Born of a Virgin?

The Feast of the Holy Innocents, which is today (here, here, and here), is as good a time as any to address a burning issue of this (and perhaps many) Christmas seasons: Was Christ truly born of a Virgin?

Writing for Slate, an Episcopal priest named Chloe Breyer (her father is Supreme Court Justice Breyer) opines in a piece headlined "The Earthly Father--What If Mary Wasn't a Virgin?" that the story of the Savior's birth is actually better if Christ was not born of a virgin:

Christians celebrate the birth of God's only son. Some believers, however, wonder if Jesus Christ is God's son only. The ancient "illegitimacy tradition" and its modern proponents propose that Jesus may have had a human father. That idea upsets one of the central mysteries of the Christian faith—the virgin conception. But it's entirely in keeping with more essential tenets: Jesus' role as the Messiah, and God's love for the poor and downtrodden. What's more, the illegitimacy tradition responds to many strange utterances about Jesus' birth in the Scriptures themselves....

Can a loyal Christian believe that Christ was not born of a biological virgin? Perhaps it's worth posing a different question: Why is church authority so intent upon Mary's virginity as a historical fact? Would Jesus be any less God's son if he had an earthly father? The central message of the Gospel is that God raised up and redeemed his servant from death by crucifixion--the Roman style of execution reserved for the lowest of the low. Why couldn't God have sent the same message of divine solidarity with the world's outcasts by making a Messiah out of a man whose conception was also taboo?

Well, let's see, this doesn't do much for the Virgin Mary's holiness, now does it? "Sophisticated Christians"--the Rev. Breyer actually uses this term--might, of course, prefer a Mary who is just your average pregnant teenager. You can identify with such a Mary. (Especially if you are a liberal who excuses such behavior for poor kids--but not for your own Ivy League-bound prodigies.)

The dogma of Christ's Virgin Birth is actually very central to the Christian story. It actually means something. I have an uncle who almost declined ordination to the Episocpal clergy at the last moment because he, at that point in his life, doubted this dogma. It was that important. Mind you, this was a long time ago. But all the theologians the Rev. Breyer cites as believing in the illegitimacy theory are beyond the pale of orthodox Christianity.

In other words, Ms. Breyer is (as Baptist minister Albert Mohler puts it) sharing her doubt about something central to Christianity. (Maybe she's like my uncle, only less honest?) Breyer's "belief in the illegitimacy of Jesus is 'entirely in keeping' with her worldview and belief system--a belief system that is profoundly not based in the authority of the Bible."

In another piece, Mohler asks if acceptance of the Virgin Birth dogma is necessary for a Christian:

What are we to do with the Virgin Birth? The doctrine was among the first to be questioned and then rejected after the rise of historical criticism and the undermining of biblical authority that inevitably follwed. Critics claimed that since the doctrine is taught in 'only' two of the four Gospels, it must be elective. The Apostle Paul, they argued, did not mention it in his sermons in Acts, so he must not have believed it. Besides, the liberal critics argued, the doctrine is just so supernatural. Modern heretics like retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong argue that the doctrine was just evidence of the early church's over-claiming of Christ's deity. It is, Spong tells us, the "entrance myth" to go with the resurrection, the "exit myth."

Must one believe in the Virgin Birth to be a Christian? This is not a hard question to answer. It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible's teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no....

Millard Erickson states this well: "If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far beyond the doctrine itself."

Implications, indeed. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who was His father? There is no answer that will leave the Gospel intact. The Virgin Birth explains how Christ could be both God and man, how He was without sin, and that the entire work of salvation is God's gracious act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a human father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.

As a Catholic, I might say the Bible with the illumination of the Church, but Mohler's argument is about the size of it. Dr. Mohler also quotes St. Augustine of Hippo on why it is important that Christ was God incarnate and not the son of (perhaps) a randy centurion:

"He, through whom time was made, was made in time; and He, older by eternity that the world itself, was younger in age than many of His servants in the world; He, who made man, was made man; He was given existence by a mother whom He brought into existence; He was carried in hands which He formed; He nursed at breasts which He filled; He cried like a babe in the manger in speechless infancy--this Word without which human eloquence is speechless!"

May I refer to the professor's remarks in yesterday's blog entry? The writers of the gospel were mad, lying, or telling the truth. Which is it?