Earthrise at Christmas NASA
Thirty-five years ago this Christmas (2008), a turbulent world looked to the heavens for a unique view of our home planet. This photo of “Earthrise” over the lunar horizon was taken by the Apollo 8 crew in December 1968, showing Earth for the first time as it appears from deep space.
Astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and William Anders had become the first humans to leave Earth orbit, entering lunar orbit on Christmas Eve. In a historic live broadcast that night, the crew took turns reading from the Book of Genesis, closing with a holiday wish from Commander Borman: “We close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you — all of you on the good Earth.”
The writings of Philip Yancey have done much to encourage my faith. Two of his books have challenged me in ways I didn’t expect.
Two of his books have won the ECPA‘s Christian Book of the Year Award: The Jesus I Never Knew in 1996, and What’s So Amazing About Grace?
Yancey is not into notoriety. In fact, as a much loved editor at large of Christianity Today, he suddenly resigned and went to live in the mountains of Colorado.
He is not your typical evangelical. His writings have been admired by both conservatives and progressives. For example:
As a journalist, he has interviewed two U. S. presidents, and other notables such as Bono, Billy Graham, and the authors Annie Dillard, John Updike, and Henri Nouwen. Former President Jimmy Carter has called Yancey “my favorite modern author.
I met Yancey at a retreat in Boston while I was still a single. Even then, I realized that he has a different way of looking at things.I routinely recommences his books to those who are struggling to make sense of their Christian faith. I usually start with The Jesus I Never Knew but, I have read all of his major writings which can be seen at Wikipedia.
Recently, Yancey was interviewed by Nicolas Kristof of the New York Times. I have admired Kristof’s writings, finding him to be fair and thoughtful when it comes to matter of faith. Wikipedia describes him as such:
An American journalist and political commentator. A winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, he is a regular CNN contributor and has written an op-ed column for The New York Times since November 2001. Kristof is a self-described progressive.[1] According to The Washington Post, Kristof “rewrote opinion journalism” with his emphasis on human rights abuses and social injustices, such as human trafficking and the Darfur conflict.[2] Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa has described Kristof as an “honorary African” for shining a spotlight on neglected conflicts.[3]
Was the Virgin Mary a Virgin? Does It Matter? Philip Yancey, an evangelical Christian writer, responds to my questions, and my doubts by Nicolas Kristof.
I loved the following dialog. You can sign up to view a few articles before they tell you that you need to subscribe.
Welcome to the latest in my occasional series of conversations about Christianity. Here’s my interview, edited for space, with Philip Yancey, an evangelical Christian writer who has more than 15 million books in print in more than 50 languages.
KRISTOF Merry Christmas! And let me start by asking about that first Christmas. Do you believe in the Virgin Birth? Doesn’t that seem like one of those tall tales that people tell to exaggerate an event’s significance?
YANCEY I’m smiling at the question. A hundred years ago, the Virgin Birth was considered so important that it made the list of five “fundamentals of the Christian faith.” Nowadays, with in vitro fertilization, virgin births are old news. For me, the issue centers not on the mechanics of reproduction but rather the nature of Jesus. In the Incarnation, God’s own self came to earth as a human. I wouldn’t pretend to guess how divinity interacted with human DNA, but that’s the mystery the Virgin Birth hints at.
So it’s no longer such a big deal? I can say that I doubt the Virgin Birth without whispering?
It’s only a big deal if you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, as most Christians do. Otherwise you have a different mystery: How did the child of two simple villagers end up changing history more than anyone before or since?
Kristof Isn’t it possible to admire Jesus’ message in the Sermon on the Mount without buying into the miracles? Why can’t we subscribe to Jesus’ message of love while dropping the walking on water, the multiplying of loaves and fishes, the raising Lazarus from the dead?
Yancey Certainly you can admire the message alone, and many people do. I don’t know of anyone who tried more conscientiously to follow the Sermon on the Mount than Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu. But do we lose something by ignoring or rejecting the miracles? I think we do. John’s Gospel calls them “signs.” They signify something about a God who wants creation renewed so that the blind see, the lame walk, the hungry are fed and the dead resurrected.
Kristof But if we give credit to Jesus for raising Lazarus from the dead, what about all the children who died whom he did not raise? And why allow them to die in the first place?
Yancey I have no solutions, merely a few observations. 1) You’re in good company. The Bible is full of honest lament about suffering, beginning with the Book of Job and including Jesus’ cry of abandonment on the cross. 2) God is on the side of the sufferer. Jesus demonstrated that by always responding with comfort and healing, and by refuting those who saw suffering as punishment. 3) As Dostoyevsky set forth so eloquently in “The Brothers Karamazov,” Jesus turned down shortcut solutions — “miracle, mystery and authority” — during his temptation in the desert. Somehow the ultimate healing required God’s own self-sacrifice on the cross.
