Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

British clergy have doubts about virgin birth
The Telegraph via SMH ^ | December 23 2002

Posted on 12/23/2002 8:02:48 AM PST by dead

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 last
To: AnalogReigns
Medieval fascinations & fetishes are not the topic of this post...but I see your point trying to paint Christians as banal.

What you blithely dismiss as a "medieval fascination and fetish" is a defined article of faith for 1 billion Catholics and 300 million Eastern Orthodox. Maybe you ought to be a bit more circumspect about your dismissals.

101 posted on 12/23/2002 11:42:47 AM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
This "priest" stated clearly in the article that there was nothing special about Jesus until his ministry.

Jesus himself indicates this when he tells his mother its not yet his time in regards to changing the wedding wine into water. 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.

102 posted on 12/23/2002 11:43:54 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Maybe you can get the churches to stop burning it. They are so inconciderate

I came from a high Church background and like it myself.

103 posted on 12/23/2002 11:45:19 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I came from a high Church background and like it myself.

It's not important whether or not you like it. If you allow it, it is inconciderate and it's only a matter of time before the government bans it. It will be your own fault because you are so inconciderate of others who don't like it.

104 posted on 12/23/2002 11:53:16 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
It's not important whether or not you like it. If you allow it, it is inconciderate and it's only a matter of time before the government bans it. It will be your own fault because you are so inconciderate of others who don't like it.

The vestry of our little church all but banned it by telling the new priest he better not do it again after I tricked him into thinking everyone would be fine with it occasionally.

105 posted on 12/23/2002 12:00:15 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Sgt. Fury
Stop...you are letting facts get in the discussion! Be careful!
106 posted on 12/23/2002 12:07:04 PM PST by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lysander
Remulac if I recall....
107 posted on 12/23/2002 12:07:57 PM PST by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dead
'.....I need to keep the job I have got"

sad

108 posted on 12/23/2002 12:12:44 PM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fudd
Sgt Fury must have read Bloodline of the Holy Grail. Its full of this "speculation" if you want to call it that.
109 posted on 12/23/2002 12:29:58 PM PST by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dead
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.

110 posted on 12/23/2002 12:31:45 PM PST by Dr._Joseph_Warren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
bump
111 posted on 12/23/2002 12:54:20 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr._Joseph_Warren
Good information - thanks Doc!
112 posted on 12/23/2002 1:14:39 PM PST by jonno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
"I edited that to make it a tad different."


It is true many congregants are also there for the wrong reasons. They however don't get paid to lead someone in the way of the truth. And if they were with a believing clergyman it is possible that they would find the truth. Not real likely with these guys though.




113 posted on 12/23/2002 5:34:37 PM PST by Grammy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion; ThomasJefferson
Our rather high church publishes an "INCENSE ALERT!" in the church bulletin so that those who object to the scent of prayers wafting in the manner of the Saints around the Throne can come to another service. :-D
114 posted on 12/23/2002 6:50:27 PM PST by AnAmericanMother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
I try not to be insulting but that was absolute idiocy. I would go so far as to say blasphemy but I get the feeling you wouldn't care.
115 posted on 12/24/2002 11:04:49 AM PST by pgyanke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
> "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."
116 posted on 12/24/2002 11:16:52 AM PST by pgyanke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Which part is mistaken?

(1) When you cross a divine father with a human mather you get something both fully human and fully divine. (Ie, it makes sense to say someone's half Polish but it makes no sense to say someone's half divine.)

(2) Human males emit ejaculate involuntarily at night as they enter puberty.

(3) Women can impregnate themselves with ejaculate.
117 posted on 12/24/2002 11:24:11 AM PST by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: dead
time to clean out the church of england
118 posted on 12/24/2002 11:27:28 AM PST by Bill Davis FR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
*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.

119 posted on 12/24/2002 11:53:15 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson