In defense of the Archbishop of Canterbury (believe it or not!)
That Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is a gentleman of dubious orthodoxy presiding over a communion large parts of which have teetered into open apostasy cannot be denied. But as strange as this seems, I have to side with him over his allegedly 'controversial' remarks concerning the Christmas story.
Scripture is silent as to the number of Wise Men; the original legend seems to have been that there were twelve. They almost certainly did not visit the manger, but some subsequent Bethlehem residence of the Holy Family, quite possibly after a period of years (Herod's decision to kill all children under the age of three- which may have been based on mere conjecture on his part as to the Child's age - is literally the only biblical evidence that the Wise Men arrived while Jesus was even a toddler). The Wise Men most likely were Mesopotamian astrologers, just as Williams suggests. Scripture does not give the date or the weather or even the time of year that Jesus was born, and it is a commonplace that the Church chose to celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25 chiefly in order to compete with a pagan holiday- more likely the Feast of the Unconquerable Sun than, as is sometimes claimed, Saturnalia.
I do disagree with Williams that one can deny the Virgin Birth and still be faithful to the biblical witness, and that is no small matter. But Archbishop Williams and other liberal churchmen and church bodies so often deny the authority of the Bible on matters on which the Bible is clear and unambiguous that it's hard for me to get upset when he merely points out elements of our cultural Christmas tradition which are- however beloved- purely human conceits, and no part of the biblical witness or the Christian faith at all.
Scripture is silent as to the number of Wise Men; the original legend seems to have been that there were twelve. They almost certainly did not visit the manger, but some subsequent Bethlehem residence of the Holy Family, quite possibly after a period of years (Herod's decision to kill all children under the age of three- which may have been based on mere conjecture on his part as to the Child's age - is literally the only biblical evidence that the Wise Men arrived while Jesus was even a toddler). The Wise Men most likely were Mesopotamian astrologers, just as Williams suggests. Scripture does not give the date or the weather or even the time of year that Jesus was born, and it is a commonplace that the Church chose to celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25 chiefly in order to compete with a pagan holiday- more likely the Feast of the Unconquerable Sun than, as is sometimes claimed, Saturnalia.
I do disagree with Williams that one can deny the Virgin Birth and still be faithful to the biblical witness, and that is no small matter. But Archbishop Williams and other liberal churchmen and church bodies so often deny the authority of the Bible on matters on which the Bible is clear and unambiguous that it's hard for me to get upset when he merely points out elements of our cultural Christmas tradition which are- however beloved- purely human conceits, and no part of the biblical witness or the Christian faith at all.
Comments
In Christ,
Gleason