It's true, I have been away for some time, and I am at best an irregular participant in the Kingdom of Hanover.
During the last few days I've again been browsing our forums, and something has jumped out at me, a distinct hint of state religion.
I notice his majesty now claims the title 'Defender of the Faith', and I've seen the word "christian" used in places I would not normally expected.
The order of the Act includes a "Christian" association, yet I recall distinct prohibitions upon both religiosity and religious agenda's in the original instruments creating the act.
Is this some development that has occured in my absence? Has Hanover left the realm of secular conduct and descended into the murky waters of state religion?
Sir Aderyn,
You are quite correct. Several months ago the Parliament passed an Act (The Supremacy Act) to create an Established Church with the King as its Governor. Since the Church is currently altogether without clergy, it's essentially dormant. The "Defender of the Faith" title is probably the only part of the Church that is referenced on a regular basis.
As regards the Order of the Act, the new charter which was granted for it some time ago during the attempted reform of the Orders of Chivalry did not include a prohibition on religious activities. In any case, His Majesty's new association is legally not a part of the Order, but is only informally associated with it, and contains only the small subset of the Act's members who live near His Majesty.
Sincerely,
Christopher D. Livingston
Sir Aderyn:
Allow me to offer my interpretation, if I may.
There has been created in Hanover an established state church of which the Sovereign is Supreme Governor, this much is true. But there is no state religion, and that is equally true and must be well-understood by everyone.
The Church of Hanover was established as a purely ceremonial, credo-less state-run church to provide added dimension to the kingdom and an outlet for those who enjoy recreating and maintaining the structures, offices and ceremonies of traditional mainstream organized Christian churches.
While this non-religious, ceremonial state-run organization and the State are not separate, it should not be considered that this means that there exists today (legally) a union of Church and State, as most people understand that circumstance. There is no official religion and the State endorses no particular religion. The State is secular and its established church is also secular.
I will admit that I believe that there are some people in Hanover who are trying to change that state of affairs or who are confused by the arrangement and have begun to behave as though Hanover does, in fact, have a state religion. Regardless, the fact of the law is to the contrary, and the Church was never set up to marry religion to the State. It was created purely for ceremony, with no creed and no doctrine.
Gentlemen,
Lord Marchmain presents what is certainly one interpretation of the Church's purpose, but it would be a misrepresentation of the plain facts to say that His Royal Highness' is the only possible interpretation. Consider the relevant provision from the Supremacy Act:
Quote:The Church shall exist solely to promote and organise religious ceremonial within the Kingdom and provide opportunities for the extension of Christian worship in a micronational setting; never shall it or its members presume to act with sacramental force, make authoritative statements upon scripture and doctrine, or to otherwise offend against the legitimate activities reserved to macronational religions.
The underline is, of course, my own. I think that it is clear from this passage that the Church is not wholly secular, and indeed is specifically Christian. Perhaps this should not be the case, but it very evidently is so, considering the letter of the law.
Sincerely,
Christopher D. Livingston
I, on the other hand, would like to stress the rest of the text:
Quote:The Church shall exist solely to promote and organise religious ceremonial within the Kingdom and provide opportunities for the extension of Christian worship in a micronational setting; never shall it or its members presume to act with sacramental force, make authoritative statements upon scripture and doctrine, or to otherwise offend against the legitimate activities reserved to macronational religions
I know that when we agreed to create this Church it was understood that it was to be a secular organzation, the leaders of which would pretend to no religious authority, receiving their mandate soley from the Crown, not from Heaven.
I realize that it was also intended that the ceremonies would be patterned after those of the Church of England, in keeping with the Anglophile traditions of the Realm, but to say that "the extension of Christian worship" refers to the adoption of a religious creed by the Church rather than to recognize it for what it is: an official adoption of the ceremonies of organized Christian churches (the Anglican, specifically) is a grave misinterpretation of the document, in my opinion.
I think it's very important, when considering the underlined portion of the text, to bear in mind the original intent of those who agreed to the establishment of the Church. If some are viewing, now, the Church of Hanover as a religious body pretending to religious sectarianism or authority, then this is a novel interpretation of the nature of the Church. It was not the original interpretation of it.
With respect to the Order of the Act, if it was religi-fied, that escaped my notice. The original proclamation establishing the order said nothing about religion at all.
I thought that we created the Order of St. George (which I don't believe anyone has ever been inducted into) for that purpose.
Uff dah...
A solely secular state religion? On how many levels is this wrong? Well at least on the two
A solely secular state church is disturbing first because it is the worst proposal of the worst fears of any church going, bible believing Christian. The purpose of the church is two fold, first for the uplifting of people, both it's members and those outside of the church. How does a purely secular church do that? What it rather offers is the idea that church and faith is no more then a government department, ministry or club that offers no real benefit except what an office of Government Protocol would offer with a bit of a religious feel. Secondly it takes the idea that the Church is a body of the state and solely inseperable, thus Christian doctrine and dogmatics is nothing more then an extension of the state and thus is subject to the popular ideas of the day not the higher calling of faith and servitude to the Great Architect of the Universe. Even the title of Supreme Governor dictates that rather then a religious institution this is more of a political province or organization and that is terribly insulting to faith.
This is also wrong on a theological level. The fundemental tenants of political teachings of the bible is that there must be a seperation of Church and State, we are perpetually told that we are to, as Christians, to render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars and unto God that which is Gods. This means that there are two distinct and seperate institutions, namely the Church and the State and niether should the two mix. When Christ was still on earth the Jewish Community, in the Roman Captivity, and His followers offered Him an earthly crown, to govern over them in an earthly kingdom, and He refused it. His kingdom is not of this earth. How does this apply? Well the reality is that by creating a state church what you do is that you state that the head of the state is not in fact the king but that the king or his heirs are the next in the chain down from Christ and that the powers that are derived are thus from the Church and thus this is the Kingdom of God, to which the Church is a political power and thus Christ is a political leader. If this were what was wanted then I am relatively sure Christ would have had a different response to Pontius Pilate at His trial.
It's a sad day when I agree with Aderyn on politics or religion...
Quote:A solely secular state religion? On how many levels is this wrong?
But as I tried to explain, it isn't a state religion. The offices are secular, just like the archbishopric you held in Varennes.
Yes, I was many things in Varennes and we all knew what we were getting into when we applied for citizenship... which is still amusing considering an unabashed Lutheran Protestant could become a Catholic Archbishop. Still, we did not go out of our way to create an organization or a state religion after clearly rejecting the concept at earlier times. But to create a solely secular church for the purposes of creating an office of Protocol... well you justify it because I sure as hell can't...
You weren't a Catholic archbishop. You were a landlord called "archbishop". The title was entirely secular. You presided over an archbishopric, not an archdiocese. The title was understood as a secular one with a mandate from the Crown. This arrangement caused you no qualms of conscience then, why is this any different?
Aderyn,
If I may interject a moment with regard to the Order of the Act.
The Christian Mens Service Origanization (CMSO) is a voluntary group of knights, plus myself, who decided to express our faith while also acting on behalf of the order.
No one is required to attend, participate or support the CMSO. No violations of the foundation documents is present. Those knights who wish to remain outside the CMSO are welcome to do so. The CMSO is not open to non-act members.
We hold that service to the One True Living God and sevice to the Kingdom are not mutually exclusive ideals and we combine them. This gives Hanover another off-line expression and, hopefully, will generate some much needed new citizens.
Alexander R.