Because of the books I’ve written on suffering, I’ve been invited to speak at Virginia Tech, Columbine and Newtown. Believe me, the hope of resurrection means something when you’ve just lost your child to a school shooter.
To end this post, I want to share my favorite Christmas song. I daily begin to feel despair as I write post after post about abuse and the church. Yet, somehow in the midst of feeling sad, I suddenly am encouraged as the Holy Spirit reminds me that God is still present, promising us that one day all tears will be wiped away and justice shall prevail.
In the meantime. I pray that all of us can express God’s peace and goodwill to men (and women.)
Merry Christmas. I am daily blessed by your presence and your stories.
1 Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas to you and to all!
Merry Christmas back to you! The two Yancey books you mention at the beginning, my website has given away numerous copies over the years, especially the one on grace. One on grace that helped me after leaving my former unhealthy church, was Transforming Grace by Jerry Bridges.
Thank you for this.
I so appreciate all you do and share here.
May you have a blessed Christmas with your loved ones!
(I also love reading Yancey, and that is my favorite Christmas Hymn too!)
Be of good cheer, Dee.
The deceits and deeds of the wicked in the end shall fail.
A Merry Christmas to all!
Merry Christmas.
Merry Christmas my brothers and sisters, when I look back on preceding articles the light of the gospel can look dim and depressing but remember that the Lord is in charge, He is working and He knows the future. Among all the sad stories of abuse and meanness, deceitful leadership and such, God has his faithful remnants. There are good things going on here, maybe not enough or fast enough but progress is being made. We have hope and we must not give up. Jesus’ birth gives us hope, God sent him when the time was right, and I believe he is using the many fine people on this site to help his church be accountable. Merry Christmas.
I’ve read Yancey for years, and greatly enjoy his books. They are indeed challenging.
Merry Christmas, Dee, and everyone.
Merry Christmas to all. May we remember this day that God has provided all that we need, and will someday bring the sorrows and imperfections of ourselves and our world to an end.
GMFS, and a very happy Christmas to Wartburgers everywhere!
I think the virgin birth provides the biblical pattern for everyone. After all, didn’t Jesus teach that a woman’s place is in the home?
Yours Sincerely,
Arnold Dummarse
Well, it’s obvious to me that the trouble with all of you is that you’re looking for the perfect church.
What I would say is, if you ever find the perfect church, don’t join it – you’ll spoil it.
Yours Sincerely,
Arnold Smartarse
Bah! Humbug.
You’re all rubbish.
Up Yours,
Roger Bombast
Ho, ho, ho!
… ha ha, just kidding. There’s an element of myth about that. But hey.
Best regards,
God
Without the virgin birth, we have no Savior.
Merry Christmas from rainy, cloudy south central Arizona!
Gosh I hate to be that person, but I am that person…
I’d just note that the Virgin Birth was not part of Paul’s preaching. Galatians 4:4:
I’m thinking if Paul thought it was important, he would have said something here.
It is my personal opinion that the Virgin Birth is unhelpful. I’m going to stop here.
Bless you.
If we are honest with ourselves, at some point, we are each in our own right, “that person”.
I know a lot about suffering, and at some point I don’t connect with Yancey’s writings.
My family has lived in Africa, and at some point, we feel there are far better writers about Africa than Kristof.
There are 18 gifts of the Holy Spirit (Romans 12, 1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4) that give a broad and deep perspective, spiritually, right from God Himself to us – and 18 spread across the Community of Faith. We all need each other’s perspectives. I appreciate Kristof & Yancey, yet would add different perspective.
So thanks for what you share, Dee Holmes.
Roger Bombast,
Sod Off!
Injun Joe,
I’m so glad I’m not the only Wartburger who knows what that means.
A very happy Christmas to you and yours!
Injun Joe,
Where I live, it’s too early in the day to go a-wassailing… 😉
Happy Christmas to all the lovely Wartburgers, & especially our Mother Superior Dee & the Holy Pugs.
So, I’ve a reply that’s waiting in quarantine, and I can only guess that it’s because I mis-spelled my email address. That’s more than possible, because I’ve had rather a lot of Prosecco.
Anyway: the Lidl 3-Burrd Roast is in the oven, the roast veg are on the way, the cider and smoked galmon sauce is steadily reducing, and that’s about it for the time being.
Why didn’t I think of that yin?
Probably because I’m existentially rubbish.
Half gammon half salmon?
