King Charles' big botch up in his refusal to wish Christians a Happy Resurrection Sunday this year and what it means for the doctrine of Apostolic Succession

        Recently, something happened that stirred up quite a buzz not just in the UK but also among netizens and that news was being circulated in Youtube videos, both shorts and long ones alike. It was the fact that King Charles-III of the UK failed to wish Christians across the Commonwealth a Happy Easter or as I would like to wish people in my life a "Happy Resurrection Sunday", as was his routine given his duties as not just the King of England but also the head of the Angelican church of England. Many Christians including myself were not just beside ourselves when we saw what was happening but it was insightful nonetheless of the changing values not just in the British Royal family but also in the UK at large. Yes, there are still Christians in England who love Jesus Christ with all their hearts and thankfully so but Islam is also making inroads into British life and politics because of unchecked immigration under leftist politicians like Keith Starmer or the mayor of London Sadiq Khan which has become a cause for concern among Christians about what is happening to land of Richard the Lion Hearted who participated in the Crusades against Saladin and the Saracens who are now resorting to immigration (Hijrah) to the West to take over the same for Islam and leftist politics to turn their worldview into something which is above criticism in the West and around the world.

 

        King Charles-III's romance with Islam, however old it might have been in his life has no bearing whatsoever on his need to step down from his position as the king as many British Christians have voiced themselves indubitably and unequivocally. A bishop well known to the king holding a high position in the Angelican church himself admitted that he had written a letter by hand addressed to King Charles himself on the matter and why it is of importance that the King does not falter from his role as not just the King of England and by that reasoning, not just the heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth which also makes him the head of the Church of England aside from his personal values and beliefs as a Christian. However, King Charles never wished Christians on 2026 a Happy Resurrection Sunday even as he wished Muslims a Happy Ramadan during the Ramadan season which further fuelled suspicions that King Charles would be a closet Muslim. Some people closer to the King also admitted that they heard from very high sources that this might very well be the case in which case I would concur with King Charles' critics that he should indeed step down as the King of England because the monarch's position in England is not merely that of rulership of his people but also as the head of the church of England since the inception of the church of England when it separated from the church of Rome under King Henry VIII and the very thought that the head of the church of England, i.e. king Charles-III is a Muslim is appallingly preposterous and utterly cringeworthy given the world of difference in beliefs between Christianity and Islam as 2 mutually incompatible belief systems whose core theological beliefs on the life of Jesus Christ and their starkly opposing implications are evidently and irreconcilably at loggerheads. From the Christian worldview, it is like making Muhammad the central figure in Christianity instead of Jesus or worse - akin to allowing Satan to sit on God's throne in heaven (God forbid!). Yes, Charles is entitled to his beliefs as an individual and hence can be a Muslim but not while retaining his title as the King of England as Angelicans themselves have voiced their views clearly on the matter. My focus in this write-up however, is to address a deeper theological issue at work here using this news that made the headlines.

i) Apostolic succession - the fine doctrinal thread linking the Church of England (Angelican Confession) to the Roman Catholic Church as well as Orthodox Churches and other Old World churches:

      If we go back in time to see the earliest Protestant split after the Great Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, we see the Angelican split from the Roman Catholic church. King Henry VIII wanted to split from the Roman Catholic church when the latter refused to grant Henry VIII divorce from Catherine of Aragon by pope Clement VII. Henry wanted a male heir to the throne and Catherine of Spain did not give him a son whence his desire to divorce her and marry another lady of his choosing who could bear him a son. While this is what led to the split of the Angelican church from the Church of Rome, the split turned King Henry and in turn his successors on the British throne as the highest authorities in the Angelican church of England instead of the pope who is the head of the Roman catholic church. Hence, the doctrine of Apostolic Succession followed in the church of Rome got carried over not just to the Church of England but also to the Orthodox Church in the Great Schism before it.

