Here’s more - glad no one seems to think he went on too long: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/19/europe/michael-curry-bishop-address-royal-wedding-markle-intl/index.html
By the normal restrained standards of the CofE, a lot of people think he did rather labour the points he was trying to make, as to length, and would always have looked askance at that degree of enthusiastic holy-rollering (look how they reacted to Wesley, and later the Salvation Army). They’re used to 10 minutes of relatively conventional boilerplate stuff, to be sat through before they can get on with the food and drink.
But the evangelicals in my family, at least, (I mean evangelicals in the CofE theological/liturgical sense, rather than the American rightwing fundamentalist sense) thought it was the bee’s knees.
CofE seems to traditionally expect restraint in sermon length. Preachers who go on too long are a old humorous topic. “The Great Sermon Handicap” is a short story by P. G. Wodehouse, where Bertie Wooster & his friends set up a betting pool on the lengthiest sermon among various local vicars. As I recall, the ‘winer’ was in the rnge of 45-50 minutes.
An Episcopal friend joked that we believe in “One Lord, one Faith, one hour.”
In point of fact, the America-based Episcopal Church has suffered a significant schism. By the time 2008 rolled around, a lot of dioces were split over this issue.
This article outlines it fairly well..
I’ve had a taste of this issue first-hand. The priest who married my Dearly Beloved™ and I has a son who is also a priest. The son is a priest in Charleston, S.C. and he was a guiding force is dividing that city’s dioces. His personal anger and distaste over the idea of homosexual clergy was horrifying. Deeply painful to his father, who has become a dear friend in the last 10 years.
So, it’s not just the C. of E. that opposes gay clerics.
Then again, that nice man who performed the marriage ceremony? Justin Welby? He’s the Archbishop of Canterbury and was instrumental in leading the Anglican Communion in a decision to formally suspend the Episcopal Church for three years.Literally. Right now ( since this happened in 2016 ), The Episcopal Church is NOT recognized by the C. of E. And in fact, while they were all smiles, Bishop Michael Curry is NOT currently a colleague of Justin Welby’s.
He is in fact the walking talking personification of that suspension.
Stay tuned for how this will turn out on this side of the pond…
I’m new to the Church, but am amused by the other popular joke regarding Episcopalians and their love of a good drink while socializing.
" If you’ve got four, you’ll find a fifth! "
I’ve heard him in person once. On June 6th, 2017 he preached the sermon during the formal Installation of Bishop Dean Wolfe as the new Rector of St. Bartholemew’s Church on Park Ave in NYC. You can listen to it on that link.
He preached for 29 rather riveting minutes. I wasn’t star-struck, but I don’t tend to get star-struck. I was pretty moved, however.
Several years ago on this Board I asked a somewhat similar question, but I was wondering about how Anglican communicants felt during the American Revolution, considering that they were, I effect, rebelling against the Head of their Church. I got a lot of angry retorts that the sovereign of England was NOT the Head of the Church of England, and that what they’d taught me in school about King Henry VIII declaring himself the Head of the Church of England did not hold after him.
But, as the replies above seem to indicate, the sovereign of England still is Supreme Governor of the Church of England
So, to re-state my question from long ago, did any of the American colonists during the REvolution feel any qualms about revolting against someone who had a claim to be their spiritual head? Did this weigh strongly in the minds of those declaring themselves Tories. Did these considerations turn a political decision into something deeper?
Many Anglicans in the American colonies were loyalists during the revolutionary period, and I think Anglican churches and their congregations were generally regarded with a degree of suspicion on this account. But of course it’s hard to disentangle the extent to which this was due to the feeling that they had a specifically religious obligation to the monarch on account of his ecclesiastical role from more conventional feelings of a duty of loyalty/allegiance to a monarch, and from considerations of interest/advantage, and from political or philosophical views about monarchy, rebellion, independence, etc.
There was already in existence an Episcopal church in Scotland of which the monarch was not the head, so I think English Anglicans were perfectly used to the idea that the monarch was head of the church because, and only because, English law said so, and there was nothing inherent in the concept of monarchy, or in divine law, that said it had to be so. In other words, it might be a good idea for various reasons that the monarch should be head of the church, it might even be in accordance with God’s plan for England, but no-one’s salvation depended on it. So if for other reasons you came to the conclusion that his Britannic majesty should not rule the American colonies, it wouldn’t be too hard to conclude that he also shouldn’t govern an American church. Which is of course the conclusion that those American Anglicans who didn’t leave came to.
The monarch is not the spiritual head - if that honour exists for anyone, that would be the Archbishop of Canterbury, as its senior cleric. The monarch is the supreme governor, but not God’s representative on earth. Chairman of the Board, if you prefer.
Not many Christians believe in the divine right of kings today. 
“The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”
― Romans 13:1-2
No, but the title Pontifex means “intermediary” or “bridge” between God and His Church. So while not many Christians believe in the divine right of most monarchs, Catholics do believe in the elective monarch of the Vatican being God’s part-time representative on Earth.
The divine right of monarchs was a completely different concept. The majority of kings were supposed to have been appointed by God but not His representatives on Earth.
CalMeachem, I agree with San Vito: the monarch is the governor, but has no role as spiritual leader. The Queen is not the equivalent to the Pope.
Since the Monarchy is more a business than anything else, this is quite an apt descriptor.
Jesus said “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there.” The Episcopal joke is “… and when three or four are gathered, there’s a fifth.”
I’ve been a deputy to the last three triennial General Conventions of the Episcopal church (sadly I had to skip this year’s). There is always one person who hosts the nightly “debrief and unwind” session in their hotel room, and provides all the beer/wine/booze (who am I kidding - really just wine and booze). Typically that person is our bishop.
I like her/ him already !! 