There are some really terrible headlines in the papers at the moment about what Rowan Williams ‘said’ about the Christmas story:
“It’s all a Christmas tall story” The Times
“Three Wise Men are just a legend, says Archbishop of Canterbury” The Daily Mail
“Archbishop says nativity ‘a legend'” Daily Telegraph
I’m sure there’s plenty more around like this. The only problem is, none of it is true. Instead, one ‘journalist’ seems to have fed on another.
Well, someone finally got it right.
More shocking headlines:
Archbishop of Canterbury Questions Existence of Little Drummer Boy!
Faith of Millions Shattered When Rowan Williams Casts Doubt On Whether Little Lamb Ever Asked “Do You See What I See?”
Rowan’s comments about being able to sidestep the Virgin birth are just plain wrong. But the real problem is the old academic just cannot help but apply a post-modern approach to his faith, as another poster so ably pointed out. When you think like an academic student of Christianity rather than as a Christian scholastic, you invite these sort of things.
It all comes down to:
is there or is there not core doctrine?
If there is, is the Virgin Birth ‘core doctrine’?
The church through the ages says yes.
Rowan Williams appears to be saying ‘no’ or ‘not necessarily’. And this is where the controversy lies.
****
As far as the ‘hallmark approach’ to Christmas, then yes, there are a lot of things that should be pointed out in Sunday School classes (not necessarily in the pages of a newspaper, by the leader of the Church of England):
*The Holy Family did not look European, or clothe themselves in European renaissance style. For that matter, ‘blue’ dye for clothing (in which Mary appears in many paintings) was very expensive and left to the wealthy, not carpenter’s families.
*Nor, in all likelyhood, was Mary in her twenties (probably in her teens), and certainly not in very good appearance after a donkey ride from Nazareth to Bethlehem!
*We don’t know how many wise men there were. Tradition states three because of the three gifts mentioned, but there could have been more, probably travelling in caravan style for protection.
*The star [u]DID[/u] come to rest above the HOUSE (not manger). Rowan may state that ‘stars don’t behave this way’, but scholars have put forth many explanations, including a comet (which can appear to move one night and stand still the next); a planetary allignment appearing as a star; a sun going nova; etc. Some legends even say the ‘star’ was an angelic figure leading the wise men. We will never know. But there is no reason to doubt the Scriptural source.
*Because Herod questioned the time of the appearance of the star, and then ordered all male children (reminds one of Moses, yes?) under the age of two, and because the wise men came to a house, many scholars think this visit was about two years after the nativity, not shortly after the shepherds visit.
There are more, of course. We would all do well this year to re-read the account from the Gospels themselves to remind us all of the way it was.
Peace, and merry Christmas.
Jim Elliott <><
*Because Herod questioned the time of the appearance of the star, and then ordered all male children (reminds one of Moses, yes?) under the age of two [b]to be put to death[/b] …
yeah, I got so busy making my point I forgot to finish my thought!
But if the star led them to the house, then it can’t have been any kind of actual star, comet, nova, or other celestial phenomena, because a heavenly body only tells you what line to travel on — so they wouldn’t have known to stop at any particular house on the way — and in any case is not nearly precise enough to lead you to a particular house rather than the one on the other side of town. If you doubt me, wait until night time, pick a star, and try following it to see what happens.
For a “star” to actually lead anyone to a particular house, it must have been a pretty local phenomenon.
Or, and vastly more likely, the story means to say that the magi knew where to find Jesus because they’d read it in the stars, since that’s what astrologers do. “Following a star” is a lovely poetic image and makes for great pageant material, but I see no need to contort ones mind to accept a literalist interpretation of it.
But why not? I mean, if God can arrange to have His Son born of a virgin, surely He can arrange for a star to act in a non-natural (to us) way.
Because the people of the time, who spent far more time then we do watching the night sky, would have known perfectly well upon seeing something behave as Matthew reports the “star” to behave that whatever it was, it was certainly not a star. What Matthew describes the star doing is “non-natural” in the same way that a river growing wings and flying into a tree is non-natural.
Now it could be that God miraculously created a localized light source of some kind moving around in the air that led the magi to Jesus. God, obviously, could do that if He wished. That doesn’t make it a “star,” and I doubt that the ancients would have called it a star, but perhaps.
But I think the literary explanation — that “following a star” is a poetic image for the way a bunch of astrologers found Jesus — is much simpler and far more likely.
We have reached a terrible place when people seem to enjoy unearthing “proofs” of heresy or of naughty things, in order to sit back and say “I told you so.” The righteous glee which seems to attach to so many of these revelations points to a disease in the church as dangerous I would suggest as some of the more obvious ones.
Rowan Williams is a very bright guy, a devout and godly man, who seems to be a gift to the media when it comes to personal misrepresentation.
The trouble is that he doesn’t talk in punchy sound-bites, and he has this capacity to produce convoluted sentences that are not necessarily easy to unwrap. Because of this people do not listen to precisely what he is saying, and often they do not even understand him. The outcome is a steady diet of misconstructions of what he is about and where he stands.
This instance is only the latest of many. Anyone who has read and studied the Gospels with any care, whether they are hard-knuckle fundamentalists or Oxbridge scholars, will know that what the ABC says about the magi is as close to correct as you can get. Yet, because he has gently set aside the pretty legend of all these lovely folks gathering around the manger, he now gets pulverized and represented as not believing in the magi or, it seems, the virginity of the Lord’s mother when Jesus was conceived. For the record, Archbishop Williams has been forthright in his affirmation of what we call the Virgin Birth.
The truth is that there are a lot of people, both outside the church and inside it, who want to make Rowan Williams appear like a half-believing inadequate, and that is entirely unfair. What makes it doubly difficult is that he is in a position where it is almost impossible for himto correct misapprehensions about what he has said or done.
