Faith is now quite uncertain. I'm no longer acting-as-if.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
QUESTION OF THE DAY
If we believe in God Incarnate in Jesus Christ, that God came to be one with us as fully human with joys and sprrows just like ours, why is belief in the Virgin Birth a stumbling block for a good many Christians?
Perhaps it is because they know that the word virgin does not mean 'not having had sex' --but means of marriageable age...
Perhaps because they shy away from what they know is scientifically impossible...
Perhaps because they have trouble thinking that with God, even the impossible is possible...
For me, I have no trouble with it at all. I do have trouble with what it (virgin as best possible way of being) has meant for women through the history of the church....
margaret, thank you. Neither God Incarnate nor the virgin birth is rocket science or any kind of science. For me, the biggie is God Incarnate. Virgin birth follows fairly easily.
I doubt that Mary was a virgin forever. For her sake and for Joseph's, I hope not. Nor do I believe that virginity is a higher calling for either women or men. Some are called to celibacy, but for those who are called to share their lives fully with another, theirs is not a lesser call.
The story resonates today, because of the way that sexuality for women is still regarded in parts of the Middle East. Imagine what it was like for Mary. Who believed her virgin story at the time?
There is a way of thinking about the Virgin birth that makes Jesus seem not quite human. But there is a danger in thinking, as John Robinson did, that Jesus was conceived as we were that we will not see God taking the initiative in his birth. Somehow we have to hold Jesus' humanity and God's sovereignty in tension as we seek to understand the Incarnation.
I've always said that, for a God who could create this vast and wondrous universe out of nothing, a virgin birth would be a simple parlor trick.
I guess the thing that would make me most resistant to the idea of a "virgin" birth is the idea that sex is somehow incompatible with holiness.
The Roman Catholic Church has done its best to perpetuate that idea, by insisting on the perpetual virginity of Mary, and even to declaring her immaculately conceived as a matter of dogma.
I think we get into trouble when we try to define the exact nature of Jesus or define how the Incarnation MUST Have happened. It is one thing to hold beliefs in tension--it is another to declare that there is only one answer to the question and you must accept it or be kicked out of the circle.
The Roman Catholic Church has done its best to perpetuate that idea, by insisting on the perpetual virginity of Mary, and even to declaring her immaculately conceived as a matter of dogma.
Doxy, I don't buy any of that, nor do I insist that others believe in a certain way. Plus, I do not believe that for God to become incarnate it had to happen through a virgin birth. It is just that it seems to me that the harder belief is that God became human. Once you believe that, then the Virgin Birth is easy.
The idea that the virgin birth is about it not being about sex "'cause see, 'cause sex is bad, m'kay..." is a later phenomenon growing out of the peculiar obsessions of Augustine of Hippo and Original Sin. The real impetus for the virgin birth story, in addition to Matthew's desire to see everything as fulfillment of prophecy and Luke's to make everything sound Old Testamenty (see Hannah), relates to the current pagan imagery of divine or demi-divine persons coming to birth in this miraculous way.
It is John, I think, who is the most profound on this: it is about something happening apart from "the will of a man, but from God" -- an inbreaking through the laws of nature even by the one who made the laws. The fact that Mary is the source of Jesus' human substance (as the thinking of those days would have seen it, literally from her blood being curdled and molded into form by the divine spark) is what assures Jesus' humanity -- consubstantial, as the new Roman rite restores is.
The VB is a stumbling block if it is looked at too much as just the facts, ma'am. It is a fact, I believe, but that does not begin to plumb the depths of its significance...
Well, as I said to Mimi on FB, I don't think one has to believe in the VB in order to find salvation. The Incarnation? Absolutely.
I don't see anything "easy" about believing in the VB. To me - and this is just my opinion, and I won't think any less of anyone who doesn't share it - it's a remnant of patriarchy designed to diminish the status of women.
So, if Mary was a "virgin" because she had not married (okay by me) or if she was a "virgin" because she had not had sex with a human (what does it matter if this is a 'divine incarnation'?), or if she was a "virgin" because she was "pure in thought" (like every teenager, right?) means little or nothing to me. I don't see it as a stumbling block. At. All.
