Posted on 10/30/2006 9:29:28 AM PST by presidio9
A Christian group is calling on Prince Charles to take the title 'Defender of the Faith' when he is crowned king.
The Evangelical Alliance, which represents Christians across the UK, will make the submission in its Faith and Nation report due to be launched tomorrow.
The Prince has previously said he would like to be sworn as the 'Defender of Faith', taking into account the numerous religious groups represented in Great Britain.
Charles will become Supreme Governor of the Church of England when he is crowned king.
But the Evangelical Alliance, which represents over one million evangelical Christians in the UK, is calling for him to swear the traditional corontaion oath to be 'Defender of the Faith' - specifically the Anglican Church.
The call is among 100 recommendations to be made, ranging from religious liberty and the environment to constiutional affairs.
Evangelical Alliance public policy director Dr David Muir said: "The report offers Christians, people of other faiths and those of no faith resources for engagement, discussion and action on a wide range of contempory issues.
"We hope the report will help people understand the continued importance of the Christian faith in 21st century Britian."
The Prince's remarks on his coronation oath have sparked controversy in the past.
Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey welcomed the proposed change, saying it would more adequately reflect the wide range of religions in the UK.
He said in June: "When the time comes for the next coronation there's got to be a number of changes. Very significant changes. The Queen came to the throne at a time when the Church of England was really the only Christian faith in the country.
"And there were no Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus around to be in any way evident in the life of the country. Now it's a completely different world, so the coronation oath would have to be looked at more critically.
"It's got to be a much more interfaith coronation service next time around. Prince Charles put his finger on it and there's no way in which the sovereign can be defender of one faith. Although I hope that the next coronation will say very firmly that Christianity is still the dominant faith of the United Kingdom... it's got to be a much more inclusive character."
But Dr Rowan Williams, current Archbishop of Canterbury, has warned in the past the Charles should retain the original title.
Speaking in 2003 he said: "Unless something really radical happens with the constitution, he is, like it or not, Defender of the Faith and he has a relationship with the Christian Church of a kind which he does not have with other faith communities."
It's a Brazilian project to protect rain forests.
It's called 'Prince Charles: Saviour of the world'.
There's supposed to be a lifesize one in Brazil.
It's real weird looking. I'm looking for a better pic.
What an idiot! (Charles, not you.)
The Queen is eighty, her son is fifty-seven. Even if she lives to be 100, he would still be "young enough" to become king at seventy-seven. An age restriction has never been put into force in the past.
She was Lady Diana Spencer.
Camilla does look like both of them. rofl. I really hope Charles never makes king. Theres nothing I like about him. I think he is a wackadoddle. The sons seem like nice guys.
Weird? I should say so! There's something "luciferian" about it.
You are quite wrong about the Anglican Church! It is an Orthodox Christian Church that believes in the Divinity of Christ and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
The Anglican Church in America will soon replace the ultra-Leftist, heretical Episcopal Church as the Anglican Communion's American entity.
It was most certainly not an hereditary title but Elizabeth I acted as though it were while maintaining her major hobby of causing Roman Catholics to be hanged, drawn and quartered before being disemboweled for saying Mass in Great Britain. Just another case of grand theft ecclesiastical.
Excuse me, but I myself am quite thankful for one particular dalliance between William the Conqueror's father and mother.
Egads, are you serious? I thought it was some sort of satanic winged creature.
I am a member of APCK, an Orthodox Anglican Church in America. I understand that the ACA is another Orthodox Anglican Church in America. Ours are not the only two Orthodox Anglican Churches in America.
I was referring to the Church of England, not to any of the Continuing Churches in America. I should note that there is a remnant FIF (Forward in Faith) movement in the CoE, which is also very Orthodox and Anglican. I do not think the doctrine of this small group is representative of the general doctrinal position of the CoE however, which is the state of affairs to which I was referring.
Sorry for the confusion.
Why? Because you think we have inherited a better system than we would have had if there had been no Norman Conquest of England, or because you can trace your lineage to William the Conqueror?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.