embracing
these views, so inimical to "the faith once delivered to the saints" and for
which we are to contend earnestly, he has, in our view, no right to be called
a Christian at all! Accordingly, it ought to be a matter of great concern to
all faithful Protestant subjects that the heir to the British throne has made
it so very clear that, in reference to the reigning Sovereign's title "Defender
of the Faith", "he personally would rather see it as Defender of Faith, not the Faith".
As things are at the moment, the words and actions of the Prince of Wales
plainly indicate that, if he were ever to ascend the throne, he could not honestly
declare himself to be a "faithful Protestant" nor subscribe to the Bill of
Rights which forbids the British monarch to have any communion with the see
of Rome. The coronation engagements under which Queen Elizabeth II came in
1953 are now largely forgotten and it would appear that in recent times she
has not herself been as mindful of them as we would expect and desire. The
fiftieth anniversary of her coronation is hardly being mentioned by the media,
and we suspect that the reason is that those concerned did not wish to bring
back to public attention the form and nature of these solemn engagements.
It has, however, to be said that in 1985 our Queen acted firmly and constitutionally
when she forbad the Prince of Wales to attend a secret papal mass in the Vatican.
At the time, he was reported as being highly indignant that he and Princess
Diana could not join the Pope in this act of idolatrous worship, described
in the Articles of the Church of England (of which he was a member and to whose
headship he was heir) as "a dangerous deceit and a blasphemous fable". It is
a matter of history that the relationship between the Prince and the late Princess
of Wales rapidly deteriorated after they foolhardily sought and received the
Papal "blessing". The Prince himself placed it on record that this was conveyed
by the Pope making the sign of the cross over them. Alas, it does not yet seem
to have dawned on the Prince that his action was dishonouring to Christ the
true "Prince of the kings of the earth" and that to despise Him would lead,
as the Bible informs us, to the Prince of Wales himself becoming "lightly esteemed".
He has previously admitted that he was guilty of adultery, and now the recently-published
Peat Report which, according to the press, speaks of "squalid dealings, bungles
and evasions" in his household has, it is said, brought "the public image of
the royals" to "a new low". As loyal subjects and firm supporters of the monarchy,
we find this very sad and, indeed, alarming.
That the Prince remains in spiritual darkness is evident from his latest action
in appointing (as reported in The Times, 28/02/03) "a practising Roman
Catholic for the first time in a senior position". More amazing is the fact
that this Romanist has been put "in charge of religious matters at St James's
Palace, along with education, health and the elderly". In view of the nefarious
activities of the Papacy over the centuries and particularly on account of
what we find on record in the history of our own Protestant land, we have reason
to believe that here we have another example of age-old Jesuit intrigue and
infiltration bearing fruit. Has the House of Windsor forgotten its own history?
Would Prince Charles be the heir to the British throne if his forebears had
not opposed the very powers of darkness with which he is now so prepared to
consort?
In view of what happened in New York on 11 September 2001 and the subsequent
on-going murderous activities of terrorists with Islamic backgrounds who justify
themselves by appealing to Koranic teaching, we wonder if the Prince of Wales
has changed his mind on Islam. Is he still prepared to heap praise on Islamic
culture, which he has described as having played a great part in the creation
of modern Europe? In a speech delivered in 1993, he said that "it was part
of our inheritance, not a thing apart. More than this, Islam can teach us today
a way of understanding and living in the world which Christianity itself is
poorer for having lost. At the heart of Islam is its preservation of an integral
view of the universe. Islam - like Buddhism and Hinduism - refuses to separate
man and nature, religion and science, mind and matter, and has preserved a
metaphysical and unified view of ourselves and the world around us."
True Christianity, if only the Prince of Wales realised it, has not lost anything.
Its doctrines - founded on the inspired and inerrant Word of the true and living
God - are far removed from what is proclaimed in mosques. This was recently
demonstrated beyond doubt in the Finsbury Mosque in London, which had become,
under a fanatical Muslim cleric, "a hotbed of extreme fundamentalist Islam
and opposition to Britain, the US and non-Muslims". Another notorious Muslim
cleric has been imprisoned as a result of engaging in activities which were
linked to al-Qaeda terrorism; he had openly called for "the death of non-believers,
Americans, Jews and Hindus". He also claimed that he was only "interpreting
and updating the words of the Koran". So much then for the Islamic culture
which the Prince eulogised and commended to his audience.
As a result of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland's protest against
the Prince's proposed attendance at a Vatican mass, he thought it apt to classify
it as belonging to the "lunatic fringe". We, on our part, desiring to give
honour to those to whom honour is due, will continue to pray that the Lord
would open the eyes of the Prince of Wales and thus turn him from darkness
to light, bring him from the power of Satan to God, that he may receive forgiveness
of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified through faith in Christ
(Acts 26:18).
Endnotes:
1. Jonathan Dimbleby, The Prince of Wales, p527.
2. Ibid, p528.
|