Archbishop says nativity 'a legend'

The headline reads "Archbishop says nativity 'a legend'." The report suggests that the Dr. Rowan Williams denies that the Magi existed, that there were animals in the stable, or that anything that you see in your Nativity is likely accurate.

"Oh, my!" the crowd gasps. "How can he say such things?"

So I looked at the transcript of the interview. The interviewer, Simon Mayo, set about asking about the Christmas story from the perspective of your standard Nativity scene. You know the one. There is Mary and Joseph and the Baby. There are shepherds and three -- always three -- wise men. There are various barnyard animals. There is an angel. Often there is snow on the roof of the stable. Got the picture? Good, because that's what Mayo is asking about.

Mayo asks if any of it is true or even crucial. The Archbishop assures him that Jesus's birth in the manger was a fact. When asked about the Virgin Birth, he says, "That's something I'm committed to." Dr. Williams "passes on the asses". "They don't figure very strongly in the gospel, so I can live without the ox and asses."

Mayo asks next about the wise men. His question is significant. "The wise men with the gold, frankincense, and Myrrh - with one of the wise men normally being black and the other two being white, for some reason?" Note that the interviewer is asking about the race and number of men. Here's Dr. Williams' reply:

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; it works quite well as legend.

Since the Archbishop has already committed to the biblical story of the birth of Christ, Virgin Birth and all, and since the question is about the race of the wise men, it seems quite apparent that "the legend" to which he is referring is not the existence of the Magi, but their racial origin. That is legend.

There is more in the transcript. If you are concerned about the Archbishop's comments, it might do you good to read them. The truth is that he was extremely accurate. There is no biblical account of there being three Magi. We assume it because there are three gifts listed. Where they came from is not offered. Legend includes their names, but the Bible doesn't. And ... get this ... it is not compatible with Scripture to put the Magi in the stable. They weren't there. According to Matthew, they went to a house, not a stable. It is unlikely that Jesus was born in December and unlikely that there was snow on the stable. None of this affects the veracity of the biblical accounts. What is in question, perhaps, is the classic Nativity scene, but is that something that needs to be defended if it doesn't match Scripture?

Christianity is often misrepresented ... even by people in the Church. This is not one of those cases. I have no idea if the Archbishop is a favorable representative of biblical truth or not, but this is not a misrepresentation. We ought to be extremely careful of jumping on a headline before we actually examine the truth. It just makes us look bad when Christians attack a friend.