Was Mary a Virgin? Does It Matter?

Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.
Luke 1:34-35


A Facebook friend posted a column by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof titled, “Was Mary a Virgin? Does It Matter?” In the column, Kristof reports a question and answer session with the popular Evangelical writer Philip Yancey.

We might argue about the first question, but there can be no doubt about the second. The answer is a firm “No.” It does not matter at all whether Mary was a virgin.

Not surprisingly, from his perspective within Evangelicalism, Yancey sees it differently. The virgin birth is central to his understanding of Jesus as the Son of God. But to his credit, he stops short of saying that is essential to being a Christian. At the close of the interview, when Kristof asks him whether he can call himself a Christian if he is skeptical of the virgin birth, the miracles and a physical resurrection, Yancey says, “I would rephrase the question and toss it back to you: Are you a Jesus follower?”

Earlier in the interview, Kristof explained some of his frustrations with the Christian right:

“One of the problems I have with the evangelical church is that it seems more dazzled by the miracles than the message. Particularly in the age of Trump, conservative pastors weaponize God to support a president who is trying to cut Medicaid and school lunches for the poor. Shouldn’t conservative Christians believe as much in the good Samaritan as in the Virgin Birth?”

And Yancey basically agreed. “I grew up in what I now call a “toxic” fundamentalist church in the South,” he said, “and I view with dismay the contemporary mixing of politics and religion, including some of the policies you mention. Churches often end up on the wrong side of issues — such as the blatant racism I heard from the pulpit as a child.”

Believing in the virgin birth has no impact on how we live our lives. You can believe in the virgin birth and still be a racist. On the other hand, if you believe in the Sermon on the Mount it has to make a difference in how you live your life. 

In his wonderful commentary on The New Testament, William Barclay calls the Virgin Birth “one of the great controversial doctrines of the Christian faith.” Wisely, he says, “the church does not insist that we believe in this doctrine.”

Today, when much of the Christian Church has become captive to the biblical literalism of the Religious Right, it is important to reflect on Barclay’s perspective. When he was writing, in the middle of the last century, Barclay was one of the preeminent biblical scholars, and the very embodiment of orthodox scholarship. His work defined the center of Christian biblical scholarship and theology.

We may choose to believe it, says Barclay, based on a literal reading of this passage as well as Matthew 1:18-25. And, he writes, “It is natural to argue that if Jesus was, as we believe, a very special person, he would have a very special entry into this world.”

But there are also excellent biblical reasons not to take the story literally. First, the genealogies in both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’s ancestry through Joseph. Second, when Mary and Joseph finally find Jesus in the temple (Luke 2:48) she tells him that “Your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” Third, there are other references to Jesus as Joseph’s son (Matthew 13:55, John 6:42). And finally, the rest of the New Testament (Mark, John, and Paul’s letters) knows nothing of this story.

Barclay sets the story in the context of Jewish belief. “The Jews had a saying that in the birth of every child there are three partners—the father, the mother and the Spirit of God. They believed that no child could ever be born without the Spirit.” So these stories are “lovely, poetical ways of saying that, even if he had a human father, the Holy Spirit of God was operative in his birth in a unique way.”

This is more than an academic discussion because it goes to the very heart of how we understand the Bible. The insistence of literalism in this case suggests a literalistic approach to the Bible as a whole. When Christians (especially pastors and Sunday School teachers) insist on a belief in the Virgin Birth, they invite prioritizing literalism over religious meaning.

And, as Kristof points out, when we focus on literalism, it's easy to lose the meaning altogether.






Thank you for reading. Your thoughts and comments are always welcome. Please feel free to share on social media as you wish. 

Are We Getting Smarter?

Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it:
I am the Lord, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.
I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to idols.
See, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth, I tell you of them. 
Isaiah 42:5-9

Have you heard of the “Flynn Effect?” It’s named for James Flynn, a New Zealand researcher who first discovered the world-wide phenomenon of rising intelligence. His findings have been confirmed by many other scholars and his work is now accepted science.

Who knew?

In a recent column on this subject, Nicholas Kristof writes, “My readers are all above average. But if I ever had average readers, they would still be brilliant compared with Americans of a century ago.” He goes on to explain that a century ago the average American had an I.Q. that by today’s standards would be about 67. In other words, by today’s standards the average American of a century ago would be described as mentally disabled.

