Belief in virgin birth no prerequisite to becoming a Christian, says Anglican head
posted at 12:01 pm on December 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
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?
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 Next »
Actually, the issue has long been a bone of contention, but for the mainstream the issue was more or less settled in the 4th century with the adoption of the Nicene Creed. Before, and even to some extent after that, there were many branches of Christianity which variously denied Jesus’ virgin birth, his humanity, his godhood, etc.
peski on December 20, 2007 at 12:06 PM
The main impact of the link is that this statement was made by the head of an organization which still professes to the Nicene Creed, so if it wasn’t so predictable it would be shocking.
peski on December 20, 2007 at 12:08 PM
dude……
JVelez on December 20, 2007 at 12:09 PM
All this from a country that is being overrun by Islam and lists Jedi as a religion.
Dude!!!!
What was QE2 thinking when she appointed this ninny?
Hening on December 20, 2007 at 12:10 PM
I think he’s missing all the conservatives who left his church to join with the Ethiopian church.
Lehosh on December 20, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Huckabeean…lol
tlynch001 on December 20, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Do we care what people say about it? What does the Bible say about it?
ThackerAgency on December 20, 2007 at 12:11 PM
The effeminate neo Marxist Archbishop of Canterbury is doing more to destroy Protestantism in England then Bloody Mary Tudor ever could.
Hilts on December 20, 2007 at 12:11 PM
We have “people” like that in Judaism too.
They call themselves “Humanistic Jews”.
I prefer to call them atheists-because that’s what they really are.
link HERE
annoyinglittletwerp on December 20, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Actually that statement is a truth. The virgin birth is an important aspect to Christianity but not necessary to become a Christian. It does speak to divinity but not a requirement to receive Christ. That requirement is laid out in Rom. 10:9,10.
mjkazee on December 20, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Well, considering the Anglicans pretty much handed over the reigns to the Pope what’s the big deal? Speaking as a bigoted protestant, if you believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary (even though Jesus had siblings) why not just discount the whole immaculate conception?
Editor on December 20, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Linky didn’t work.
Society for Humanistic Judaism http://www.shj.org
annoyinglittletwerp on December 20, 2007 at 12:16 PM
But of course, this is a perfect ‘news story’ for Christmas. I tell you what, next Ramadan, why don’t you question whether or not Mohammed was a prophet, or if he was a self serving warlord. Or here’s another one. Why don’t you question whether or not Ishmael was the sacrificial child of Abraham instead of Isaac is a requisite to becoming Muslim.
Is Christianity under attack? Sure is. . . by a bunch of narcissistic know nothings who get press because we don’t threaten to kill them like they would get if they proposed similarly absurd ideas about a religion such as Islam.
Hey, it’s the Muslim slaughter of the lamb festival to recognize Ishmael instead of Isaac. . . why not question that? Because you know that people are ignorant and you wouldn’t get press. Bash Chrsitianity on Christmas and you are some sort of cult hero.
I might have to reconsider the capital punishment thing. . . maybe we should burn people like this at the stake for heresy like the Catholic Church used to do. . . that’d put an end to these ridiculous suggestions that aren’t Biblically based.
ThackerAgency on December 20, 2007 at 12:16 PM
The takeaway part of this story – the important part in my opinion – is not whether Anglican Dr. Williams lacks the theological training to defend the traditional Christian belief of the Virgin birth. It is rather that said “Ricky Gervais” is challenging “the intellectual credibility of the Christian faith” when the issue on the table should be fundamental misunderstanding of the Muslim faith by Islamofascists and why that misunderstanding is threatening people around the world…
IntheNet on December 20, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Biblically speaking, all one must do to become a Christian is believe God/Jesus exists and accept God’s authority over your life.
The virgin birth is helpful in explaining how God came to be man without having been produced specifically by man, but I personally do not see how it makes a difference so long as the above two truths are held.
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 12:17 PM
I just don’t like Wormtongue’s face.
