Love, Death, and Redemption: The Atheistic Religiosity of Roger Scruton and Wagner's "Tristan and Isolde"

 

On December 3, 2019, Viktor Orban presented the Hungarian Order of Merit to Roger Scruton in London.  Scruton would die five weeks later from lung cancer.

In his speech honoring Scruton, Orban praised him for his work in the 1980s aiding the anti-communist underground in Central and Eastern Europe, which included Hungary.  Orban concluded the speech by saying: "He was and is a loyal friend of the freedom-loving Hungarians, who knows that this freedom relies on nation states and Christian civilization."

To identify Scruton as a supporter of "Christian civilization" is disturbing to those of us who have argued that Scruton belonged to a Kantian conservative tradition of atheistic religiosity.  Atheistic religiosity is for those who want the "magic of religious feeling" as an expression of the human mind's "religious instinct," but without having to believe in the real existence of God independent of the human mind.  They don't believe in the literal truth of Christianity or any other religion.  And yet they want to have a sense of the sacred that comes from religious emotions, but without the need to believe any religious doctrines.  They believe that God is dead, but they also believe that human beings need to satisfy their religious longings for transcendence and redemption if they are to escape the nihilism that comes from the death of God.

I suspect that many, if not most, of the conservatives who promote "Christian civilization"--including Orban--are really Christian atheists who believe a Christian culture supports the moral and political order of a nation, but without believing in the truth of Christian doctrines.  The flimsiness of this fake Christianity explains why Orban's promotion of Hungary as a Christian nation has failed to stop the decline of Christianity in Hungary.

I have been prompted to think more about this while reading Scruton's interpretation of Richard Wagner's Tristan und Isolde in Death Devoted Heart: Sex and the Sacred in Wagner's Tristan and Isolde (Oxford University Press, 2004).  I have been doing this in preparation for attending a concert performed by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra that includes the Prelude and Liebestod from Tristan and Isolde along with Richard Strauss's Four Last Songs.

REDEMPTION IN TRISTAN AND ISOLDE

Let's start with a brief synopsis of the story as Wagner tells it.

Set in the Celtic Middle Ages, the opera begins with Tristan, a knight of Cornwall, escorting Isolde, the daughter of the King of Ireland, to Cornwall where she is to marry King Marke, Tristan's uncle.  During the journey, Isolde is filled with rage and resentment towards Tristan for killing her fiancé, Morold, in battle.  Despite her anger, when Tristan stares into her eyes--which is marked musically by Wagner's "Look" motive--she is drawn to him, and their complex relationship unfolds throughout the opera.

Act 1.  Isolde, furious at her fate, wishes for revenge against Tristan.  She recalls how she had speared his life when he was wounded and disguised as Tantris.  As they approach Cornwall, she demands that Tristan drink a cup of atonement with her.  However, Brangane, Isolde's maid, secretly substitutes the poison with a love potion, causing both Tristan and Isolde to fall deeply in love with one another.

Act 2.  The love between Tristan and Isolde deepens, but they are caught in a web of duty and betrayal.  Tristan is torn between his loyalty to King Marke and his love for Isolde.  Their secret affair is discovered, leading to a confrontation that highlights the tragic nature of their love.  The act culminates in a passionate duet where they express their longing and despair.

Act 3.  The final act sees Tristan wounded in battle and longing for Isolde.  He dies in her arms, and Isolde, overwhelmed by grief, follows him into death.  The opera concludes with Isolde's poignant Liebestod (love-death) where she transcends the physical world, symbolizing the idea that true love can only be fully realized in death.

I will pass over the details of Scruton's meticulous interpretation of this opera and jump to his conclusions. 

Scruton argued that Wagner's agenda as an artist was "nothing less than the redemption of humankind," which he accomplished in Tristan and Isolde.  According to Scruton, Wagner saw that the yearning for redemption was a religious yearning, an expression of the religious instinct that is universal to human beings, and that it could be fulfilled only in "otherworldly renunciation."  But Wagner "set out to discover a redemption that needs no god to accomplish it," because he would "make man his own redeemer" (3).  He would show "what redemption could mean, when detached from every promise of a life after death" (14).

Wagner himself once described Tristan and Isolde as a story of "endless yearning, longing, the bliss and wretchedness of love; world, power, fame, honor, chivalry, loyalty, and friendship all blown away like an insubstantial dream; one thing alone left living--longing, longing unquenchable, a yearning, a hunger, a languishing forever renewing itself; one sole redemption--death, surcease, a sleep without awakening" (29).

Thus could Wagner's opera stir religious feelings of redemption in his audience without requiring any belief in religious doctrines (like the existence of God and the eternal afterlife).  In this way, Scruton insisted, Wagner proved "that religion could live again in art and did not need God for its survival," and "that man can become holy to himself with no help from the gods" (190, 196).

But I would say that at best what Wagner proved is that his operatic art could induce a fake emotion of religious redemption that could not really redeem human beings.  After all, how can human beings be redeemed through "otherworldly renunciation" if they believe that there is no "otherworld" beyond this world?

THREE POSITIONS ON REDEMPTION

The fake redemption of atheistic religiosity is only one of at least three possible positions that musical artists can take on redemption.  

A second position is the real redemption that can come through a musical composition like Bach's Saint Matthew's Passion or Handel's Messiah, which induce religious emotions of redemption but also teach religious doctrines of redemption by eternal salvation.  The members of the audience who are not Christian believers can feel the power of those religious emotions.  But the Christian believers in the audience can also understand the promise of their redemption because they know that their Redeemer really exists, and He will raise them from the dead to eternal life in Heaven.

A third position that a musical artist can take on redemption is that there is no need for redemption from life because life--even with its suffering, vulnerability, and mortality--is inherently good.  And for that reason, we can calmly accept the end of life in death as the completion of our life's journey.  That position is artistically conveyed in Richard Strauss's Four Last Songs.

In 1948, Strauss was 84 and composing his last music before his death the next year.  His Four Last Songs were for soprano and orchestra.  He wrote to Kirsten Flagstad to express his wish that she would be the soprano for the world premiere of these songs.  And indeed the premiere occurred in London in 1950, after his death, sung by Flagstad with the Philharmonia Orchestra conducted by Wilhelm Furtwangler.  (Remarkably, Flagstad had sang as Isolde at Covenant Garden, London, in 1936.)

As he composed this music for a soprano, Strauss probably heard the voice of his wife Pauline de Anha, who had sung as a professional soprano.

The lyrics for the four songs are poems.  The first three by Herman Hesse, the fourth by Joseph Eichendorff.

In the first, Fruhling ("Spring"), the soprano's voice rises up as she dreams of trees and sky, and the flute evokes birdsong.

In the second, "September," there is an allegorical passage from life to death.  The first stanza reads:

The garden is mourning,

the rain sinks coolly into the flowers.

Summer shudders

as it meets its end.

It ends with Summer closing "its large eyes grown weary."

In the third song, Beim Schlafengehen ("While going to sleep"), the soprano yearns to forget all thoughts in sleep.  The first stanza reads:

Now that the day has made me so tired,

my dearest longings shall 

be accepted kindly by the starry night

like a weary child.

