Archbishop Williams and the Nativity
While Christmas season has drawn to a close, there is a lingering suspicion that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury has declared the Nativity to be "legendary." Sophia Borland’s "Archbishop says nativity a ‘legend,’ " of the Daily Telegraph is to thank for this, and bloggers have generally assumed she was reliable.
Before singling out some particularly mistaken blogs, allow me to briefly summarize the Archbishop’s statements. In an interview with Simon Mayo, the Archbishop is asked to comment on the historicity of certain characteristics found on a standard Christmas card.
The Archbishop notes that Jesus was in fact born in poor circumstances, that Mary and Joseph would have been nearby, and that Mary was indeed a virgin. As there is no mention of ox and asses being present, Williams notes that he "can live without the ox and asses." When asked about the Wise Men, he responds:
Well Matthew’s gospel doesn’t tell us that there were three of them, doesn’t tell us they were kings, doesn’t tell us where they came from, it says they’re astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire. That’s all we’re really told so, yes, ‘the three kings with one from Africa,’ — that’s legend; it works quite well as a legend.
He suggests that the shepherds and the Wise Men probably didn’t appear to Jesus at the same time and he suggests that the various scientific explanations that seek to explain what led the Wise Men to Jesus "make sense" to him.
There is nothing unorthodox about anything he has said here regarding the common elements of the Christmas tradition, although certain bloggers have made a great deal out of it.
The Boring Made Dull is bothered that "the Rt. Rev feels the need to concede so much turf" and this blogger believes that this is precisely why the Anglican Communion is having such difficulty filling the pews, but what Nativity-related Biblical turf have we seen the "Rt. Rev" conceding, I wonder?
Sisyphus appears surprised that December 25th is not necessarily the day Jesus was born on. Well, whose fault is that? He then extends his thoughts by saying "apparently that ubiquitous nativity scene that clutters courthouse lawns across the country is simply a legend." And after providing a block quote from Borland’s article, Sisyphus asks, "now, about that virgin birth…" but if s/he would have read the Archbishop’s interview, s/he would have also learned that the Archbishop affirms the virgin birth. My question for Sisyphus is the same I asked to Boring Made Dull: Show me biblically precisely what the Archbishop is conceding?
St. John Valdosta Blog identifies the Archbishop as "calling the Bible into question," and states "when one starts questioning what is plainly written in the Scriptures…" Same question to this blogger: What precisely does the Archbishop call into question that can be found in the nativity scenes of the Scriptures? What does the Archbishop question that is ‘plainly written in the Scriptures?’
Besides taking cheap shots at Anglicans throughout this blogger’s short post (ironically, in his ‘Post Comment Rules, the blogger states, ‘let’s attack ideas, not people’) the blogger closes by attacking the person, saying "Dr. Williams [has] about as much credibility as a cartoon character,’ and my question to this blogger is: How much credibility would you like to see attached to your claims, when you post a topic that you have not even slightly researched?
PBLosser expresses an overall cynicism with the presentation of Christianity in the media during Christmas, a presentation that suggests "that the Gospel writers are unreliable and not to be trusted, and certainly not to be taken at face value," but this blogger mistakenly believes that this assessment describes the Archbishop’s stance on the Nativity. Where, blogger, does the Archbishop insinuate that the Gospel writers are unreliable and not to be trusted, or not to be taken at face value?
At InfinityGoods, the blogger writes that "the Archbishop of Canterbury says there was no virgin birth, no magi (only a legend) and no star among other blabbering." Had this blogger read the actual interview with Simon Mayo, s/he would have discovered that in fact the Archbishop does believe in the Virgin Birth, does not think that the Magi are legendary, and that he does not suggest that there was not something that led the Magi to Jesus.
Finally, it seems that Tad Cronn did read the interview, although his interpretation is flawed. Cronn seems to suggest that Williams doubts the very existence of the Magi, when in fact, Williams simply suggests that all we are told Biblically is that "they’re astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire," so I would ask Tad: If Williams begins to get into trouble Biblically as your suggest, and yet Biblically, Williams only says what the Bible says about the Magi, how precisely is he getting into trouble?
Tad has a problem with Williams’ assessment of the Star. Williams is asked by Mayo is there is a star above the place where the child is. Williams responds:
Don’t know, I mean Matthew talks about a star rising, about the star standing still; we know starts don’t behave quite like that, that the wise men should have seen something which triggered a recognition that something significant was going on; some constellation, there are various scientific theories about what it might have been at around that time and they followed that trek; that makes sense to me.