BL@KBIRD on December 20, 2007 at 12:18 PM
In 200 AD the “Bible” didn’t exist. Where the followers of Christ at that time who didn’t believe in the virgin birth “Christians”? It’s a big tent. As I said above, the main issue is that this position comes from a leader of a church that officially professes the opposite. It’s a question of consistent intellectual honesty (of which he has none) more than theology.
peski on December 20, 2007 at 12:18 PM
FYI:
My great-grandmother was an Anglican(London born)who converted to Judaism.
Though she’s been dead since the 60′s I’ll bet that Nana is rolling in her grave at what’s being done to her birth faith.
annoyinglittletwerp on December 20, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Yeah, that’s the way to distinguish yourself from the Jihadists.
peski on December 20, 2007 at 12:20 PM
There’re so many twits these days, the burnings could solve a lot of our current energy problems… (Joke!)
Frozen Tex on December 20, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Yeah, and also “Jews for Jesus” and “Messianic Jews”.
More properly known as “Christians”.
aunursa on December 20, 2007 at 12:20 PM
It makes a difference because of Old Testament prophecy. The virgin birth is one of the many prophecies that Jesus fulfilled from the Old Testament.
In 200 AD the ‘Bible’ didn’t exist, but the GOSPEL’s DID. The GOSPEL was written as EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS to Jesus’ life, ministry, and death. . . so should we count on this person’s interpretation 2000 years out, or should we consider something closer to the source as more accurate?
ThackerAgency on December 20, 2007 at 12:21 PM
He has submitted to Islam most likely.
Traditions. An integration of pagan and judaeo-christian values over the centuries to assimilate into a cohesive, yet loosely coupled society that we all enjoy today.
Or, it’s Christmas season Antibishop of Crankerberry. Stop being a killjoy.
Kini on December 20, 2007 at 12:24 PM
and that’s the point. I’m glad you picked up on that. We don’t have ‘news stories’ questioning Islam during their holy times. . . so it must work. You wouldn’t want me to think these intellectuals spouting off at the mouth are mere cowards in their criticisms would you? I mean they are strictly intellectuals searching for knowledge and truth. The FACT that they are afraid of seeking knowledge in one area rather than another doesn’t discredit them in any way shape or form does it?
ThackerAgency on December 20, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Great comments. Not so sure it’s important any longer from a “religious” point of view what he says anymore. The Anglican church has moved from the West to Africa, and the COE is in terminal decline.
I do find watching the UK become increasingly Muslim and non-western both revolting and fascinating. Imagine watching the Roman church move to Constantinople.
JiangxiDad on December 20, 2007 at 12:25 PM
I didn’t get he’s saying that church doctrine on the virgin birth is debateable.
I think he’s saying you can come as you are and work out the kinks later. And I would agree with that sentiment. I led a muslim to Christ a few years ago who, for a time, believed both Jesus and Mohammed. Now, doctrinally, that’s a train wreck, but he needed time to work it out. And he did.
TexasDan on December 20, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Yes, and Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus too, I’m sure.
The point is, I don’t give a rat’s patootie about your theology or his, but I do despise a religious leader who talks out of both sides of his mouth.
peski on December 20, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Catholicsm
RightWinged on December 20, 2007 at 12:28 PM
And I care what he thinks because….????
CurtZHP on December 20, 2007 at 12:28 PM
So? Can one only be a Christian after reading the entire Bible?
I’m not arguing that the concept of the virgin birth be discreditted. I’m only saying that it has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation.
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Exactly.
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 12:31 PM
ditto
JiangxiDad on December 20, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Ricky Gervais??1? Isn’t that the guy with the bit part in “Night at the Museum”?
Anyway re: the virgin birth and the archbishop: That’s what you get when you have a Druid priest running the Church.
And while it’s not technically necessary to believe—or even know about—the virgin birth to become a Christian, it should become an article of faith to any serious student of the Bible.
jdpaz on December 20, 2007 at 12:34 PM
See, I don’t have a problem with the virgin birth and I don’t understand why any well-read and well-informed human being should have a problem with it either (notice, I did not say Christian).
Haven’t scientists caused eggs to begin splitting like they’re going to form embryos in the laboratory?
Why should it be so surprising that the Creator of egg and sperm should be able to do the same to get the genetics right for His entry into the world?
Just asking.
Mommynator on December 20, 2007 at 12:34 PM
This man is in a long slow public journey towards agnosticism. He ministers to empty churches. Capitulates to Islam, gays. adulterers any other sort of anti-Christian behavior that catches his politically correct radar. I don’t think the Episcopal/Anglican church will recover from his administration.
pat on December 20, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Your Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, Defender of the Faith: Tear down this dolt!
HerrMorgenholz on December 20, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Heh! Marxbishop of Canterbury.
ronsfi on December 20, 2007 at 12:36 PM
I’m not arguing that the concept of the virgin birth be discreditted. I’m only saying that it has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation.
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 12:29 PM
What is required for salvation depends on which Christian faith you profess. Though I would daresay and hope most faiths believe there are many paths to salvation.
MarkB on December 20, 2007 at 12:40 PM
But the Christians back then indeed were following the Prophets, Writings, Torah, and that combined with the eyewitness first-century stories, were later “enscripturated” into our Bible. The point is that these Christians in 200 AD still had an epistemological standard. This liberal Anglican lacks an epistemological standard, so he basically changes positions whenever the wind blows in a different position.
I do not deny there is much I agree with in your above comment. But his theology is more align with 19th century liberalism. And his views are basically just “un-belief” doctored up to sound “different” and “cutting-edge.” This is just un-belief all over again. We have been down this road before already.
ColtsFan on December 20, 2007 at 12:41 PM
The hell does Catholicism have to do with this? Catholics believe in the Virgin birth, we’re the “Mary worshippers”, remember? Don’t be stupid.
Bad Candy on December 20, 2007 at 12:41 PM
You mean there are Jews who don’t believe in the virgin birth? Amazing.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on December 20, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I can’t get in a serious religious discussion with you because I’m not equipped, but it would seem like in order for faith to be sustained, it would be necessary for each generation to go down the same roads. (Sorry if this notion is commonplace or dumb.)
JiangxiDad on December 20, 2007 at 12:47 PM
I hope so as well. If someone has to jump through hoops in order to become a Christian, then how valuable was Christ’s sacrifice?
Are we “saved” because of the stuff we do or because of the thing Christ did?
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Hmm, while what he says is true, there are two problems. One, its deceptive; it sets the bar low for theological understanding and intellectual credibility; and two, he seems to be discounting the importance of ideas.
It’s a few steps from ‘So long as you have Jesus it doesn’t matter what you believe’! (Forgetting conveniently, um, John 3:16, for instance.)
This is why wise prelates stay silent more than often. It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.
This is just… terrific:
Evidently, the archbishop has never heard of ‘symbolism’ or ‘iconography’ unless they pertain to, um, Lenin?
If anything, the fact that the stable is never shown to be a cave (which is what it most likely was) is worse.
RiverCocytus on December 20, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Jesus said, “I am the way…no man comes to the Father except through Me.”
One of the reasons that Christianity gets so much heat is its exclusivity.
jdpaz on December 20, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Exit answer: You’re bullshtt detector is functioning properly.
‘Dr.’ Williams is simply full of it.
Krykee doodle! Where do they find these asshats?
locomotivebreath1901 on December 20, 2007 at 12:55 PM
There is merit to your view above. I should have been clearer and advocated the following:
“going down the same road (ex. “19th century liberalism”) and not acknowledging that” is the issue.
Many of these liberal Christians like to pass off everything as “new development” or “new scientific discoveries” etc. This stuff is just old news recycled as “new news.”
ColtsFan on December 20, 2007 at 12:56 PM
River,
Good to see you again, my friend.
I have not seen you at HA in awhile. I did go to your interesting website after our past discussion concerning my views on defending logical necessity, belief in propositions, the undeniability of the law of non-contradiction, and why these are all essential to the Christian position.
ColtsFan on December 20, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Actually, from historical studies that I have seen or read, it showed that the houses in Israel at that time were two tiered. They had human living quarters on the top level, and they kept their animals inside on a lower level during the evening. Mary would have been given room in the lower level with the animals if they didn’t have room in the human quarters. . . not Biblical, but historical.
All in all, much is left to interpretation, but there are several things that are not. One is the virgin birth. At that time it would be unthinkable for a girl to have a baby out of wedlock (think Jamie Lynn with shame). So to make up a story about the birth of God to a single unwed mother would make Him seem weak. It would be a part of the story that you would want to cover up if you expected Him to be a ‘King of Kings’. But it is prominent which makes me think that it’s pretty accurate.
Anyway, Thank God for Jesus. The only requisite for salvation is belief that Jesus Is Lord.
ThackerAgency on December 20, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Since I believe in a God who spoke the universe into existance, I have no problem believing in a virgin birth, which would be childs play for that kind of a God.
But we must all work out our own salvation in fear and trembling.
The big lesson is Mary’s willingness to be part of God’s plan. “Let it be done to me as you have said.”
debi118 on December 20, 2007 at 1:04 PM
I would like to add to your excellent comments by recommending this book. He deals with many of the subjects which you have commented on, and he does so with fairness and from a Biblical position. I think you would enjoy it.
ColtsFan on December 20, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Sorry, he’s “anglo-Catholic”, and he’s the most notable supporter of “Affirming Catholicism”.
But my point wasn’t about doctrine, nor has it ever been. It’s always about the fact that the majority of people who would call themselves “Catholic” are like non-religious Jews. It’s more of a heritage than it is a belief. And even the more devout are often more about “faith” than they are actual belief… or what I call insurance policy Christians. They don’t “believe”, they just go through the motions. They don’t really think about the afterlife, they just figure they’ll make sure they do enough to go to the right one, if there is one… but if you approach them with arguments against their faith, they aren’t prepared to defend them with any sort of argument.
My simple “Catholicism” comment, was basically pointing out how weak the “faith” is of most Catholics, because it is just that “faith”, and nothing more. There’s no foundation for it which is why people abandoned their beliefs once they’re adults.
Again, you and your inner circle may be some of those that are the exception to the rule.. but if you’re honest, and you’ve ever been to any area that is heavily “Catholic”, you’ll admit that I’m right.
RightWinged on December 20, 2007 at 1:07 PM
The Anglican Church is hemmoraging members and unity over two huge issues; its acceptance of homosexuals and women as ordained ministers, yet this issue occupies the Archbishop of Canterbury and his time? Talk about deflection!!!
IntheNet on December 20, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Thanks ColtsFan. And Merry Christmas!
ThackerAgency on December 20, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Yes, Jesus is the way, but that doesn’t mean that there is only one way to Jesus.
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 1:14 PM
The Anglican Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury are no longer qualified to represent God or His teachings.
They are perverters of Gods Word and the Holy Bible, and have become currupt in thier ways.
leanright on December 20, 2007 at 1:20 PM
What have you been doing up in VT? Seems to me your liberals have gotten into your cranium and something got stuck. STOP with the wide brush of Cathoilic’s it is just wrong and you haven’t a clue. Go sit down with your former Gov Dean okay.
bones47 on December 20, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Someone, somewhere in this thread tried to link the questioning of Mary’s perpetual virginity to the Immaculate Conception, noting (somewhat matter of factly) that Jesus had siblings.
I am not even going to address the “sibling” thesis, but do want to point out that the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth are not directly related — as in, Jesus was not the one conceived at the time of the “Immaculate Conception.” This is a very common mistake and the term “Immacualate Conception” is often used (mostly in an attempt to be clever) in the context of when Mary became pregnant with Jesus. This is NOT the case.
Mary, herself, is the Immaculate Conception, meaning that she was selected by God at the time of her conception (a conception free of Original Sin) to be the mother of his Son.
D2Boston on December 20, 2007 at 1:27 PM
It’s not that believing in the virgin birth saves you. Press the ‘release’ button on your rationalism for a moment, folks. It’s that disbelieving in it will ultimately lead you away from Christ. The best way to think about it is that you can’t reach your ultimate destination if you keep following the signs that lead away from it.
RiverCocytus on December 20, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Dude!
Wrong premise.
Jesus is evidence of Jesus’ deity. All things were created through Him. He is the Word.