     Consequently, a few branches of Protestantism like certain Lutheran churches like the ones in Sweden hold to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. So, what is Apostolic Succession?, it is the doctrine whereby people of these churches believe that Jesus instituted the need for a direct human chain of bishops or supreme human church authorities like the pope for instance to carry forward the doctrines taught by Jesus to his apostles as well as turning these men into the highest spiritual authorities on Earth after Jesus' resurrection whose spiritual rulings ought not to be questioned by the followers of these church denominations. Many Protestant churches including the one that I belong to - the Pentecostal church hold to the belief that the authority is spiritual rather than human as in a human chain of bishops and this was passed by Jesus to His bride - the church aka the body of believers who believe in Jesus Christ and have yielded their hearts to Him as their Lord and Personal Saviour rather than to a literal line of human bishops whose words hold the same value as those of Jesus Christ. This is because we know from experience that men are fallible and are likely to make mistakes in contravention of God's eternal rulings in the Bible as we will see further below of which Charles is an example but also some popes of old in the Church of Rome. 

ii) What then are the implications of banking on Apostolic Succession as a supplementary doctrinal source besides the Bible:

     In John 1:1, we read that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and that the Word was God and that the Word became flesh and dwelt among men in reference to Jesus Christ who is God, the Word of God that took on flesh and tasted what it means to be human for our sakes while overcoming temptations and hardships successfully and eventually died on the cross as a propitiation for our sins to reconcile us to God the Father. Jesus is therefore the ultimate example for Christians around the world for all time to follow and imitate. Yet, most Christians fail to see a crucial point in Jesus' life which is how He systematically had the scripture in His fingertips not just because He wrote them using the prophets but also because He is the Word of God in the flesh and true to this Jesus always quoted scripture both to His apostles like the time when they were on the road to Emmaus after Jesus' resurrection but also to Satan when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness. This further reinforces the idea that Jesus always used scripture alone while talking to his opponents, his disciples as well as to the devil when he was tempted of him in the wilderness. This is an example for all Christians across the world and for all time to follow and imitate.

         Do we see anywhere in scripture where Jesus mentions "traditions" as being equal in weight to the "scripture"?, No!!!. In fact, Jesus criticises the Pharisees and Sadducees for making the Word of God (God-inspired scriptures) of none effect with their traditions in Mark 7:13. Therefore, if church doctrine rests on anything other than God-breathed scripture which alone is spiritual, this implies that men's teachings birthed from their own minds and thoughts can make their way into what is being fed to God's bride the church from the pulpits of churches which sets a bad precedent because God's infallible Word given in Scripture is above men's ways and thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9) and thoughts birthed in people's minds are of the flesh and the doctrines thereof are the ways of the flesh that tend to death (Romans 8:9) in direct opposition to God' breathed Scripture (Bible). With Jesus who is our ultimate example quoting scripture after scripture to everyone He speaks to in the 4 canonical Gospels and even going to the extent of calling some of his own disciples "fools" for being slow of heart to believe in prophecies that are already mentioned in Scripture regarding Jesus' crucifixion and death on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:25-27. Basically, in Jesus' eyes, anyone who banks on anything other than God-breathed scripture (Bible) and gives equal weightage to man-made ideas and traditions in addition to Scripture, is erring foolishly from the truth because Jesus being the Word that became the flesh and dwelt among men points to the Scripture as the truth when He said of Himself "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" because one of Jesus' titles is "The Word". Therefore, Jesus is the true cornerstone on which the church is built again highlighting the importance of the Scripture alone as is defined by Jesus' title "The Word", not "Peter" who was rebuked by Jesus just a few passages below the same chapter when he tells Jesus not to go to Jerusalem to be crucified when Jesus responds to Peter "Get Thee behind me Satan".

iii) The error of banking on Apostolic Succession in the light of Charles-III's example as well as those of popes in the RC church before the Angelican split from the RC church:

