"I Believe . . ."

Does it matter very much what a man believes? As long as he lives charitably by the Golden Rule, helps to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, what's the difference whether he believes in the Incarnation, the Resurrection--or even in a personal God? To many a good "liberal" who calls himself a Christian, such articles of faith matter very little.

To Christians who take their creed seriously, they matter a great deal. Last week, the Most Rev. Dr. Geoffrey Francis Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, made that point clear. Before the solemn Convocation of Canterbury, he spoke bluntly to (and about) one of his bishops, the Right

Rev. Ernest W. Barnes of Birmingham. Without beating about the bush, Dr. Fisher declared: "If his views were mine, I should not feel that I could still hold episcopal office in the Church. ... I am shocked."

White-haired Bishop Barnes, 73, has long been a thorn in the Church of England's side. At one time or another during his 23-year career as head of the industrial diocese of Birmingham, he has scandalized his brethren by espousing euthanasia, sterilization, easy divorce. Many of his colleagues have undertaken to tell him off. But last week's public rebuke by the Primate of All England was the sternest he has yet received. This time, it was not a question of mere difference of opinion, but of his Church's faith. Last March, Barnes had published a new book, The Rise of Christianity. In it he wrote:

On the Virgin Birth: "A crude, semipagan story. . .. Biological research seems to indicate that a human virgin birth may be proved to be possible. Among the insects, reproduction from unfertilized egg-cells is common. . . . However, if biological research should show that in humanity a virgin birth could take place, and that therefore the 'miracle' of the Virgin Birth of Jesus was not impossible, those who now regard the miracle as essential to the Christian faith would feel disquieted. It would be asked why the Son of God should be born in a manner common among the insects, rather than by a normal human process. . . ."

On Miracles: "Modern man, with his thought shaped by scientific investigation, is certain that miracles ... do not happen, Only figuratively can the blind receive their sight, or the lame be made to walk, or the lepers be cleansed. . . . Without a doubt, the need to jettison the miraculous element in the New Testament . . . weakens the reliability of the gospel narratives; and, insofar as Christian teaching has been built upon the power of Jesus to perform miracles, and upon the miracles associated with His birth and death, it calls for a drastic refashioning of such teaching."

On Infant Baptism: "There is no evidence of it iri early Christian times. Would an inquiry by experimental psychology show a higher standard of conduct on the part of those 'regenerated from original sin' than appears in others not subjected to baptism?"

The Bishop of Birmingham listened to his Archbishop's denunciation last week with a faint smile. "There is no question of my resigning my bishopric," he told a reporter afterwards. Dr. Fisher plans to take no further action. But his rebuke of the free-thinking Bishop served a wider purpose: to remind all easy-going Anglicans that 1) what a man believes is as important as what he does, and 2) the Apostles' Creed means what it says, even if some of those who recite it don't think so.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.