The blogger is bothered that the Archbishop makes "the virgin birth optional." Well, he doesn’t really. He simply says that he would hate to set that up as some sort of hurdle for people before they sign on to the faith, and that in his own experience, it was over a period of years that the importance of the virgin birth became clear. His approach is pragmatic, and shows a recognition that certain elements of the faith take time to mature.
Tad believes that Williams "is afflicted with the same sort of creeping atheist that has wormed its way into churches around the world," and states that "if there was no magi, there was no star, there was no virgin birth, then there was no Son of God…" all leaning towards Tad’s eventual point which is mooted by the fact that the Archbishop does not, and has not rejected those things. Tad closes with a "If the archbishop has now decided that he needs to dissect the Bible and underline the unacceptable parts, I would suggest it’s time he hang up the robes and start his own religion." My question for Tad, which is not all that different than the one to all these other bloggers is this: Precisely what parts of the Bible, regarding the Nativity, has the Archbishop decided that he now needs to dissect and identify as unacceptable?
There’s something humourous about the Archbishop identifying Spong as a presenter of arguments that are astonishingly misrepresented and demonstrate a high level of confusion, or his calling astrology "bunk," or his description of the climate in Israel as being "pretty damn cold" but if we have a problem with him, it should rest in reality, which is not where the preceeding bloggers at the time found rest.
K.
Only an age that believes it has a grasp on absolute truth would find the term “legendary” to be a pejorative. Legends are woven from the facts of history, but not confined to them. They are woven in the hearts of the people. Therefore, they emobody the chiefest of the modern sins: they are genuinely scientific (involving real knowledge) and genuinely democratic (involving widespread assent and devotion.)
Comment by John Médaille — January 11, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
Thanks for the comments / link, and pointing out the transcript, which I overlooked. It does reset the context.
I’ll add an update to my post, but I still think that he’s giving too much ground, so I’m not conceding what I take to be the major point here.
Also, on John’s comment above - for most people in our culture, the term ‘legend’ carries a heavy connotation of something that isn’t quite true, or is severly exaggerated, so in terms of the Gospel it is quite pejorative.
Quick question - your original comment on my blog showed up on an unrelated post. Did you hit the comments link on the Rowan Williams post, or just the one currently on the front? I’d like to know if Haloscan is putting comments in the right places…
Thanks again.
Comment by Boring Made Dull — January 11, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
K., thanks for letting me respond.
“Cronn seems to suggest that Williams doubts the very existence of the Magi, when in fact, Williams simply suggests that all we are told Biblically is that “they’re astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire,” so I would ask Tad: If Williams begins to get into trouble Biblically as your suggest, and yet Biblically, Williams only says what the Bible says about the Magi, how precisely is he getting into trouble?”
He’s not entirely biblical on this point. The archbishop said (my comments inserted):
Tad has a problem with Williams’ assessment of the Star. Williams is asked by Mayo is there is a star above the place where the child is. Williams responds:
Don’t know, I mean Matthew talks about a star rising, about the star standing still; we know starts don’t behave quite like that, that the wise men should have seen something which triggered a recognition that something significant was going on; some constellation, there are various scientific theories about what it might have been at around that time and they followed that trek; that makes sense to me.
Actually, I did not have access to the transcript at the time, but relied on the report from the Daily Mail which stated that Williams specified “the star of the North.” I don’t know if the Mail was just inaccurate or if the transcript has been edited to remove that specific reference. However, Williams is asked if there was a star above the place where Jesus was born. Matthew 2:9 : “and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.”
That’s pretty clear, I’d say. Williams’ dispute is that stars don’t behave that way. Well, stars the way we define them in the 20th century don’t behave that way. But what was the definition of “star” in ancient times? Pretty much any light in the sky that wasn’t the sun, the moon or a planet. A “star” might have been a comet, a meteor, asteroid or something else entirely. Point is, Williams is putting the ancient Bible on a modern Procrustean bed by applying his 21st century understanding of the heavens to the conversations of first-century mystics. Something’s bound to get chopped off, and in this case, it’s the Bible text. For me, if it says “star,” then it means something that to the writer fell under his definition of star, not mine, and it’s up to me to clarify what that definition is, not arbitrarily toss out passages of the Gospel.
The blogger is bothered that the Archbishop makes “the virgin birth optional.” Well, he doesn’t really. He simply says that he would hate to set that up as some sort of hurdle for people before they sign on to the faith, and that in his own experience, it was over a period of years that the importance of the virgin birth became clear. His approach is pragmatic, and shows a recognition that certain elements of the faith take time to mature.
His approach is pragmatic, to be sure, more concerned with filling seats than teaching the Christian Gospel, I’d say. The virgin birth a stumbling block? It’s essential to the identity of Jesus as God’s son. Without the Virgin birth, Jesus is Joseph’s son, not God’s, and you would have to further distort the Gospels to explain Jesus’ self-identification as the Son of God. If we don’t want “stumbling blocks” to people joining the church, then let’s toss the whole Bible and be Unitarians. The virgin birth is a fundamental belief expressed in the Nicene Creed, including the Anglican version, which states: “Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man.” If people are “signing on” to a faith without that key understanding of Christ, what exactly are they signing on to?
Tad believes that Williams “is afflicted with the same sort of creeping atheist that has wormed its way into churches around the world,” and states that “if there was no magi, there was no star, there was no virgin birth, then there was no Son of God…” all leaning towards Tad’s eventual point which is mooted by the fact that the Archbishop does not, and has not rejected those things.
He may not have gotten around to openly rejecting those things yet, but my point was that his mode of thinking — getting rid of “minor” inconvenient points of the Gospels — leads in only one direction ultimately, the path of disbelief. I don’t believe the point is mooted at all by what stage of that journey he is in. The mere fact that a leader of a major Christian church is selling off bit by bit the Gospels is frankly alarming. You can count the things he hasn’t publicly rejected, but many of those things on the list I gave he has come right up to the edge of rejecting. In doing so, he has encouraged others to reject them. How much has he rejected in his heart?
Tad closes with a “If the archbishop has now decided that he needs to dissect the Bible and underline the unacceptable parts, I would suggest it’s time he hang up the robes and start his own religion.” My question for Tad, which is not all that different than the one to all these other bloggers is this: Precisely what parts of the Bible, regarding the Nativity, has the Archbishop decided that he now needs to dissect and identify as unacceptable?
He’s clearly squeamish about the whole Nativity narration. Most disturbing to me is the cavalier attitude he displays toward the virgin birth. As I said, no virgin birth, no Son of God — which is precisely where this line of thinking wants to go, in my experience: “Jesus was a nice guy/wise teacher/popular leader … but not divine.” If Jesus wasn’t the Son of God, then the whole New Testament is moot and Christianity is baseless, which is the conclusion of atheists, who cannot imagine anything beyond themselves. And I stand by my suggestion that he should start his own religion.
There’s something humourous about the Archbishop identifying Spong as a presenter of arguments that are astonishingly misrepresented and demonstrate a high level of confusion, or his calling astrology “bunk,” or his description of the climate in Israel as being “pretty damn cold” but if we have a problem with him, it should rest in reality, which is not where the preceeding bloggers at the time found rest.
The astrology bit, I note, is once again an example of Williams forcing his 21st century interpretation into a historical framework that won’t accept it. Astrology today is just New Agey newspaper column fodder. The Astrology of the ancient world was science coupled with religion. An ancient astrologer was really an astronomer and a sort of priest simultaneously. Remember it was ancient astrologers, not Columbus, who realized the Earth was a sphere. This is outside the question of biblical text, but it is, I think, indicative of Williams’ mindset.
Also, re the part about how it couldn’t snow in Israel: The Bible doesn’t mention snow or even what time of year it was, but for the record, it snowed yesterday in Baghdad for the first time in 100 years. So those who defend Williams as simply “being logical” really don’t have much of a leg to stand on. In the interview, Williams did make some valid points about traditions that aren’t in the Bible, but mostly he was illustrating how he places his own assumptions above what’s written in the Gospels.
Comment by Tad Cronn — January 12, 2008 @ 8:29 am
Hello stranger, and hopefully friend. You left an announcement in my combox” directing me to your post here, where you ask: “Where … does the Archbishop insinuate that the Gospel writers are unreliable and not to be trusted, or not to be taken at face value?”
Well, if you read my post, you will note that it is not about Abp. Williams in the first place, but about the reliability of the NT narrative. Every Christmas and Easter the drive by media trot out sound bites from celebrities which, accurate or not, they often use to their own purposes to scandalize the public and create news. The bite from Williams they exploited was his reputed statement that the story of the Magi was “nothing but legend.” Regardless of what Abp. Williams may or may not have intended by that remark, how do you think the public interprets it? How do you think the drive by media intends it to be interpreted? This isn’t rocket science.
