Christmas Rush

Rush Limbaugh has some harsh words for Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. In this 'sermon', Rush responds to a recent news story reporting Williams as saying, "The Christmas story is a legend." There's a lot going on here, so let me address each thing in turn.

First, Rush says he writes because the "liberal Christians out there, these wacko Christians that are liberal" try his patience. Among this lot of liberal, wacko Christians falls Rowan Williams, who said in a recent interview that belief in the virgin birth of Christ should not be a "kind of hurdle people have to get over before they can, you know, be signed up." Rush interprets this as a sign of 'slippery-slope' Christianity, stating that:

"A lot of Christians know where his reasoning is going to end up, or where this line of reasoning will take you, because it ends up denying the fundamental basis of Christianity, which is the resurrection. Because if that didn't happen, then the whole thing is in trouble, and if these biblical miracles didn't happen, the star of Bethlehem didn't stop, if there was no virgin birth, then, of course, there probably wasn't a resurrection. In which case, what the hell is the Archbishop of Canterbury doing in the business, if he wants to rewrite it this way?"

Near the end of his 'sermon', he suggests that Williams begin his own religion:

"By the way, the Archbishop of Canterbury also said the nativity scene is a "legend." Not real, just a legend. So for those of you out there who feel compelled to take some of your Christian beliefs, discard the miracles, and replace them with modern science and thereby invent a new religion, go right ahead -- and if this is what Dr. Rowan Williams wants to do, if he wants to throw out the things in Christianity that he just can't explain in his "superior mind," go ahead, Dr. Williams. But just don't call it Christianity. You are distorting and debasing it. Call it whatever you want. Call it Williamsism. I don't care what you call it, but do not call it Christianity. When you start cherry-picking things that you want, cherry-picking things that your superior mind says you can't possibly accept because stars don't stop; there's no virgin both, and nobody can rise from the dead, fine. Go base your own religion on that; find the flock that you want, but don't call it Christianity."

There's rich irony here, for Rush himself has engaged in some serious 'cherry picking' of Rowan Williams's words. Rowan Williams in his interview takes us straight back to the gospel text, which has no mention of how many 'kings' there were, no mention of one from Africa. If nativity scenes portray something the Scriptures don't actually say (see Ben Witherington's excellent analysis of the nativity texts), then they are in fact portraying 'legend.' This is not Rowan Williams striking at the roots of the Christian faith, but merely pointing out that what tradition has given us may not be the actual biblical story.

As for Rowan's comment that the virgin birth not be a hurdle to new believers, I can say that it is clear from our earliest Christian documents that the virgin birth was not a major part of the early Christian proclamation. That Paul should make no substantial mention of it in his letters and that Mark and John should include nothing of Jesus's earthly life before his baptism reveals this. The Christian message was Christ crucified and risen.

This does not deny the importance of the virgin birth, or its historicity (two things which I affirm), but it does show that the gospel's proclamation is elsewhere. Rush himself makes this point by saying that the 'slippery-slope' thinking he sees in Rowan will lead to the denial of the 'fundamental basis of Christianity, which is the resurrection.' If the fundamental basis is the resurrection, then it is easy to understand why the Archbishop would not want an uneasiness about accepting the virgin birth to deter those ready to enter the Christian community, those who believe in the risen Lord.

Of course, this sort of nuance might not be appreciated by Rush and those of similar thinking who tend to categorize people as either 'liberal 'or 'conservative' (or should I say 'wacko liberal?). But the truth is that life is not that simple, and neither are people. Belief is a complex thing, and forcing people into unhelpful categories or telling them to go start their own religions (when they are clearly within the mainstream of Christianity) does not help anyone.

Also unhelpful is the media's excitement and exploitation of occasions like this. Take for instance the news story I mentioned above. The title reads, "Archbishop says Christmas story is legend." Immediately thoughts of 'liberal church leaders', and slipping doctrinal affirmations comes to mind. But is that what Rowan Williams really said? No. Instead, he said the nativity scene is a legend. This does not make 'the Christmas story' (whatever that means) a legend, nor is it what the Archbishop said. This sort of cherry-picking only produces more confusion.

From all this we can certainly learn to be wary of the media, and to be careful not to rush to conclusions about church leaders and their beliefs simply on the basis of select quotes.

(Check out iMonk's assessment of the situation here.)

*picture from here