[Flo Nightengale]

If you read the transcript, you'll note that Williams is being asked to compare the popular Christmas-card version of the nativity with the Biblical one. The only time the word legend comes up is in reference to the wise men. He states: Well Matthew's gospel doesn't tell us that there were three of them, doesn't tell us they were kings, doesn't tell us where they came from, it says they're astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire. That's all we're really told so, yes, 'the three kings with the one from Africa' - that's legend

In addition, Williams recently affirmed the Virgin birth in a survey also done by the Spectator. His answer, when asked if he believed in the Virgin birth was as follows: Yes; I believe that the conception of Jesus was a moment when the creative action of God produced a reality as new in its way as the first moment of creation itself. And I believe that what opened the way for this was the work of God through human history over centuries, coming to its fullest moment in Mary’s consent to God’s call. The recognition of the uniqueness and newness of Jesus is a recognition of the absolute freedom of God to break the chains of cause and effect that lock us into our sins and failures; the virginal conception is an outward sign of this divine freedom to make new beginnings.

It seems to me that a headline writer deliberately posted the provocative claim implying that Dr. Williams calls the entire Nativity a legend, when this is in fact NOT the case. Don't we know better than to trust that the papers will get things right? Let's criticize folks for what they actually DO say, and let's not be so quick to label someone non-Christian on the basis of a misleading headline.

[xzins]

Thank you for the additional info, Flo.

If the writer went further into the writings of Williams, especially prior to his Archbishopric, we would find a better record of what Williams actually believes.

[Biggirl]

That is why is it SO IMPORTANT to support doing fact checking on subjects like this one because the MSM SEEMS to get it all wrong.

[jboot]

With all due respect, I cannot decode how you extract the concrete statement "Yes, I believe in the virgin birth" from:

Yes; I believe that the conception of Jesus was a moment when the creative action of God produced a reality as new in its way as the first moment of creation itself. And I believe that what opened the way for this was the work of God through human history over centuries, coming to its fullest moment in Mary’s consent to God’s call. The recognition of the uniqueness and newness of Jesus is a recognition of the absolute freedom of God to break the chains of cause and effect that lock us into our sins and failures; the virginal conception is an outward sign of this divine freedom to make new beginnings.

If there is any concrete statement to be found in this turgid mass of weasel words, it may be something to the effect of:

"The conception of Jesus was really, really special and can be considered-if we so choose-to involve a virgin birth, but it is better understood as a metaphor."

Not a sweeping affirmation by any means.

[bobjam]

While those Christmas cards, and just about every Nativity scene and Christmas pageant in the Western World show the “3 Kings” being present at the Birth, the Gospels paint a different story. They indicate the Wise Men came after the birth- possibly as many as two years later. This is why “3 Kings” are observed the Sunday before Epiphany and not on Christmas Day.

For militant Christians of other denominations, who know their own churches are in perfect order and are completely devoid of homosexual clergy and leaders who might privately question major doctrines, might do well to read the interview before lauching more diatribes against the Anglicans.