In the final song, Im Abendrot ("In the twilight"), we hear about an old couple at the end of life.  It begins with an orchestral depiction of sunset, with two trilling flutes representing a pair of larks ascending into the sky (the souls of the old couple).  We can imagine that here Strauss was thinking of his long and happy marriage with Pauline de Anha, who would die in 1950 only eight months after his death.  Here in this song, they are contemplating the end of life together.

The light fades as the song unfolds, and then the soprano asks, in the last line, Ist dies etwa Tod? ("Is this perhaps death?") 

The orchestra then whispers the "transfiguration" theme from Strauss's Death and Transfiguration, which he had written 60 years before.  Strauss is saying goodbye by wistfully suggesting that he has come full circle from his early life to his end.

Although "transfiguration" might suggest the need for redemption, the tone and meaning of Strauss's Four Last Songs are very different from Wagner's Tristan and Isolde.  Strauss's songs convey not an unquenchable longing for redemption from life (like that of Tristan and Isolde) but a serene completion of life in the old couple's calm acceptance of their inevitable ending of their lives together: "Is this perhaps death?"

The Political History of Beethoven's 9th Symphony: Odes to Joy and Freedom

Leonard Bernstein Conducts Beethoven's Ninth Symphony on Christmas Day 1989 in Berlin.  The "Ode to Freedom" Movement Begins 57 Minutes into the Performance.

Ever since its premiere in 1824, Beethoven's 9th Symphony has deeply moved many millions of listeners.  It is widely considered one of the best symphonies ever composed, and some would say it is the greatest.  Can the social bonding theory of music explain the powerful appeal of this symphony?

Now, as I have indicated, no one claims that social bonding is the only function of music. Even if social bonding was the original evolutionary function of music, once music has emerged, it can serve many different functions for different people in different circumstances.  But still if this theory is correct, we should expect that music often does have a social bonding effect for many people.  And that does seem to be true for Beethoven's 9th.  After all, the "Ode to Joy" explicitly invokes the brotherhood of all humanity--a universal social bonding.  Moreover, Beethoven's 9th has a long political history of being used as a musical anthem by which people can mark their membership in a national or multinational community.  Esteban Buch has covered this history in his book Beethoven's Ninth: A Political History (2003). 

ANTHEMS AS MARKERS FOR SOCIAL MEMBERSHIP

That Beethoven's music can serve as a national or even international anthem that binds people together was asserted by Marcelo Lehninger in his conducting of the performance I heard in Grand Rapids.  He began by speaking to the audience.  He said that we needed to hear this music because "in these divisive times," we "need the message of brotherhood."  

He then began the concert by conducting the orchestra in playing the Star-Spangled Banner, which is customary for the opening night of a new concert season.  In 1931, the U. S. Congress passed a resolution to recognize this as the official national anthem for the United States.  Previously, My Country 'Tis of Thee and America the Beautiful had been two other informally accepted national anthems, and they are still often sung as if they were the national anthem.  This national anthem is a hymn (sacred or profane) sung by a chorus of people celebrating the unity of America.  Even when there's a solo singer, many in the audience will sing along.  

The Francis Scott Key's lyrics for the Star-Spangled Banner were inspired in 1814 by his seeing the U.S. flag flying triumphantly over Fort McHenry after a night of bombardment by the British Royal Navy in the Battle of Baltimore in the War of 1812, which was a sign that the British had failed to destroy the fort.  So here the flag as a symbol of victory in battle represents America.

My Country 'Tis of Thee (or America) has the same melody as God Save the King, the British national anthem, but for the American song, the only king is God himself ("Great God, our king").  And this American anthem celebrates America as the land of liberty or freedom:

My country, 'tis of thee,
sweet land of liberty,
of thee I sing:
land where my fathers died,
land of the pilgrims' pride,
from every mountainside
let freedom ring!

So this anthem for America could be called An Ode to Freedom.

America the Beautiful is also sung as if it were the national anthem.

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

Here there are three interconnected themes for unifying America into one people: the natural beauty of the American countryside, God's grace for America, and the brotherhood of Americans within the borders of America ("from sea to shining sea"). 

Similarly, in the fourth movement of the 9th Symphony, the chorus of mankind celebrates its unity--proclaiming "All men will become brothers."  But here the brotherhood is universal.  

We have to wonder: Can music really do that?  Can music make us believe in the myth of a nation--or even the whole world--speaking with a single choral voice?  And if so, what is the unifying theme through which millions or even billions of people can be one people?  If "Joy" is the theme, does that have any clear meaning?  Is "Freedom" a better theme with a clearer meaning?  Or is the intellectual meaning of the lyrics unimportant as long as the music creates an emotional experience of social bonding?  To have that emotional experience must the music have the sacred aura of a hymn that requires religious belief?  Or can we enjoy the religious feelings of a patriotic hymn without believing any religious doctrines?

I have argued that a natural desire for social membership in an imagined community is part of our evolved human nature.  It's an imagined community because it's a symbolic niche construction of our minds that we create by consenting to it, by agreeing to its reality.  Singing an anthem is one way that we imagine ourselves as belonging to such a community.  It's like a password or shibboleth.

In composing his 9th Symphony, Beethoven was building on a tradition that began in the 18th century.  George Frederic Handel composed anthems for chorus and orchestra for the Hanoverian kings of England.  The most memorable one--Zadok the Priest for the coronation of George II in 1727--used a revised biblical verse from the First Kings (1:39-40) about the coronation of Solomon:

Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anointed Solomon king.
And all the people rejoiced and said:
God save the King! Long live the King! God save the King!
May the King live for ever. Amen. Hallelujah.

The Priest and the Prophet anoint the King.  And then the people collectively rejoice and pray for the King.

But the first true national anthem for the British became popular in 1745--God Save the King--when it was sung in support of George II after his defeat at the Battle of Prestonpans by the army of Charles Edward Stuart, the grandson of King James II and the Jacobite claimant to the British throne.  It was a prayer from the people asking God to give the King victory over Charles.  

God save our gracious King!
Long live our noble King!
God save the King!
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the King!

O Lord our God arise
Scatter his enemies
And make them fall
Confound their politics
Frustrate their knavish tricks
On thee our hopes we fix
God save us all

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On him be pleased to pour;
Long may he reign.
May he defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the King!

God Save the King begins with the same biblical phrase as Zadok the Priest, but now it is a prayer by "us" the people, asking God for the victory and safety of "our" King.  The people ask for divine protection in the face of a political and military threat not only to the King but to the whole community.  Instead of the Stuart doctrine of divine right, the people suggest a contract between ruler and ruled: the people will be loyal to him only as long as he defends "our laws" and "ever give us cause, with heart and voice to sing, God save the King."

The God of Battles answered the people's prayer by giving George II victory over the Jacobites in the Battle of Culloden in 1746, which ended the Jacobite rising of 1745.  This is what Locke called the "Appeal to Heaven," in which divine providence is decided on the battlefield.

