Not to Be Served , but to Serve.

It was very encouraging to hear him promise to serve. So many in power believe the public are their servants, rather than the other way round!

Yes, it was good of him to say so. But this did really have to do with religion or spirituality, as such.

“Even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

— Mark, Chapter 10 v.45

That's what it has to do with religion/spirituality.

A worthy aim, and he does seem genuine about it. However, despite being the Monarch he still has to operate within the constraints of all the historical hierarchical and quite rigid machinery which surrounds him, underpinned by the sense of both privilege and entitlement which has supported the hereditary aristocracy for centuries, and continues to support them, At my age, I'm unlikely to see any significant change there, but perhaps my Grandchildren may see a move towards a more Republican model. I do hope so.

Septimia

“Even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

— Mark, Chapter 10 v.45

That's what it has to do with religion/spirituality.

Thanks, both cases are quite different though. I am quite sure the King did not say it in a 'religious' manner- but about the Country and the people.

Perhaps it’s the beginning of the return to the old ways, when we were taught ‘it’s not all about you’. When we introduced the other person first rather than the other way round! When can only hope.

We can only hope, sorry.

Fleurpepper
Our king is a deeply religious man. It was a personal and spiritual statement by him to us.

I've never understood how deeply religious people can pick and choose which bits of the religion suit them and ignore any that don't.
So a couple of examples - an inability to keep the vows he made when he got married the first time
and then the statement about wealth "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Wouldn't a seriously religious man have problems with his wealth?
As for the statement wasn't it suggested that we should all make a pledge to him? And wasn't the word allegiance included which means others would be below him. so he is being served.
In other words it's a load of tosh!

People of all walks of life pick and choose which bits of law, religion, behaviour etc. they want to do and which they want to ignore.
Many people, including some of my relations, make marriage promises which they later go back on. I might wish their marriages had lasted, but I don’t condemn them for that.
There was an invitation to pledge allegiance. No Compulsion.

“I’ve heard it said that harboring bitterness is like drinking poison and hoping the other person dies. The more I feed bitterness in my heart, the more it brings death to me.”

Load of tosh for me too

Plus, how much does it cost the country so he can serve ?

The word "serve" is interesting, if a bit ambiguous to whom it refers.
The Coronation Liturgy was, and always has been, actually focused on the theme of loving service to others, (not to God). which is central to Christian teaching. How far others extends is a bit of a mystery. I'm thinking just the King's own countries, not the whole of mankind.

In the words of "I Was Glad", Psalm 122, I am pleased you say it was all a load of tosh Glorianny. That justifiably allows us to call your attempts to defend M & H's lives of service "a load of tosh" too.

I enjoyed it all, it was very moving in parts and a bit tedious I have to say in other parts. As for only adhering to some parts of the religious requirements well he is human like the rest of us bound to fail at some things but the important thing is to recognise our mistakes, apologise and try to make amends where you can. I believe the King has done that and will continue to do so.

Bizziebe

In the words of "I Was Glad", Psalm 122, I am pleased you say it was all a load of tosh Glorianny. That justifiably allows us to call your attempts to defend M & H's lives of service "a load of tosh" too.

Don't think I have ever "defended M&H's lives of service" simply said that they should be free to do as they wish and they do a lot of charity work.
Being "in service" was what happened to both my grandmothers at age 13, and I'm pretty sure neither Charles nor M&H would have a clue about that.

MerylStreep

Fleurpepper
Our king is a deeply religious man. It was a personal and spiritual statement by him to us.

Is he, honestly, really? Evidence please.

I can’t prove it but I have the sense he is deeply religious,too. Not necessarily Anglican,though but with strong Christian leanings

I suggest you do a little reading Fleurpepper. You will discover for yourself that the king, like his mother, is deeply religious, rather than expecting others to provide evidence for you.

I think you have to look at this entirely on an individual level. If one's beliefs are “evident" to one's own sense experiences, then that is proof. Evidence may include the beliefs directly related to one's personal memory and introspection.

I guess the issue is, that to others these beliefs don't count as knowledge or scientific evidence. Enlightenment and all the rest.

How can you measure one person's faith and commitment against another's?

Glad to discuss this without too much mockery or insult. (Sorry Glorianny, maybe I confused you with someone else!)

Glorianny

Bizziebe

In the words of "I Was Glad", Psalm 122, I am pleased you say it was all a load of tosh Glorianny. That justifiably allows us to call your attempts to defend M & H's lives of service "a load of tosh" too.

Don't think I have ever "defended M&H's lives of service" simply said that they should be free to do as they wish and they do a lot of charity work.
Being "in service" was what happened to both my grandmothers at age 13, and I'm pretty sure neither Charles nor M&H would have a clue about that.

Just like your grandmothers, he has had no choice in the matter.

I understand that the Christian concept which is widely promoted and accepted now is the one of forgiveness of sins. So it may be that someone enters a marriage honestly and openly but it doesn't work out. And I can accept that in that case a person might want to remarry. But I don't understand how a religious person having seen those vows are unkeepable can then make a second lot. How far is god prepared to let this happen? for a second or even a third or fourth time?
It used to be that religious people stuck to certain rules (and of course there were those who only pretended to do so) but now it seems you can be religious and just adapt the rules when they don't suit you, and I wonder just how far someone could take that.
So I don't think it is a question of examining one person's faith against another's. It's asking is religion anything to do with rules and standards or just purely a question of belief? And if it is the latter can dreadful things be done by the religious and forgiven?

Has Charles ever said his marriage vows were not keepable ?
Diana made the same vows and broke them

Nobody , including King Charles himself, thinks the King is Jesus Christ. What we are all called to do is imitate JC as much as we can. I support King Charles in his efforts to do so.

The personal wealth of the monarch is a different issue. The land itself must be in public not private ownership, and this principle of public ownership is consistent with a monarch who is a sincere Christian. The king is by no means the only private owner of far too much land!

I enjoyed the events on Saturday enormously and found it to be very uplifting, but I do struggle with the sheer wealth of the monarchy and the Christian ideals. I really struggle with this. I’m not concerned about the divorce, I’m not aware that Jesus said anything about divorce, but he did about wealth.