INTERVIEWER:… the baby Jesus in a manger; historically and factually true?
ABC: I should think so; the Gospel tells us...
Friday, December 21, 2007
You've probably seen the story headlines about the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams:
Perhaps you even saw others telling him to resign.
Well, let me shock you further, I agree with the Archbishop [on much of what he said]. I didn't say I agreed with the headlines, you see, because this story illustrates journalism at its sloppiest, least informed and mockracky-est. I can say I agree with the Archbishop because I actually read the interview.
What the Archbishop said was that elements of the Christmas story are legend. He points out in the interview elements like "the 3 kings" are almost certainly were NOT the what "magi" means in Matthew. Or that there would not have been snow on the ground in our manger scene, since it was the Middle East and we don't know in what time of year He was born.
But as to the facts? When the interviewer asks:
Why does he say that? BECAUSE THOSE PARTS ARE IN THE BIBLE. Shouldn't the story headline really be: "Archbishop uses the Bible as the rule of truth! Doesn't he know its the 21st Century!" He even affirms the Virgin birth, though he *gasp* admits that is hard for some people who are new to the faith. The last line of the Fox article sputs it well "Williams’s views are strictly in line with orthodox Christian teaching. The Archbishop is sticking to what the Bible actually says." Me too.
This is all just to say, when reading a story in the media that tempts us to dismiss other Christians as heretics, we should wait until we get all the facts in first...and read the interview, its pretty good.