Friend,
“Galmon” is like an uncooked form of ham (which, obviously, becomes cooked when you cook it). Not to be confused with sammon, the fish. Also, not to be confused with christmas pudding, the pudding.
Be sure to read this heartwarming story about two lost doggies to everybody with you under the table this Christmas: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/12/24/milwaukee-bus-driver-found-lost-dogs-cold-reunites-them-owner/2741034001/
Nick Bulbeck,
If ya’ don’t eat yer’ meat you can’t have any pudding.
How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat yer’ meat?
Been mulling this over today, thanks. While completely respecting your viewpoint, I find myself in all of these places at once:
-Completely comfortable with the idea of the virgin birth
-Sure that virgin birth is impossible
-Unconvinced that we need a scientific explanation or a “miracle exception”
-Unconvinced that belief in the virgin birth is mandatory for all Christians
-Aware that other ancient stories include mention of virgin births
-Happy to admit that our faith has a history
Our Scripture is holy because of what it says about our relationship with God. Jesus came to us as a humble little baby. Mary and Joseph agreed to an imponderable mission. I’m happy to call it a mystery and to rejoice.
Merry Christmas to all.
Friend,
That Milwaukee bus driver is a righteous man.
Not by what Calvin and Luther say, or even what fundagelical Fred says from his mega-church pulpit, but by his Deeds (Proverbs 12:10).
But none of them have the fetching power and the ineffable beauty of Luke’s Magnificat.
Not even close.
Agreed. I’m in awe of this story, and don’t want to reduce it by either pronouncing it merely factual, or mandatory to believe Or Else.
ION: Cricket
England won the toss and put South Africa in at Centurion this morning; this looked like a good decision when Anderson, playing in his 150th Test, removed Elgar with the first ball of the match (a diamond duck for Elgar).
South Africa recovered somewhat, and were making steady progress at 75-2, but Stuard Broad has just removed Hamza for 39 and the hosts are now 75-3. There’s not a great deal in the pitch, though, so despite this being a good start for England on paper there’s a long way to go.
IFON: Fitba’
AWWBA, Liverpool are nearing the end of a mad December, with a total of 9 fixtures – a schedule so congested that we had to send our under-23 team to Villa Park for the Carabao Cup quarter-final, as it was less than 24 hours from our Fifa Club World Cup fixture in Qatar. At least we don’t have to follow up our Boxing Day league match with another on Saturday – 14 Premiership teams do.
It’s a big game this evening, away to second-placed Leicester. The Foxes lost a similar six-pointer last week against 3rd-placed Man City; if we can win at the King Power, though, we’ll go 11 points clear with a game in hand (and more if City don’t beat Wolves tomorrow, though that’s unlikely).
IFON: Climbing
I’ve had a couple of indifferent sessions lately – last week at the local wall I couldn’t climb stairs. Better on Christmas Eve, though; on-sited a 6b+ in the shape of the latest slab route to use The Brains, as well as a 6b with the notoriously fingery Pancakes. Was only a couple of moves shy of the orange 6c on the pillar as well. Lesley’s had a better December than I have, meanwhile; she’s grade-pushing on the rounded granites on the back wall, which is a 6b. Cracked a couple of new moves this week and she’s now getting to the volume at half-height.
*************
Latest: South Africa are 79-3 at lunch. Nae fitba’ yet here today (it’s early yet), but I’ll keep you all posted.
With regard to whether or not the virgin birth story is true, the bigger question is, “Does a religious group get to decide what are correct and incorrect beliefs for that group?” And a related question is, “Does it matter?”
Historically, ecumenical councils addressed these main points, which included a belief in the virgin birth as codified in the 4th century Nicene Creed. The belief in the virgin birth was so widespread and so early that it appears to be one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity. If it is not true, a better question would be, “How did it become so widespread and so important so early in the history of Christiant?” It seems like an explanation is in order.
There are all kinds of other related questions, such as whether or not Jesus really existed, whether or not he was really divine, etc. Early Christians summarized the minimum set of beliefs in Creeds such as the Nicene Creed. They are the same early Chistians who canonized the NT.
If one starts rejecting widely accepted foundational Christian beliefs, is it still appropriate to identify as a Christian?
Thought-provoking points, thanks.
In many churches, the widely accepted is so narrowly defined as to deprive the mind of oxygen.
I love the variety of beliefs and worship forms that Christians have expressed over the millennia. The creeds are beautiful, but creeds are rejected by many churches. A creed, as I understand it, is a statement of common beliefs worked out with care, to promote understanding rather than to insist that everyone uniformly accept. Believers will struggle with such things as the meaning of the Trinity. And, of course, not all churches are Trinitarian.