Comment by Pertinacious Papist — January 12, 2008 @ 9:46 am
John I don’t disagree with what you said, and while Williams himself uses the term ‘legend,’ at issue here, is that Williams is not calling the whole Nativity into question, as Sophia Borland has suggested, but rather simply a certain understanding of the Wise Men, namely that there were three, that they were kings, and that one was from Africa.
Identifying such details as legendary does not necessarily mean that they are untrue (as you know the specific historicity of certain items in legends becomes secondary), it simply means that it does not rest in the descriptions of the Biblically nativity narratives, which the Archbishop was called to comment on and contrast with say what you would see on a tradition Christmas card.
I agree however with the Blogger ‘Boring Made Dull’ who responds by saying that regardless of a words proper sense, the connotation of a word like ‘legend’ (or ‘myth’, which is a common word for Biblical scholars, who however attach a very different meaning to it than lay people do), how it is popularly understood makes it pejorative.
Boring Made Dull, I really do appreciate the fact that you have updated your post, and in doing so have shed greater light on your own readers regarding this poorly reported topic (I think we have Sophia Borland of the Daily Telegraph to blame for that).
However, my problem with your post was precisely what turf you thought he was conceding. You remain convinced he was conceding turf and as such my original question to you remains unanswered: Is it the fact that, as the Gospel authors do not mention ox and asses as being present, and that Williams can therefore live without them, an example of problematic turf-conceding? Or is it his belief that traditions that have developed over time regarding the Magi that do not rest with any Biblical evidence?
You express appreciation for my providing of some context to you. However you stand by your statements that in my mind were made without that context. Williams conceded turf? What turf?
My invitation to you appeared on your most recent post where I believed you were most likely to see it.
I appreciate your response, and look forward to future ones, as well as future posts at your blog.
K.
Comment by K. — January 12, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
“Pertinacious Papist” (if you give me a real name, then I won’t have to call you that)
Well, I’m not an enemy and I did read your post, and I know that the post wasn’t centered around Archbishop Williams. And I also don’t disagree with your cynicism regarding the presentation of Christianity around Christmas and Easter. What I disagree with is your assertion that Archbishop Williams is one of those being paraded around as a belittler of Christianity. Not so. His views during that interview were misinterpreted by a Daily Telegraph reporter. First of all, he didn’t say, as you assert, that ‘story of the Magi was ‘nothing but legend,’ but rather he identified features of the story, that are not grounded in the Biblical narrative (that there were three, that they were kings, that one was from Africa…) as being legendary. This isn’t belittling or minimizing the Gospel narratives. It certainly in no way plays into the suggestion “that the Gospel writers are unreliable and not to be trusted, and certainly not to be taken at face value,” which is what you find is the underlying motivation of many other presenters of Christianity-related material during the Christian holidays.
You ask me: How do you think the public interprets Williams words? Quite frankly, and I don’t mean to be harsh, but if you bloggers would do your jobs, and actually look into the details that you are writing about, and don’t simply assuming that reporters like Sophia Borland are reliable, the public would have a truer picture. Instead, you simply assume. And you err. And you continue a false rumour. It’s not rocket science, I agree.
And I thank you for your comments, and look forward to future ones, as well as future blog posts of yours.
K.
Comment by K. — January 12, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
I personally must agree that belief the Virgin Birth is not in and of itself Salvific. In fact, why do we insist anyone believe anything not in and of itself salvific?
But here’s where I think some might have a problem:
“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.”
He seems to be calling into question the whole notion of prophecy and fullfillment. At least that’s how it likely appears to some. Perosnally I think we need to drop our “crystal ball” versionof prophecy that we get from Cartoon TV Shows. I have no problem with the notion that the author of Matthew may have done it exactly as he said. he found something in the OT that was a “typology” of Christ, and used that to bolster his story.
In other words, to me, a non-literalist reading of the passage is much more faith-bolstering. The other way is pure Sci-Fi, and not very likely.
I know that will rile some feathers, but that’s my take on it. I say that as one who came out of a Fundamentalist youth group as a teen that hammered on the need to be able to prove what you beleive historically and scientifically. For me, that means something different than it did decades ago (ouch!)