My reading, observation, and experience of the Archbishop is that he is a man of grace, humility and massive learning. He is not an evangelical (although is married to one), indeed, he is one of those few people who cannot be classified as belonging to any ecclesiastical party, but he holds fast to the fundamentals of the creedal faith. Yet while he does so, he honestly feels compelled to ask of that faith difficult questions, and then go searching for the not-always-easy answers. I may not like some of the answers he comes up with, but I cannot help but admire his intelligence, faith, and integrity.
There are a number of ways in which I wish Rowan had handled himself differently through this whole terrible crisis, but then neither do I envy the no win-no win situation in which he finds himself much of the time. But just because we do not care for some of the moves he has made, we should not call into question the warm and liveliness of his faith, neither should we give quarter to those who would misrepresent him.
My post from SF –
Thanks to the Chelmsford link, here’s the link to the real interview –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/fivelive/aod.shtml?fivelive/archbishop#
To me, it comes off better heard than written.
But, beyond the “legend of the three kings†stuff, I commend the AoC’s take on Lambeth at about 19:18 and forgiveness at 19:22. Along with the Lambeth material the interviewer asks words to the effect of “how much time this schism stuff is takingâ€. Listen for yourselves to the AoC’s answer.
Peace,
P.S. Don’t forget the old bumper sticker “wise men still seek himâ€
P.S.S. Thank you both Dr. Witt & Rev. Prof. Kew for your insights.
WVParson:
Well said.
Peace,
“Insecure managers create complexity,” Jack Welch once said. businessweek.com
Regarding the Virgin birth, Rowan is saying that a seeker or an enquirer to Christianity need not make this doctrine the essential entry point into understanding the Christ event. This is not a repudiation or denigration of the Virgin birth, it’s just “alpha course” Christianity. One need not let legitimate questions about the Virgin birth prevent one from investigating the claims of Christianity. How many converts came to the faith primarily through a full and right understanding and appreciation for the Virgin birth? None that I have ever heard. Yet, this is part of the deposit of faith that must and does come in good time.
Would Dr. Willimas have been more, or less, excoriated if he used “myth” instead of “legend”?
A couple of dictionary definitions:
legend: a story coming down from the past; especially: one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable.
myth: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.
This bumpkin happens to like “myth” better. Are not _some/most_ Christian tenets myth-based (you know, Joseph Campbell-like)?
This whole sad mess reminds me of what that witty old writer Mark Twain once wrote. It went something like this:
“If you don’t read the newspapers, you’re uninformed.
If you do read the papers, you’re misinformed.”
Alas, so often true. The ABoC got unfairly treated and mauled. But he also left himself wide open to being so caricatured, misquoted, and misrepresented. By this time, he ought to know better and be more adept at handling the often cynical press media.
He did so much better with the teengers recently. Maybe he should only give interviews to those under 21.
David Handy+
Thank you NRA (#15). I have become so disllusioned by the misinformation being peddled intentionally or ignorantly by those posing as journalists. It would seem that in the race for shrinking market share, they try to outdo each other with shrillness or sensationalism
Yes, journalists get things wrong and sensationalize deliberately by distorting what people say. But the problem here wasn’t so much the journalists (well, I suppose there’s always Rush, but I’m not sure he counts), but rather the unthinking, and really quite preposterous and mean-spirited stampede to brand Williams an apostate. Without bothering to read what he said! What an embarassment. And people wonder why the trust level in these discussions is so low.
Read your Bible or do a search…. angels are referred to as stars. The star was not a star. It was an angel.
Thank you Fr. Tony and Fr. Kew. You are both spot on and I appreciate your sage remarks. As a pastor once pointed out, we get most of our theology from hymns and our Christmas beliefs from greeting cards. God help anyone who seeks to take the romance out of our faith.
As has been pointed out many times since the beginning of the age of Enlightenment, one does not have to take every story n Holy Scripture as literally true in order to take it has theologically or spiritually true. Whether or not I take the story of the Virginal Conception of Christ as historically true, it invites me into a profound grasp of the truth of the Incarnation of God into humanity in Jesus.
Bob from Boone, presently in Cincinnati.
A Happy and Blessed Christmas to all.
Richard and Ephraim, The ABC certainly is a “gift”. He may not like: three, black, kings, etc., which we agree are not in the text. But “legend” or “myth” suggests we wipe out the entire “magi event,” and this has been lost in the ensuing discussions. It is his negative scholarly pout that prevails in this interview and bleeds into your evaluation of whatever you think he may mean which he might have said if it had been a different situation. The Scripture is relating a once in eternity event which had multiple historic consequences outside Israel and outside earth in the universe. Unless God is not at work. So it is profound, foundational myth at its best.
No one understands him, or at least that seems to be what many are saying. And, whose fault is that? Its not ours, we neither elected or had any say in him being ABC.
I feel sorry for him tho, he has a terrible lack of timing. And the strange thing is, we holler when he says nothing, and holler even louder when he attemps to communicate. He cannot win.
But, no matter the “scholar”, nor his high degree, there is something missing from his education, the ablity to communicate with anyone even a step below his perch. That’s not our fault, but I do so wish he would hire a translator. I’d just about bet he couldn’t find one.
Proof of that is the incredible reaction by both reasserters and reappraisers. Its truly hard to believe there are so many “takes” on his communications.
Gloria in SC
Part of giving interviews to the press – and any prominent person should know this – is realizing that they very easily misconstrue what you say. Even if the reporter understands your message, there is always a chance that the editor/headline writer will garble it. You have to speak v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y and simply. In this case, the Archbishop’s academese has been translated ’round the world into headlines such as, “Archbishop: Christmas Story a Myth”.
Rowan Williams is to Ronald Reagan (the “great” communicator) as black is to white. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth, pandering to left and right in obscure verbiage. A summary of his Advent letter takes more words than the actual document. It is no surprise that he is misquoted or quoted out of context. The average Anglican is a 24 year old mother of three. Is he of any relevance to her?
Unfair criticism? Was John Paul II relevant to a campesino in Honduras? He was indeed.