Now, let’s move on. The virgin birth is evidence of a sinless Lamb of God, ready to be sacrificed on a cruel cross for all sin.
The Word of God teaches that sin is passed through the seed. Apart from the incredible importance of the Resurrection, which is the start of a new type of life form called Eternal Life (not anything like grave bound Natural Life) the birth of a sinless Jesus is the cornerstone of having a relationship with Jesus and being SAVED. (Jesus is the last Adam. Thus, the first born of Eternal Life. The first Adam was the first CREATED of the order called Natural Life.)
Will someone sit down with Doctor Williams and explain that a sin cursed Jesus, that is a Jesus born with a combo of cursed sperm from Joseph and sinless egg from Mary, would make a worthless sacrifice for mankind’s sin? It’s the logic of a sinless Lamb of God that helps faith in Jesus, not a “hurdle.” Imbécile!
God demands a perfect sacrifice, a scapegoat, for my sin. Otherwise, I would have to spend all eternity paying for my sin and never really pay for it. I have nothing of myself to pay for my sin.
What a great gift!
saved on December 20, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Dude. That front page picture is actually an Anglican head.
LMAO!
hillbillyjim on December 20, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Particularly so with the Anglican Church, though I can’t speak for all the protestant sects.
Nobody can be sure what he is missing unless Williams actually explains his “deeper sense”. My gut feeling is that Williams’ sense isn’t all that deep and the bases for his skepticism has already been explained and/or refuted. The only thing I can think of that he might be suggesting is that he now has doubts that the material aspect of Mary’s virginity was maintained during and after Jesus’ birth. All the rest is easy to explain, understand and accept. It is only those former aspect(s), I think which requires the belief in miracles.
…
I did get a kick out of Williams’ conflation criticism and I think that is why speaks to these two issues — nativity scenes and virgin birth — rather simultaneously, as he thinks both are conflations. It doesn’t say much for his ability to think in any deep sense and adds the sense that he is owed criticism of being a conflation himself.
Dusty on December 20, 2007 at 1:40 PM
God demands a perfect sacrifice, a scapegoat, for my sin. Otherwise, I would have to spend all eternity paying for my sin and never really pay for it. I have nothing of myself to pay for my sin.
What a great gift!
Please note, we do not ‘pay’ for or sins. God, in his mercy, forgives them. Nullifies them. The effect that they have on us is what we ‘pay’ for – a drug addict must go through withdrawal, a adulterer through divorce, etc.
That being said, God demanded no sacrifice, but rather provided one as the lamb was provided for Abraham. Jesus is God.
Sin is not passed through the seed. Sin inhabits the world like pollution because of the fall and the continual sinning of man. We do not hold guilt because of Adam’s sin. These ideas force us to externalize our responsibility to be righteous; Jesus says, “Go, and sin no more.” and “Be ye perfect as I am perfect.” If you have him, then go and do good and do not provide false impressions about the nature of our God.
The virgin birth is to establish the coeternal nature of God. Or as a pastor put it wryly, “On my mother’s side, I’m about 30 years old. But on my Father’s side, I’ve been around forever…”
Don’t unnecessarily simplify the work of Christ, nor improperly rationalize a spiritual matter such as sin.
RiverCocytus on December 20, 2007 at 1:41 PM
>he developed a “deeper sense” of what the Virgin Birth was all about.
Oh. Deeper as in, “Like, um, she wasn’t really, like, a virgin, but she was a really good person, and like, God really thought that she was the best person for the job, because she, like, had a good heart. Such as.”
Drum on December 20, 2007 at 1:42 PM
But theological liberals do not even
read the Book of Hebrews.
I used to work at a liberal church. They never opened their Bibles.
ColtsFan on December 20, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Er, make that
The virgin birth is to establish the coeternal nature of
GodJesus.Phew! Nontransitive identities are hard on the peabrain.
RiverCocytus on December 20, 2007 at 1:43 PM
It is essential that you believe that Jesus is God and that he sacrificed His divine, sinless life as an atonement for our sins.