One can believe in the Incarnation without believing in the Virgin Birth, but one can not be a Christian without believing in the Incarnation.
I don't even know how to explain the Incarnation, except to say that I believe it with my whole heart.
What matters to me is that Mary said "Yes" to God - before anyone could write down the Doctrine of the Incarnation.
Well, as I said to Mimi on FB, I don't think one has to believe in the VB in order to find salvation.
Nor do I. I wouldn't presume to say what anyone had to believe in to find salvation.
...it's a remnant of patriarchy designed to diminish the status of women.
On the other hand, one could see the VB as an enhancement of the status of women.
Elizabeth, I never said you saw the VB as a stumbling block, but some folks I know do. I asked my question, and it is only a question, not a statement of faith for all, because I did not understand the difficulty. I stated what I believed, but I have no intention to impose what I believe on others.
What matters to me is that Mary said "Yes" to God - before anyone could write down the Doctrine of the Incarnation.
It seems to me that this drifts into the nature of Jesus discussions that divided the early church. As I recollect from recently reading The Case For God, the debate centered on when the Divine became present in the human body of Jesus...at "conception," at the Baptism, at the crucifixion? I'm sure I am over simplifying this and don't recall who believed what. However, too much emphasis on a later presence tended to nullify the birth story and Mary's role - just another human birth. But an over emphasis of the divine weakens the point of the crucifixion - if he es mainly God, then we lose his very human suffering.
This dialogue, here and on FB, I find interesting because we are all so clearly affected by post-Enlightenment thinking, as are our fundamentalist sisters and brothers. We struggle to accept without embracing (if not outright rejecting) fundamentalist "belief" (i.e., this is literally true).
And the weakness of our language, I can't tell here when you all have made declarative "I believe" statements, what exactly you are saying. Another good meditation, thanks, Mimi.
Renz, thank you for your words. I'd not wish to see division in the church over the question of the VB.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. ....
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.
To me, Jesus is fully God and fully human, and his humanity came from his mother Mary.
a story I used to tell in late Advent (attributed to Pablo Casals ?): A man declined to go to midnight Mass with his wife, but sat warm and snug at home. A windy snow storm began and soon birds, blinded by snow and wind began to fly against his picture window and then fall down to the ground. He went to the kitchen and got some bread and broke it in small bits. Then he went through to the garage, raised the overhead door and tried to lure the fallen birds in to safety. then he tried ti shoo them in, but they panicked and tried ti flee. frustrated, he thought "if only I could become a bird, they would understand me and I could help them.". He thought for a minute, and then he knelt down on the garage floor and prayed: "Lord, now I understand,,,,"
And so we learn the truth that God loves us and reached out.......... Nij
Great, Mimi! It is such a good teaching tool partly because it contains such every day items/setting that people can easily identify with. Great for the story teller too, because u can embellish and make it much longer if u need to do so. Of course, I always wondered how this guy's wife got home in such a storm ;-) while he was messing around with those confused birds....... reminds me of a Christmas Eve Mass in a little tec church when my husband Who had been dragged to the service and who was exhausted, got down on the kneeler, as was the cherished custom there during "Silent Night" and fell asleep and began to snore loudly. Just proves that you can't take some people nowhere! Nij
Perhaps it is because they know that the word virgin does not mean 'not having had sex' --but means of marriageable age...
ReplyDeletePerhaps because they shy away from what they know is scientifically impossible...
Perhaps because they have trouble thinking that with God, even the impossible is possible...
For me, I have no trouble with it at all. I do have trouble with what it (virgin as best possible way of being) has meant for women through the history of the church....
margaret, thank you. Neither God Incarnate nor the virgin birth is rocket science or any kind of science. For me, the biggie is God Incarnate. Virgin birth follows fairly easily.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that Mary was a virgin forever. For her sake and for Joseph's, I hope not. Nor do I believe that virginity is a higher calling for either women or men. Some are called to celibacy, but for those who are called to share their lives fully with another, theirs is not a lesser call.
