The Rev. Richard Coles is, according to The
Guardian, ‘Britain’s top media vicar’. Known for his appearances on QI, Have I Got News For You and Radio 4,
he’s been all over the airwaves in recent weeks publicising his ‘out in time
for Christmas’ book – Fathomless Riches. What makes him
particularly interesting is that, along with Jimmy Somerville, he was formerly
part of the Communards – whose 1986 release ‘Don’t leave me this way’ was the
biggest selling UK single of that year. Richard Coles’ life story is one literally
full of ‘sex, drugs and Rock ‘n’ Roll’ and his book by all accounts is a
no-holds barred telling of all three. A story which, of course, makes his
current vocation as a Church of England vicar all the more intriguing.
Coles comes across as decent and personable. He is
articulate, expresses himself humbly and has ‘seen life’ in a way that makes
his current pleasantness all the more admirable. He is, however, impeccably
liberal in his theology – his move into ministry driven it seems by a search
for purpose and moderation rather than any deep repentance or radical
conversion. Indeed, you suspect, it is precisely his subversion of many
traditional Christian teachings that makes him such a darling of the media. His
is the voice of Christianity as the BBC would like it to be; it is the teaching
of the Bible if it had been written by Harriet Harman.
So what exactly is the Gospel of Richard Coles and indeed
all those other Christian clergy thought passable enough for Radio 2’s Thought for the Day? A good example of
it was his short contribution to an edition of This Week (4/12/14) which began with an observation that our
society is too preoccupied with material things and consequently other
important but non-financial aspects of life are often not valued enough. The finish
was, as befits a songwriter, beautifully poetic – ‘This is my Autumn Statement: at the year’s end and in gathering
darkness let’s look beyond Black Friday, Cyber Monday and the fading digital
radiance of a discounted 50 inch TV, to a wholly unimaginable light breaking in
an wholly unexpected place’.
Sadly the subsequent studio discussion offered no
explanation about that light or that place – instead we got Coles arguing for
enshrining in Law the UK’s overseas Aid budget at 0.7% of GDP, while Michael
Portillo pointed out the increasing irrelevance of the Church of England in the
nation. Richard, of course, was charming and affable throughout all this – but
therein lies the Gospel of today’s media-endorsed clergy. It is the Gospel of ‘let’s all just be a wee bit nicer to each
other’. Now nothing wrong with encouraging folks to up their game in being
patient, civil and thoughtful – but the Gospel it is not! A fruit of the Gospel
yes, but the message that got Jesus crucified and the apostles persecuted –
really?
Nevertheless, endlessly repeated on ‘God Slots’, the newspaper
columns written by Ministers at weekends, and the invited religious input on ‘the
topic of the day’ - is the Gospel of ‘God
is nice, He thinks you’re really nice, so let’s all be a bit nicer, Amen’. Thus
establishment Christianity has become little more than Comic Relief without the
jokes.
VIRGIN RECORDS
Coles’ parish is ‘St Mary the Virgin’ (in the Diocese of
Peterborough) so we might hope that he would realise more than most that the ‘wholly unimaginable light… in a wholly
unexpected place’ is much more radical, edgy and indeed confrontational
than a better citizenship programme. For the Virgin Birth, at the centre of
that event, was not a gentle nudge to greater philanthropy but a crashing indictment
of humanity’s utter helplessness and its need of total rescue. The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ was a
declaration by God that no amount of human endeavour, however well intentioned,
can come close to dealing with our fundamental problems.
Sadly though the ‘Virgin Birth’ is an aspect of that ‘unimaginable light breaking in’ that
Coles seems to find genuinely unimaginable[1]. After
all, how primitive, naïve and consequently embarrassing to believe such old
fables – far better to understand it as a later embellishment giving a pious
veneer to a more earthly reality. But the Virgin Birth cannot be put away
without putting the stark truths of the Gospel away – because in it is revealed
the reason why Christianity exists.
The Virgin Birth
is a sign of our utter helplessness
In the centuries preceding the birth of Christ and in the
centuries since, the story of
humanity has been an endless cycle of conflict,
suffering and failure. The 20th century began with huge optimism
that the future would be one of progress towards greater harmony and happiness
throughout the world. Instead of which it was the bloodiest and costliest
century of war and killing ever experienced. The 21st century has
begun with 9/11, conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine, not to
mention the ever present ravages of disease and poverty. Today’s children will
not do better than their parents – they too will ultimately fall foul of the
same incurable human weakness, greed and pride as every generation before them.
The Virgin Birth announced that there is no hope inside
our humanity – our only hope is outside intervention. Thus in Bethlehem a new
humanity was born – not of the old flesh but conceived of God’s Holy Spirit. No
increase in the Overseas Aid budget, no charity single, no legislation, no
social taskforce, no political settlement – can ever put right the catastrophe
of the human heart. The Virgin Birth puts paid to any illusions of human self-help
or improvement.
The Virgin Birth
is a sign that we too need a supernatural new beginning
The message is clear – and should be self-evident – that old
humanity, our humanity, is a dead-end. That, of course, is not a message people
like to hear, indeed it is a message that Rulers fear, because it confounds our
pride and displaces every political claim to be our saviour. The Virgin Birth,
however, cuts open history with the introduction of a new humanity – born not
of ‘natural descent, nor of human decision, or a husband’s will’ – but born of God.
The Virgin Birth was nothing less than the demolition of our delusional self-sufficiency. Being a bit
nicer or even a lot nicer will not suffice – what is required is nothing less
than being born again. It’s as total as that! In Bethlehem’s manger, given at a
cost to be paid 33 years later, was our second and only chance to live the life
we were created for.
To make the Gospel
of Jesus Christ little more than a call for moderation and bit more effort is simply to perpetuate
the tragedy of lost, floundering and dying men and women.
Praise God, that
in the gathering darkness, He did not leave us that way.
[1]
Of the Anglicans I’ve spoken to during the
course of my tenure at New Humanist – the Rev Richard Coles, Francis Spufford, Linda Woodhead, Richard Holloway – I have yet to find one who
doesn't accept evolution and the Big Bang, who seems really to believe the
virgin birth or the Assumption, or who puts great stock in miracles or angels.
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2912/editorial-woman-trouble
4 comments:
Excellent.
Thank you for your thoughts on this, Andy. There are some great insights here. However, I have to say I find it disappointing that your only reference for Coles's views on the virgin birth is one line in a New Humanist editorial. If that is just one of your many pieces of evidence for what Coles believes on this, it would seem rather sloppy only to mention that one. But if that's all you've got, I'm not sure this post is justified.
The New Humanist quote is a pretty poor one - OK, Coles et al accept evolution, but so do many in the FIEC! And on the virgin birth, the writer seems to be saying that his Anglican friends say they believe it, but that he doubts their sincerity - they don't "seem really to believe" it. (Do you think that's a fair reading?) As for miracles generally - Coles isn't bad on this. For example, on the day women bishops were rejected by the C of E, his first tweet (which got him in a bit of trouble with some egalitarians) was "OK. Deep breath. Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. Everything else is secondary". I don't think he downplays the miraculous that much more than many of us with conservative evangelicalism!
I'm sure you have more evidence for Coles' liberal theology than one poor line in a New Humanist piece. And I think your general point is a good one. However, I don't think it does anyone any favours if you don't show you've engaged thoroughly with the person you're critiquing.
Thanks Charlie for your comments. It was precisely to check on what RC's theological views would be on a subject like the Virgin Birth (rather than speculate) that I spent time looking for articles - hence the New Humanist quote. I'm sorry you think that's sloppy and please do point me to your own sources for believing otherwise.
To be honest with his other well publicised theological views, which are typically part of a larger package of liberal beliefs, a robust belief in the Virgin Birth is only one of many you would have cause to doubt. As for the miraculous, its good that RC believes the Resurrection - although among more liberal people that doesn't always equate to the historic understanding of literal and physical Resurrection (which may explain the phrase 'seem to' in the NH article - that is, liberal theologians often believe such things 'metaphorically / spiritually / transcendentally etc') - which can leave most folks, including it seems the NH writer, scratching their heads as to what they actually mean.
The main point of the article, however, was to highlight the paucity of the humanistic gospel that has become the media acceptable face of Christianity. I have no personal axe to grind with RC - I wish he would whole-heartedly embrace and start declaring the Gospel of a Saviour, who is our ruined world's only hope, and calls men and women to repentance and faith. Although I suspect his media career might dry up somewhat if he does! Thanks again, Andy.
Andy, thanks for engaging on this. I reiterate that I think your main point is a good one!
My point wasn't that I am sure that Coles *does* believe in the virgin birth, but that I'm not sure only using the New Humanist quote as evidence that he doesn't is the best approach. I don't have sources that lead me to either conclusion - I too am scratching my head about what he does believe, and I hope the book will make some things clearer. I just am not sure it helps the whole conversation to build an argument on one quote which doesn't actually say much. I fear it'd be too easy to dismiss what you say here as engaging with a caricature.
Thank you for replying, and thank you for all you're doing for the gospel in Scotland.
Post a Comment