The virgin birth is central to the understanding that He is God and is without sin The event miraculously fulfilled Many Old Testament prophecies, something that to my knowledge never has been debunked or discredited, just like the resurrection.
Also, if he was born naturally, he would not be without sin, and therefore would not be qualified to be the perfect sacrifice – a lamb without blemish.
I don’t know how universally the virgin birth is considered to be essential to salvation, but I think if it isn’t, the argument is there to be made for it.
You cannot have a Christianity devoid of miracles, I’m sorry. This one is pretty much non-negotiable, like the resurrection. It’s not like we’re talking about whether Jona’s fish was a literal fish, or if the Flood was regional or global, or how symbolic the language was in Genesis… How old the earth is – Those things are among the non-essentials of the faith.
For a person to deny the virgin birth it makes me doubt their belief in His divinity, which is absolutly required for salvation.
Dork B. on December 20, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Attila:
To be a Christian kind of REQUIRES a belief in the Virgin Birth(I was a Christian for 11 years).
To be a Jew it’s a REQUIREMENT that you believe in God…which “humanistic Jews” don’t.
Hence my point.
Sorry I wasn’t clearer.
*smile*
annoyinglittletwerp on December 20, 2007 at 1:46 PM
The story of Mary’s human purity goes as deep as you like, really it’s a story about US, who bear God. In other words, being a bearer of Christ is fine for him, but not everyone else. Obviously it’s just a tradition to him and not a thing of greatness.
The idea of ‘sinful seed’ is erroneous. Because it implies there is some ‘pure human seed’ – which is saying that there is a human nature that is the divine nature. The only case in which that is true (in a loose sense) is Jesus. But the divine nature never IS the human; it instead is joined in ‘one flesh.’ So even if Jesus had two immaculately conceived human parents he would still just be a human.
RiverCocytus on December 20, 2007 at 1:48 PM
annoyinglittletwerp on December 20, 2007 at 1:46 PM
I keed.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on December 20, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Dork B: The Nicene Creed (for instance) is notably silent on the age of the world. However, it has something to say about the Virgin Birth.
RiverCocytus on December 20, 2007 at 1:52 PM
You nailed it. Like that stupid “dialog” he had with Philip Pullman (His Dark Materials author) a few years ago. That his goal was “understanding,” and that he didn’t just stop and tell Pullman that he’s a totalitarian Gnostic carrying the torch of Hegel, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, is a sign that the guy is not serious and it’s a good thing if Brits stop going to THAT church.
Drum on December 20, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Oh, and Nietzsche and Feuerbach. These clerics are so comfy and so un-Christian it’s pathetic.
Drum on December 20, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Maybe what the good Archbishop meant to say was that it’s quite possible to be a good Jew and not believe in those things. Theologically, that would certainly make sense. One could also, I expect, be a pretty solid Buddhist without maintaining the virgin birth as an article of faith.
morganfrost on December 20, 2007 at 1:56 PM
For a history of belief in the virgin birth of Christ from a Catholic perspective, I will refer you here.
Normally, to be considered Christian by the major Christian denominations, you need to believe:
1) In the Trinity (that Jesus is in fact God, totally and completely)
2) That salvation comes from Jesus
bnelson44 on December 20, 2007 at 1:57 PM
That pic of Williams reminds me of the image of the Wizard of Oz’s face appearing through the fire and brimstone above the giant steaming kettle.
Shy Guy on December 20, 2007 at 1:59 PM
If the good Archbishop hasn’t yet figured out how to say what he means to say, well, then … there’s hope for him as President!
Drum on December 20, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Judaism and Christianity have become ‘cafeteria’ religions. If you don’t believe the one in column A, try column B. If you don’t believe what is written in this Bible, write another Bible.
It appears that faith has taken a backseat, and we are now witnessing a slow evisceration of both major religions based on ‘feelings’.
After reading that Williams ‘believes’ that the Christmas Story is mostly made up of legends, one can understand why the churches in England are empty.
pocomoco on December 20, 2007 at 2:00 PM
TJ did his best to clean up the Bible by cutting out all the miracles and crap.
tommylotto on December 20, 2007 at 2:01 PM
That, or he’s vying for the next Dumbledore.