Two years ago, I wrote about the importance of such choral hymns for the coronation of King Charles III and how Charles transformed the Coronation Liturgy into a Lockean liberal proclamation of individual liberty, religious toleration, and popular consent to government, which was open not only to people of all faiths but also to atheists.

BEETHOVEN'S PATRIOTIC MUSIC

In 1803, Beethoven composed piano variations on God Save the King and Rule Britannia.  In 1813, he arranged God Save the King for soloist and unison chorus with an instrumental trio.  In his notebook, he wrote: "I must give the English some notion of the blessing they have in their God Save the King (Buch, 73).  This was part of Beethoven's patriotic action in supporting the English and their allies who were fighting against Napoleon's invading armies.  

The Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) became one of the deadliest series of wars in human history--with a death toll of over 4 million human beings.  In 1803, Beethoven began work on a symphony that would eventually become the Eroica symphony, but in 1803 he called it Bonaparte, because he saw Napoleon as a heroic leader and liberator who was spreading the humanistic ideals of the Enlightenment.  But then, on December 2, 1804, Napoleon entered the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, and in the presence of Pope Pius VII, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of France by placing the Charlemagne Crown on his head.

When Beethoven heard this news, he complained to his student Ferdinand Ries: "So he too is nothing more than an ordinary man!  Now he also will trample all human rights underfoot, and only pander to his own ambition.  He will place himself above everyone else and become a tyrant!"  He then took up the title page of the symphony, ripped it in two, and threw it to the floor (Swafford, 2014, 384).

That Beethoven was right about Napoleon being a tyrant who would suppress all human rights soon became clear.  A few months after Napoleon's crowning himself Emperor, the French government issued an "Imperial Catechism" and directed the Church to teach this new catechism, which included these responses:

Q.  Why are we obligated to all of these duties to our Emperor?

A.  First, because God, who created empires and distributes them according to His will, in heaping on our Emperor gifts, both in peace and war, has established him as our sovereign and rendered him the minister of His power and image on earth.  To honor and serve our Emperor is thus to honor and serve God himself.

Q.  What should one think of those who fail in their duty to the Emperor?

A.  According to the Apostle Saint Paul, they would be resisting the order established by God Himself, and would render themselves worthy of eternal damnation.

Q.  What is forbidden to us by the Fourth Commandment?

A.  We are forbidden to be disobedient to our superiors, to injure them, or to speak ill of them (Swafford, 2014, 385-86).

In his biography of Beethoven, Jan Swafford has shown that Beethoven was a man of the eighteenth-century European Enlightenment who looked forward to a world ruled by reason, science, and the rights of man, which explains why he was so disgusted with Napoleon's tyrannical denial of freedom and human rights.  When Immanuel Kant asked the question "What Is Enlightenment?" he answered: Saper aude!  Dare to know!  "Have the courage to use your own understanding! is thus the motto of Enlightenment."  Similarly, Beethoven wrote: "Only art and science can raise men to the level of gods."  When one of his colleagues wrote on a score, "Finished with the help of God," Beethoven wrote under it, "O Man, help yourself!"  Beethoven also resolved: "To do good wherever we can, to love liberty above all things, and never to deny truth though it be at the throne itself." Swafford observed that while Beethoven "never quite spelled out those ideals in words," those Enlightenment ideals "would be found in his music, and in the lyrics he chose to embody in music--above all, An die Freude" (Swafford, 2014, 47-50, 54, 129, 306, 853).

This explains why Beethoven composed music in 1813 celebrating the victory of the Duke of Wellington leading allied troops against Napoleon's army on June 21, 1813, near the Spanish village of Victoria.  A few months later, Beethoven composed Wellington's Victory, or The Battle of Vittoria--often referred to as the "Battle Symphony."

This also explains why Beethoven became a composer of official state music for the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), which was a series of international diplomatic meetings in Vienna to develop a plan for restoring peace and order to Europe after the fall of Napoleon.  The Congress was chaired by Austrian statesman Klemens von Metternich, who called the Congress's plan "The Concert of Europe."  Friedrich von Gentz, the Congress's secretary described the purpose of the plan: "By their geographic situation, through their customs, their laws, their needs, their way of life and their culture, the states of this continent, taken as a whole, constitute a great political federation that has--and rightly--been called the European Republic."  This echoed Immanuel Kant's proposal for a federation of European states that would enforce international peace and human rights (Buch, 2003, 76).

In 1814, Beethoven premiered his opera Fidelio, a revised version of Leonore, which had originally appeared in 1805.  Fidelio became so popular in Vienna that it had multiple performance, including a performance before an audience of political and diplomatic dignitaries in Vienna for the Congress.

In the opera, Fidelio is actually Lenore, a noblewoman disguised as a boy who plots to free her husband Florestan from prison where he is being held as a political prisoner and a victim of political tyranny.  The opera becomes a hymn to freedom and liberation from tyranny.  

After Leonore persuades a prison guard to allow the prisoners to walk in the courtyard for a few moments, the prisoners enjoy the open air and sunlight and talk about their hope that they will someday go free.  The chorus of prisoners sing about freedom (Freiheit), shouting : "O freedom, freedom, will you return?"

Later, we see Florestan alone in a dark dungeon.  He murmurs about his cruel fortune.  But then he has an ecstatic vision of Leonore as an angel who leads him to freedom.  Zur Freiheit!--"To Freedom!"--he cries over and over in spine-chilling high notes.

When Leonore finally succeeds in freeing Florestan, the two of them sing beautiful arias about the "inexpressible joy" (O namenlose Freude) they feel in being reunited as husband and wife.  In celebrating the happiness or joy that comes from conjugal love, the chorus sings a line from Schiller's Ode to Joy: "Happy he whom Heaven has granted/To be loved by such a wife!"

Fidelio thus suggests that freedom is the precondition of joy because we must be free to pursue joy.

At the Congress of Vienna, Fidelio was generally seen as a celebration of the defeat of the Napoleonic armies and as an allegory for a Europe liberated from tyrannical conquest.

Beethoven encouraged this interpretation of his music.  During the early months of the Congress, he composed The Glorious Moment, a cantata for soloists, chorus, and orchestra that was a musical representation of this European Moment that was announced in the opening statement:

Europe is risen!  Europe is risen!

And the times in their headlong rush,

The chorus of peoples and former centuries,

Look on in amazement!

This European Moment was universalized in the repeated phrase: "In the peaceful union of brothers/Liberated mankind itself embraces!"  Thus, the "chorus of peoples" invokes the freedom and brotherhood of mankind in the glorious European moment.

Here Beethoven's political music representing the Enlightenment vision of international peace, liberty, and brotherhood anticipated what he would do in 1824 in the 9th Symphony's Ode to Joy.

THE NINTH SYMPHONY

In his program notes for the GRSO's performance of the 9th Symphony, John Varineau suggests that "the first three movements can be heard as a search for that ultimate expression signifying the fellowship of humanity that we hear in the fourth."  He then explains:

The last movement begins in chaos with the woodwinds and brass.  The cellos and basses, imitating an operatic baritone, demand to know what is going on.  The orchestra tentatively suggests the first movement.  No!  Then the second.  No!  The third?  No!  The cello and basses then suggest the answer with the famous tune.

