Following Albion's piece on Christmas Foolishness, This has been reported by Ruth Gledhill:
"Although he believed in it himself, he advised that new Christians need not fear that they had to leap over the "hurdle" of belief in the Virgin Birth before they could be "signed up". For good measure, he added, Jesus was probably not born in December at all. "Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival."...Dr Williams was speaking live on BBC Radio Five to the presenter Simon Mayo when Ricky Gervais, star of The Office and a fellow guest, challenged him about the intellectual credibility of the Christian faith. He said he was committed to belief in the Virgin Birth "as part of what I have inherited". But belief in the Virgin Birth should not be a "hurdle" over which new Christians had to jump before they were accepted.
You can read the whole thing here.
Frankly, until someone believes in the Creed, he is not converted to Christianity. ++RW once again shows that he stands for nothing, and falls for anything.
Some have come to the defense of ABC Williams claiming his position to be 'orthodox' since it cannot be proved by Scripture that there were three or that the three were Kings.
In my opinion this sentiment overlooks or obscures the real issue behind the interview and explains Williams view of the whether the account of the Blessed Virgin should be believed.
How many Kings or "Visemens" (Oi've) there were is not my problem with the interview, my problem is that he, like so many of his religion, say the Creed with his fingers crossed behind his back. Can any of us imagine St. Augustine or for that matter St. Paul teaching in this manner, that belief in the events of God entering the world to save us is optional? Now think of 22 million members of the C of E with an ASA of 950,000. This is what you get when such as Williams are repeatedly put in a place of influence and unilaterally condemn the Church's teaching as optional. TEC Ditto.
But here is what rubs me the most and I would like to hear from others if they picked up on this as well:
Williams exposes himself when he uses the phrase "Stars simply don't behave like that", (he told the BBC during an interview)".
Is this not the underlying question of John Spong's career and others like him?"
When one considers that this or that ultimately can not "behave that way" one must ultimately believe that there is no Creator or at least that creator is somehow not a creator because it has no power over it's own creation.
Apply the logic to Jesus: leprosy can not be cured by well wishing onlookers as diseases "simply don't behave like that", Blindness and lameness do not just vanish on command as tissue "simply does not behave like that". One surely does not have to believe the myth of Lazurus or of the Centurian's child as any rational human being knows dead organisms "simply don't behave like that". Therefore these events like the star did not happen.
What makes Williams any different from the likes of a Chane? Resurrection? corpses "simply do not behave like that".
What about the Incarnation? The gods "simply do not behave like that".
Williams logic is the logic of the last several decades born of deconstructionism it is the logic that has caused the demise of his own Communion and will continue to do so as all can see.
This is who the 'conservative' wishes to be in some corporate relationship with. Not with Jesus Christ or His Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but with some sentimental idea of Camelot and acceptable social refinement. Not with the living organism that is the Church Triumphant but a relationship by way of an invention of men called "Instruments of Unity and "Bonds of Affection" which is going as well as things normally go that are man made they rust and rot and are eaten by moths.
This man and those who want 'communion' with him have lost their way and are as blind men groping. Thank God I am free from their yoke.
And to think that Dr Toon thinks that you're not Anglican unless you're in communion with That.
I am, to say the least, disturbed about the comments about the Virgin Birth by the present Archbishop of Canterbury.
I KNOW that His Grace has directed several significant doctoral dissertations on S. Augustine of Hippo.
S. Augustine remarks that one cannot be saved if one does not believe in the Virgin Birth. This statement prompted no opposition from his theological enemies-- be they neo-Arian, homoian, or Peligian.
O Tempora, O Mores.
And what, indeed, is so hard about believing that the Creator of the Universe is able to act outside of the normal rules that He Himself has made? If He can't, He isn't God. We're not talking about heretics in the classic sense, but about virtual atheists. The materialistic view of Modernists simply denies the existence of any Gid that matters.
In standing up for the historic Faith, moreover, we aren't merely opposing TEC or Cantuar, we are standing up against a whole spirit of the age, so pervasive that even many RC priests and laity refuse to accept the Virgin Birth(or Virginal Conception as some stuffy acquaintances insist on having it). I've talked with a number of them.
The issue here is more subtle. Albion was curious as to why I created a separate post from the earlier one about Christmas foolishness. The reason is that the earlier reports did not mention this most important element of all; but Ruth Gledhill, on the ball as usual, did.
The issue is that ++RW believes in the Virgin Birth himself, but considers this belief merely optional for other Christians. Treating orthodoxy as an option for those who are in the Church, is itself a heresy.
I was interested also to see the comments of Ricky Gervais. I never got into 'The Office' or 'Extras' and, while generally in tune with British humour, found Gervais's work distasteful and embarrassing, because it had a nasty, cruel streak running through it. Off topic (possibly) but something to ponder.
But did not RW describe his 'belief' as "part of what I have inherited?"
How is this a belief at all?
That is the same bag of psycho-babble tricks a priestess employed to destroy our old parish. "It's all environmental! Your poor brainwashed country bumpkins".
Is this not the faith of those that go "We' during the pseudo Creed of the 79 (or is that Nee?) such as the neo Con's? No there is a statement on which you can be firm..."wee"!
Exposes a faith that is not so firm but more like a "Sleep Number mattress"? Full of air and dialed to the perfect comfort zone.
How else can one accommodate two integrates in bed together?
Treating orthodoxy as an option for those who are in the Church, is itself a heresy.
Fr. Hart, this applies EVEN MORE SO for anyone occupying the office of Archbishop of Canterbury!
By logical inference, it appears that you are declaring ABC Rowan Williams to be a heretic.
I myself would not take issue with this declaration, but others might. If I've drawn a wrongful inference, I await your gracious correction.
Post a Comment