Many people have been vociferously asking what’s all the fuss about. So, two people are getting married. So what?
I could understand this in some ways for people from the rest of the world but it has been coming from people within the UK as well. Some shoot back the answer, “One day he’ll be king. He’s a big deal.”
The response then comes, “He was born into a privileged position which he didn’t earn and is largely irrelevant and now he’s getting married. So what? What does that have to do with me. He’s irrelevant.”
I might respond that one day he’ll be king, so when he marries, he’s not just gaining himself a wife but he’s giving us a queen – and by the looks of things, a very good one.
Yet the question remains… so what?
I think that famed atheist and anti-royalist Christopher Hitchens does the greatest job of asking ‘So What?’ and yet, at the same time, his atheistic beliefs betray him and give us the answer.
I’m not going to suggest for one moment that you have to be atheist to be anti-royalist or that you have to be anti-royalist if you are an atheist, however, I believe that atheism and anti-royalistic ideals can go hand in hand because of their foundation.
An atheist believes that there is no God. There is no higher power or authority, there is no greater reason for our existence, there is no creator, no sustainer… in short there is nothing than that which we see in front of us.
To an atheist, the idea of bowing to some supernatural being, of having any form of moralistic center, any form of universal law is absurd.
We are everything there is, according to the atheist. What we see and do is everything. One day we die and then it’s all over for us.
To have some form of government to keep peace and order during our lives is probably sensible, they would say, but that government should be elected by us, the people and should therefore make laws depending on what the prevailing public belief is at the time.
If we are all there is, then our collective beliefs about right and wrong are correct… because there is no-one outside of us to say that they are wrong.
The idea of having a monarchy, and a hereditary monarchy at that is ridiculous to the atheist. Why, after all, should any one family get to decide what’s right and wrong for me and you? if we are all there is, then none of us are greater than any others.
Sure, if someone takes control by use of force, they can rule, because the guy with the biggest stick gets to make the rules but why a family who have done no conquering in hundreds of years should continue to rule is beyond the atheist’s understanding. Especially when that family actually no longer has power, they are just there as expensive, pampered, out-of-touch figure heads.
But There is a God
I actually agree with Christopher Hitchens about the monarchy… at least I would if his foundational principle and belief were correct.
The idea of a monarchy would be completely absurd, if there was no god… but there is!
The very existence of God changes every aspect of the foundation of Hitchens’ beliefs about the monarchy.
God is real. God is in control. God is sovereign, absolute and all-powerful. We use words to describe him like omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
We live in a world where there is a higher power, where there is a moral absolute, where there is an unchanging, unwavering ruler, controller and sustainer.
Wherever you are in the world, wherever you live, you live under a Monarchy. The ultimate Monarchy.
As the Psalmist says, “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it, the world and all who live in it.” (Psalm 24:1)
A Reflection of God’s Authority
The British Monarchy is, therefore a reflection of that ultimate reality.
Just as God rules the whole world without being voted in and sets laws regardless of human opinion, so an earthly monarchy is hereditary and makes rules and laws without any approval or input from the people.
OK, so Britain’s monarchy is currently impotent as almost all of its power has been taken by the government but it still stands as an image, an example of God’s Kingship and authority.
Her majesty Queen Elizabeth II upset some members of the public after the death of Princess Diana in 1997 because she refused to change time-honored rules and protocol to allow a flag to be flown at half-mast above Buckingham palace in honor of the late Princess.
If I remember correctly, in an attempt to placate the people, she eventually allowed something to be done but I applaud her for unwillingness to change the rules.
In this day and age, people have largely rejected the idea of absolute morality and instead want laws and regulations to change depending on the current consensus.
It is my belief that the Queen recognizes that morality is an absolute concept and has not changed since before the beginning of time – and never will.
What God says is right does not change depending on what the majority of people think, it is fixed and unwavering.
The Queen demonstrates those absolutes when she refuses to allow rules, regulations and protocols to change and shift with the wind and with popular opinion. She takes seriously her role as an example to us of God’s unwavering character.
But What About The Wedding?
Given the context of what the royal family represents, I think the wedding has very real significance – and I’m going to use this post as a foundation for an explanation of that significance later in the week.
What do you think? Is the Monarchy a reflection of the supremacy of God?