Drum on December 20, 2007 at 2:02 PM
I believe the most important role for religion in the modern and postmodern world is acting as a conveyor belt for humanity. In today’s world, you do not begin, say, medical school by first studying how to apply leeches to your patients, and then how to do phrenology, and then moving to antibiotics and modern techniques of micro-surgery. But in divinity school you do. You start by seriously learning how to apply magic and mythic versions of your religion – to grow men and women! – and then, if you are in anything resembling a progressive school, you will move to deeper and higher meanings, which are rational and pluralistic and integral, by whatever names.
Already Clement and Origen and Maimonides were doing this with their allegorical method. The religious myths simply are not empirically real, and they knew it, and so while honoring the myths, one must move from myth to reason to trans-reason in order to plumb to depths of spiritual realities.
That is, one must allow the line of spiritual intelligence to continue its growth from mythic into higher levels, and, conversely, forcing the myths to be real is the surest way to remain frozen at that level and slip into a pernicious Level/Line Fallacy. Honoring, cherishing, and celebrating the past myths, definitely; elevating them to absolute reality, definitely not.
But in order for the higher levels in the spiritual line to be recognized and allowed, the spiritual line itself needs to be recognized and honored. Both religion and science are perpetuating a cultural fallacy and this endemic fixation at the mythic level of spiritual development. And both of them need to grow up.
The de-repression of the sublime, the de-repression of the developmental line of spiritual intelligence, requires many things, but one of them is to posses an orientating Framework that allows and encourages a more spacious view of the role of both science and spirituality in the modern and postmodern world. Trying, as do proponents of intelligent design, to have science prove mythic-level poetry is preposterous. And trying to have science move into scientism and proclaim, not that science can neither prove nor disprove an Ultimate, but that it can itself answer all important questions, is simply pathological.
An Integral Framework at least attempts to begin to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, to Einstein what is Einstein’s, to Picasso what is Picasso’s, to Kant what is Kant’s, and to Christ what is Christ’s.
deesine on December 20, 2007 at 2:04 PM
I’m sorry, right site, wrong page. For the history of the virgin birth from a Catholic perspective look here.
bnelson44 on December 20, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Right, Romans 10:9. But when Williams talks about a “deeper meaning” you know you’re in for it. I mean, this is the crap that begins to cause the trouble.
Drum on December 20, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Dork B: The Nicene Creed (for instance) is notably silent on the age of the world. However, it has something to say about the Virgin Birth.
RiverCocytus on December 20, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Dork B. on December 20, 2007 at 2:12 PM
It’s Ron Paul’s “deeper meaning” of 9/11 that finally disabused me of the notion that the guy makes a good candidate. “Deeper meaning” usually ends with deep doo-doo.
Drum on December 20, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Oops, I didn’t mean to put my own comment in as a quote there….
Dork B. on December 20, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Actually, deesine, the proper view – the one which permits spiritual growth is one of nondenial: Since the time of myth is beyond my reckoning I can easily say it must not have happened that way. But then I mistake doubt or ignorance for actual disproof. Instead, we may say, “Any and all of those things may have occurred. Some of them must have. But others may not have.”
We must as Christians properly be able to believe in the occurrence of such nonrational things without it forcing us to reduce them to mere material events. Everything has layers, all the way up to the unknowable.
RiverCocytus on December 20, 2007 at 2:21 PM
It all boils down to whether you are going to choose to believe what God says in His word, or not. It’s the only real “CHOICE” that exists…
NRA4Freedom on December 20, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Also, unfortunately, the strict Integralist view tends to take its comparative religion too seriously and its recognization of the Telos far too unseriously. Suffice it to say that Christ himself is the precise embodiment of the Telos; while because he already existed we may have the liberty of saying he didn’t need to exist, his existence itself is a pre-requisite for that rationalization.
Cyclical. Consistent. Since we also have the comfort of living so far away from the incarnation, we may easily misunderstand the necessity of it in any material terms.