The story resonates today, because of the way that sexuality for women is still regarded in parts of the Middle East. Imagine what it was like for Mary. Who believed her virgin story at the time?
There is a way of thinking about the Virgin birth that makes Jesus seem not quite human. But there is a danger in thinking, as John Robinson did, that Jesus was conceived as we were that we will not see God taking the initiative in his birth. Somehow we have to hold Jesus' humanity and God's sovereignty in tension as we seek to understand the Incarnation.
ReplyDeleteThere is a way of thinking about the Virgin birth that makes Jesus seem not quite human.
ReplyDeleteTrue, Daniel, but there lies heresy, right?
The Christian faith is replete with beliefs which call for us to hold them in tension.
I've always said that, for a God who could create this vast and wondrous universe out of nothing, a virgin birth would be a simple parlor trick.
ReplyDeleteI guess the thing that would make me most resistant to the idea of a "virgin" birth is the idea that sex is somehow incompatible with holiness.
The Roman Catholic Church has done its best to perpetuate that idea, by insisting on the perpetual virginity of Mary, and even to declaring her immaculately conceived as a matter of dogma.
I think we get into trouble when we try to define the exact nature of Jesus or define how the Incarnation MUST Have happened. It is one thing to hold beliefs in tension--it is another to declare that there is only one answer to the question and you must accept it or be kicked out of the circle.
The Roman Catholic Church has done its best to perpetuate that idea, by insisting on the perpetual virginity of Mary, and even to declaring her immaculately conceived as a matter of dogma.
ReplyDeleteDoxy, I don't buy any of that, nor do I insist that others believe in a certain way. Plus, I do not believe that for God to become incarnate it had to happen through a virgin birth. It is just that it seems to me that the harder belief is that God became human. Once you believe that, then the Virgin Birth is easy.
The idea that the virgin birth is about it not being about sex "'cause see, 'cause sex is bad, m'kay..." is a later phenomenon growing out of the peculiar obsessions of Augustine of Hippo and Original Sin. The real impetus for the virgin birth story, in addition to Matthew's desire to see everything as fulfillment of prophecy and Luke's to make everything sound Old Testamenty (see Hannah), relates to the current pagan imagery of divine or demi-divine persons coming to birth in this miraculous way.
ReplyDeleteIt is John, I think, who is the most profound on this: it is about something happening apart from "the will of a man, but from God" -- an inbreaking through the laws of nature even by the one who made the laws. The fact that Mary is the source of Jesus' human substance (as the thinking of those days would have seen it, literally from her blood being curdled and molded into form by the divine spark) is what assures Jesus' humanity -- consubstantial, as the new Roman rite restores is.
The VB is a stumbling block if it is looked at too much as just the facts, ma'am. It is a fact, I believe, but that does not begin to plumb the depths of its significance...
It is a fact, I believe, but that does not begin to plumb the depths of its significance...
ReplyDeleteTobias, exactly. Thanks for your commentary.
As I see it, the Christmas story is about Truth, more so than about 'facts'. And it's a lovely story, and I believe it. :-)
Well, as I said to Mimi on FB, I don't think one has to believe in the VB in order to find salvation. The Incarnation? Absolutely.
ReplyDeleteI don't see anything "easy" about believing in the VB. To me - and this is just my opinion, and I won't think any less of anyone who doesn't share it - it's a remnant of patriarchy designed to diminish the status of women.
So, if Mary was a "virgin" because she had not married (okay by me) or if she was a "virgin" because she had not had sex with a human (what does it matter if this is a 'divine incarnation'?), or if she was a "virgin" because she was "pure in thought" (like every teenager, right?) means little or nothing to me. I don't see it as a stumbling block. At. All.
One can believe in the Incarnation without believing in the Virgin Birth, but one can not be a Christian without believing in the Incarnation.
I don't even know how to explain the Incarnation, except to say that I believe it with my whole heart.