That famous tune is taken mostly from Friedrich Schiller's poem Ode to Joy, except for the first few lines added by Beethoven (indicated by italics).  Here's the English translation: 

O friends, not these sounds!
Let us sing more cheerful songs,
More songs full of joy!
Joy!
Joy!

(1)  Joy, beautiful spark of divinity,
Daughter from Elysium,
Fire-inspired we tread
Within thy sanctuary.
Thy magic power re-unites
All that custom has divided,
All men become brothers,
Under the sway of thy gentle wings.

(2)  Whoever has been lucky enough
to become a friend to a friend,
Or has won
A true and loving wife,
All who can call at least one soul theirs,
Join our song of praise;
But those who cannot must creep tearfully
Away from our circle.

(3)  All creatures drinks in joy
At nature's breast.
Good and Evil 
Alike taste of her gift;
She gave us kisses and the fruit of the vine,
A true friend even in death.
Even the worm can feel sexual desire,
And the cherub stands before God!

(4)  Gladly, like the heavenly bodies
Which He sent on their courses
Through the splendor of the firmament;
Thus, brothers, you should run your race,
Like a hero going to victory!

(5)  You millions, I embrace you.
This kiss is for all the world!
Brothers, above the starry canopy
There must dwell a loving Father.
Do you bow before him, you millions?
World, do you sense your creator?
Seek Him above the canopy of stars;

Above the stars must He dwell. 