Comment by Kevin Wayne — January 12, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Dear K.,
I have no quarrel with the claim that the Abp. may have not intended everything that was reported by the drive by media. This is a perennial problem. I never claimed that the Abp. himself said that the “Gospel writers are unreliable and not to be trusted, and certainly not to be taken at face value.” I said that the upshot of the TIME and NEWSWEEK and media features around Christmas and Easter regularly suggest that conclusion. I will concede the point that I could have inserted an explicit disclaimer regarding Abp. Williams.
I think you are missing a point in all this. If there is room for indignation here, it should be directed against the media and, even more, against those theologians who promote the kinds of demythologizing screed upon which they voraciously feed. It would be nice to have seen the Abp. Williams himself lay a broadside against the historical-critical preudo-scholarship underlying all of this.
Comment by Pertinacious Papist — January 13, 2008 @ 6:41 am
Pertinacious Papist,
I know you never directly claim that the Archbishop said that the Gospels writers “were unreliable and not to be trusted…” but the insinuation is that every year the media parades around individuals, “usually scholars like John Dominic Crossan who dissent from Church teaching, or more ostensibly mainline scholars like Raymond E. Brown (now deceased) who have been thoroughly corrupted….This year we’ve seen the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, call the Christmas story a ‘legend…’ ” I agree that a disclaimer at the time would have helped, but at the time you wouldn’t have thought to put it, because you didn’t check your sources, am I right?
Besides not calling the Gospel account of the Nativity a ‘legend’ (why isn’t this an unimportant detail to you bloggers? Why no retraction after context is provided and it is made obvious that he did not call it a ‘legend?’) you can’t tell me that you are not grouping Williams in with Crossan and Brown, each of whom you believe to have in some way a flawed understanding of the Biblical materials.
You suggest that indignation should be directed against the media. Indeed but it should be your fury, and the fury of the other bloggers that I have singled out here, who have simply taken for granted the truthfulness of Sophia Borland’s article. Regarding the theologians who demythologize, again, extend fury towards them if you desire. That was in part the subject of your post, not mine. You suggest how nice it would have been for the Archbishop to lay a broadside against the historical-critical pseudo scholarship underlying your post, but Williams was approached by Mayo, and not you, and Mayo wanted to compare the historicity and factuality of various features on the traditional Christmas card. Strange, wouldn’t you say, that for Williams to respond to the historicity and factuality of various features, he each time appeals to the Gospel accounts?
Thank you for the time you took to respond.
K.
Comment by K. — January 13, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Tad, I am grateful for the response.
Can I break your comments into 5 different sections and then deal with each?
1. The Magi
You originally insinuate that Williams denies the overall existence of the Magi. I, having read the interview with Mayo, provide context by providing Williams thoughts that Matthew doesn’t say certain things about the Magi that are today shown in some Christmas cards. You suggest Williams is in trouble Biblically. I ask how. With context given, you concede that Williams is right when he says that Matthew doesn’t say there was three Magi, and doesn’t say they were kings. Your only problem with his comments regarding the Magi is his words “[Matthew’s Gospel] doesn’t tell us where they came from.” You identify Matthew’s claim that they came from the East, but your quibbling here. “East,” isn’t exactly a precise identification of one’s origins, but more importantly the context of the question (Mayo’s “with one wise men normally being black, and the other two being white), is that we know the Magi’s skin colour. The response is that we don’t.
Now you’ve come a long way from Borland’s “Archbishop says Nativity a legend,” or your own insinuation that he had deemed the Magi legendary, and your only remaining fault with his comments regarding the Magi (their location) misses the context. So can we leave the Magi behind? Can we abandon entirely your original assertion that with the Magi Williams gets himself into trouble?
2. The Star
Stars behave in certain ways, yes. And when we look at the Archbishop’s interview, of coarse we talk about them in the way that we define them in the 20th century. The point of the Mayo interview has been repeated many times by now. The star Mayo is talking about is your typical low, five-sided, startfish type of star.
You respond to the fact that perhaps that Gospel authors had a broader definition of ‘star’ and it’s precisely because of that that the Archbishop cannot apply the modern term to that which appeared back then, and its precisely because of that that he has to say “that the wise men should have seen something which triggered a recognition of something significant was going on; some constellation, there are various scientific theories about what it might have been at around that time and they followed that trek; that makes sense to me.”
He is doing actually the opposite of what you accuse him of doing for he is recognizing a difference between the terminology of first century Palestine, and 21 century Britain, and attempting to relate to his hearers exactly what you were relating to me about the definition of stars in ancient times.