RW’s mission statement, “Come be confused with us.” He took the consensus of DeS and intentionally reduced it to a muddle.
# 19: “Whether or not I take the story of the Virginal Conception of Christ as historically true, it invites me into a profound grasp of the truth of the Incarnation of God into humanity in Jesus.”
Try putting that into plain English, Bob – sorry, but this just sounds like vapid play with words, the kind of thing that gives theology a bad name. The Virginal Conception (VB for short) is part of the creedal defintion of catholic Christians. It couldn’t be anything other than ‘historically true’ except ‘historically false’.
By now, anyone who has read T19 or SF in the last month since I began posting a lot knows that I am hardly a fan of ++RW. I wish he’d stayed in Oxford where he belongs. And I’ve hardly been a shrinking violet when it comes to expressing my profound differences of opinion with the scholarly team at the ACI. But I do want to go on record here as expressing some sympathy with Ephraim Radner above. As a wanna be biblical scholar, I think I appreciate something of ++RW’s dilemma in wanting to give a nuanced answer to a complex issue. The trouble was, as others have pointed out, the hapless archbishop showed a terrible sense of timing in this case and attempted a carefully balanced and nuanced answer when a strong assertion of the truth of the Incarnation was what was needed.
But let’s take this as a teaching moment, especially for all the non-seminary educated readers here at T19. I’ve seen too many posts that equate the importance of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth (or more precisely, the Virginal Conception) with the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think that’s a fundamental mistake. The two aren’t really comparable (it’s like comparing apples and pinecones, not apples and oranges).
What I mean is that while the Virginal Conception of Jesus is indeed an important part of the basic creedal tradition (Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds etc.), it is not nearly as central or emphatic a part of the teaching of the NT itself. For as most readers will recognize, the Resurrection is absolutely foundational to the teaching of the whole NT (taught implicitly, if not explicitly, in all 27 books), whereas the Virginal Conception is in fact taught in only two of them, i.e., the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. So a parallel question to one posed to the ABoC might be, “Can you be a Christian and not believe in the Virgin Birth?” And I’d have to give a nuanced answer here, perhaps somewhat like Cantaur’s, and say, “Yes, sort of.” That is, there is no compelling evidence to PROVE that either Paul or Mark believed in the Virgin Birth (despite Gal. 4:4, which speaks of Jesus being “born of a woman,” which might imply a virgin birth but is hardly clear). Now of course, there’s no proof to the contrary either, i.e., that they didn’t. They just don’t mention it. And even in the two gospels that do teach it, the virgin birth doesn’t play any signficant role in how either Matthew or Luke portrays the life and ministry of the Messiah as their narratives develop.
In other words, it’s one thing not to believe the Virgin Birth because you’ve never heard about it (as a new Christian convert might not yet have learned about it). It’s quite possible that St. Paul and St. Mark (meaning whoever wrote the second gospel) never heard about that tradition (though again, that’s unprovable). But it’s another thing entirely to DENY the Virgin Birth.
Secondly, it should be pointed out that there are reputable scholars who are BASICALLY orthodox who have serious doubts about the historicity of the Virgin Birth. I’m thinking especially here of the great Lutheran systematic theologian Wolfgang Pannenberg, and one of my esteemed mentors, Reginald Fuller (R.I.P.). Both are on record as having major doubts about it. But again, DOUBTING and DENYING are two very different things. And both learned professors, Pannenberg and Fuller, strongly and emphatically affirmed the truth of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ as an objective event that really happened.
Now maybe that’s a lot of useless or unwanted information. But I think it may go a ways toward restoring some sense of proportion and balance in this discussion. In other words, it’s understandable how ++RW wanted to give a nuanced answer to the reporter, but it was still a major tactical error from a PR communication standpoint.
Remember what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14, if the trumpeter gives an uncertain trumpet call, who will come forth to battle? This is a time of a bitter, all out culture war. We need leaders who will give a clear, bold call to the Christian community to come forth and do spiritual warfare in the name of Christ. Or so I firmly believe (and Ephraim probably will disagree with me there).
David Handy+
Ardently Committed to Moderate Biblical Scholarship
(as well as the New Reformation of course)
David Handy+,
That was a very well reasoned, very clear exposition of the subject. Thank you!
(I would have added the verse where Jesus’ detractors say “WE [b]KNOW[/b] who our father is!” Implying “You [b]don’t[/b]!”)
Merry Christmas!
Jim Elliott <><
Libraryjim,
You are most welcome. I’m glad somebody was helped.
David Handy
#28 Matt Kennedy says:
Which, of course, some of us do.
It will not surprise you that I differ. In fact I am a “Christian teacher,” in my church’s Sunday School program; and after Easter we’re planning on spending several weeks talking with the class about ways of reading the Bible. We’ll certainly talk about inspiration and what that means, and what some people believe about inerrancy; but there are other Christian ways of looking at Scripture and we’ll talk about those too.
David, you raise some interesting and larger issues. My own comment, however, was really quite limited. It was not about the larger duties of public Christian leaders, or the public square, or hierarchies of truth within the Christian faith, or even with whether Abp. Williams tends to speak in difficult prose. It was simply about the obvious way prejudice has motivated otherwise informed people to attack Williams’ faith unfairly and maliciously. The fact is, the people on this blog are not “Mr. and Mrs. Plain ‘Ol Pewsitter”, however they wish to dress themselves up as such. They are informed, they are theologically aware (or claim to be), they are experienced media evaluators. They wouldn’t be reading and commenting on religious blogs otherwise. Yet so many have simply thrown their skills out the window in a rush to tar Williams with “denying the Virgin Birth” on the basis of a reported sentence regarding the the “legendary” character of the “Three Kings” in their traditional roles. No one bothered to read what he actually said. And having done so, and realized the silliness of their attacks, they actually have nothing to say in apology. Time to move on to the next criticism and attack, or at least change the subject. Everyone knows full well that Williams is straight-down the line “orthodox” on Creedal matters, including the Virgin Birth (which his comments make plain in the recent interview in question). Everyone has known this for some time. His treatment of the Scriptures, while open to discussion regarding difficult hermeneutical questions, is nonetheless robust as to accepting Scriputre’s controlling authority over the Christian faith, the Christian life, and the Christian church. In the classic Puritan-Hooker debate within Anglicanism, Williams is on the Hooker side, to be sure. But that is not a matter of demeaning Scripture’s authority. Despite scurrilous published pieces by some conservatives attacking Williams’ scriptural faith, few people who have actually read his work, including his many published sermons, doubt his basic orthodoxy on this matter.