When the baritone soloist first shouted "Oh friends, not these sounds!", that was the first time that a singing voice had entered a symphony.  The search for "more joyful sounds" requires a combination of instrumental and vocal music--a choral symphony. The baritone identifies all the members of the orchestra and the singers as his friends.  And throughout the Ode, "friends" (Freunde) and "joy" (Freude) are linked, which is underscored in German by the similarity of the two German words.  Originally, Schiller wrote his Ode as a tribute to his close friend Christian Gottfried Korner.  But then the poem expands to include all forms of love or social bonding, including not only friendship but also conjugal love, brotherly love, love of God ("the cherub stands before God"), and God's love for His creatures ("a loving Father").  Joy, it seems, is found in love.  And the most joyful sounds are the music of love. Joy is first identified as the "beautiful spark of divinity, / Daughter from Elysium," the afterlife in Greek mythology.  But then this image of joy as a supernatural infusion is followed in the third stanza with the claim that joy comes from natural longings.  "Every creature drinks in joy at nature's breast," and even the worm feels something like joy in his sexual desire. How can the pursuit of joy be both natural and supernatural?  Could it be a natural desire for happiness that can never be fully satisfied in this life because it's really a desire for the supernatural happiness of eternal bliss with God in Heaven?  That was C. S. Lewis's primary argument for the existence of God: the desire for Joy points to God as the supernatural object that will satisfy that desire.  We all desire whatever we think will make us fully happy or joyful.  But then when we possess the object of our desire, we discover that it does not give us Joy.  Lewis wrote: "A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food.  A duckling wants to swim, water exists to do it.  So if I find within myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most likely explanation is that I was made for another world." "I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it."  That was C. S. Lewis's claim in Mere Christianity that he had rational arguments for showing how the weight of the evidence supported Christianity.  In the Reason/Revelation debate, Lewis thought that Reason could prove, or at least render probable, the truth of Christian Revelation.   I have responded to Lewis by arguing that while there is an evolved natural desire for religious transcendence, or for what Lewis calls "Joy," the existence of this desire provides no evidence for the real existence of the supernatural object--God--that would satisfy this desire.  In the Reason/Revelation debate, neither side can conclusively refute the other.  But the debate must continue because this is the deepest debate that human beings can have--the debate over whether the highest good for human beings is earthly happiness or Joy in the natural world that we can experience, or whether that highest good can only be found in the eternal happiness or Joy of Heaven. The "Ode to Joy" is not clearly on one side or the other in this debate.  The last stanza does lean towards Revelation's vision of heavenly happiness: "Do you bow down before Him, you millions?/Do you sense your Creator, O world?/Seek Him above the canopy of stars!/He must dwell beyond the stars."  And yet this could also be intimating my position--that while many people will feel a natural desire for religious Joy in Heaven with God, the natural reality of this desire does not prove the supernatural reality of the Heavenly Joy that is sought.  Notice that the Ode speaks of people seeking God, but it does not say that they will surely find what they seek. If Fidelio is correct in suggesting that freedom is the precondition of joy because we need to be free to pursue joy, that should apply here.  Only in a free society are we free to openly debate Reason and Revelation in arguing about whether our natural desire for happiness or joy can be satisfied in this life, or whether it points to a Heavenly Joy.  As I have indicated in my posts on Lewis, he was free to debate these issues in the Oxford Socratic Club, and other venues, where religious believers debated atheists and agnostics, because he lived in a modern liberal society that secured freedom of thought and speech.  In an illiberal closed society, this would not have been possible.  As I have indicated, Lewis understood this, and  that's why he was a Lockean liberal who rejected theocracy as a form of tyranny, who believed that government should not have the power to legally enforce Christian orthodoxy, and who thought the only proper aim of government was to secure individual liberty from legal interference except when necessary to prevent harm to others. THE POLITICAL RECEPTION OF THE ODE TO JOY The many attempts to adopt Beethoven's Ode to Joy as an anthem for a political community or political ideology are often confusing because of their implausible appropriations of the music.  For example, as planned by Joseph Goebbel, Hitler's birthday in 1937 was celebrated with a performance of the Ninth Symphony conducted by Wilhelm Furtwangler with the Berlin Philharmonic.  This was repeated in 1942.  Some of the Nazi cultural leaders said that Beethoven and Wagner were the two poles of truly German music that had been united in the personality of Adolf Hitler.  But in 1938, Hanns Eisler, a famous German-Austrian composer and a communist anti-Nazi, ridiculed the idea that the Ninth Symphony was pro-Nazi: "All men become brothers, with the exception of all the peoples whose lands we want to annex, with the exception of the Jews, the Blacks, and a great many others to boot" (Buch, 2003, 205-209). The same absurd adoption of the Ode to Joy as an anthem for a racist regime occurred in 1974 when Ian Smith's white supremacist government in Rhodesia adopted the Ode to Joy as a national anthem to replace God Save the Queen.  A music critic for the Rhodesian Herald wrote that he was "stupefied" by the "plagiarism" for "local nationalistic ends" of music with "supra-national associations" and "indissolubly linked with ideas on the brotherhood of mankind" (Buch, 2003, 243-47). A more credible appropriation of the Ode to Joy as a political anthem occurred in 1972 when a purely instrumental version of the opening melody of the Ode to Joy was adopted by the Council of Europe as the anthem of Europe.  In 1985, it was adopted by the European Union.                                                       Anthem of the European Union It's hard to imagine that an instrumental Ode to Joy without the singing can ever have the power of the original.  After all, Beethoven's baritone soloist was clear that a "more joyful sound" would have to be a song rather than a purely instrumental melody.  Moreover, it's not clear that this music has the emotional power to bind the European nations into one multinational community. If the people of Europe were to sing an anthem that would express their membership in the European Community, what would be the words for that song?  Generally, national anthems tell stories about the heroic historical events that have made the nation great.  What heroic story could a European anthem tell?  Could the lyrics of the Ode to Joy--perhaps slightly altered--tell that European story? One answer to those questions came on Christmas Day in 1989 in Berlin when Leonard Bernstein conducted a performance of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony that was broadcast by satellite transmission to countries around the world.  Bernstein made one change in the Ode to Joy: he replaced Freude with Freiheit.  In a program note for the concert, he wrote: There is apparently conjecture that Schiller may have produced a second sketch of his poem, Ode to Joy, which carried the title Ode to Freedom. Most researchers today are of the opinion, however, that this rumor is a fraud originated by Friedrich Ludwig Jahn.  Whether true or not, I believe that this is a heaven-sent moment when we should sing the word "Freedom" wherever the score reads "Joy."  If there ever were a historical moment in which one can neglect the theoretical discussions of academics in the name of human freedom, this is it.  And I believe that Beethoven would have given us his blessing!  Let freedom live!" (Buch, 2003, 261-62). The "historical moment" was the first year of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of communism that began with mass protests against communist rule across Eastern Europe.  In November of 1988, Estonia became the first Soviet Republic to declare its independence from Moscow.  Others followed.  On November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell.  It had been built in 1961 to keep people in communist East Berlin from running away to freedom in West Berlin.  Once the Berlin Wall came down, it became clear that East and West Germany would eventually be reunified under the rule of a liberal democratic government. Thus, in the fall of 1989, it seemed that the Cold War was coming to an end, and that the "Free World" had defeated communism.  In the journal The National Interest, Francis Fukuyama proclaimed "The End of History": history as the human search for the fully satisfying social order had come to an end, he argued, because most people in the world today agree in principle that liberal democracy is the best social order because it secures the freedom that allows human beings to pursue their happiness.  Fukuyama's article provoked an international debate over whether his argument was correct. Apparently, Bernstein agreed with Fukuyama that 1989 was the "historical moment" for celebrating the triumph of freedom.  And if I am right about the message of Fidelio, Bernstein was justified in thinking that Beethoven would have given his blessing to turning the Ode to Joy into an Ode to Freedom because freedom is the precondition for joy. So we see that music really can bind human beings into a social order--perhaps even a global social order--particularly when the theme of that music is the universal human longing for freedom. REFERENCES Brown, Donald.  1991.  Human Universals.  Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Buch, Esteban.  2003.  Beethoven's Ninth: A Political History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Conard, N. J., M. Malina, and S. C. Munzel. 2009.  "New Flutes Document the Earliest Musical Tradition in Southwestern Germany."  Nature 460 (7256): 737-740. Darwin, Charles.  2004.  The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2nd edition.  New York: Penguin Books. Dissanayake, Ellen.  2021.  "Ancestral Human Mother-Infant Interaction Was an Adaptation that Gave Rise to Music and Dance."  Behavioral and Brain Sciences, doi:10.1017/S01405225X20001144, e68. Dunbar, R. I. M.  2012a.  "On the Evolutionary Function of Song and Dance."  In N. Bannan, ed., Music, Language, and Human Evolution, 201-214.  Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dunbar, R. I. M.  2012b.  "Bridging the Bonding Gap: The Transition from Primates to Humans."  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Science, 367 (1597): 1837-1846. Dunbar, R. I. M., and S. Schultz.  2010.  "Bondedness and Sociality."  Behaviour 147 (7): 775-803. Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2018.  "Four Principles of Biomusicology."  In Henkjan Honing, ed., The Origins of Musicality, 23-48. Gardner, Howard.  2011.  Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.  New York: Basic Books. Honing, Henkjan, ed.  2018.  The Origins of Musicality.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer.  2009.  Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Martens, Marilee A., Sarah J. Wilson, and David C. Reutens.  2008.  "Research Review: Williams Syndrome: A Critical Review of the Cognitive, Behavioral, and Neuroanatomical Phenotype."  The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49 (6): 576-608. Mehr, Samuel A., et al.  2019.  "Universality and Diversity in Human Song." Science 366: 957-970. Miller, Geoffrey F.  2000.  "Evolution of Human Music Through Sexual Selection."  In N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, and S. Brown, eds., The Origins of Music, 329-360.  Cambridge, MA:  MIT Press. Morley, Iain.  2018.  The Prehistory of Music.  Oxford: Oxford University Press. Patel, A. D.  2010.  "Music, Biological Evolution, and the Brain."  In M. Bailar, ed., Emerging Disciplines, 1-37.  Houston, TX: Rice University Press. Patel, A. D.  2018.  "Music as a Transformative Technology of the Mind: An Update."  In Henkjan Honing, ed., The Origins of Musicality, 113-126.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Prum, Richard O.  2012.  "Aesthetic Evolution by Mate Choice: Darwin's Really Dangerous Idea."  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 367: 2253-2265. Prum, Richard O.  2017.  The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin's Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World--and Us.  New York: Doubleday. Sachs, Matthew E., Robert J. Ellis, Gottfried Schlaug, and Psyche Loui.  2016.  "Brain Connectivity Reflects Human Aesthetic Responses to Music."  Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience, 884-891, doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw009. Sacks, Oliver.  2007.  Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain.  New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Thakur, Donovon, Marilee a. Martens, David S. Smith, and Ed Roth.  2018.  "Williams Syndrome and Music: A Systematic Integrative Review."  Frontieres in Psychology 9:2203.  doi: 109.3389/fpsyg.2018. 02203. Savage, Patrick E., Psyche Loui, Bronwyn Tarr, Adena Schachner, Luke Glowacki, Steven Mithen, and W. Tecunseh Fitch.  2021. "Music as a Coevolved System for Social Bonding." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 44, e59: 1-22.  doi:10.1017/S0140525X20000333. Savage, Patrick E., S. Brown, E. Sakai, and T. E. Currie.  2015.  "Statistical Universals Reveal the Structures and Functions of Human Music."  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112 (29), 8987-8992. Swafford, Jan.  2014.  Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

The Lockean Liberalism of King Charles III's New Testament Christian Monarchy

The St. Edward's Crown of the British monarch was made for the coronation of Charles II in 1661, after the previous crown was melted down in 1649, following the execution of Charles I.  It is made of solid gold and set with precious stones.  It is surmounted with the Cross of Jesus.

The coronation of Charles III and his wife, Camilla, as king and queen of the United Kingdom will take place Saturday, May 6, at Westminster Abbey.  It will begin at 11:00 am London time and 6:00 am Eastern time in the U.S.  This will be the 40th royal coronation at Westminster Abbey since that of William the Conqueror in 1066.

