British clergy have doubts about virgin birth

More than a quarter of Church of England clergy do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ, a survey has found.

A poll of 500 clerics found that 27per cent privately reject the traditional story of Jesus's birth, which forms a key part of the Nativity.

The view of one Hampshire vicar was typical. "There was nothing special about his birth or his childhood - it was his adult life that was extraordinary," he said.

He declined to be named, saying: "I have a very traditional bishop and this is one of those topics I do not go public on. I need to keep the job I have got."

The survey, carried out for the London Daily Telegraph, will dismay traditionalists inside and outside the Church of England. Many of the sceptics who took part in the survey said the story of the virgin birth was a product of poor biblical translations and literary tradition rather than divine intervention.

The Rev Dr Keith Archer, of Salford, said: "It is not particularly important because it is a debatable translation of a Hebrew prophecy which first appeared in Isaiah."

Another vicar added: "Writers at the time used to stress a person's importance by making up stories about their early life. I think that is exactly what has happened here."

Most of those who doubt the virgin birth agreed they would be presiding over traditional Christmas services that stressed the miraculous nature of Christ's birth.

Dr Archer said: "We will be having a traditional service because that is what people expect and enjoy. There are times and places for this debate."

A colleague added: "I do not believe in the virgin birth but I would not argue for that point of view in a sermon because I simply don't believe it is that important an issue."

Traditionalists seized upon the survey's findings as evidence of a church in decline.

John Roberts, who heads the Lord's Day Observance Society, said: "If you take away the virgin birth you might as well take away the entire Christian message. The miracle of the Christian faith is that God came down to us. If you lose that miracle you lose the resurrection and everything else."

The survey did find some comfort for traditionalists: 64per cent of those arguing against the idea of a virgin birth still believed in some sort of resurrection of Christ, whether physical or otherwise.

This is a fascinating old, old argument. Gibbon speaks of it in his classic ’The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.’ The following is as good a description as I have found .

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/arianism.htm

Excerpt from the site:

Arianism was a 4th-century Christian heresy named for Arius (c.250-c.336), a priest in Alexandria. Arius denied the full deity of the preexistent Son of God who became incarnate in Jesus Christ. He held that the Son, while divine and like God ("of like substance"), was created by God as the agent through whom he created the universe. Arius said of the Son, "there was a time when he was not." Arianism became so widespread in the Christian church and resulted in such disunity that the emperor Constantine convoked a church council at Nicaea in 325 (see Councils of Nicaea).

Led by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the council condemned Arianism and stated that the Son was consubstantial (of one and the same substance or being) and coeternal with the Father, a belief formulated as homoousios ("of one substance") against the Arian position of homoiousios ("of like substance"). Nonetheless, the conflict continued, aided by the conflicting politics of the empire after the death of Constantine (337).

Three types of Arianism emerged: radical Arianism, which asserted that the Son was "dissimilar" to the Father; homoeanism, which held that the Son was similar to the Father; and semi-Arianism, which shaded off into orthodoxy and held that the Son was similar yet distinct from the Father.

After an initial victory of the homoean party in 357, the semi-Arians joined the ranks of orthodoxy, which finally triumphed except in Teutonic Christianity, where Arianism survived until after the conversion (496) of the Franks. Although much of the dispute about Arianism seems a battle over words (Edward Gibbon scornfully observed that Christianity was split over a single iota, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios), a fundamental issue involving the integrity of the Gospel was at stake: whether God was really in Christ reconciling the world to himself.

> "Further, John and Mark start there gospels with John the baptist. This minsiter is on fairly firm ground with this comment seeing that 1/2 the Gospel writers agree as well As Jesus himself."

*sigh*... 1/2 the gospels start with his ministry therefore the Christmas story is irrelevant? Read your bible again. John starts with affirming Jesus's divine nature.

Besides, it isn't just the gospels. Prophecy in the Old Testament affirm Jesus's ancestry and nature and most of the books of the New Testament make a referral in some regards.

You can't have it both ways. If you believe Jesus died for your sins, you can't believe he was a regular John Q. Public. Perfect attonement came from God dying the death we deserved. The Christmas story is the sine qua non (without which not) of the New Testament. Perhaps the other gospel writers took it as understood... who knows? I do know, though, that they didn't contradict the other two gospels in their accounts.

I'm no biblical scholar so this is supposition on my part but I think it likely the gospel writers wrote within their understanding. John and Mark were there for Jesus's ministry and later life so they stuck to this topic. Luke, on the other hand, has shown himself to be an historian (as in the Book of Acts) and reached back earlier.

I maintain that this "priest" is discounting his own faith. It's not doubt (or at least it doesn't register as such in the article), it's open rejection of this part of Christ's nature. That is huge and he should resign this "job."

*sigh*... 1/2 the gospels start with his ministry therefore the Christmas story is irrelevant? Read your bible again. John starts with affirming Jesus's divine nature.

John doesn't deal with Jesus' birth, he deals with his existence since the creation which I would say overshadows the birth a bit. However, if even one gospel writer felt the nature of the birth is irrelevant why do you place a higher standard on this clergy person when his views would conform with St. Mark ? But, lets look at John the baptist who prepared the way fro Jesus. Did he mentioned the virgin birth ? No. Well certainly Jesus himself might have used these creditentials ? No, he didn't.

So, we have you holding the clergy person to a higher standard of witness than Mark, John the baptist, arguably John, and even Jesus himself.

Besides, it isn't just the gospels. Prophecy in the Old Testament affirm Jesus's ancestry and nature and most of the books of the New Testament make a referral in some regards.

I don't disagree. The fact that prophecy was fufilled doesn't negate whether the nature of the birth is as important as his minsitry as an adult. You can't have it both ways. If you believe Jesus died for your sins, you can't believe he was a regular John Q. Public. Perfect attonement came from God dying the death we deserved. The Christmas story is the sine qua non (without which not) of the New Testament. Perhaps the other gospel writers took it as understood... who knows? I do know, though, that they didn't contradict the other two gospels in their accounts.

If you review the rest of my posts you will see I believe its impossoble to conclude that Mary was anything but a virgin (in the sexual sense). That isn't the point I took issue with you on. The point I took issue was your basing your argument on the importance of the nature of his birth vs. the importance of his ministry. If Mark and John both neglect to cover it, I would assume its 50/50 whether its a key posistion. To support my view we also can look at the apostles creed which dates us back to early Christian statements of belief and possibly conclude from it that even they side stepped the nature of birth by calling Mary Virgin Mary, thereby leaving the question of what is meant by "virgin" an open one.

I'm no biblical scholar so this is supposition on my part but I think it likely the gospel writers wrote within their understanding. John and Mark were there for Jesus's ministry and later life so they stuck to this topic. Luke, on the other hand, has shown himself to be an historian (as in the Book of Acts) and reached back earlier.

I maintain that this "priest" is discounting his own faith. It's not doubt (or at least it doesn't register as such in the article), it's open rejection of this part of Christ's nature. That is huge and he should resign this "job.

If we take your theory we would have to conlude that no one bothered to tell Mark or John about the virgin birth and if they did, they both concluded it wasn't relevant. Either way its wrong to hang this man on this fine point. It is however reasonable to hang him on rejecting what appears to me to be a clear reading of the scriptute that Mary was in fact a virgin and that this did in fact fufill prophesy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.