So why the willingness to ignore all this? Anger, I presume, over his failure to resolve the problems of the Communion in a fashion some would like. And while I have my own criticisms about the way Williams has handled these practical matters, such disagreements ought not to justify the kind of thoughtless attacks we have seen.
As for your larger questions, I confess to being uncomfortable with the notion of a hierarchy of truths at least on this level. The various points in the Creeds are there precisely in order to settle this matter and erase such scales of importance. The Virgin Birth, of course, may function doctrinally in a different way than the resurrection — standing more as a concluding rather than as an initiating doctrine with respect to other matters — but it is “credally” essential.
On the other hand, there is good reason to be seriously sensitive to the traditional distinction between “the logic of belief” and the “logic of coming to belief”: many individuals are drawn to and into Christ and His Body in different ways, and through the pull and push of differing elements within the faith. This represents a variety of “logics of coming to belief”. It is probably the case that the Virgin Birth is no longer one of the prime instigators of Christian faith, the way it perhaps once was in, e.g. the late Middle Ages. I have met few people who became Christians or grew substantially in their Christian fatih through their reflection upon the Virgin Birth. (Although, I know some who, through such reflection, have grown in their Roman Catholic or Orthodox devotion to Mary.) Surely you are right that the Resurrection has been playing a much greater role in this respect in the last century or more (although the Crucifixion — including the notion of suffering “for us” — for a long time practically eclipsed the Resurrection in this regard). Williams himself speaks to this in his comments — the Virgin Birth was a fuel in his initial faith, but rather one that has grown subsequently. But to admit that people are drawn through different aspects of the faith, personally, culturally, and historically, is not the same thing as ordering these elements as to what is more or less intrinsically important. As I said, I think the Creed in its very substance and meaning forbids us to do this (for a host of reasons).
Finally, as for the responsibility of public leaders in talking in a way that “the common person can understand”: this is a political matter, and will ever be judged on that basis. People are happy to hear what they want to hear and what motivates others to believe like them. They are unhappy when things don’t turn out that way. The Pope gets high marks from people who like what they hear; and low marks when they don’t. Often, when explanations are offered in rebuttal, they hoot and holler. Consider the debate over Benedict’s lecture regarding Muslims and Constantinople (was it in Regensburg?). Was he being clear? Obscure? Clever? Academically lazy? Naive? He was accused of and defended for all these things and more. Well, whatever it was, it was a PR explosion (and even that can be evaluated differently based on one’s strategic hopes) that demanded enormous diplomatic efforts to smooth out subsequently. The point is: we like clarity about what we agree with, blame obscurity when we don’t, and basically tend not to make much effort to understand what is difficult or different in between. That’s too bad, whether you are Granny Smith or Dick and Jane or the Rev. Mr. Holiness or Prof. Smartypants. And Rowan Williams isn’t responsible for other people’s lack of responsibility.
Because I approach everything — Scripture included — with “a priori skepticism.” That just means a recognition that any source of knowledge may and likely does contain at least some errors. You can never be absolutely certain of what you know, but you can obtain good-enough certainty to get along with.
So in reference to the “historicity of Scripture,” for instance, parts of Scripture appear, when judged by the usual standards for historical documents, to be as reliable as any other source of that age. Other parts are clearly not intended to be history. And other parts — such as the Virgin Birth — may be historical and may not. To my eye, the historicity of the Virgin Birth is weaker than that of the Resurrection, which is much more strongly attested in the entire New Testament. We can’t be 100% certain — at least I can’t be certain — of either one, but that’s my judgment.
#33 Matt Kennedy says:
Helen of Troy was conceived when Zeus, in the shape of a swan, mated with Leda, who subsequently delivered an egg which hatched into Helen. So far as I am aware, nobody has ever proved this story false. Am I, by your standard, required to believe that it is true?
Documents, ancient or modern, are not defendants in a court of law and the standards are not the same. You apply skills of skepticism almost automatically when you read, say, a newspaper — in fact, your #34 on this very thread is about your chagrin at having one time failed to do so — and most journalism comes much more directly from the source than Scripture does.
As for “an a priori philosophical commitment to treat miracle accounts as legendary accretion,” I would say that a miracle in a story is cause for caution. Miracles are, by definition, rare and unusual events; and just because one admits, as I do, that miracles may and in fact do sometimes occur doesn’t mean that all stories of miracles are true. I don’t doubt that some miracle stories, even in Scripture, are precisely “legendary accretions.” Others seem likely to be the genuine article.
There seems to me to be enough doubt about the infancy narratives for me to move the Virgin Birth into the “I don’t know” column. I don’t disbelieve it; I just don’t think there’s enough evidence to evaluate it as probably true or probably false. Others of course evaluate the evidence differently, and that’s their prerogative.
In any case, the creeds to the contrary, I don’t see that this is a place on which one stands or falls as a Christian. I believe in the Incarnation; precisely how God brought that about I don’t know, and don’t have to know.
Matt,
I don’t know “for a fact” what Williams personally thinks about homosexual partnerships. I believe it is safe to say, however, that he has definitely shifted in his sense of the positive importance of the Church’s traditional teaching on the matter, such as to preclude “gay marriage” and same-sex blessings, as well as the ordination non-celibate homosexuals. This is more than just acknowledging that there are a lot of Christians in the Communion who don’t accept this, and therefore one had better “go slow” so as not to upset the applecart. It is clear that he believes that the traditional rationale continues to carry persuasive weight, and should be respected and defended as such. His own personal concern with strengthening “traditional” families, in a the midst of a culture that is weakening them, has, I believe, also encouraged him to rethink some of his previously more idiosyncratic ruminations. If push came to shove, however, would Williams call Gene Robinson a “sinner” because of his sexual life in particular? That I cannot answer.
Your second question is an interesting one, because, of course, it touches not just on matters of personal beliefs about sexuality, but about a host of matters. I, for instance, believe that the biblical injunctions against usury have not somehow been overturned either “in Christ” or “by legitimate development”, and that, among other things, credit card companies contravene the biblical standard at its most basic. I am in a minority however (and I have a credit card, no less!). The “wider church” has, effectively and publicly, let drop the authority of the Scriptural texts against usury (and their concrete implications). Do I consider the “wider church” “unorthodox” in this matter? Perhaps “wrong” or “mistaken”, but not “unorthodox”. People, including churches, are not “infallible”! Do I consider the many parishioners I have had — some of whom were quite self-aware in their Christian faith — who have worked for credit card companies without qualms to be “unorthodox”? No; they are doing what is permitted them, and may or may not have worked through some rationale for what they do. We disagree, that is permitted as things go, and I think they are wrong! Am I “unorthodox” for thinking the wider church to be “wrong”? Perhaps, in some people’s eyes. But I am not seeking to disorder the church through my disagreements (even though I might choose to write about this now and again). Who knows?
Could Williams be “unorthodox” in his personal views about homosexuality? I’m not sure: he is upholding the teaching of the church, he is taking hard knocks for it from his friends (and/or former friends), and he is speaking to the matter with a degree of focus within the framework of the Church’s traditional teaching (although not, I grant, with enormously combative rhtetoric or even constructive vigor — but there are several reasons why this may be so, some of which do not include timidity or half-heartedness). If he has views on this matter, personally, that are at odds with or not quite in synch with or not wholly comfortable with the long-standing teaching of the Church, is he therefore more generally “unorthodox” as to his views on Scripture? Here I would say “no”: one can have personal questions about this or that in Scripture as its current authoritative implications, yet maintain an “orthodox” view of Scripture in general, as long as one “defers”, as Williams has, to the received Scriptural weight of the Church’s teaching, and on that basis.
#36 Matt Kennedy says:
Actually, Fr. Kennedy, they really are not.
A court of law, at least in this country, is required to consider the accused innocent unless and until the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. A case that proves that the defendant is “probably guilty” is not good enough, because the court cannot render a verdict of “probably guilty”; and the court must default to the presumption of innocence because it is worse to condemn an innocent man unjustly than to let a guilty man go free.
A historian on the other hand, can and nearly always does render tentative “probable” verdicts when evaluating a historical document; and it is by no means clear whether it is worse to assume that a false document is true or that a true document is false. The standards are no more than coincidentally similar.
Now it’s certainly true that there are, as you say, underlying a priori assumptions that will drive this process. If one assumes that miracles cannot occur, than a historical text purporting to describe a miracle will necessarily be judged to be false, at least in that part. If one assumes that genuine prophecy cannot occur, then any “prophetic” description of a historical event will necessarily be assumed to postdate that event (or to be a lucky guess.)
I do not assume that miracles cannot occur (although as I note above I believe them to be rare) so I by no means rule out the Virgin Birth as being a priori impossible. As I noted above, I am agnostic on the topic.
However, I think we can perhaps shortcut the next few rounds of this debate. Unless I have misunderstood your view on Scripture as demonstrated in previous comments and posts, you believe that Scripture is a unique text that is incapable of being false in whole or in any part. For someone who believes as you do, when the Bible says something then you must begin by assuming it to be true unless someone can provide a powerfully convincing case that the text does not actually say what it appears to say; and that is the only possible argument that could sway you because the text, by its nature, cannot be untrue. Would you agree with that characterization?
I, on the other hand — and I am not alone in this — do not start with that core assumption. For me, a Scriptural text may be true or may be untrue, and so I can — in fact, I must — consider the question that you cannot, which is, “Is this text when properly understood confirmed true, probably true, probably false, demonstrably false, undeterminable, or yet something else?”
So for you, the Virgin Birth is, to use the popular phrase in this exchange, a priori true because Scripture asserts plainly that it is true and can only through great contortions be read to assert something else. For me, the Virgin Birth might be true because it’s not impossible, but I can’t determine whether it’s probably true or probably false so in the end all I can say is, “I don’t know.”
To paraphrase +++Rowan Williams’ Advent letter, unless we can first agree on a common understanding of what Scripture is, we simply are not going to be able to read it in the same way.
Interesting discussion. I would ask Ross if he believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus. Does he consider it too important to the substance of the faith to disbelieve? Or does he question it in the same way that he does the Virgin Birth. One is not any more believable than the other. Certainly there is much in scripture that is poetic and allegorical and metaphorical. But the Church is antecedent both ontologically and historically to the NT, and it is, and has been, for the Church what in Scripture is to believed factually, as it has done in the Nicene Creed, and in the Chalcedonian pronouncement on Christ and the Theotokos.
#39:
I do believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, yes. I think the attestation is better for the Resurrection than the Virgin Birth, because if Acts and the Epistles have even a scrap of historical truth in them then it’s abundantly clear that something happened shortly after the Crucifixion that radically transformed Jesus’ followers’ understanding of what his whole life and execution had been about. I can’t be 100% certain that that “something” was in fact the physical resurrection of Jesus, of course, but that’s what they’re all on record as saying that it was and it seems likely that it would take something of that magnitude to produce the impact that it had on them.
The Virgin Birth, on the other hand, does not have that same degree of universal proclamation amongst the first generation of Christians, at least so far as we know. Paul for instance debatably never refers to it at all; if he does, the references are at best ambiguous. He certainly doesn’t make the Virgin Birth part of his core kerygma.
Matt+ (#28) and Dr. Radner (#31),
I was away from the computer yesterday after posting #25 above, and thus unable to follow or participate in the virgorous discussion that came after it. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. You both raise some important questions I won’t try to answer or respond to now, except to clarify my own views and intentions, since there seems to be some uncertainity about them.
First, let me state clearly for the record that I was NOT intending in any way to imply that acceptance of the Virgin Birth is somehow optional or unimportant for a committed Christian. Not in the least. I myself strongly affirm the truth of that classic doctrine and I teach it publicly. But I admit that I would nonetheless be quite comfortable asserting that there is indeed such a thing as a “hierarchy of truths” in Christianity (as is commonly taught these days in RC circles). And, contrary it seems to Dr. Radner, I would claim that this “hierarchy of doctrines” even extends into the Creeds themselves. Not all articles of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds are equally important, even though they may be equally true.
For example, Christ’s mysterious descent into Hell (Sheol, the OT abode of the dead) in the Apostles’ Creed is manifestly not nearly as important as such “core doctrines” as God’s creation of all things, or Christ’s saving death and resuurection. And yes, that is in large part because the Savior’s descent into Hell is a peripheral doctrine in Holy Scripture (basically found only in one obscure passage in 1 Peter 3). Once again, just to be clear, that single, perplexing Scriptural basis for the doctrine doesn’t necessarily make it less likely to be true, just less important, that’s all.
But going on, I must confess a little surprise at Dr. Radner’s annoyance and apparent taking of offense at the very sharp and rude criticism leveled at ++Williams by many commenters at both SF and T19 in recent days. I’m surprised that he continues to be surprised by such entirely predictable (though still regrettable) reactions on the part of many conservative readers who are baffled by his ambiguous and often disturbing public remarks, especially when they are grossly distorted and misused by a cynical press.
If I may be so bold, Dr. Radner seems to assume that “everyone knows” that the ABoC is on record as faithfully upholding the truth of the Virgin Birth. Well, it frankly makes me wonder what planet he lives on. Maybe that is common knowledge among some Anglican scholars like himself, but I’d contend that his orthodoxy on that point will come as refreshing and welcome news to many rank and file Anglicans (clergy as well as laity).
Was there a deplorable rush to judgment in this case? Was there a failure to show proper respect and Christian charity (by failing to “hope all things” and believe the best of Cantaur til proven otherwise)? Yes, I’d have to agree that there was a widespread lapse on the part of many here. But I’d also have to say that it was an entirely natural, predictable, and understandable reaction. And here I want to commend Matt Kennedy for coming clean quickly and extending a public apology, as he has done above (#34). I hope that others will do so as well in coming days. That’s only fair.
But I would also go on to say that part of what I detect in Dr. Radner’s protest is a certain discomfort with the whole rough and tumble nature of blogs like this one. They are by nature very different in character from the kind of polite (though often fierce) disagreement that takes place in academic forums. That is, academia often can represent (at its best anyway) the sort of civility seen in dabates on the floor of the U.S. Senate (as opposed to say, the House of Representatives, or the British House of Commons). And of course, both are a far cry from the vicious attacks and counterattacks that take place on the campaign trail.
In short, blogging is not for the thin-skinned. It’s certainly not for everyone. And yes, one of its most notable ffeatures (both good and bad) is that it creates a level playing field, where everyone can participate pretty much as equals, whether they are eminently well qualified to utter their opinions or not (and they often aren’t).
Personally, however, that’s one of the things I tend to LIKE about blogs like this. You don’t have to have four Ph.D.’s to join in the fun and jump in to the fray. But you are also right, Dr. Radner, that things sometimes get out of hand. That’s after all, why T19 has the worthy Elves silently monitor the discussions and occasionally intervene as referees in the free for all.
Enough for now. I hope that helps. Thanks to Matt and Dr. Radner for their respectful comments. I respect you both, very highly.
David Handy+
No. 40 – Ross – Thx. for responding. I understand your reasoning.
Ross,
After reviewing the interchanges between you and Matt+ above, I’m still unsure where you are coming from theologically. So let me just clarify my own position here and invite response. It appears that you are more skeptically inclined than I am, but I share your passion for free inquiry and scholarly investigation. But Matt has raised a very important point, which is this vital question. Do we start from a presupposition that the Bible is to be assumed to be true until proven otherwise? Or, on the other hand, do we assume that it’s many hard-to-believe statements are to be taken as in doubt until they are verified (by historical research where possible etc.). I fully agree with Matt+ on this score. As Christians, we start from an a priori assumption that the Bible is true, unless PROVEN otherwise.
That does NOT imply an acceptance of biblical inerrancy. Far from it (at least as far as I’m concerned). So, even though I’ve said this on another thread, let me repeat it here. Speaking personally, let me share my own spiritual and intellectual journey very briefly here.
I’m proud to be a graduate of that bastion of evangelical Protestantism, Wheaton College (alma mater of BillY Graham, the so-called Harvard of Evangelicalism etc.). I was a Bible major there, and at the time I accepted that biblical inerrancy was an essential, foundational doctrine that all TRUE Christians passionately believed and defended. Then I went to seminary at Yale Div. School…
The sound you just heard was the collapse of my belief in biblical inerrancy, caving in under the weight of all the accumulated evidence that I was soon shown that proved beyond any reasonable doubt that inerrancy was both untrue, and ironically, unbiblical. But I was richy blessed to have revered teachers at Yale like Brevard Childs (in OT) and Luke Timothy Johnson (in NT) who modeled for me a deep and solid commitment to basic orthodoxy and an equally firm commitment to the highest standards of unfettered scholarly research. I’m deeply grateful for the outstanding education I received at both schools.
But when I compare them, this is how I tend to put it (rather humorously). I like to joke that Wheaton taught me to LOVE the Bible, whereas YDS (and later Union-PSCE where I got my Ph.D. in NT) taught me how to REALLY STUDY it. So much of what passes for “Bible study” in evangelical circles is far from actual STUDY.
But there was something else that Wheaton taught me that was absolutely crucial, and for it I am forever grateful. For good old evangelical Wheaton (where professors are obliged to sign the college doctrinal statement’s affirmation of biblical inerrancy every year or be terminated) also taught me something vital that Yale and Union-PSCE did NOT (or not nearly so well anyway). And that is this key principle:
“In order to understand the Bible, you must be willing to STAND UNDER it.” That is, to fully under-stand the ancient biblical texts, with all their preplexing features and hard-to-believe sayings or hard-to-live-by expectations, one must be willing to humble yourself and submit to the Lord who speaks uniquely through Holy Scripture as through no other medium.
That is a principle that is more “caught than taught” as the proverbial saying goes. And I will forever be grateful for the evangelical faculty and especially my fellow earnest students who indirectly passed on to me their contagious passion for trying their best to submit their lives to God by approaching the Bible as truly the Word of God. I wish I’d seen more of that at dear old YDS and Union. But whereas at Wheaton that was the rule, not the exception, not so at the other schools. At the liberal schools where I learned how to do true exegesis in a more accurate and scholarly way, it was the opposite. It was alas, the exception in those liberal schools, not the rule.
I hope that helps.
David Handy+
Passionately committed to moderate biblical scholarship
(as well as the New Refomration of course)
You continue to miss the point. This is not about a general awareness that people act ignorantly, and that this is to be expected. Nor is about the “rough and tumble†character of blogs and the need for “thick skinsâ€. We are all aware of these realities, including how they impact the media, and through it the church. The point is about this blog and others like it: they are Anglican, they are “Christian†and they are frequented by people who inform themselves about matters that concern their faith and church. The silliness of a Rush Limbaugh or the sensationalizing of secular newspaper reporters and the passions of cyber-repartee are not relevant. What is relevant is that people here be held to a high standard of Christian responsibility, wisdom, and charity. It is not simply “regrettable†that people who should know better can accuse Williams here of heresy on central tenets of the faith and then slink into their corners when they are shown that is false – and it is, of course, regrettable at the least; it is that this is simply wrong and without excuse. Qualifying this judgment seems evasive, I’m afraid.
If you think that Williams’ orthodoxy has legitimately – and the issue is “legitimacy†here — been in doubt all these past five years, and that I am naïve in wondering why anybody would think otherwise, the question about what planet one is living on is best raised with respect to the entire Anglican church and its members, not about me in particular. I am hardly naïve about human failings. Perhaps I am soft-headed about the higher standard to which Christians ought happily to be willing to be held.
I think, however, that this horse has been beaten to the ground enough at this point. Time to move on.
NRA . . . you know, I think I disagree with this statement of yours: “I’d contend that his orthodoxy on that point will come as refreshing and welcome news to many rank and file Anglicans (clergy as well as laity).”
Back when Rowan was appointed ABC — well before I knew a thing about blogging or knew about T19 — I carefully researched him and then wrote a number of emails defending his record. It was clear to me then by his written statements that he was creedally faithful in every sense that I could see and I have not thought differently in the years following his appointment. I also had noted other strengths, even then, including his strong pro-life commitment and other fantastic stances of his. Back in 02, I was pleased with him even as many much more informed than I were gnashing about his appointment.
And I was definitely “rank and file” — I had never been to a diocesan convention, or anything at all beyond parish level and some Cursillo events.
I continue to stand behind all of my comments concerning this particular interview of Rowan Williams — the weaknesses of which it seems to me have nothing at all to do with his orthodoxy.
Also . . . I would like to vigorously question your contention that the elves are worthy.
This really goes too far.
I continue to dream of a moonless night, a still pond, a rowboat, concrete blocks, and silence except for the cicadas. . . . Advent dreams . . .
; > )
[i] Oh, Dear Sarah. Timing is everything. Wounding an elf’s self esteem the night before Christmas Eve? Hmm. [/i]
#44, Dr. Radner, and #45, Sarah,
I’d agree that perhaps this poor bloody horse has indeed been beaten entirely enough. I’m sorry if it seemed that I was insufficiently hard on those who have attacked ++Rowan Williams’ integrity and basic orthodoxy. So I’ll try again. Some of the posted comments we’ve seen in recent days have been nothing less than DEPLORABLE (not just regrettable) and unworthy of a Christian blog. I wasn’t intending to make excuses for slander, which is never appropriate. The Ninth Commandment about not bearing false witness is indeed one of the big ten we ought always to keep in mind.
But I still can’t help but think that both of you, Ephraim and Sarah, are over-estimating the extent that our fellow Anglicans know much about the hapless scholarly archbishop. Both of you have done research and read up on him, which has given you a positive impression of him (and rightly so) that the vast majority of Anglicans simply can’t be expected to have. For better or worse, most of us gain our impressions of public figures like the ABoC from more second-hand sources, especially the mass media. And therein lies a huge problem, given the often irresponsible ways of the press and the liberal to ultra-liberal bias of so many print and broadcast journalists. If even as astute and knowledgeable an observer as the esteemed Matt Kennedy+ can thus be misled, it shows how widespread and serious the problem is.
Ephraim, I’m sorry if my rather flippant comment above offended you, i.e., about wondering what strange planet you live on that you were so shocked by all the outrage directed at Cantaur. I didn’t mean it as a personal affront. And as we have just seen, Sarah Hey herself has chimed in and also disagreed with me. So let me practice the kind of humility and Christian kindness and courtesy we are all called to exemplify, and apologize if I offended you. No such offense was intended. I repeat that, despite our significant disagreements on some basic strategic matters, I have the highest respect for you and your eminent colleagues at ACI. Best wishes to you and your family as you continue to settle in in Toronto. And to our fellow YDS alumnae from the 1980s, George Sumner and Chris Seitz. Wycliffe College has become quite a theological powerhouse now for evangelical Anglicans. And I celebrate that this Christmas, as one of the Lord’s gifts to his Church this year.
