Belief in virgin birth no prerequisite to becoming a Christian, says Anglican head
posted at 12:01 pm on December 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
From a man renowned for his nuance comes an exciting new example. As usual I defer to my theological betters, but the virgin birth is sort of an important piece of evidence for Christ’s divinity, yes? If he’s the son of God then he’s not the son of a man. So, erm…
Dr Williams was speaking live on BBC Radio Five to the presenter Simon Mayo when Ricky Gervais, star of The Office and a fellow guest, challenged him about the intellectual credibility of the Christian faith.
He said he was committed to belief in the Virgin Birth “as part of what I have inherited”. But belief in the Virgin Birth should not be a “hurdle” over which new Christians had to jump before they were accepted.
He hinted that decades ago he was not “too fussed” with the literal truth of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. But as time went on, he developed a “deeper sense” of what the Virgin Birth was all about.
He’s also a bit iffy on the Magi, which, while reasonable, isn’t exactly Huckabeean in the credulity of its piety. Exit question: What am I missing? Or what is he missing?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Other parts of the linked article talked about the “fable” of Christmas. What Dr. Williams was saying isn’t really disputed by anyone who has studied the Bible. The Wise Men didn’t show up until after the birth, perhaps well after the birth. The Bible states that Jesus and family were living in a house at the time of the wise men’s visit. After they left, without telling Herod where Jesus was, Herod had all the male children 2 years or younger slaughtered to kill the “threat” to his throne. That would indicate that Jesus would be older than a new born, but not necessarily a toddler.
The “three” kings likely comes for the gifts that are mentioned: gold, frankensence, and myhrr. There could have been 2, there could have been 20, the Bible doesn’t say. The gifts represent Jesus. The gold=our king; the frankensence=our high priest; the myhrr (a spice used for the dead)=his redeeming death.
There are other examples of how the Christmas story has been “adjusted” over the years.
Mallard T. Drake on December 20, 2007 at 4:10 PM
RiverCocytus,
If you haven’t, please consider what Paul Tillich had to say:
*By which he means precisely the immediacy of Wakefulness or pure Presence, which is Spirit in us, as Tillich himself makes very clear.
I do not believe The Nazarene was immaculately conceived; and I base that not on my lack of first hand knowledge, but rather on the laws of nature as delineated by science. The science that says the probability of my left hand spontaneously turning into a hammer is incredibly low, is the same science setting the probability of immaculate conceptions at near-zero.
Pre-rational thinking is appropriate for children and young adults, at which point they move predominately into the rational stages, with further development taking them into the trans-rational stages. Developmentalists tend to view the stages before the ages of 10-14 as pre-rational because the choice to be rational or not is generally not present, that happens a little later, when the decision to not be rational is then termed non-rational.
I believe the prime realization of Jesus Christ, and the one which got him killed, was His understanding that “I and the Father are One”. That realization does not require one to embrace anything non-rational.
deesine on December 20, 2007 at 4:18 PM
bnelson: ‘and the Son’ is from the latin creed; the original directly translated does not include it.
In the end it may be moot, as the spirit does operate through the son (though not proceeding from him.) Part of why we say this has more to do with how we understand the hypostases of God to be.
The Trinity is something that sits right on the border between what we can reason and what is ultimately unknowable. Like the mystery of the God-Man, it is a truth that is underivable strictly by reason. It must be intuited (faith is sometimes referred to as a ‘decisive intuition’.) and the fact that it is available has no small part of Grace in it.
Mr. Marxbishop (a heresiarch if ever there was one) discounts the role of truth in faith; like Julian Apostate if we discount a fact for it’s deeper meaning we are free to simply throw the deeper meaning away for whatever we want.
RiverCocytus on December 20, 2007 at 4:20 PM
deesine: That is the limit of rationality; it does not climb to the point of the infinite event horizon of unknowing and thus of all wisdom. That statement alone is ambiguous and also ignores other statements Jesus made that fueled the fire. Another was, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”
‘transrational’ thinking can not simply proceed from rationality, but also must include an element of mysticism. It was excellently said:
(G.K.Chesterton)
One of the purposes of Christian mysticism, I.e the potential existential reality of supernatural and divine events is to free the mind of man.