That Charles has chosen the name Charles III evokes the unsettled history of the monarchy under Charles I, who was beheaded by English revolutionaries, and Charles II, who restored the monarchy in 1660, after the interregnum (1649-1660), and tried to restore a Filmerian divine right absolute monarchy.  This name might also suggest that King Charles III will correct the mistakes made by Charles I and Charles II by moving away from the absolutist Christian monarchy of the Stuart dynasty to the classical liberal Christian monarchy of the House of Windsor.  That will be made clear by the coronation designed by Charles, which combines traditional symbols of the coronation that go back as far as the Coronation Rite of King Edgar in 973 with the new symbolism of monarchy in a liberal social order.  

The best source of information about the coronation is the official website.  The "Authorised Coronation Liturgy with Commentary" is particularly helpful, and I will be citing that document.  

Ian Bradley has an essay on the religious significance of the coronation.  Bradley is the author of the newly published book God Save the King: The Sacred Nature of Monarchy.

I have written about the evolutionary rise and fall of monarchy by symbolic cultural group selection, and about the silly arguments from Alt-Right theorists like Curtis Yarvin for restoring a Filmerian absolute monarchy as the best regime.  I have also argued that the New Testament teaches Lockean classical liberalism.  Now we will see in this coronation the ritual symbolism of a New Testament Christian monarchy.

The most striking feature of the coronation ceremony is how it manifests the sacred nature of monarchic authority as invested with the sanctity of Biblical religion.  But there's an inherent tension in this appeal to Biblical religion for political authority, because the Old Testament and the New Testament offer contradictory teachings about the divine authority of political rule.  The Old Testament in its account of how God chose the rulers of the people of Israel to enforce obedience to the Mosaic law favors theocracy, in which religious authorities coercively enforce Judaism and punish those outside the Jewish faith.  This has allowed many Christians to invoke the Old Testament as supporting a Christian theocracy, in which Christian kings rule by divine right to coercively enforce the Christian faith and punish heretics, infidels, and atheists.  By contrast, the New Testament suggests a separation of church and state, so that those in the church cannot coercively enforce their faith, and there is no legal establishment of religion.  This has allowed some Christians to invoke the New Testament as supporting religious liberty and toleration, so that churches become voluntary associations that cannot use legal coercion to enforce their faith.

In the debate over the divine right of kings in 17th century England, Christians like Robert Filmer embraced the theocratic tradition of the Old Testament to justify the absolute power of the Stuart monarchs as the "defenders of the faith"--that is, the faith of the Church of England--against those who did not share that faith.  On the other side of the debate, Christians like Roger Williams and John Locke interpreted the New Testament as denying this theocratic denial of religious liberty.  That's what I mean when I say that the New Testament teaches Lockean liberalism.

Now, in the Coronation Liturgy for King Charles III--as designed by Charles himself--we can see a subtle interweaving of Old Testament and New Testament traditions that reconciles the conflicts between them by favoring the Lockean liberalism of the New Testament.

Let's start at the beginning of the planned coronation.  At the head of the coronation procession into Westminster Abbey will be "faith leaders and representatives from the Jewish, Sunni and Shia Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Bahai and Zoroastrian communities" (2).  They will be followed by the procession of ecumenical leaders of the Christian faith, which will include not just the Anglican Church, but also the Greek Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, and other Christian churches in Great Britain.  This has never happened in any previous coronation of the British monarch.

A crucial part of every coronation has been identifying the monarch as the "Defender of the Faith," which means defender of the Church of England as opposed to all other faiths, whether Christian or non-Christian.  In the 16th century, "Defender of the Faith" was the title given by Pope Leo X to King Henry VIII for his defense of Catholicism.  But then when Henry broke with Rome to form his own English Church, he held onto the title with the idea that he would be defending the Anglicanism of the Church of England against Catholics and Christian dissenters.

Charles has had a life-long fascination with all faiths.  And in 1994, he said that as heir to the throne, he saw himself as less "defender of the faith" and more as "defender of faith"--of all the religious faiths.  He said, "People have fought to the death over these things, which seems to me a peculiar waste of people's energy, when we're all actually aiming for the same ultimate goal."  Although Charles' mother--Elizabeth II--was a devout Anglican Christian, she agreed with him about this.  She once said, "The concept of our established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly underappreciated.  Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions.  Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country."  She also said that "gently and assuredly, the Church of England hs created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely" (7).  In a reception at Buckingham Palace days after his mother's funeral, Charles said that his mother was right about this, and that his Anglican faith committed him to "the common good of freedom."  That's what I mean by the Lockean liberalism of his New Testament Christian monarchy.  Actually, Charles has gone beyond Locke in arguing for defending the freedom of Catholics and atheists.

Early in the coronation as planned by Charles, he will be presented with the Bible as the guide for his rule (6).  Then, the Archbishop of Canterbury will administer the Coronation Oath by declaring: "Your Majesty, the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely.  The Coronation Oath has stood for centuries and is enshrined in law" (7).  (Here "beliefs" seem to include atheism.)

Notice that he invokes the Gospel of the New Testament and interprets it as ensuring that "people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely," which departs from the Mosaic theocracy of the Old Testament.

After taking the Oath, Charles will recite a private prayer, which concludes: "Grant that I may be a blessing to all they children, of every faith and conviction, that together we may discover the ways of gentleness and be led into the paths of peace, through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen" (9).  To keep religious peace, Charles will secure freedom for "every faith and conviction."  (Here "conviction"--as distinguished from "faith"--suggests atheism.)

Not long after this, the Prime Minister--Rishi Sunak--will read from the New Testament book of Colossians (11).  This is remarkable because Sunak is Hindu, and yet he can be comfortable reading a New Testament passage.

Later in the coronation, there will be a thanksgiving for the Holy Coronation Oil and then the anointing of Charles with that oil.  Here we can see the Archbishop of Canterbury invoking a subtle combination of Old Testament and New Testament ideas in the anointing of the king with oil: "Blessed art thou, Sovereign God, upholding with thy grace all who are called to thy service.  Thy prophets of old anointed priests and kings to serve in thy name, and in the fullness of time thine only Son was anointed by the Holy Spirit to be the Christ, the Savior and Servant of all.  By the power of the same Spirit, bless and sanctify this oil" (15).

The Archbishop's prayer recalls how the kings of Israel (like Saul and Solomon) were anointed with consecrated olive oil in the Old Testament (1 Kings 1:32, 38-40; 1 Samuel 2:10, 10:1).  But then he immediately reminds us that Jesus in the New Testament was anointed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38).  In Greek, the word Christ means "anointed," and the Hebrew word for this is "Messiah."

As John Locke pointed out in his Letter Concerning Toleration, while the kings of Israel were anointed to rule over an "absolute theocracy," Jesus was anointed to rule over his followers by the persuasiveness of his preaching, and he never attempted to establish a Christian theocracy.  Moreover, the New Testament makes clear that the first Christian churches were voluntary associations that exercised no theocratic rule.  Locke explained:

"The Commonwealth of the Jews, different in that from all others, was an absolute Theocracy; nor was there, or could there be, any difference between that Commonwealth and the Church. . . . But there is absolutely no such thing, under the Gospel, as a Christian Commonwealth.  There are, indeed, many Cities and Kingdoms thaqt have embraced the Faith of Christ; but they have retained their ancient Form of Government; with which the Law of Christ hath not at all meddled.  He, indeed, hath taught men how, by Faith and good Works, they may attain Eternal Life.  But he instituted no Commonwealth.  He prescribed unto his Followers no new and peculiar Form of Government; Nor put he the Sword into any Magistrate's Hand, with Commission to make use of it in forcing men to forsake their former Religion, and receive his" (Hackett edition, 44-45; Liberty Fund edition, 42).

The coronation of Charles will indicate how his kingship will follow the model of Christ's persuasive kingship rather than the theocratic kingship of ancient Israel.  At the beginning of the coronation, Charles will be greeted by a Chapel Royal chorister: "Your Majesty, as children of the Kingdom of God, we welcome you in the name of the King of Kings."  Charles will respond: "In his name, and after his example, I come not to be served but to serve" (3).

Here Charles will echo the words of Jesus when he warned his followers not to strive for authoritative rule over others:  "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you.  Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave--just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:25-28).

It seems that Charles will be intimating here that he is a king who has no coercive authority over his people, particularly in matters of religious belief.  At most, he can only exercise the sort of persuasive authority that comes through Christian preaching, and for that he needs the persuasive symbolism of being anointed with Coronation Holy Oil.  

Rendering that oil holy required a special preparation (15).  It was from olives from groves on the Mount of Olives at the Russian Orthodox Monastery of Mary Magdalene, which is the burial place of Charles' paternal grandmother, Princess Alice of Greece, who was a Greek Orthodox believer.  The Mount of Olives, outside Jerusalem, is a holy place for Jews, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants.  The olives were pressed just outside Bethlehem.  The oil was then perfumed with essential oils--sesame, rose, jasmine, cinnamon, neroli, benzoin, amber, and orange blossom.  The oil was then consecrated by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III, and the Anglican Archbishop in Jerusalem, the Most Reverend Dr. Hosam Naoum.  Thus, this oil has an ecumenical holiness that comes from symbolic links to all the major Biblical religious traditions.

The actual anointing of Charles will be the only part of the coronation that will be hidden from both the audience in Westminster Abbey and the television cameras.  An Anointing Screen, specially designed and woven for this purpose will be arranged around the Coronation Chair.  Behind the screen, the Archbishop of Canterbury will anoint the King's hands, breast, and head (16).  Hiding this from view gives an air of mystery to this most sacred moment of the coronation.

As the King is being anointed, the Choir of Westminister Abbey will sing Georg Frederick Handel's "Zadok the Priest" anthem.  The text of this anthem has always been part of the English Coronation Rite.  But it was made famous when Handel set it to music for the coronation of George II in 1727.  Here's the text, which is based on the anointing of King Solomon in 1 Kings 1:32-35:

"Zadok the priest

"and Nathan the prophet

"anointed Solomon king.

"And all the people rejoiced and said:

"God save the King!

"Long live the King!

"May the King live forever!

"Alleluia!  Amen!"

                                                            Handel's "Zadok the Priest"

I have written about how Handel used his Biblical music (like the Messiah) to refute Deism and defend religious orthodoxy.  Does this anthem serve the same purpose by using the power of his music to support the Biblical teaching about the divine authority of rulers?

The anointing of King Charles is followed by the presentation of the regalia--the Spurs, the Sword, the Bracelets, the Robe Royal, the Stole Royal, the Orb, the Ring, the Glove, the Sceptre, and the Rod--each of which has some distinctive symbolic meaning.

Finally, the King will be crowned with the Crown of St. Edward, and all in the Abbey will shout "God save the King!"  There will be a musical fanfare, a Gun Salute, and the Abbey bells will ring for two minutes (25).

Then, for the first time in the history of coronations, the Blessing of the King will come not just from the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, but also from a Catholic archbishop, a Greek Orthodox archbishop, and from representatives of other Christian churches in Great Britain.  Such an ecumenical affirmation would have been impossible in previous coronations, even as late as the 1953 coronation of Elizabeth (26).

After the King has been enthroned, there will be oaths of allegiance.  The first will be from the "Homage of the Church of England" expressed by the  Archbishop of Canterbury.  The second will be the "Homage of Royal Blood" coming from William, the Prince of Wales: "I, William, Prince of Wales, pledge my loyalty to you and faith and truth I will bear unto you, as your liege man of life and limb.  So help me God."  This will be the most painful moment for Prince Harry--a reminder that he is far down the line of succession, and that William is most likely to be the next King.

Remarkably, this will be followed by "The Homage of the People," which is another novel move that has never been done in a coronation:

"Archbishop of Canterbury:

"I call upon all persons of goodwill of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the other Realms and the Territories to make their homage, in heart and voice, to their undoubted King, defender of all."

"All who so desire, in the Abbey, and elsewhere, say together:

"All:

"I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors acording to law.  So help me God.

"A fanfare is played (28)."

In all previous coronations, the Homage has been pledged by the hereditary peerage in order of degree.  But now the Homage of Peers has been replaced by the Homage of the People.  Notice that this is voluntary--"all who so desire."  So, here the King explicitly recognizes that whatever persuasive authority he has over the people must come from their voluntary consent.  And to win that consent, he must convince them that he really is God's Anointed One.

Next, the King's wife--Camilla--will be crowned as the Queen Consort, and she will be anointed by the Archbishop, but without a screen, suggesting that the anointing of a consort is not as sacred as the anointing of the King (29).

Following this, there will be other ceremonies, songs, and prayers.  

After the singing of the national anthem ("God Save the King"), the King will march in procession out of the Abbey.  At the end of the procession, he will be greeted by representatives of five non-Christian faith communities:  Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, and Buddhist.  They will deliver their greeting in unison: "Your Majesty, as neighbors in faith, we acknowledge the value of public service.  We unite with people of all faiths and beliefs in thanksgiving, and in service with you for the common good" (41).

As with so much else in this coronation, this has never been done in any previous coronation.  This ending matches the beginning with the procession of faith leaders and representatives of faith communities (2).

Finally, the King goes to the Gold State Coach, which will take him back to Buckingham Palace.

                                                                  The Gold State Coach

Will it work?  

When the people are asked for their homage, will millions of people across Great Britain and the Commonwealth swear their allegiance "in heart and voice" to the King?  Will they willingly accept a monarchy that claims only a persuasive authority and not a coercive theocratic authority, and therefore a monarchy that poses no threat to the personal, political, or religious liberty of the people?  Or will they laugh or smirk as they think about how foolish Charles is to think all this religious mumbo-jumbo will persuade them that Charles is their divinely anointed King?

Great Britain is one of the most secularized societies in the world.  Some surveys report that most people identify themselves as having no religious belief.  Only a small minority of the people participate at least once a week in some kind of religious worship service.  So, we have to wonder whether the King truly believes that his appeal to the sacred character of the British monarchy will work.