This means at least two things. It means that human intelligence is increasing. And it means that vast amounts of human potential are being wasted in places where the conditions of life are so difficult that human beings cannot grow as they should.

“The implication,” Kristof writes, “is that there are potential Einsteins now working as subsistence farmers in Congo or dropping out of high school in Mississippi who, with help, could become actual Einsteins.”

Human beings are smarter today because they are nurtured in a world filled with new ideas and knowledge. They are also smarter, measurably smarter, because of environmental factors. The removal of lead from gasoline may be responsible for an average gain of 6 points in I.Q. for American children.

What the research suggests is that kids are not getting smarter in spite of video games and television; they are getting smarter because of those activities.

This seems impossible (to me). It’s hard for me to believe that we are smarter than Emerson, or Thoreau, or Jane Austin. What about Lincoln? Biblical faith is always about remembering the past while moving into the future. We do not have to devalue the past in order to have hope for the future. Like the poetry of Isaiah’s proclamation, Flynn’s research points toward a hopeful future. If we can harness those gains in intelligence through better schooling around the world, we should be able to make enormous progress.

Flynn’s research reminds us that we often tend to believe that the present cannot possibly be as good as the past, when in fact it is better. I will hold onto that hope, and I will continue to trust in the unfolding of the Kingdom of God around us.

A young Girl Takes on the Taliban

When Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered around him; and he was by the sea. Then one of the leaders of the synagogue named Jairus came and, when he saw him, fell at his feet and begged him repeatedly, “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live.”

So he went with him.

He allowed no one to follow him except Peter, James, and John, the brother of James. When they came to the house of the leader of the synagogue, he saw a commotion, people weeping and wailing loudly. When he had entered, he said to them, “Why do you make a commotion and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping.” And they laughed at him. Then he put them all outside, and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha cum,” which means, “Little girl, get up!” And immediately the girl got up and began to walk about (she was twelve years of age). At this they were overcome with amazement.

Mark 5:21-24,40-42

Jesus took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha cum," which means, "Little girl, get up!"

In a perfect world, when she was 11 years old Malala Yousafzai would have been playing with the Pakistani equivalent of an American Girl doll. But in the violent and unjust world in which she found herself this schoolgirl was taking on the Taliban by voicing her passion for education. As Taliban fighters overran her town in northwestern Pakistan in 2009, Malala spoke about her plans to become a doctor and defied the Taliban’s crusade to subjugate women by denying an education to girls like Malala.

On T.uesday they came for her. Masked gunmen boarded a crowded school bus, singled her out, and shot her in the head and neck as other terrified children watched. She survived, along with two other girls who were wounded. Doctors at a hospital in Peshawar reported that she was in critical condition.

Incredibly, the Taliban claimed “credit” for the attack and promised that if she survived they would come back for her. Ehsanullah Ehsan, a Taliban spokesman confirmed by phone that the Taliban had targeted her and called her campaign for girls’ education rights an “obscenity.” Ehsan went on to say that Malala “has become a symbol of Western Culture in the area; she was openly propagating it.” “Let this be a lesson,” he warned.

In a New York Times column, Nicholas Kristof  reports speaking with Fazal Moula Zahid, a close family friend, who told him that doctors were hopeful that there has been no brain damage and that she will ultimately return to school.

“After recovery, she will continue to get an education,” Fazal said. “She will never, never drop out of school. She will go to the last.”

“Please thank all your people who are supporting us and who stand with us in this war,” he added. “You energize us.”

It would be wrong to see the Taliban as the voice of Pakistan. The government is hardly a model of progressive tolerance, but they are basically at war with the Taliban. On the other side of the political spectrum, it was a major setback for Pakistan’s progressives, who were appalled and frustrated by the attack. Nadeem Paracha, a media commentator posted his sarcastic assessment on Twitter, “Come on brothers,” he wrote, “Be REAL MEN. Kill a school girl.”

Sadly, misogyny is a world-wide problem.

Writing on “The International Day of the Girl,” Kristof linked the shooting in Pakistan to an incident in Indonesia where a fourteen year old girl was lured into captivity by sex traffickers and then raped for a week. She was finally released after her disappearance was reported on the local news.

When her school found out what had happened, the school publicly expelled her in front of hundreds of classmates. According to a report by Indonesia’s National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, they did this because she had “tarnished the school’s image.”