I prefer to believe people when they say they are Christian; we have a wondrous faith. Even in a broadly defined faith, we have room to judge the actions of individuals and institutions that deceive and abuse.
Cricket update
South Africa are 277-9 at stumps, with Kagiso Rabada falling to Stuart Broad with the last ball of the day. Quinton de Kock will be disappointed at falling 5 short of a century. Overall, though, honours about even.
Meanwhile, in the fitba’, bottom side Watford have just gone a goal up at high-flying newcomers Sheffield United; Saints are a goal up at Chelsea and Bournemouth one up at home to Arsenal. In the early fixture, Spurs came from behind to beat Brighton 2-1. Still goalless at Villa and Goodison.
This is true. Until the East/West schism in 1054, nearly all Christians united around the Nicene Creed (still Called The Creed by EO). Most Protestant denominations adhere to the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Creed. But Mormans and Jehovah Witnesses do not, which makes them non-Christian from an historical perspective. There is quite a lot of ground that the early creeds did not cover. One of the big ones is the nature and duration of hell, which means it is not technically possible to have an heretical belief about hell. But with respect to the Trinity, the boundaries have been pretty tightly defined. Do the creeds matter? The people who worked on them believed so.
Muff Potter,
The bus driver’s good deeds are but filthy rags in the sight of the Lord.
If the bus driver doesn’t know Jesus, he’s going to hell.
The bus driver is a woman, so maybe she is already condemned to all eternity for holding a job… that might even require her to wear trousers!
I’m going with Muff’s point, because mercy counts.
I was listening to a podcast of a talk by Elaine Storkey a while back. She described a young laddie who told her that he saw particular aspects of natural beauty – such as waves breaking on a sea shore – as being Jesus. (Context: he didn’t believe in the historic fundamentals of christianity.) Storkey tried to persuade him that maybe the waves were not Jesus, but Buddha. But no, they weren’t they were Jesus. She tried a few other religious figures as well, with the same result. Interestingly, she never did get to the bottom of why the laddie in question wanted to have some connection with Jesus, nor of who or what he thought Jesus was.
The question I have of someone who rejects, let’s call it, a “critical mass” of historic christian beliefs, is this: why do [generic] you want to be a christian? Why not be a good person? The four gospel accounts each relate numerous teachings of Jesus that have to do with his own nature, his death and resurrection, the kingdom of God, and much else that is very different from moral instruction. If these are all myths added by the early church, or metaphors for moral teaching (or something akin to it), then that’s a large part of the historic testimony about Jesus rejected on what must, at least to some extent, be grounds of personal opinion. On what basis is the remainder true, and again, how is ‘jesus’ any different from Ghandi or my imaginary friend?
Nick Bulbeck,
I Cor. 15:1-8. Verse 5, “the twelve”, the apostles were a witness to his life, death, resurrection, and ascension (Acts 1:9).
Friend,
John 6:35;14:6.
Brian,
John 6:25-29
Ken F (aka Tweed),
Not believing in hell would be heretical.
Brian,
… Are you sure this was meant to be a reply to my comment?
Dave,
Echoing a point made above, I think, by Muslin, this doesn’t seem as central in Paul’s vision. For him, the absolutely indispensible thing was Jesus’ resurrection, without which his readers’ faith was in vain, their departed loved ones were irretrievably lost, and they themselves were still in their sins.
Brian,
People who heard and didn’t take Jesus’ gehenna warnings seriously were very likely to experience that judgment, since they would also have been unlikely to take seriously the parallel warnings to flee Jerusalem at the approach of the Roman armies. One of the things that led me to question the traditional understanding is that Paul’s warnings to Gentiles, both in the sermons in Acts and in what little one can infer from the letters to gentile-dominated churches, don’t look at all like Jesus’ eschatological warnings. It seems to me likely that the “wrath” that threatened Israel at the time of Jesus’ preaching in the late 20s or early 30s was not the same thing as the “wrath” that unbelieving Gentiles were liable to at the time of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles ~2-3 decades later. It was natural, from the standpoint of later generations of Gentile philosopher-theologians seeking theological syntheses, to assume that Jesus and Paul were warning about basically the same thing. But perhaps they were not. That possibility has large implications.
IMO, there is something to this, at least from the perspective of those who have voluntarily gone into “post-evangelical exile”. We get criticized by people still “inside the camp” for not complying with texts such as Hebrews 10, but there are countervailing imperatives, such as the importance of like-mindedness, or of speaking truthfully to one another. I’m afraid that my views on New Testament eschatology would damage the unity of any traditional congregation, were I to truthfully speak them.
But perhaps, as you say, I’m all rubbish.
