Main point of the story is an Anglican Archbishop stating that some of the elements of the popularized portrayal of the Nativity may indeed be legend. Such as: the actual date of Jesus's birth, the visitation of 3 Kings, probably no asses or oxen in the stable.
Christians who are rooted in Scripture don't have a real problem with the contesting of those items: they aren't detailed in the account and are not essential doctrine necessary for salvation. It will come as more of a surprise to folks who are only familiar with the traditional portrayal.
However, it's in the transcript of the interview from which the story gets its genesis (no pun intended) that a truly amazing confession is contained: the Archbishop waffles and does not affirm exactly what his belief is concerning the Virgin Birth. Here's the text (SM is the interviewer, ABC is the Archbishop):
===
SM The Virgin Mary next door to him?
ABC We know his mother's name was Mary, that's one of the things all the gospels agree about, and the two gospels that tell the story have the story of the virgin birth and that's something I'm committed to as part of what I've inherited.
SM You were a prominent part of a Spectator survey in the current issue which headlined' Do you believe in the virgin birth?' there are some people in this survey who would say they were Christian who don't have a problem if you don't believe in the Virgin birth;' how important it is it to believe in that bit?
ABC I don't want to set it as a kind of hurdle that people have to get over before they, you know, be signed up;, but I think quite a few people that as time goes on, they get a sense, a deeper sense of what the virgin birth is about. I would say that of myself. About thirty years ago I might have said I wasn't too fussed about it - now I see it much more as dovetailing with the rest of what I believe about the story and yes.
SM Christopher Hitchens and many others make the point that isn't the translation for young woman rather than virgin? Does it have to be seen as virgin; might it be a mistranslation?
ABC It is… well, what's happening there one of the gospels quotes a prophecy that a virgin will conceive a child. Now the original Hebrew doesn't have the word virgin, it's just a young woman, but that's the prophecy that's quoted from the Old Testament in support of the story which is, in any case, about a birth without a human father, so it's not that it rests on mistranslation; St Matthew's gone to his Greek version of the bible and said "Oh, 'virgin'; sounds like the story I know," and put it in.
===So it sounds like no big deal if you do or don't believe in the Virgin Birth if you're the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams.
To put it in colloquial terms, if you're not Superman, you can't leap tall buildings in a single bound, or be more powerful than a locomotive. Who you are determines what you can do.
And in this case if Jesus had two human parents then He also was under the curse of sin and liable to pay for His own sin debt, making it impossible for Him to pay for the sins of others.
We see the results in this denomination. There is a sitting bishop that is an open homosexual. And that's because at some point is was OK to have a homosexual as a deacon, and priest, and every other office between. It's become a religion and there is no life in religion itself. Life comes from fellowship with the Creator.
That's the result of systematic denial of what Scripture says for whatever reason we may have. To quote Mark Twain: "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
Jesus said in John 6:63 - "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."
What I believe: the account found in Scripture of the birth of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, including the multiple references about Mary being a virgin.
What do you believe about the birth of Jesus and why? Why not?
2 comments:
This statement was telling, "I don't want to set it as a kind of hurdle that people have to get over before they, you know, be signed up;"
Every time you hear any leader start equivocating in the name of appealing to a larger, more watered-down base, it's time to go. Christianity means something, this is what we believe. If people have a problem believing that, they either need to accept that problem as their own personal hurdle they need to work out with the Holy Spirit, or look elsewhere.
Everyone had doubts and tests and questions of faith. This is normal, but we must always first presume the Church is right and that any doubts/conflicts are merely our own problem. I'm a convert to Catholicism and I still have problems with the Church's teachings on Mary (immaculately conceived, assumed into Heaven, etc), but I trust and have faith that the Roman Catholic Church was inspired in this teaching (one of the very, very few declared-infallible teachings of the Church) and that it is merely my own hang-ups preventing me from a more full realization of God's plan in Mary.
If the Catholic Church, or any Church I belonged to, ever compromised any super-core, dogmatic belief like that in the name of appealing to a wider audience, I would leave immediately because that Church stands for nothing.
I realize this is a single Archbishop, even if his position is extremely high, and that it is not, necessarily, the teaching of the entire Anglican/Episcopal Church, but it should be very concerning for Anglicans that one of their leaders is waffling like this. And I'm not picking on Anglicans here, the Romans have their fair share (and more, probably) of equivocators in high places and it's doing irreparable harm too.
Chad, thanks for the comment.
Ah yes. The issue of essential and non-essential doctrine.
We are in definite agreement, the Virgin Birth is essential doctrine and the Archbishop of Canterbury appears to have failed the test.
He can believe what he wants, but he shouldn't call it Christianity.
Merry Christmas!
Post a Comment