RiverCocytus on December 20, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Dude this is old news. He’s been saying this for over 5 years. He also says that you don’t have to believe in Jesus or Christianity either, amongst other things. This was a big deal 3-4 years ago when there was a fight over the parish at Newport Harbor, Newport Beach, CA. Very expensive piece of property and it’s owned by the parishoners. Parishoners choose to break for the Diocese of L.A. County and attach themselves with a Kenyan Bishop. Why? Because of these very things. The diocese took them to court. Basically the Bishop of L.A. County said, ‘you can go wherever you want but you aren’t taken the church. We’ll send in our own to conviscate it.’ To which the parishoners replied, ‘try it!’ They changed the the church affiliation from Episcopal to Anglican. Case closed!
Sultry Beauty on December 20, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Here’s the link to some of the details.
Sultry Beauty on December 20, 2007 at 4:37 PM
So maybe all this miracle crap was just invented to enthrall the gullible. I have been to many Catholic churches in remote and rural parts of Mexico. It is evident that they use symbols and idolatry or I should say iconic symbol to put the fear in the primitive tribes.
I think religion would fare better against the scrutiny of science if they did not lie about all this impossible stuff. It just makes people look foolish who buy it.
Ultimately science can no more explain why we are here than religion but science does at least, look credible.
TheSitRep on December 20, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Incidentally, in case there is confusion (and there seems to be, judging from some of the comments), the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the “virgin birth” are two different things. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conception (not that of Jesus) and the idea that she was born without Original Sin.
I know that for some it’s a minor point, but I just wanted to clear it up.
And bnelson44 above has a good point. I wish someone had thought to ask Atkinson how, if belief in the virgin birth is unnecessary, he explains the words “…born of the Virgin Mary” in the two creeds. Huh?
Blaise on December 20, 2007 at 5:24 PM
What? That makes no sense whatsoever.
But again, I don’t understand why everyone is upset by this. We are saved by grace and grace alone. Understanding theology is not a prerequisite to accepting Christ.
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Esthier: You’d have to ask the Church Fathers “Why”, but that’s it. It goes back to the belief that Jesus would not have been born of someone with Original Sin (remember, there was bo baptism when Mary was born).
I sometimes wonder if people’s misunderstanding of what is meant by the Immaculate Conception (if it’s not “Immaculate” it must be “dirty”, right?) is the source of a lot of misapprehensions about the Church’s views on sex.
Incidentally, when you say “we are saved by grace alone”, and that understanding theology is not a prerequisite to accepting Christ, you are actually opening a very live theological debate, which I do not propose to engage in
Blaise on December 20, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Of course you do so, at least a little, in this comment alone.
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Like anyone in the US really cares what a wanker from Canterbury in Eurabia has to say or what the libtard thinks.
It’s all BS. The Archbishop can go back to sodding off with alter boys as he has no credibility here.
BobJones-77 on December 20, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Actually, I don’t think it’s all that lively a debate, so I’ll throw in my closed-minded two cents on it from my perspective of faith.
In what form exactly did that grace come, and how did the process of that grace coming start, actually? It would seem that the virgin birth is central to the arrival of that grace, right?
flutejpl on December 20, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Why not study theology yourself? It’s not difficult and wouldn’t take up too much of your time. You don’t have to believe in it. The more you study it the better you could debate against it.
aengus on December 20, 2007 at 9:45 PM
By definition grace comes from God.
bnelson44 on December 20, 2007 at 9:46 PM
So.. an amoeba can have a virgin birth every time but a 14 year old palestinian girl… NO WAY!
Dude! Indeed.
Sorry folks, no virgin birth, no Messiah.
