Has stirred something of a controversy with his comments on BBC5, at least as related by the Telegraph. The headline, “Archbishop says nativity 'a legend'” seems a bit overstated, based on the actual article.
Now, some of this is fairly unobjectionable – the actual Nativity was likely far different from the Hallmark cards version. And for that matter, can anyone think of a carol more emetic than “Little Drummer Boy”? I think not.
That said, two things stand out. In my bible, the wise men stand out as clear as the beard on the Archbish’ face. The Gospel of St. Matthew ch 2 highlights the episode:
“1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. 3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. 5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. 7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. 9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. 12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.”Not an account that lends itself to being assumed away as literary license. True, the Wise Men are not explicitly numbered, nor are they described as ‘kings’ (a pretty elastic title, subject to a variety of interpretations / translations – after all, to this day, there’s a dude wandering around in public in Britain bearing the title ‘garter king at arms’)
I’m also willing to concede that Bing Crosby was not present to sing “White Christmas”.
That said, the fact that the Rt. Rev. feels the need to concede so much turf isn’t an encouraging sign for Anglicanism. It’s no wonder that churches are empty all over Europe – the church leadership refuses to preach the incarnation. Neither is the fact that you can apparently be a druid and Archbishop of any kind of Christian church.
Why be bothered to get up and go to service? Sing a bunch of hymns you don’t like, and recite prayers you don’t understand? And for what?
Sorry, the Country Club church doesn’t work anymore. It never really did, you know.
Update (11 January 2008): Kakistocrat takes umbrage at my complaint that the Rt. Rev. Williams has conceded too much turf. He’s (She’s?) certainly put some time and effort into his piece, which is worth the read. He’s also provided a link to the actual interview, which I’ll shamelessly insert here.
I’ll note that the page with the transcript describes it as ‘edited’, so I’m not sure if even the transcript does justice to the Archbishop’s remarks. However, the transcript comments are considerably less controversial than the original Telegraph article linked to above.
I’ll certainly concede that the ‘legend’ comments about the wise men in the Telegraph article were taken out of context, and that I should have followed the link to the transcript. In context, it does not appear that the Archbishop is questioning the existence of the wise men, just their contemporary portrayal.
Even with conceding those points, I still maintain that he gave too much ground. The first issue on the plate is that he gave an interview that was easily twisted into the Telegraph piece. The second is that he was too focused on the specifics of the questions – he could have easily refocused the entire interview on the Incarnation and it’s significance. That’s the entire point of Christmas – it sets us on the road to Easter.
In the post-Christian island of Britain, the Archbishop doesn’t get many chances to effectively deliver the Gospel when people are receptive. And they are receptive around Christmas.
|