Cordially,
David Handy+
YDS 1983
#45, Sarah,
I’m not sure I need to defend the worthiness of the Elves. They are quite able to defend themselves. Who knows? They may even give you a warning for that verbal slap and threaten to ban you if you continue in such an insulting fashion!
More seriously, back to topic, I’m reminded of a famous saying attributed to the great English Baptist preacher of the Victorian era, Charles Spurgeon. If I’m not mistaken, his monster church in London had the largest attendance of any Protestant congregation in England (numbered in the thousands). Anyway, he lived during the time when the radically skeptical views of German biblical criticism were just starting to filter down to people in the pews in London. When asked why he didn’t rise to the defense of the Bible in the face of such scholarly attacks on its credibility (e.g., the infamous Tubingen School of F. C. Baur, or the notorious Life of Jesus Critically Examined by Ernst Renan with its influential claim that most of the gospel story of Jesus was a matter of “myth” not history etc.), Spurgeon is said to have calmly replied:
“What? Me defend the Bible? I’d just as soon defend a lion!”
Perhaps something similar could be said actually about the occupant of the ancient cathedral throne of Canterbury. He seems pretty thick-skinned and able to take care of himself.
Like the Elves.
David Handy
RE: “Oh, Dear Sarah. Timing is everything. Wounding an elf’s self esteem the night before Christmas Eve? Hmm.”
Beloved elves . . . I figured that on the night before Christmas Eve the elves would be full of grace and mercy. They would be more inclined to lift an eyebrow, and perhaps look away, rather than edit the comment to say:
“I continue to dream of [boat rides] with [loving] elves [and learn more of these truly special creatures] . . . . [One can dream] Advent dreams, [can’t one, even if they are hopeless to lowly T19 commenters] . . .
; > )
Matt: quite right.
The question is: one must decide (someone must, finally the Church herself somehow) what counts as not in “accordance” with the Scripture in a serious fashion; second, one must decide on what counts as “advocating” something.
On the first point, there are clearly things “contrary to Scripture” that the Church doesn’t pay much attention to, because they have decided otherwise (e.g. usury, as I pointed out). This is not a matter of using this as an “excuse”: the Church, including the Catholic Church, really has decided that its adherence to straightforward Scriptural mandates vs. usury no longer should apply. It was a debate, and it was resolved in a certain direction. It’s an intersting story, but it’s a real one, not a slip and a slide, a wink and a nod. In the case of usury, one can uphold a position clearly contrary to the plain sense of Scripture, and be considered quite orthodox (and if you disagree, with this putting aside of the plain sense, be considered at best whacked out). I think that on the issue of sexuality, that is not the case; but someone might think so, and one would have to mount an argument as to why not. That is what has, in a sense, been going on, and quite legitimately. (It’s okay to have the argument. Indeed, the argument is necessary in this day.) I agree, that is, that the area of sexuality has clear Scriptural direction, and that this direction remains clearly upheld by the “wider church”. So does Abp. Williams.
As for the second point: I am not aware of Williams ever “advocating” same-sex partnerships. I may be wrong about this, but even his notorious article on “The Body’s Grace” was not an essay of advocacy but one of a kind of theological “thought experiment”. I think, personally, that, while interesting, it was poorly done, largely because of its pursuit in a relatively non-Scriptural context. But in any case, good or bad as an experiment, it was, I believe, only that. And Williams has hardly been “advocating” anything contrary to Scripture in the past few years. Just the opposite.
And I agree that, once having determined the character of an issue as “in accordance with Scripture”, the “advocacy” of a position contrary to that would raise serious questions about one’s orthodoxy, on that matter certainly, but perhaps on others that may be related, as well.
It is somewhat ironic that the premise of this morning’s sermon by a visiting priest was that the virgin birth, and, in fact, the entirety of both narrative stories are just myth not supported biblical scholarship.
I didn’t weigh into this controversy because I didn’t wade into the transcript of the interview. I am glad I did not because I could have been easily one of the ones taking potshots. I freely admit that I am no Rowan Williams scholar. (Quite frankly that sounds not very edifying but rather fairly painful.) I do take issue with his “thoroughly orthodox credentials.” I would cite evidence A and B as contained in the same document, “[url=http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/070416.htm ]The Bible Today: Reading & Hearing.[/url]” As far as evidence A, he denies the unique salvific nature of Jesus: I am the way,… and basically sided with KJS’s “a way” not “the way.” Evidence B: he states that Romans 1, he rejects Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality. “Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding.” Regardless, of whether it is primary or secondary, it is obvious to the most casual observer that Paul, in no uncertain terms, condemns homosexuality as being contrary to the God-ordained. I think that this paragraph well exemplifies the other writings and speeches of the ABC: “It is not helpful for a ‘liberal’ or revisionist case” together with “It is not very helpful to the conservative either.” It is not that he is orthodox or liberal. Rather, the guy is a consistent advocate of a muddled middle.
As a result of indecisive hermeneutics and indecisive leadership, he has lost trust. This is coupled with a lot of anger. For example, I would be angry about being locked out my church by Bp Smith of Connecticut, having him lie about it, and having it be declared that it was indeed a violation of canon law but that his intentions were “good.” The ABC celebrates eucharist with homosexual clergy. Has he ever offered similar support to the orthodox? The reactions to the Times article are merely a symptom. So how does the ABC deal properly with this loss of trust and anger? Cloistering oneself in academia for 3 months while the church is falling to pieces is probably not a good strategy. Personally, I think that the obstacles are insurmountable, that his office is hopelessly compromised, and that he should resign. Of course, that would relegate him to ignominy in history.