RiverCocytus on December 20, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Jesus was fully God and fully human. The seed of the Holy Spirit combined with Mary’s egg to create a fully God/Human Jesus. The God part of it had to be at the beginning. Jesus didn’t receive his “God nature” later. It doesn’t work that way. The Apostles received God in the form of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. While God dwells within them, the annoiting of the Holy Spirit did not make them into God. To have faith in Christ as God and our Redeemer requires belief in the Virgin Birth.
Mallard T. Drake on December 20, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Er, more like: Suffice it to say that Christ himself is the precise embodiment of the Telos;
while because he already existedWe may have the liberty of saying he didn’t need to exist, but his existence itself is a pre-requisite for that rationalization.Repeatin’ myself.
NRA4: I get your drift, but that’s strictly reductionist.
RiverCocytus on December 20, 2007 at 2:31 PM
It reminds me of a situation, some years back, when the Moderator of the United Church of Canada (Canada’s largest Protestant denomination) commented that he didn’t actually believe in the divinity of Christ. That struck a lot of people as theologically problematical for the leader of a “Christian” denomination (though it clarified the use of the nomenclature “Moderator”). Anyway, he’s no longer there.
It would be difficult to imagine the Ayahtollah Khomeini (or any Imam) publically musing on whether Mohammad actually was The Prophet. The weak kneed “leadership” of many Christain leaders explains the empty pews in many churches.
In England, despite the best efforts of the likes of Elizabeth I and Henry VIII, and others, Catholicism is now the largest single Christian denomination. Comments such as those made by Mr. Atkinson (hard to call him a Bishop, isn’t it?) may provide a clue as to why.
Blaise on December 20, 2007 at 2:33 PM
If Jesus was the seed of a man, then we sinners have no hope, the first Adam’s (man’s)is still our curse and there is no redemption and reconciliation with the Holy God. These “unsaved” pastors of Christian Churches are bearers of the Anti-Christ.
John 3:16
apostle53 on December 20, 2007 at 2:53 PM
What he said is that a belief in the Virgin birth was not to be a deterrent for someone turning to the Church. While not Roman Catholic, I have been told that this belief is necessary as a basis for inclusion in that Faith. As an Episcopalian, I choose to believe it myself but agree with Williams(with whom, by the way, I do not always agree)that this particular doubt should not, in itself, be a deterrent to turning to God. Perhaps, to some, that premise denies the Christ in Christianity and that maybe–but to turn away because of that, negates all the other values that come from a faith in a higher power.
jeanie on December 20, 2007 at 2:54 PM
The Episcopalian Church holds to two creeds:
…
Apostles Creed. The Apostle’s Creed is a creed recited by the Episcopalian Church. It is as follows:
…
Apostles Creed
…
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen
…
Nicene Creed. The Episcopalian Church also uses the Nicene Creed which reads as follows:
…
Nicene Creed A.D. 381
…
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
…
bnelson44 on December 20, 2007 at 3:22 PM
I agree with your point though. Not believing in the virgin birth should not be a detriment to you turning toward God. Once you wish to have full communion with the Church, then you need to agree, but that could be a lot further down the road for an individual.
bnelson44 on December 20, 2007 at 3:25 PM
I dunno, it seems to me that if you believe that a man, Jesus, died for our sins on a cross, then believing he was born of a virigin shouldn’t be that far of a stretch should it? I’m just sayin.
gator70 on December 20, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Not to mention that whole resurrection thing….
jjjen on December 20, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Whether every single story (in its various translations) in the Bible should be taken as undeniable fact can be debated by reasonable Christians.
Last I checked, the only requirement to be a Christian was to believe Jesus was the son of God, and that he died for all our sins so that we could live in eternity with God.
I believe Jesus was sinless and not the seed of man. But that in and of itself does not establish “virgin” birth. Furthermore, arguments that no other explanation could have resulted in God’s son being born and living among us places limits on God’s powers. I do not believe such limits exist.
Now, let’s see, I’ve spotted a nice sharp stone right over here …
doufree on December 20, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Is it any wonder that churches in England are empty, church land is being sold off, and there is a significant drop in the belief of the Christian religion in England?
This heretic is the reason.
madmonkphotog on December 20, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »