In a yr when the Archbishop of Canterbury was forced to resign, and with continued decline in attendances within the Church of England and yet more scandals, I listened with interest to the titular head of that Church, King Charles, giving his Christmas message. Would he speak of the true challenges the Church and society are facing? Would he offer some form of meaty message, fairly than the saccharine sap we’re so used to hearing? Would his message stimulate thought or provide hope to those that are in great need of it?
Sadly the message was largely the identical moralistic, do it yourself, multifaith religion – with rightful tributes being paid to servicemen and ladies, volunteers and doctors and nurses. As the top of the Church of England you would possibly have expected the King to supply slightly bit more specifically Christian comment, but this was basic humanist doctrine, tinged with a splash of religiosity which I believe would satisfy nobody who actually listened to what was being said.
To be fair, King Charles is nothing if not consistent. His Christmas message this yr was much like the one I commented on two years ago and his Thought for the Day delivered at Christmas 2016.
However there have been some differences. This was only the third time in 100 years that the talk was not recorded in a royal residence. The undeniable fact that it took place in a former hospital chapel was particularly poignant given the King’s own cancer issues, and that of his daughter-in-law, the Princess of Wales.
He was surely right to reflect on the eightieth anniversary of D-Day – but I’m at all times slightly uneasy on the simplistic view of war which is so often espoused on these occasions. I’m sure there have been many soldiers, sailors and airmen who did ‘give of themselves so courageously’ and who do function ‘an example of service and selflessness’. But not all. Servicemen and ladies didn’t have a alternative. They were conscripted. Implying that these men and ladies were volunteers who sacrificed themselves for our greater good just isn’t quite the entire truth. Many would have felt as if they were the sacrifice.
Another difficulty throughout the speech was how out of touch it was in some areas. Not least when he stated that “During previous commemorations we were in a position to console ourselves with the thought that these tragic events seldom occur in the fashionable era.
“But, on this Christmas Day, we cannot help but consider those for whom the devastating effects of conflict – within the Middle East, in Central Europe, in Africa and elsewhere – pose a day by day threat to so many individuals’s lives and livelihoods.”
The problem with that is that in previous commemorations there have been wars and violence in lots of parts of the world. It is true that there was no World War 3, nor a significant war in Europe involving the good powers until the Russia/Ukraine war – but conflict has been, and continues to be, a part of human existence.
But how are we to beat that conflict? The King suddenly brought within the Gospel – but it surely was a really different Gospel to the one Jesus taught. Take for instance this statement: “We also consider the humanitarian organisations working tirelessly to bring vital relief. After all, the Gospels speak so vividly of conflict and teach the values with which we are able to overcome it.”
But that just isn’t what the Gospels do – even though it could also be a part of their fruit. They don’t provide us with a moralistic tale telling us that we are able to defeat violence by being nice to one another and giving ‘peace a likelihood’. The Good News is about how Jesus got here to earth to save lots of his people from their sins. He was born to die – not born to set us an example for twenty first century ‘values’.
The King’s misunderstanding of the Gospel continued: “The example that Jesus gave us is timeless and universal. It is to enter the world of those that suffer, to make a difference to their lives and so bring hope where there’s despair.”
There is after all a component of truth in that – as there’s in most errors. Of course, we must always need to help the suffering and convey hope where there’s despair. But what hope can we provide? It should be the hope of the Gospel. The hope of Christ himself. Christ got here to offer us everlasting life, to take care of our sins, not simply to be a form of divine Hallmark card for humanity.
The Jesus that the King was speaking about can also be the one who said that he’s ” the best way, the reality and the life” (John 14:6). King Charles thinks that he got that improper – and would much prefer it if he had said ‘I’m a way, a truth and a life’ amongst many others.
“That is the center of the Nativity Story, and we are able to hear its beat in the idea of all the good faiths within the love and mercy of God in times of joy and of suffering, calling us to bring light where there’s darkness,” he said.
But again, Jesus said that he’s the light. The reality is that the ‘religions of mankind’ are a part of the good darkness engulfing the world – and bringing a lot conflict into it. Christians are to flee from idolatry and false religion, not embrace it – and never demean Christ by putting him up on the mantelpiece with our many other gods. “Salvation is present in nobody else, for there isn’t any other name under heaven given to mankind by which we should be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Instead of the Gospel of Christ the King offered the truisms of those whose faith is that each one faiths are fundamentally the identical. But he also added a political edge: “Diversity of culture, ethnicity and faith provides strength not weakness.” That just isn’t self-evidently true. There is in actual fact considerable evidence that while diversity is an excellent thing, an excessive amount of of an excellent thing might be harmful. The recent problems in Europe and the UK should not brought on by an absence of diversity, but by an absence of a cohesive culture throughout society. Having given up the roots of Christianity, our cultural elites need to keep its fruits – and that’s proving as fanciful and unlikely as their theology.
The political commentary continued when the King gave a fairly political statement with a somewhat simplistic evaluation of the issues that arose within the UK after the murder of the Stockport girls.
“I felt a deep sense of pride here within the United Kingdom when, in response to anger and lawlessness in several towns this summer, communities got here together, to not repeat these behaviours, but to repair. To repair not only buildings, but relationships. And, most significantly, to repair trust; by listening and, through understanding, deciding the way to act for the great of all.”
Again, it is a neat soundbite but like most soundbites, it’s superficial, lacks understanding and offers simplistic solutions which demonise some and sanctify others.
Before the King finished, he offered again his fairly naïve view of all of the faiths and philosophies on the planet: “Again, listening is a recurrent theme of the Nativity story. Mary, the Mother of Jesus, listened to the Angel who revealed to her a special future filled with hope for all people. The message of the Angels to the shepherds – that there ought to be peace on Earth – in actual fact echoes through all faiths and philosophies.”
If only the King would hearken to what Jesus teaches, he would find that peace on earth comes only through Christ, not through the numerous contrary faiths and philosophies.
I used to be particularly disenchanted at this speech since it got here only a number of weeks after the King attended a church I used to belong to – St Thomas’s Anglican in Sydney – and heard a sermon from the superb evangelical Archbishop of Sydney, Kanishka Raffel.
I had hoped he would hearken to and be challenged by what he heard. But to be honest I can hardly blame him for hearing what he desired to hear. Far too often we preach in code and memes, apologising for the church and using generalisms and buzz words familiar within the culture, straining to not cause offence (especially to the wealthy, powerful and influential) – but which ultimately pass over any bite.
And therein lies the essential problem with the King’s Gospel. It is a gospel for our age – which is not any gospel in any respect. Ultimately it leaves out the true Christ, and leaves us with a group of wishes and cliches – which saves nobody.
We proceed to hope that King Charles would come to know and love the King that his mother so clearly loved and served. We need the Good News, not the wishful pondering of a fantastic ideology which ultimately helps nobody.
David Robertson is the minister of Scots Kirk Presbyterian Church in Newcastle, New South Wales. He blogs at The Wee Flea.
