A Man For All Seasons

A Man For All Seasons is a movie that very much fits what Kingdom Citizenship is all about; as a glove fits the hand. This movie is hardly a documentary portraying exact historical facts. It represents figures in this historical story with a very broad brush. The real genius of this cinemagraphic presentation is that it succeeds in depicting all that’s wrong with “church-state relations” with the pinpoint accuracy of a sword finding a fatal blow between the chinks in a suit of armor.

This movie is a classic from 1966. It won 6-Academy Awards and features an All-Star cast. The sets, costuming, and scripting are excellent! The music is a bit dreary, but is a minor detractor. The story deals with the political situation of King Henry the VIII putting Queen Catherine away [over her alleged bareness] and the extreme measures taken to “legitimize” taking Anne Boleyn as a new wife to provide the king with an heir. The extreme measures have to do with the crown of England’s relationship with Rome concerning the divorce and what happened in order to allow it.

Cast:
Paul Scoffied as Sir Thomas More
Leo McKern as Cromwell
Robert Shaw as Henry VIII
Orson Wells as Cardinal Wolsey
Susan York as Margaret More (daughter)
John Hurt as Richard Rich
Wendy Hiller as Alice More (wife)
Vanessa Redgrave as Anne Boleyn

The movie accurately depicts the church [Rome’s brand] as the watchdog over society, lording over the culture to maintain its own importance and place, ostensibly in the role of maintaining religious orthodoxy. In this important position “over” society,* the church created a whole list of observances, protocols and traditions that form the basis of what is sacred; which is the church’s active means of maintaining control. Divine Succession, the church’s oversight into the state’s political affairs, the creating of dispensations (reinterpretations of policy, scripture or traditions) for political expedience all were part of the mechanisms the church used to put controls on the state.

*Note: Dr. Greg Boyd, in his recent landmark work The Myth of a Christian Nation, makes this same observation of “power over” which is the world’s tactic; compared to Jesus’ “power under” approach. The difference is manipulation over and against love and freedom. Additionally, the difference is between belonging to a realm that is supposed to reflect whom we are over and against belonging to another realm which we represent in the earthly realms we live. We are no more or no less significant by what the world does, when it does not reflect our views or ideals. Whenever the church seeks to maintain its significance within the realms of earthly power, to do so it must revert to the means by which the worldly powers seek to maintain their own power. Jesus never did this and so the church who does use earthly means to maintain itself within earthly structures, finds itself being opposite of Christ.

The movie dialog is contrived but the writer [Robert Bolt] obviously sees the essence of what really goes on between “church” and state. He weaves a tight story depicting the duplicity of the characters that represent true to life realities in both the state politic and sadly those who claim to be of the church. Wolsey, a Cardinal and Lord Chancellor of the realm, put himself between serving “God” the church and serving his king. Sir Thomas More also enters this same meat grinder later. The king has a sword in his hand concerning either issues of the state or his own personal goals which he makes part of the state. The Pope also has a sword and allegedly, powers pertaining to the hereafter. When religious enter public service in the domain of the state, over which the Church is trying to maintain control or manipulate, those people will find themselves in deep trouble at some point if they have more loyalty to one or the other. In fact the amount of their loyalty to either will constantly be tested, to where one would have to question if one is loyal to both, can they really be loyal to either. They end up either capitulating to the state; and in trouble with the church, or they will take up the Church and face ostracism and possibly death by state action. Didn’t Christ say something about serving to masters?

In the film, Wolsey is more of a compromising-scheming politician than he was a man of the church. The movie opens with More summonsed to meet Wolsey late in the evening. Wolsey confronts More for opposing him at counsel concerning the divorce of Henry. Since the Cardinal is a liaison between the church and state, there is great chance for the issues and loyalties to be unclear, thus compromise follows.

Wolsey’s comments to More illustrate his tendencies, “If you could see facts–flat-on, without that horrible moral squint…a little commonsense and you could have made a statesman.” As the Cardinal he seemed more sold on action than prayer. He later says, “In addition to prayer, there are efforts [meaning action] to give Henry an heir. England needs an heir! Certain measures, perhaps regrettable, perhaps not as much in the church –that needs reformation– all right regrettable, but necessary to get us an heir.”

The movie depicts More as a moral man, upright, honest, thoroughly versed in oral debate and engagements of legality. He feels compelled that he can do right [according to the church’s perspectives] in the realm of the state through his position; a typical thought throughout church history. Wolsey dies, reluctantly passing the Chancellorship to More. More does not take a frontline on the divorce discussion but the discussion comes to him by way of the King himself.