In the struggle for gender equality, education plays a critical role. That’s why the Taliban wants to silence Malala Yousafzai.

“This is not just Malala’s war,” said a 19-year-old female student in Peshawar. “It is a war between two ideologies, between the light of education and darkness.” Kristof notes that at the time he spoke with her the young woman said she was happy to be quoted by name. “But after what happened to Malala, I don’t dare put her at risk.”

Throughout Pakistan there are extremist schools financed by misogynists from Saudi Arabia and other nations. Kristof writes, “They provide meals, free tuition and sometimes scholarships to lure boys—because their donors understand perfectly that education shapes countries.”

Foreign aid from the United States is mostly directed toward the military. Less than a tenth of our aid dollars go toward education. The military aid is at best a short term solution. In the long run, it is education that will shape the country. Malala’s struggle transcends nation and gender and religion. It is about shaping the kind of world we want to live in. Her struggle is our struggle.

Jesus took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha cum,” which means, “Little girl, get up!”

It is through the education of young women in Pakistan and around the world that Jesus’ words will come alive.

Something Missing from the Debate

¹⁷As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ¹⁸Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. ¹⁹You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.’” ²⁰He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” ²¹Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” ²²When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

Mark 10:17-22

Earlier this week in his column in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof wrote about an urgent issue that was completely absent from the presidential debate, the growth of income inequality in America.

Kristof began with a parable. He invited readers to “Imagine a kindergarten with 100 students, lavishly supplied with books, crayons and toys.” There is more than enough for everyone, but one little boy has almost all the toys. Nine others each have a few toys, and the remaining 90 children have nothing at all.

One little boy has more toys than all those ninety others combined.

As a responsible adult, you want to correct the situation. “What’s going on?” you ask. “Let’s learn to share! One child shouldn’t hog everything for himself!” But the one with all the toys is unmoved. “I don’t want to share,” he says. “This is America!”

Sadly, the little boy is right. America does in fact look like the kindergarten in Kristof’s parable. The top 1% in the United States has more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. Every time I write that I think it must be wrong. It seems impossible, but it’s true. There are studies that vary slightly in their calculations, but the basic facts hold. And within that top 1% there is a steep increase as you move from the .09% up to the .01% (one in a thousand).

In the present economic “recovery,” 93% of the gains in income went to the top 1%. And last month the Gini coefficient, the standard measure of inequality set a modern record and reached the highest level since the great depression.

Last year scholars from Duke and Harvard conducted a study in which they asked Americans which country they would like to live in, one with income inequality like Sweden’s or one with income inequality like America’s. Turns out that most of us would rather live in Sweden. Of course the researchers didn’t label the countries as America a Sweden. We want to live in a more equal society and we believe that America has a much more equal distribution of wealth than it does.

For Christians, inequality is a moral problem. Kristof, who would not call himself a Christian, is nevertheless closer to the ethics of Jesus than many devout “believers.” He describes our inequality as “unconscionable.” For the past thirty years we have been redistributing income, from the middle and bottom to the top.

Inequality is not just a moral problem; it is also an economic problem. It stifles growth because those at the bottom cannot create the necessary demand for goods and services, and they cannot afford the education to train for the jobs of the future.

The answer is not for the government to play Robin Hood and take money from the top to redistribute at the bottom, but to restore a more progressive tax policy. In the 1950’s, the marginal tax rate on the highest incomes was 90%. It wasn’t until 1987 that the highest tax rate came down to less than 50%. That income could be used for education, job training, and infrastructure, investments that would create jobs and benefit all Americans.

Occupy the Bible

The LORD rises to argue his case; he stands to judge the peoples.
The LORD enters into judgment with the elders and princes of his people:
It is you who have devoured the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses.
What do you mean by crushing my people,
by grinding the face of the poor?
says the Lord GOD of hosts.Isaiah 3:13-15

There are lots of things wrong with “Occupy Wall Street.” As a social vision, Anarchism, even Pacifist Anarchism (even Christian Pacifist Anarchism) has its limits.

Phil Wogaman describes the oddly naïve combination of pessimism and optimism found in anarchistic movements as “utter pessimism about any redeeming possibilities withn the present forms of social organization combined with stupendous optimssm about the goodness that will simply blossom forth, unaided, after the present social organization is smashed.” The OWS message seems to be that if we can get rid of the oppressive collusion of business and government, then “the people” can create a society ruled by consensus and everyone can live in peace and harmony.