What matters to me is that Mary said "Yes" to God - before anyone could write down the Doctrine of the Incarnation.
Well, as I said to Mimi on FB, I don't think one has to believe in the VB in order to find salvation.
ReplyDeleteNor do I. I wouldn't presume to say what anyone had to believe in to find salvation.
...it's a remnant of patriarchy designed to diminish the status of women.
On the other hand, one could see the VB as an enhancement of the status of women.
Elizabeth, I never said you saw the VB as a stumbling block, but some folks I know do. I asked my question, and it is only a question, not a statement of faith for all, because I did not understand the difficulty. I stated what I believed, but I have no intention to impose what I believe on others.
What matters to me is that Mary said "Yes" to God - before anyone could write down the Doctrine of the Incarnation.
Amen.
It seems to me that this drifts into the nature of Jesus discussions that divided the early church. As I recollect from recently reading The Case For God, the debate centered on when the Divine became present in the human body of Jesus...at "conception," at the Baptism, at the crucifixion? I'm sure I am over simplifying this and don't recall who believed what. However, too much emphasis on a later presence tended to nullify the birth story and Mary's role - just another human birth. But an over emphasis of the divine weakens the point of the crucifixion - if he es mainly God, then we lose his very human suffering.
ReplyDeleteThis dialogue, here and on FB, I find interesting because we are all so clearly affected by post-Enlightenment thinking, as are our fundamentalist sisters and brothers. We struggle to accept without embracing (if not outright rejecting) fundamentalist "belief" (i.e., this is literally true).
And the weakness of our language, I can't tell here when you all have made declarative "I believe" statements, what exactly you are saying. Another good meditation, thanks, Mimi.
Renz, thank you for your words. I'd not wish to see division in the church over the question of the VB.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.
....
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.
To me, Jesus is fully God and fully human, and his humanity came from his mother Mary.
I don't really understand the question.
ReplyDeleteWhat do A & B have to do w/ each other?
I believe in the Incarnation.
I believe the "How" of it (similar to the "How" of the Resurrection) above my pay grade.
I absolutely do NOT believe in "Mary, Ever Virgin"! MY Mary & Joseph Got It On at some point, thank you! ;-)
What do A & B have to do w/ each other?
ReplyDeleteI believe the "How" of it (similar to the "How" of the Resurrection) above my pay grade.
JCF, I think you answered your own question.
a story I used to tell in late Advent (attributed to Pablo Casals ?): A man declined to go to midnight Mass with his wife, but sat warm and snug at home. A windy snow storm began and soon birds, blinded by snow and wind began to fly against his picture window and then fall down to the ground. He went to the kitchen and got some bread and broke it in small bits. Then he went through to the garage, raised the overhead door and tried to lure the fallen birds in to safety. then he tried ti shoo them in, but they panicked and tried ti flee. frustrated, he thought "if only I could become a bird, they would understand me and I could help them.". He thought for a minute, and then he knelt down on the garage floor and prayed: "Lord, now I understand,,,,"
ReplyDeleteAnd so we learn the truth that God loves us and reached out..........
Nij
Nij, thank you. You are the second person to reference this story. I believe it's a sign that I should post the longer version, which I will do.
ReplyDeleteGreat, Mimi! It is such a good teaching tool partly because it contains such every day items/setting that people can easily identify with. Great for the story teller too, because u can embellish and make it much longer if u need to do so.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I always wondered how this guy's wife got home in such a storm ;-) while he was messing around with those confused birds.......
reminds me of a Christmas Eve Mass in a little tec church when my husband Who had been dragged to the service and who was exhausted, got down on the kneeler, as was the cherished custom there during "Silent Night" and fell asleep and began to snore loudly. Just proves that you can't take some people nowhere!
Nij
Of course, I always wondered how this guy's wife got home in such a storm ;-) while he was messing around with those confused birds.......
ReplyDeleteOh no! You a literalist, Nij? I'd never have believed it.
Tom attends church with me on Christmas Eve, Easter, and perhaps twice more in a year...willingly. I gave up on dragging him long ago.