Samuel Conner,
My own frustration with the comment of which A. Smartarse is a parody is that it’s invariably quacked by people wedded to a single congregational sub-set of the local church, who have little if anything to do with all the other christians (or “churches”) in the area. Though your point applies just as well: if I walk into a congregation and (with whatever carefully-chosen timing) start being honest about what I believe, I soon find out that folk are looking for the perfect christian!
I think it’s a matter of purely subjective (personal) belief or non-belief.
It’s a relatively easy thing to prove that root-two is an irrational number because terms (in the tradition of Socrates) can be agreed upon up front by all parties.
Such is not the case with claims or counter claims regarding Jesus’ divinity.
I can only speak for myself here, but in my view, Jesus of Nazareth differs drastically from Gandhi; Gandhi didn’t raise a guy from the dead even after said guy had begun to rot after four days, Jesus did.
Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe.
— Voltaire —
Brian,
Wonderful and comforting verses for people confident in their faith. However, the message “No one comes to the Father except through me” is often used to “prove” that individuals or groups are condemned. That verse is specifically used today against Jews, and also against many others.
As a teen, I belonged to a church where we were sent out to tell everybody they were headed for eternal torment, mainly because they did not speak our exact lingo. All I did was scare myself and alienate others.
Everybody in America knows who Jesus is. The “unsaved” have heard it all. Now I’d rather live by example.
I am not qualified to judge God’s view of someone’s soul. People are Christian if they say they are. (I might think they are horrible, but that is separate from the question of salvation.)
Based on what? The Nicene Creed does not specifically address hell, but it does address our salvation and the final judgment.
I suppose one could say that not believing in hell makes one an unbeliever more than it makes one a heretic, but it all depends on how one defines hell. As mentioned above, it’s very likely that many of the things Jesus said that we think refer to hell could instead refer to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. So we need to be careful when we use the word.
I believe every Christian should learn about Eastern Christianity’s view of hell because it is very different from what Western Christianity believes. Specifically, they say it describes a state of being instead of a physical location. And that state of being is in the undiluted presence of God’s love. Some will experience it as bliss and others will experience as torment. But all will experience the full presence, not absense, of God. As an example, see:
https://m.facebook.com/1395030584153681/photos/a.1395045107485562/1410429505947122/?type=3 (I hope this link works).
Another topic is the duration and purpose of hell. The tree dominant views, which are mutually exclusive while at the same time each having good biblical support, are eternal conscious torment, annihilationism (or conditionalism), and universal (or ultimate) reconciliation. I have heard very convincing arguments from all three views.
Very good questions. Not sure which part of your comment to quote so I will not quote any of it. I often wonder if we have a very wrong view of both God and humanity when it comes to the final judgment. In the Reformed tradition, God appears to be a diety who is completely disgusted by mankand, who hates sinners, and can only tolerate humans if they are wearing a mask (the blood of Jesus). The Eastern Orthodox liturgy highlights that God is the “lover of mankind.” These are two extremely different views, with both sides using the Bible to prove their argument.
I suspect that in the end we will find God is much more merciful than anyone who can is merciful can imagine, and much more harsh than anyone who is harsh can imagine. Could it be true what Jesus said, that we will be judged by our own standards? “For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.”
Then heaven will be filled with male scientists:
“Men Call Their Own Research ‘Excellent’”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/opinion/gender-science-study.html
James says something very similar in 2:13 of his general epistle.
Perhaps God deals with us “in our own coin”. Let abusers tremble.
What a hellish heaven!
Muff Potter,
Oh, I dunno. Looking forward to seeing various doctors (including males) who have kept me alive over the years. Of course, my natural humility will keep me out. 😉
Have these Excellent guys heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?
Muff Potter,
Or maybe, then seeing things more clearly than they now do, and then able to know themselves and others as they are now known by God, they will be much more humble in their self-assessments.
I’ve know proud people who became wiser and humbler “under the sun.” What might be possible when sin itself is done away with?
I applaud your biblical response here. “Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.” Romans 11:22 The reality is that both groups are speaking half of a whole truth. The problem lies in the other missing half that they ignore. That is what can kill you and “They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” These are Jesus own words promising to send angels out to remove those who claim to be Christians from His Kingdom in Matt. 13:42. These words are addressed to us, not to heathens so we had best pay attention to the clear warning they give. Any theology that claims something that contradicts these words is obviously false, and seeing as these implications are permanent have to logically be called serious error…
On the other hand, have the people who did these studies considered seminarians? What would happpen if they were to study seminary students? Would the effect be more or less pronounced? And would the type of seminary make a difference. Also, does group-think have an impact on the effect?
My comment was mostly hyperbolic and facetious, and yeah good science is not about gender.
Free people expanding their capabilities in such a fashion that they do no harm?
And as always, that can mean different things to different people.
Thanks, I suspected that… 🙂
News Flash: Climbing
So, just back from the climbing wall where I managed a clean send of two 6c projects. While this is only around 5.11b in US dollars, it’s enough to make an ageing Anglo-Scottish bumbly * feel jolly chuffed.
Quick update on the cricket: Day 2 of the first Test at Centurion can be summed up very well by simply rearranging the following three words into a well-known expression:
collapse
batting
England
IHTIH
* Not sure whether this means anything in the US, but as a climbing term, I promise you it isn’t rude over here.
Keep doing your research
If Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin,then he could not be Christ
The virgin birth is a primary doctrine
If we don’t get Jesus correct, we will not make it
If you take Christ out of Christian, then all you have left is Ian, and news flash Ian can’t save you
Merry Christmas
I’ve heard that before by many a preacher, and I guarantee you it’s not in scripture. I also guarantee you that you nor anyone, gets Jesus “correct” in totality. And scripture does tell us that we don’t know all that Jesus said and did. It wasn’t all written down (per scripture).
I also didn’t see anyone take Christ out of Christian. You got there on your own.
Can you expand on this? Unhelpful in what way and to whom?
No, let’s be clear about this. The creeds were written by elite men who left half humanity out of their conferences and synods and deliberations. And it shows. The Holy Trinity is described in exclusively male terms. It’s frustrating to be a woman, read church history and theology, and see how women have been left out of the discussion since very near to the beginning. It also breaks my heart that the church as a whole is basically unfriendly to women.
No other woman can be both a virgin and a mother. It puts every other woman in a terrible position. It says sex is bad, when sex is part of the human condition.
Along those lines, how can Jesus be like us in his humanity if he wasn’t conceived like the rest of us? I’m not even going the whole “Mary was immaculately conceived without yhe stain of sin” route that is Cathlic dogma, but just the whole virgin birth?
Also, the virgin birth doesn’t work out so well in the days of DNA and IVF. Back when the New Testament was written and for centuries afterwards, the belief (from Aristotle) was that women contributed nothing to the baby except her good attitude (the “ground” male seed fell into). It was 1827 before the human ovum was discovered. Then DNA was discovered in the 20th century and now we know it takes DNA from both a male human and a female human to make a baby (even if in a Petri dish). But nobody wants to talk about this.
Has it occurred to anyone besides me that the virgin birth was conceived of as a way to separate Jesus from a very human origin,and it got out of hand? But we can’t discuss it because some elite guys in the 4th century with no idea of human biology made a declaration and we’re stuck with it 17 centuries later.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
Virgin birth: Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:18,23 (KJV)
Thanks foe clarifying. It sounds like you have not read much from early Christian sources. That is unfortunate because the actual history is much different from what it sounds like you are describing. The virgin birth is an extremely early and widespread Christian belief. If it is not true, then someone needs to explain how it became so unanimously believed so early, especially during the years when Christians were so heavily persecuted. If it was a legend developed over time it would defy explanation because it universally shows up in the very earliest sources.
As for the 1st ecumenical council, it did not set up new doctrine, but rather codified what was already widely taught. And the bishops who attended were not pushovers – they survived the persecutions that had recently ended. While Constantine had some influence, it was not as great as many suppose because Constantine favored the Arian position, which was the position that was defeated. The interesting thing about that debate was that the Arians had been so effective in using scripture to prove their points that the council ultimately relied on what had traditionally been taught in the churches, which was trinitarianism.
As for the role of women in the early church, I recommend this:
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/women-in-the-early-church
One of the problems I found with diving into Christian history is that it is not the way I would have wanted it to happen. I found many disappointments, but also many encouraging things. While I could wish that the word “Christian” would mean different things, it pretty much means the things described in the NT and the early creeds. If we want it to be something else we need to call it something else.
Maybe you should try a different church.
Brian: The text in Isaiah 7:14 refers to a specific child born in the time of King Ahaz of Judah. The writer of Matthew took the text and applied it to Jesus’ birth. The problem with that “virgin” in the original Hebrew meant “young woman.” The Septuagint (where the writer of Matthew probably quoted from) translated “almah” (young woman) as “parthenos” (virgin).
So there are two different issues here: 1) the text originally was used to indicate one thing, and the Gospel of Matthew took it to indicate something else and 2) the original text said the mother was a young woman (almah) while Matthew’s version says she was a virgin.
These are serious issues, since the virgin birth is made a litmus test of belief.
Uhm, you have NO IDEA what I have read. I have read a LOT, you know, like reading through the Pre-Nicene Fathers. I would point out again something that you seem to have ignored on the first go around. Let me state it for you separately:
WOMEN HAD NO SAY IN THE EARLY CHURCH WRITINGS. NONE.
Not only that, WOMEN WERE CONSIDERED PROPERTY and not worthy to be theologians.
We read the voices of men, and not just any men. These were elite men who could read and write in a world where literacy in general was not generally accessible to men, and literacy for women was rather rare. It’s *shameful* that we have to get to 203 AD before there is even part of a woman’s writing available to us (via an editor), and that’s from the Acts of Felicitas and Perpetua. I seem to recall reading that St. Augustine told women not to take the Acts so seriously, because women really liked reading about the spiritual life of another woman.
I’ll remind you also that Paul never wrote about a virgin birth and it was not part of his preaching. Nor was it part of the Gospels of Mark and John. So it was not a universal thing.
Orthodoxy (i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy in its various flavors) is no home for women. It still clings to male language to describe God, and it can’t bring itself to describe women as apostles. I still remember reading about St. Nina, Equal to the Apostles, Enlightener of Georgia, but no, she can’t be an apostle, she’s a *woman*.
Forget sex and what it entails for a moment and just consider genetics.
The whole human genome got effed-up by Adam at the fall. Death got coded into the double helix, and it keeps getting passed on through the male line generation after generation (my own speculation).
I believe that the Almighty (for the most part) works through the same mechanisms he himself set up and that supernatural intervention is the exception and not the rule.
That’s why I see Matthew’s genealogy as a detailed mating index of bloodlines the Almighty used in retrieving the least damaged ovum (Mary’s) from the fall. Only then did he supernaturally intervene and put himself into the mix sans any human male sperm. It had Nothing To Do with sex, the so-called “shame” of sex or any other squeamish clap-trap.
I know what you’re thinking, this dude’s as bat and kook-$#it crazy as Velikovsky., maybe so, maybe not, time will tell.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
Why do you then dismiss the virgin birth of Jesus if it’s an important litmus test of belief? Why the hermeneutics of suspicion? Why the emphasis on gnostic gospels? That’s apostasy.
The reason I said it seems like you have not read much early history is because of your statement about 4th century men making up the virgin birth. This is a demonstratably false statement. There is nothing that came out of the 4th century councils that was not already widely believed from the earliest Chritian times. It’s one thing to say you disagree with early Christianity. It’s quite another to knowingly misrepresent it.
It seems like you are judging early Christianiy by 21st century standards. Both Jews and Romans/Greeks were virulantly misogynistic back then. The fact that women were recorded as the first witnesses to the resurrection is not something that anyone would have made up if they wanted to be taken seriously. And it looks like Luke got his nativity details from Mary, which means at least one woman had an impact on the NT. Did you read the link I included above? Women had a shocking level of influence in the early church compared to the culture around them. While not good enough by today’s standards, I think it is disingenuous to state that they had no impact at all. As for the 4th century, have you read about St Macrina, older sister to two of the Capadocian Fathers? They don’t hide the fact that she taught them. I think it is a safe statement to say that she impacted the 2nd ecumenical council.
As I know you are aware, arguments from silence are dangerous. Please note that none of the NT writers deny the virgin birth. Nor do any writings from the early church deny it. Paul was silent on other important things, such as parables and miracles of Jesus. We also have the problem that Paul did not write about things that “everyone knows,” so it leaves a gap for us because we don’t necessarily know what those things were in all cases.
What is you explanation for the early and widespread belief in the virgin birth? It would have been so much easier for early Christians to deny it, yet they did not. Why do you suppose this is? What is your explanation?
This is a good point you bring up. Since the Hebrew word could mean both young woman or virgin, it is very enlightening that it was translated as virgin in the Septuagint since that translation predates the birth of Jesus. This means Matthew was not making up. What is your explanation for how the Septuagint translators got it wrong?
I get the sense that you are intrepeting history in the worst possible way. I don’t deny that it is far from perfect. But it could have been much much worse. The fact that it is not much worse says that early Christians overturned the attitudes and practices of the day. This should not be dismissed so quickly.
Can you tell me where I quoted anything outside of the accepted canon? You cannot. I specifically pointed to Mark and Paul’s letters, which are canon. As for a hermeneutic of suspicion, someone’s got to be skeptical around here.
I’m going to be blunt here: you are a man. You do not know what it is like to sit in a church and hear God described in completely male language, because that same language can be used to describe you. Listen to me, a woman: I’m tired of this. Tired of hearing God described in male terms, tired of being second class because I’m female, tired of being treated like dirt, tired of being property, just very, very tired.
And while I’m blunt about the fact that I’m outside the charmed circle of the household of the faith, there are women who are still inside who say the same things. Marg Mowczko has a list of misogynistic quotes from men who have had FAR MORE IMPACT than any woman has ever had in Christianity. You might do well to read them.
https://margmowczko.com/misogynist-quotes-from-church-fathers/
And then think about being a woman and hearing or reading this garbage. And this stuff doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s this kind of language which has consciously or unconsciously filtered through the churches over the centuries, and which leads to nonsense like Eternal Subordination of the Son as a way to keep women in our place.
Early Christians may have turned over some of the practices of their day, but they didn’t turn over slavery, which was an integral part of the Roman Empire, and they didn’t turn over the status of women. Those were left alone and we are still dealing with their inability to actually live up to what Paul wrote in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
And finally, you have no idea how every day I just want to walk away from all of this because it breaks my heart. I turn 60 next year, maybe I’ll finally find it within me to say “enough is enough” and end the agony of struggling with a belief system that sees me as not truly as human as any man by walking away forever.
Allow me to be blunt:
I’m perplexed that a woman of your intelligence and acumen feels that she has to buy the whole enchilada (Christianity).
Old dead church fathers, Calvin, Luther, fundagelical Fred, inerrant Bible (more shibboleth than anything else), you name it; sure, give them a listen, but at day’s end, you’re not obligated to buy into it all as a package deal.
Over the years I’ve learned to pick and choose what I sign onto from all sources and as a result, I’m in bad odor on both sides of the great conservative vs liberal divide. I will turn 70 in March and I’ve finally found peace and freedom on my faith journey.
I don’t deny your experience or the fact than men and women experience things like this differently. However, playing the “you don’t understand because you’re a man” card is no better than playing the “you don’t understand because you’re a women” card. If there is no way to bridge this barrier between men and women then there is no point in men and women having dialogue. But I don’t believe this is the case. I believe there is a way to find common ground and for both men and women to increase their understanding of the experiences of the other gender. I feel like you saying I don’t know what it’s like because I am a man is just a means to shut down communication. I find this offensive.
Also, when you knowingly mischaracterize Christian history it makes me doubt your motives. I am not all that happy myself with what I’ve found in Christian history, but I don’t try to misrepresent it in order to support my agenda.
I read your last reply to my wife and she wonders why you don’t look for a women-friendly church. They do exist. We are currently attending a large denominational church with a woman pastor. Neither of us have experienced there what you describe above.
I read them and agree they are terrible quotes. Did you also read this from the end of her article:
Her caveat is significant. Should I not believe her? Given the culture these men came from, they were actually very progressive for their time even though they were still far from the standard we should expect today.
What are your thoughts on the article I mentioned above? Did you have a chance to read it?
Let me explain
IMHO, for Jesus to be The Christ he must have fulfilled scripture
And we have scripture that foretold the messiah, Christ,, the mashiach would be born of a virgin
So imho, yes if someone was to hold to a non virgin birth, that by default would be taking Christ out of Christian
Here is an interesting article on this topic:
https://www.ptm.org/the-virgin-birth-is-a-christological-faith-claim-brad-jersak
That’s pretty much where I now find myself, and it is truly freeing. I am excited about reading, studying, hearing from others with far different opinions and beliefs than myself. Most of all, I am overjoyed to be able to embrace God as he reveals himself to me, rather than according to the traditions of men.
TS00,
I hold to the tenets of The Apostle’s Creed, and especially its supernatural components as non-negotiable axioms placed on the table up-front.
Beyond that, and as you say, it’s really emancipating to find common ground or no with others who are on similar faith journeys. When you (generic you) get to know others as people with the same needs as you, it becomes harder to take them to task for not believing as you do. You find out that they laugh the same laughs, bleed the same blood, and cry the same tears.
Remember that this comes out of Semitic tribal culture (originally similar to today’s Saudi culture), where daughters’ virginity was rigorously enforced (even with ha-Torah’s damper on Honor Killings). With such a cultural background, “Young Woman” and “Virgin” would be one and the same, so both translations (into a language where “Young Woman” and “Virgin” are NOT synonymous) are technically accurate.
Which nowadays only helps confuse the issue.
I’ve found through experience that when you’re taking friendly fire from both sides you’re probably on the right path.
Matt 11:17 if you insist on a Zip Code.
(Interpreted as cries from two different groups, one playing dance music, the other funeral music.)
Actually “gnostic gospels” are more like 1900-year-old Gospel fanfics.
(Including crackshipping with Mary Magdalene…)
Headless Unicorn Guy,
Voddie Baucham would fit right in.