So if we could, lets lose the silly rhetoric regarding Bible texts being chomped off?
3. Virgin Birth: Optional?
Many accept the Virgin Birth (Muslims) without accepting the Divinity of Jesus. Still others accept the Divinity of Jesus, without accepting the Virgin Birth. Neither are completely wrong, but ultimately, if the historical understanding of the Birth of Jesus is correct, then their views reflect only a partial understanding, and yet you, leaving no room for growth, would instead demand 100% allegiance to this tenet beforehand, even though Paul makes no mention of it, and instead states that if there is no Resurrection, then there is no Christianity.
Williams instead suggests: “I think quite a few people as time goes on, they get a sense, a deeper sense of what the virgin birth is all about,” or “the more you reflect on the Incarnation, the less of a problem you may have [with the virgin birth],” and yet my sense from your strategy is that you would not allow the opportunity to reflect, and in doing so you would prevent an individual from coming to a fuller understanding of the Incarnation.
Is he saying it’s optional, as you assert? No. He is saying that as individuals reflect more on the Incarnation, the virgin birth becomes more believable.
4. The Path to Disbelief
At this point, the frequency of your rhetoric is a little more difficult to ignore:
-“getting rid of the ‘minor’ inconvenient points of the Gospels:” LIKE WHAT TAD?
-“selling off bit by bit of the Gospel:” WHERE TAD?
You suggest that I can count the list of beliefs that he hasn’t yet rejected, but that list you provided. I simply said he hadn’t rejected the things that you were going on about. You suggest that “he has come right to the edge of rejecting,” but herein lies the advantage of being familiar with both person and the issues (my advantage I suppose), for rather than coming to the edge of rejection, Williams readily admits that there was a time when he did reject certain tenets. He has come from the edge.
Back to the rhetoric:
-“squeamish about the whole Nativity tradition:” HAVEN’T WE BEEN TRHOUGH THIS TAD?
-“he should start his own religion:” RIDICULOUS.
5. Astrology and Snow
-Astrology
So because Williams agrees with Mayo that astrology is bunk, you are able to reignite your rhetoric
-“Williams forcing his 21st century interpretation…”
-“indicative of Williams’ mindset…”
You give me the ‘astrology today is just New Agey newspaper column fodder, but back then…’
All of which is aid by Williams when Mayo asks him if there is some problem with identifying the Magi, astrologers, as being wise?
“Will I’m inclined to agree that astrology is bunk, but you’re dealing with a world in which people watched the starts in order to get a sort of heads up on significant matters and astrologers were quite a growth industry; people who were respected and had a kind of professional…”
-Snow
Regarding the snow (and he didn’t say it ‘couldn’t snow’) and all the fact of snow for the first time in Baghdad shows is that snow can hit even where it is not expected. How does this meterological detail not give Williams a leg to stand on? How does it show he places his assumptions above the Bible? You might cite something more general and ambiguous, because anything specific has gotten you into trouble.
“Snow on the ground,” Mayo asks.
“Very unlikely, I think; it can be pretty damn cold in Bethlehem at this time of the year, but we don’t know that it was this time of the year, because again the Gospels don’t tell us…”
Supposing that you have a genuinely important post in the future, something that you have some knowledge about, how do you suppose you will be taken seriously when all of these misrepresentations found in one small post are so near to you. Rather than losing credibility, you can begin to rebuild your own, by identifying which points (1 through 5) you are ready to retract.
K.
Comment by K. — January 13, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
K.,
Thanks again for the opportunity to respond.
“1. The Magi
You originally insinuate that Williams denies the overall existence of the Magi.”
Well as I said, I did not have the transcript to work from at the time, only several printed reports, which apparently elaborated on what the archbishop said. However, I think part of the problem lies with the reporters writing about “three kings,” which Williams does deny. But that wasn’t the only part that I had a problem with. The whole of his comments as I was aware of them seemed to indicate that the Bible said essentially nothing to identify these wise men, and that’s not true. Where I believe he gets in trouble biblically is when he says the Bible doesn’t tell us where the magi are from. You say “the East” is a quibble, but I don’t think it is. We know where Herod lived, we know where the wise men were going, we know what direction East is from those locations. As I said, East of that part of the Roman Empire is Parthia (Iran), which is also the origin of the term “magi.” The Archbishop seems to be suggesting that the Gospel is merely telling a story, and an unimportant one at that, which does not refer to any known history. I dispute that. It would have been a great opportunity for him to explain how historical evidence outside the Bible dovetails with the story, but he doesn’t do that. (The thing about one white, one oriental, one black wise man doesn’t really interest me, although in the interview the Archbishop actually sounds like he may favor that particular “legend.”) As an aside, there is actually a tomb that tradition attributes to those specific magi, in Iran.