Mojave Mark on December 21, 2007 at 1:26 AM
The intercourse-less conception and birth of Jesus is not, as some have suggested in this thread, a sign or verifier of Jesus’ divinity per se — nor did the first generations of Christians (i.e., those who were composing the documents that would become known as the Christian Scriptures or “New Testament” — all of which were completed prior to 200 CE) view it as that.
The significance of the virgin conception/birth of Jesus is that it is one of the proofs of his being the Messiah of Israel, per Isaiah 7:14. It is the author of the Gospel of Matthew — unquestionably the most Jewish of the four Gospels — who links Jesus’ unique entrance into the world with the Messianic sign promised in Isaiah’s book.
So it is possible for one to believe that Jesus was/is the Christ (Messiah) who was executed according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures without first affirming that he was born of the virgin — as there are many other evidences for Jesus’ identity as Messiah — but if one already accepts the other proofs for Jesus as Messiah, there is no good reason (other than a weak character) not to accept that the same God who can created the entire material universe out of literally nothing by fiat command (no quarrels as to how He did it) can manipulate a relative handful of genetic and biochemical material to produce a baby.
More than likely, the Archbishop (or whatever he is) is more interested in looking sophisticated to the intelligensia than upholding the tenets of the faith he is charged to oversee.
Harpazo on December 21, 2007 at 1:54 AM
Yeah, Harpazo, I was just wondering …
.
What do you call it when the head of the church is himself a heretic?
.
The Anglicans need to go ahead and get their Schism over with. The trendy, PC, whatever Christianette wing, led by Dr. Williams can go their way … and the traditional Christian theology-believing Christian Anglicans can form their Reformed Anglican Church, reporting to South American and African traditionalist Bishops.
DavePa on December 21, 2007 at 2:15 AM
Good point. It was important to the Jews in the time of Christ who were awaiting Messiah that all parts of the prophecies be fulfilled. That is why apostles detailed the genealology of Mary. Some of the prophecies
Micah 5:1 born in bethlehem
Gen 49:10 of the tribe of Judah
Zech 9:9 would be seen riding an ass into the city
Psalm 22 would be killed, hands pierced, lots cast for clothing would cry ‘My god why hast thou forsaken me’
Daniel 9:24-27 would appear before the destruction of the second Temple
Isaiah 52-53 a life of suffering, a trial at which he would speak no words of defense, death, buried in a rich man’s tomb, and resurrection
The three wise men were seeking the prophecied one, just as Herod feared the prophecied one (who would restore the Jews and vanquish their opressors)
So this archbishop may find these items fluff but Christ told people he fulfilled the prophecies.
John 4:25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
26 Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”
The virgin birth matters because Christ took credit for it.
entagor on December 21, 2007 at 4:28 AM
Time to either find another church or kick the bum out.
Harpazo on December 21, 2007 at 9:01 AM
Thanks for the link. It made for an interesting read.
I guess that, in my attempt at brevity, I sacrificed clarity. Of course I agree with your good point.
The verse in question states that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. My point… How did God choose for that grace, in the form of Jesus Christ, giving us the chance to have that faith, to arrive? As God chose for it to arrive in the form of the human life and deeds of Jesus Christ, the answer to that question brings us right back to his claimed virgin birth.
To take it a step further, Jesus surely claimed his virgin birth as disciples of his wrote about it, and he spoke of Mary as his mother and God as his father (even at the age of 12!). He also claimed to be fully God. As he makes these claims, one who claims to have faith in Jesus but says that he was not born of a virgin is effectively calling God a liar.
Next step: Calling God a liar is inherently declaring a lack of faith in Him, and recall that faith seems to be a key component in that Romans verse toward receiving that grace. With this logic, I don’t see how acceptance of the virgin birth and reception of that grace can truly be separated.
That’s where I was headed; if I’m right, that archbishop has put himself in a bad place and needs to do some serious rethinking of the matter. I like what Rush said on the topic yesterday. Call it what you want; just don’t call it Christianity.
flutejpl on December 21, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]