On the other hand, the Occupy movement has done some important things. In his Sunday column, called “Occupy the Agenda,” Nicholas Kristof reports that use of the words “income inequality” quintupled in news reports after the protests began. That is no small achievement. For more than three decades, the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer (relatively), and no one has seemed to care. Now, at least people are talking about it.

The top one percent of Americans have more net wealth than the bottom ninety percent. That doesn’t seem possible, but it is true. We have been redistributing wealth from the bottom to the top at an alarming rate.

I think this is what Isaiah meant when he said that “the spoil of the poor is in your houses.” And this is what he called, “grinding the face of the poor.”

Kristof reports on a new study by Michael Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University. In their study they asked Americans how they believed wealth should be distributed across income groups. Respondents thought that the richest 20% should control about one third of the wealth, and the poorest 20% should have about one-tenth.

Most people are surprised to learn that the richest 20% of Americans actually possess more than 80% of the nation’s wealth, and the poorest 20% own one-tenth of a percent. Again, the real numbers are hard to believe.

Wealth is power. The concentration of wealth has led to a concentration of power, and those who have wealth use their influence to keep on the government on their side. In a recent speech the former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, James M. Stone, said that before the economic collapse of 2008, congressional leaders knew that the banks needed to be more closely controlled. And he asked rhetorically, “So why was this not done?” One obvious part of the answer, he said, is that “both political parties rely heavily on campaign contributions from the financial sector.”

The Bible is relentless in opposing oppression and zealous in advocating for the poor. It sees an implicit injustice in a growing gap between rich and poor. But it does not give us a political program. That is up to us.

The Occupy movement has brought critical biblical issues into mainstream conversation, and for that we can be grateful.

A Growing Chasm

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’”Luke 16:19-26
Jesus was teaching about wealth and poverty and justice and the grace of God in a series of parables when he was interrupted by some hecklers who ridiculed him because, Luke says, they were lovers of money. So he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of others; but God knows your hearts; for what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God.” And then he went back to talking about the Kingdom of God, and he told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

In many ways, Jesus’ teachings on wealth and poverty are an extension of the witness of the Hebrew Prophets. He makes it more personal and his teaching is more emphatic, but the theme is consistent across the centuries of biblical witness. Explaining God’s judgment on Sodom, Ezekiel said, “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezekiel 16.49). Jesus calls this “an abomination in the sight of God.”

Against this biblical background a new report from the Congressional Budget Office should raise serious concerns (http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485). The CBO found that from 1979 to 2007 the average income of the top one percent of the population grew by 275% in inflation-adjusted dollars.

The rest of the top 20% grew at less than a quarter of that rate. In the middle quintile, the growth was only about one eighth of the top rate. And the lowest twenty percent grew at less than one fifteenth the rate of the top one percent. Those are rate differences. The actual dollar differences are enormous.

Yesterday in the Providence Journal they applied their “Truth-O-Meter” test to a sign held up by one of the “Occupy Providence” people claiming that a person working at minimum wage made $16,000 per year while the CEO of Goldman-Sachs made $16,000 per hour. Calling the claim “False,” the Journal pointed out that the minimum wage earner would have an annual income of closer to $15,000 and the Goldman-Sachs CEO actually earned less than $10,000 per hour.

Call me crazy, but I don’t see how that really makes a difference.

A little research reveals that the sign-maker had the wrong company. The company was Lehman Brothers. The CEO was Richard Fuld. He made $17,000 per hour in 2007 while driving his company and the whole economy over an economic cliff (see Nicholas Kristof, September 17, 2008 in the New York Times).

There are places where the Bible seems to advocate income equality (Acts 2:44-46, Matthew 20:1-16), but that is not a dominant theme. There are many examples throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the Gospels, the letters of Paul, and the history of the early church, where people of wealth are held up as positive examples. Sometimes they are praised for how they use their money to help others. Other times they are praised for virtues that may be unrelated to their economic status.

And the Bible never holds up poverty as a virtue. There is no suggestion that the poor are better than the rich.

The problem is in the gap between rich and poor. Jesus does not give us hard numbers and he does not give us a formula for how much is too much. When the rich man dines sumptuously and the poor man begs for crumbs, the gap is too great.

Reasonable people may differ in how much we think is too much. And we may differ on what we believe is the best way to reverse course. But we are going in the wrong direction.