“2. The Star
Stars behave in certain ways, yes. And when we look at the Archbishop’s interview, of coarse we talk about them in the way that we define them in the 20th century.” etc.
Williams’ vague acknowledgment that the Magi saw “something” doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is when he’s asked if there was a “star” above Jesus’ location and he says “don’t know.” If he believed the Gospel, he would know, because it says there was — Matthew 2:9. So yes, he’s in trouble biblically on that point. And the reason he gets in that trouble is, I believe, because he is someone who wants to force his 21st-century understanding onto ancient writings, as indicated by his speculation following the “don’t know.”
“3. Virgin Birth: Optional?
Many accept the Virgin Birth (Muslims) without accepting the Divinity of Jesus. Still others accept the Divinity of Jesus, without accepting the Virgin Birth. Neither are completely wrong, but ultimately, if the historical understanding of the Birth of Jesus is correct, then their views reflect only a partial understanding, and yet you, leaving no room for growth, would instead demand 100% allegiance to this tenet beforehand, even though Paul makes no mention of it, and instead states that if there is no Resurrection, then there is no Christianity.”
First, Paul is right. Without the Resurrection, there’d be no Christianity either. That has no bearing on the issue of the Virgin Birth. In regards to the Virgin Birth, I argue from Scripture and logic. It’s right there in the Gospel. And there are two questions that come to mind right away: one, if you disbelieve the Gospels, how and why are you accepting Christianity; and two, if Jesus’ mother wasn’t a virgin, then how is he the Son of God, ie, divine? The issue of Jesus’ identity and the virginity of his mother are inseparable. Either he was divine and his mother was a virgin, or his mother wasn’t a virgin and he wasn’t divine. If he’s not divine, then he’s deluded when he says he is, and Christianity is irrelevant. You seem to be arguing for a “shades of gray” approach. I think there’s right and wrong, true and untrue. You mention that Muslims accept the virgin birth but not Jesus’ divinity — but they’re Muslim, not Christian, you’ll note. I do know some people who try to say they believe in the divinity of Jesus but do not believe the virgin birth, but to do so makes no logical sense. Paul had direct experience of the risen Jesus. He did not have to become a Christian by reading the Gospels. But do you suppose having accepted Jesus, he then went around rejecting parts of the story told to him by the other Apostles that he found inconvenient or didn’t understand? Everyone grows in understanding (hopefully). But it’s one thing to not understand something and another to reject it. But rejecting part of the Gospels seems to be something the Archbishop is OK with, so long as the pews are filled. I do have a problem with that attitude, as I think it is once again sacrificing part of the Gospel.
“4. The Path to Disbelief
At this point, the frequency of your rhetoric is a little more difficult to ignore:
-“getting rid of the ‘minor’ inconvenient points of the Gospels:” LIKE WHAT TAD?”
I think I’ve spelled them out several times now.
“-“selling off bit by bit of the Gospel:” WHERE TAD?”
Ditto.
“You suggest that I can count the list of beliefs that he hasn’t yet rejected, but that list you provided. I simply said he hadn’t rejected the things that you were going on about. You suggest that “he has come right to the edge of rejecting,” but herein lies the advantage of being familiar with both person and the issues (my advantage I suppose), for rather than coming to the edge of rejection, Williams readily admits that there was a time when he did reject certain tenets. He has come from the edge.”
Sounds to me like he’s still out there. And I think I specified “rejecting publicly.” If the Archbishop was one who kept his reservations to himself, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
“Back to the rhetoric:
-“squeamish about the whole Nativity tradition:” HAVEN’T WE BEEN TRHOUGH THIS TAD?”
Yes, and I stand by that statement.
“-“he should start his own religion:” RIDICULOUS.”
Probably. But here’s a man who is supposed to be the spiritual leader for a major Christian church, and he sounds in this interview like he’s very lukewarm toward the Gospels, the very root of the Christian tradition. Revelation 3:16: “So, because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” So which is more ridiculous, a church leader who goes public with reservations about the Gospels, or my suggestion that he start his own religion? If he took my suggestion, at least he’d spare the rest of us.
“5. Astrology and Snow
-Astrology
So because Williams agrees with Mayo that astrology is bunk, you are able to reignite your rhetoric
-“Williams forcing his 21st century interpretation…”
-“indicative of Williams’ mindset…””
When Williams says “Well I ‘m inclined to agree that astrology is bunk but …” I’m hearing a variation of the argument that I believe underlies his whole interview. He didn’t come out and say “you have to realize, Mr. Mayo, that back then, this is what was what.” He didn’t correct the interviewers’ understanding. Note the actual wording of the question, “there’d be many people in your church who would think, actually, astrology is bunk and should be exposed as bunk and the idea of saying that they are wise is somewhat farcical.” First words out of his mouth? “Well, I’m inclined to agree …” Sounds like he’s one of those people the interviewer cites as believing the “wise men” are farcical. He then explains how people were gullible enough to believe in astrology back then, but it’s all good because “it’s all about bringing them to Jesus,” i.e., just done to put people in the pews. Think about that … what is he saying, that it’s OK to say whatever will get people to sign on the parish registry? He’s not an evangelist, he’s a used-car salesman. I have serious disputes with that attitude.
“Snow
Regarding the snow (and he didn’t say it ‘couldn’t snow’) and all the fact of snow for the first time in Baghdad shows is that snow can hit even where it is not expected. How does this meterological detail not give Williams a leg to stand on?”
I’ve been reading a lot on the Internet about how the Archbishop was “just trying to inject logic” into the Nativity. Logic says it doesn’t snow in the Middle East, but it just so happens that it did the other day. Now the Bible doesn’t mention snow, so I don’t even think it’s a question, but the interviewer brought it up and the Archbishop answered, applying his personal logic again. Then it snows in Baghdad. So, I like the juxtaposition.
“How does it show he places his assumptions above the Bible?”
I think the whole interview shows clearly that he places his own assumptions above the Bible.
“Supposing that you have a genuinely important post in the future, something that you have some knowledge about, how do you suppose you will be taken seriously when all of these misrepresentations found in one small post are so near to you. Rather than losing credibility, you can begin to rebuild your own, by identifying which points (1 through 5) you are ready to retract.”
I’m not retracting a single one. I believe I’ve stated clearly what I got out of the archbishop’s interview and why I believe I am correct. Readers can believe what they like.
And for the record, all my posts are important, even if the world hasn’t realized it yet.
Thanks for the joust.
Comment by Tad Cronn — January 14, 2008 @ 6:33 am
Tad, I am more than happy to submit to your statement that reader’s can believe what they like, regarding our conversation, as well as what I feel is your misreading of the texts in question.
In my opinion you are not really addressing what you have been challenged on (your misrepresentations), and while I did give the opportunity for you to retract, that is a hard thing to do, and I didn’t really expect it. It strikes me that each time I respond to you, you break off onto a tangent and begin arguing a new point, as if it was that which was in contention, and in doing so, a number of issues are raised, but none can be dealt with, because the dialogue is not straightforward. That is my take and it might not be true, but I am happy to let the readers decide.
Just an example to illustrate my point: You originally assert that the Archbishop insinuates that the Magi are legendary, then, in ligth of evidence, you tell us that in fact the Archbishop’s only error was that he stated that we do not know where the Magi comes from. You assert that the designation “East,” tells us where they are from (in a sense I agree, but only in a very general sense, and if you read Williams specific statement you realize that the context is touch more specific, but no matter) and then you assert a whole bunch of things about the Wise Men, that we do know from the Gospels, but that Williams does not deny and were never in question. It strikes me that to justify a poorly researched Blog post, you are banking on the hope that others haven’t read your interview, and will buy into your insinuation (which has progressed I might say, from Williams saying the Magi do not exist, to we don’t know where they are from) to now that Williams suggests we know nothing at all about them, when in fact all he says is that specifically we don’t know where they came from.
You may have noticed also that I don’t much care for your rhetoric. It seems almost everywhere where a citation s/could be. I would hate to think that in the absense of material to pass on, I would appeal to such dribble, but then again you’d never know. Scroll through some past posts, and you might find my employment of it in place of logic.
Anyway, I am happy to let the readers decide as to which of us is painting the accurate picture of the Archbishop.
Thanks for your comments.
K.
Comment by K. — January 16, 2008 @ 5:47 pm