In the wake of the Time and Newsweek stories that once again offered a skeptical raised eyebrow at the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth, I found myself hurtling back into a most unsettling memory.
I was sitting in the middle of the final examination by the Committee on Preparation for Ministry seeking their endorsement for ordination as a Presbyterian pastor. One pastor zeroed in on my statement that I believed in the virgin birth and asked me in a barely concealed condescending tone, “Tod, please explain to us why you continue to hold to the doctrine of the virgin birth when so many of our contemporary statements of faith no longer assert it?”
I was only slightly shocked. Even as a candidate and seminarian, I was all too familiar with what it felt like to be an evangelical who holds to the actual beliefs of confessional documents in a denomination where so many of our clergy now confess their faith with their fingers’ crossed. (Even today, while I have greater respect for the earnestness of some of my more liberal colleagues’ convictions, I recognize that I am amongst those who are aiming to bringing theological renewal to our church by re-affirming our biblical and confessional standards.)
But I also found myself rising to the challenge. I think it was something in the questioning pastor’s voice and the smirk on his face. “You don’t really believe that stuff, do you? Just how simple-minded are you?” He was saying…
I immediately assured my questioner that I had indeed wrestled with the challenges of contemporary scholarship. I was aware of the tidal wave of assumptions that simply relegated the virgin birth to legend. I even quoted one of my favorite maxims, “My heart cannot rejoice in what my mind rejects.”
So I picked up the gauntlet and tried to defend the arguments for the biblical account. It was neither because of fear nor traditionalism that I held to the confession of the ancient creed that Jesus was “conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary”, but because of clear biblical evidence.
For all the differences between Matthew and Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus, the one thing they share is that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. The birth (the word in Matthew is the word “genesis”) of Jesus was the work of the Spirit (like the first Genesis) and a willing person cooperating to bring salvation. (Jesus means literally, “God save!”)
There is also absolutely NO reason why the early church would have inserted that doctrinal statement into the biblical account. There had been no expectation of a virgin birth (the Jewish believers of the day did NOT think that the Isaiah text applied to the Messiah of God come into the world through a miraculous birth) and to assert it was to open the church to ridicule and Mary and Jesus to scorn. (John 7 seems to say that a pervasive rumor of the day was of Jesus’ illegitimate birth. The Newsweek article suggests that the Virgin Birth story was made up to cover up this illegitimacy. Talk about going from the frying pan into the fire! That would be like using a story of aliens to cover up a common moral indiscretion. Now people would think you are both immoral and nuts.)
I could say more, but there was no compelling reason to assert the virgin birth—not even for the sake of asserting Jesus’ divine nature—unless it were true. (Historically speaking ONLY Mary could know for sure if the biblical account were true and her testimony to Joseph--and the angels who backed her up--speak for themselves.)
But the most important reason for asserting the Virgin Birth is not historical at all(as credible as the evidence surprisingly turns out to be), but theological. The Virgin Birth is God’s way of personally entering his creation. The Spiritus Creator that brought the universe into being, personally entered creation to bring restoration. God did not choose a human being, imbue that person with his Spirit and stick him on the cross (that view is called “adoptionism”). God himself did the job. God did not just send his Spirit, God himself saved us, was with us…
A few years after that confrontation in my ordination examination, many pastors of similar theological convictions as my questioner asserted that the cross was an act of God abusing his child for the sake of others. Of course, that is where “adoptionism” leads. But in the Virgin Birth we reject adoptionism and affirm with the first generation of the church, “For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself…” (2 Cor 5:19)
It is profoundly good “news” for every “time” and place. And something that even we pastors dare not abandon under the pressure of ridicule or skepticism. Thank God for the beauty of Christ’s birth and the boldness of those who proclaim it truly.
P. S. In case you were wondering…NT Wright, Dale Bruner, Michael Wilkins, Craig Keener, Donald Hagner, Robert Gundry…a very small list of respected and published scholars who could have been interviewed for the Time and Newsweek story that believe in the historicity of the virgin birth….
Recent Comments