This movie illustrates More’s quite dissent, but even this speaks louder than certain people of the realm want. The king pays a visit to More’s estate at a point after More becomes Chancellor. After a spectacle of an entry, Henry takes More aside to get at the real issue; the motive of the “visit.” Henry starts in with a typical manipulative question; “Thomas, you’re my friend, right?” More sees what’s coming and takes the kings reference to the past concerning Wolsey as a path leading away from confrontation. The king, not fooled, cinches up the confrontation bring it back around to the issue of divorce, becoming so loud all the entourage that is with him in the house can hear it. Henry continues the clash by noting Wolsey failure on a divorce annulment and quickly moving to asking where More sets. More plainly states that he cannot be supportive, but that he will be quite. Henry’s diatribe is interspersed by calm with comments unrelated to the issue at hand, almost a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde switch.

The king, seasons his whole approach with manipulation as noted earlier. At another point the king says, “See how mad you’ve made me? I hardly know myself…” Henry even quotes scripture to parlay the religious [More] onto his side. More does not take the bait, to his credit, but he does take issue with the king concerning scripture, as if the king really cared. This is so typical of religious people, they take the political realm seriously in regards to scriptures and values they hold dear, as if the political realm really cared. They fail to see that the political realms use of scripture or various other enduring references are merely a means to an end for the political realm.

Henry ends up stating that he will leave More out of the divorce issue, but that there will be no opposition! Henry then asks, “why can’t you see what everyone else does [that the king needs an heir]? More in his wit ask the king, “then why does your grace need my poor support.” The king responds, “because you are honest and know to be so.” The king was truly afraid of “honest” dissent and More should have seen it.

The story does not end here, the plot thickens. In a realm there are always unsavory types, enter Cromwell and Rich. Cromwell, by the Kings own estimation, was a jackal. Richard Rich on the other hand parades through the early part of the movie as someone who was able to get through the ranks of higher-learning but who had no moral compass. He was clingy and sought out powerful people, such as More, for a place that would take him to court. In a word, he was hungry for position and significance. More tolerated Rich but would not recommend him or give him a position that he desired. Thus, Rich had to grovel elsewhere, and Cromwell knew how to use such a person to his own purposes.

More ends up resigning Chancellorship because of the divorce issue and his attempt to stay out of things. Since he could not exert his spiritually based influence in the realm, he felt to be quiet and reclusive would suffice. Cromwell, anxious to satisfy the crown and motivated by rivalry, went to work to bring Thomas More into either compliance with the King or riddance of a superior foe. Rich was a pawn in the game and it wasn’t long till Cromwell used the system to put More into checkmate.

The story grinds on, as Cromwell drags More through all sorts of political wrangling, posturing, rigmarole and cajoling. The attempt was to get More to say anything about King’s divorce or that would seem opposititional to the crown [seditious]. Meanwhile, Henry sought to rid himself and England of papal control through the founding of the Anglican Church. Since Henry could not acquire the Pope’s “blessing” on divorce, he recruited clergy and established his own brand of church. Henry wanted a church that would go along with his corruption, foolishness and trumpery. This is why the church must stay away from making statements about public policy, for which it can do nothing about. In doing so the church becomes just like the state. Once it places itself within the state’s culture, then it becomes a pawn or commodity that is bought and sold in the process of acquiring power and maintaining it.

This movie is a tragedy, not so much because it depicts a church person being executed by an oppressive state. It’s a tragedy because the church bows to the state to merely become a support to a larger organism, while loosing its ability to be the alternative Christ was to the madness of His day. It is a tragedy that the church is seen as a part of society rather than something to which people must seek at a high cost: i.e. rejecting nationalism, political affiliations and all the other affairs of world which feed enmity, evil and divisiveness. To More’s credit he stood on his beliefs and calmly went to his end at the hands of a tyrannical state. Yet, could we celebrate More for not having sullied himself as a believer by trying to use political means to stand for something moral, and moving away from harm in order to continue being a light in a dark world? Thomas More did not have to die the way he did; neither did Bonheoffer and countless others who saw themselves as part of the nation where they lived instead of the Kingdom of God. Those who live like Paul are free to move on to whatever is next until God shows them that it is the end of the road, as with the Apostle Paul when he said I am now being poured out as a drink offering…

• Related Posts
• Bookmark
• Tags