A lot of people are talking about the Archbishop's comments on Christmas in his interview with Simon Mayo of BBC Radio 5 on Sunday. Even Rush Limbaugh today spoke of it. He complained about Williams denying the virgin birth. While I thought Limbaugh's complaint about "liberals" denying the basic tenets of Christianity while still calling themselves Christians was correct, the Archbishop did not deny the virgin birth. The conversation was about the typical "Nativity scene" depictions and what is or is not historic about them. When it came to the virgin birth, Williams said that he is "committed to it", but that belief in it was a process in his life.
What concerns me was his further comment that he did not think that belief in the virgin birth was a hurdle that people should have to jump in order for them to be "signed up" in the Church. I have to disagree with that. While I believe it is certainly possible for people to come to faith in Christ as the only Saviour without being convinced of his virgin birth, I cannot see how it is possible for anyone to be baptized and accepted into the membership of the Church without it. After all, the foundational creeds of our Church include the virgin birth and they themselves began as baptismal formularies.
Williams did say that he believed that people who came to faith in Christ would (I'm not sure how inevitably in his mind) eventually come to believe in the virgin birth, as he did. I would concur with this, because the Holy Spirit would lead them to this conviction, as He does in all our belief. What is critical about Williams' "hurdle" comment is that he makes the virgin birth less important for the Christian faith than it is. This is not good at all.
Some people will probably be concerned about his comments that the wise men in the story were not historical. The title of Rev. Jennings' review of the interview in the Times is very unfortunate: "It’s all a Christmas tall story." That is not what Williams said. Jennings does get it right when he writes that Williams said no more than what many others, including conservatives, have said on the historic issues. It is important to remember the context of this particular portion of the interview. The typical Nativity scene does indeed falsely portray three Eastern kings as being at Jesus' manger with the shepherds. This did not happen and the Gospels themselves concur. The Magi arrived later, and they were Magi, not kings. The presence of the three kings at the stable that night in the typical Nativity scene is indeed a "conflation" as Williams says.
As for the miracle of the star, Williams said, "I don't know." I agree with him that there may be more to the story than is mentioned; constellation alignments, for example. However, the account in the New Testament is plain. Williams' "I don't know" is a denial of the historical reliability of the account. It is such overly critical dealing with the Scriptures that opens the door to doubting them in other areas, such as ethics.
The interview as a whole is worth listening to. He talks about a number of issues and has some good things to say. The idea of going over the typical Nativity scene in light of biblical history is worthwhile. It is just sad that the Anglican Communion should have a representative who cannot stand for the truth "once delivered to the saints" any better than this, and at this time of year at that.
What concerns me was his further comment that he did not think that belief in the virgin birth was a hurdle that people should have to jump in order for them to be "signed up" in the Church. I have to disagree with that. While I believe it is certainly possible for people to come to faith in Christ as the only Saviour without being convinced of his virgin birth, I cannot see how it is possible for anyone to be baptized and accepted into the membership of the Church without it. After all, the foundational creeds of our Church include the virgin birth and they themselves began as baptismal formularies.
Williams did say that he believed that people who came to faith in Christ would (I'm not sure how inevitably in his mind) eventually come to believe in the virgin birth, as he did. I would concur with this, because the Holy Spirit would lead them to this conviction, as He does in all our belief. What is critical about Williams' "hurdle" comment is that he makes the virgin birth less important for the Christian faith than it is. This is not good at all.
Some people will probably be concerned about his comments that the wise men in the story were not historical. The title of Rev. Jennings' review of the interview in the Times is very unfortunate: "It’s all a Christmas tall story." That is not what Williams said. Jennings does get it right when he writes that Williams said no more than what many others, including conservatives, have said on the historic issues. It is important to remember the context of this particular portion of the interview. The typical Nativity scene does indeed falsely portray three Eastern kings as being at Jesus' manger with the shepherds. This did not happen and the Gospels themselves concur. The Magi arrived later, and they were Magi, not kings. The presence of the three kings at the stable that night in the typical Nativity scene is indeed a "conflation" as Williams says.
As for the miracle of the star, Williams said, "I don't know." I agree with him that there may be more to the story than is mentioned; constellation alignments, for example. However, the account in the New Testament is plain. Williams' "I don't know" is a denial of the historical reliability of the account. It is such overly critical dealing with the Scriptures that opens the door to doubting them in other areas, such as ethics.
The interview as a whole is worth listening to. He talks about a number of issues and has some good things to say. The idea of going over the typical Nativity scene in light of biblical history is worthwhile. It is just sad that the Anglican Communion should have a representative who cannot stand for the truth "once delivered to the saints" any better than this, and at this time of year at that.
Comments
-Johnson