Is Donald Trump God's Chosen One--Like Cyrus?

Donald Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Holding Up Stephen Strang's Book God and Donald Trump

Lance Wallnau Hears from God in May of 2016 that the 45th Chapter of Isaiah Identifies Trump as the 45h President, God's New Cyrus

If America is a Christian nation chosen by God, and if God providentially enters history to carry out his purposes, is it possible that the miracle of Donald Trump's election in 2016 was an act of God to save America from its decline into secularism?  Many American evangelicals say yes, and they point to the evangelical prophecies of Trump's victory, when almost no one thought he could win.

Although most of us might be skeptical of this, it is true that almost a third of the votes cast for Trump came from evangelical Christians, most of them in the states that were crucial for Trump's electoral college victory.  If many of these evangelical Trump voters were motivated by their belief that Trump really was God's chosen one, then it would seem that this was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We now have the story of how this prophetic vision of God's providential intervention changed American history in the new book by Stephen Strang--God and Donald Trump--which has been endorsed by evangelical politicians such as Mike Huckebee and Michelle Bachmann.  In the picture above, you can see Trump proudly waving his copy of the book at the World Economic Forum in Davos.  Strang is a leading Pentecostal evangelical who publishes Charisma magazine, and part of his story is how the Pentecostals were the first Christians to support Trump.  As early as 2003, Paula White Cain, a Pentecostal television minister, became Trump's spiritual advisor after he had seen her TV show.

Here is a video of Cain and other charismatic ministers laying hands on and praying for Trump in his Trump Tower office on September 30, 2015, six months before the first presidential primaries:

This appeals to the grandiose narcissism of Trump's chimpanzee personality, which has been a topic of my post here.

Christians like Strang who believe that Trump's election came from a miraculous intervention by God must make at least two kinds of arguments--an interpretation of the American founding and an interpretation of the Bible.

First, they must argue that the American founders established America as a Christian nation specially chosen by God to be under his providential care.  So, Strang refers to "Benjamin Franklin's surprising declaration during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when he said famously, 'God governs in the affairs of men'" (xiv).  And Strang says that the purpose of his book in telling the story of God's intervention in the election of 2016 is to confirm this idea "that God is involved in the affairs of men" (184).

Remarkably, however, Strang is silent about the circumstances of Franklin's declaration at the Constitutional Convention.  Franklin was proposing that the Convention should have daily prayers and Bible reading so that God would providentially intervene to help them write the Constitution.  The members of the Convention refused to even allow a vote on his proposal, and Alexander Hamilton quipped that they "had no need for foreign aid"!  I have written about this previously here.

Christians like Strang must also argue that identifying Trump as God's chosen one is consistent with the Bible.  Is there any evidence in the Bible that God would choose someone like Trump--who is not a Christian--to act as the savior of God's people?  Well, yes, as Lance Wallnau explains in the video above, God could chose Trump just as God chose the pagan Persian Cyrus as his "anointed one" or "messiah" to liberate the people of Israel from their Babylonian captivity.  In fact, God spoke to Wallnau and noted the connection between the 45th chapter of Isaiah and Trump becoming the 45th president of the United States.  In that chapter of Isaiah, God speaks to Cyrus as his "anointed one," although "you do not know me."  Although Cyrus does not worship Yahweh--he worships other gods--Yahweh can use him for his purposes.  Likewise, then, God could use Trump to bring America back to God even if Trump himself is not a believer.  And that is what many evangelicals decided: Trump's sinful character and lack of any clear belief in Christianity need not weaken his claim to be chosen by God to carry out God's plan for saving America from Hillary Clinton!

There is a problem here, however, that Strang briefly mentions and then passes over without resolving it (75-76).  As the evangelical Tom Horn has pointed out, God used the pagan leader Nebuchadnezzar as "the servant of the Most High God" to punish Judah by taking them into the very Babylonian captivity from which Cyrus would later liberate them (Jeremiah 25).  So if God is using Trump, we can't be sure whether Trump is to be America's savior (like Cyrus) or America's punishment (like Nebuchadnezzar).  And indeed many Christians who refused to vote for Trump worry that the Christians supporting Trump are showing a shameless lack of moral authority.  Is God punishing these Christians for their hypocrisy?

There is another problem for the Christian here: if Cyrus was the "messiah," does that deny the claim of Jesus that he was the fulfillment of these prophecies in Isaiah?  As I have indicated in a previous post, that's a problem for Handel's Messiah, which was an attempt to refute the deistic denial of providential prophecy.

And, of course, there is the fundamental problem with all claims of prophecy that they are stated in such vague and confused ways that they cannot be verified, or if some seem to be verified, they are mixed up with others that are falsified.

Consider, for example, this claim by Strang: "As far back as 2007, the late Kim Clement had prophesized, 'Trump shall become a trumpet. . . . I  will raise up the Trump to become a trumpet, and Bill Gates to open up the gate of a financial stream for the church.' The first has come true, but we'll have to wait and see about the second part" (69).

The first prophecy is ridiculously vague: "Trump shall become a trumpet"?  The second prophecy that Bill Gates will give his money to the church is false.

If you go to Kim Clement's Elijah's List for April 14, 2007, which is Strang's source, you will see that Clement issued hundreds of prophecies every year, most of them in vague language, and most of them have not been plausibly fulfilled.  Here is the passage from which Strang quoted an excerpt:

"I am God and you have called to Me, and many from this Nation has said, 'Enough--enough of religion, and enough of dead speech.'  The Spirit of God said, 'This is a moment of resurrection.'  For the Spirit of God says, 'Honor Me with your praise and acceptance of this that  I say to you.  This that shall take place shall be the most unusual thing, a transfiguration, a going into the marketplace if you wish, and into the news media.  Where Time magazine will have no choice but to say what I want them to say; Newsweek what I want to say; and The View, what I want to say.'"

"'Trump shall become a trumpet,' says  the Lord!  'I will raise up Trump to become a trumpet, and Bill Gates to open up the gate of a financial realm for the Church,' says the Spirit of the Living God!'"

It's been 11 years now since the Spirit of God prophesized that Time, Newsweek, and ABC's The View would become outlets for God's message.  How long should we wait for the fulfillment of this  prophecy?  Strang is carefully silent about this and many other dubious prophecies from Clement.

Many of us find it hard to take this stuff seriously.  But many evangelical Christians do take it seriously.  For example, Strang reports that during the 2016 election, Cindy Jacobs, a Charismatic prophet, mobilized tens of thousands of people to "prayer walk" through the seven critical states that helped to elect Trump (20-21).  These "prayer warriors" walked around courthouses and centers of towns praying for God's intervention in the election.  We cannot ignore the fact that many of the millions of evangelical Christians who voted for Trump could have done so with the belief that he was God's chosen one; and if so, that would mean that this belief in divine intervention could have been the deciding factor in giving the presidential election to Trump.

As an alternative to the view of God as a providential interventionist in the world, which creates these problems, we might consider returning to the deism of the American founders, whose deity was not the God of the Bible but Nature's God.  That's the topic for my next post.