    Given we were to assume the scriptural accuracy of Apostolic Succession as a doctrine, the implications of that would be far-reaching and wider and beyond anything that anyone in Christendom who supports the doctrine of Apostolic Succession can ever fathom because this would then require a long lineage of bishops in church are all fallible men as in the case of the popes in Roman Catholicism who were not sinless but also sinned like all humans in the flesh. Many popes even brought in doctrines that were contrary to scripture, we need not look any further than pope Francis who approved of gay marriages contrary to Scripture and at one point even agreed with evolution and mentioned in one of his speeches famously that Christians ought to accept and believe in Evolution which contradicts Scripture because nowhere in the Bible do we read that men evolved from monkeys or birds evolved from dinosaurs. Moving onto the church of England with Charles-III's refusal to wish Christians in the Commonwealth and around the world a Happy Easter in 2026 but did not hesitate to wish Muslims on Ramdan a Happy Ramadan, especially in the light of the talks of him being a closet Muslim - an indelible fact in the view of some people which finds its origins from among the highest tiers of those in touch with British royalty which again is rendered all the more inexcusable given the dual role of the British monarch in being the head of the Angelican Church of England as well as the political ruler in the UK, albeit a figurehead in the rulership role. Imagine the Head of the Angelican Church of England being a Muslim!!!, this is what it would imply if Charles-III were indeed, as the reports suggest, a closet Muslim, it would open a pandora's box and would be such a flagrant scandal of epic proportions whose implications would go beyond the confines of the Angelican church of England - this is exactly what would be the implications in the above scenarios, if Matthew 16 were to be interpreted word-for-word which birthed the doctrine of Apostolic Succession!!!.

iv) The answer to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession -  the Chief Cornerstone Jesus Christ:

   Jesus never left any stone unturned to set an example to his disciples and apostles but also to all his followers when it came to what lengths he went to use scripture in all his teachings. John 1:1 says of Jesus that He is the Word that became flesh and dwelt among men, so Jesus is both the rock on which the church is built as He pointed out clearly in Matthew 21:42 and the head of the church (Colossians 1:18/Ephesians 5:23). The doctrine of Apostolic Succession, on the other hand, unnecessarily requires the need for a lineage of bishops who take on the dual role of political ruler and head of the church which is based on human misinterpretation of Scripture by the RC church and the other churches that came off of the church of Rome. Jesus alone is the head of the church who is Jesus' bride, to ascribe that title to any other fallible man on Earth is akin to the bride of Christ - the church accepting another man as her husband while being wed to Christ, or even acting in obedience to the words of the other man over and above those of her husband which is not just immoral and adulterous but also outright blasphemous when viewed from the angle of Christ being the head of His bride- the church. Therefore, we need to have our eyes fastened on Jesus who is the author and finisher of our faith in order not to be deceived and led astray as mentioned in Hebrews 12:2. Amen, Yeshua Ha'mashiach the chief cornerstone, in Hebrew Eh-ven (אֶבֶן) which is also used to refer to the foundation or chief cornerstone of a building akin to its other equivalent Rosh Pinah (רֹאשׁ פִּנָּה). This is also consistent with a couple of God's titles in the Old Testament like Ebenezer (Ehven Ezer (אֶבֶן הָעָזֶר) - Stone of Help) and Yahweh Tsuri (יהוה צורי) meaning "God my Rock". This is consistent with Old Testament passages like Psalm 18:31 (For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?) where the Hebrew word for "Rock" implying a source of constant strength, stability, provision, protection, preservation and comfort is the word "Tsur (צ֝֗וּר)", the same word from which God's title of Yahweh Tsuri (God my Rock) comes, further reinforcing the fact that Jesus who is the Ehven/Rosh Pinah (chief cornerstone) of the New Testament is the same as Ehven-Ezer  and Yahweh Tsuri of the Old Testament. To be grounded in the Bible and to build solely thereupon, is to build upon the firm foundation of Christ who is the Eternal Word and to build on Jesus is to build on an unshakable and immovable firm foundation whereas any other foundation is likely to crumble when the wind beats thereupon and the Earth shakes the building built on such an unstable foundation.