RJS discusses John Polkinghorne’s take on the virgin birth over at Jesus Creed. Polkinghorne seems to ground his belief in the virgin birth in its narratival coherence. That’s not necessarily a bad reason, but it seems to me to highlight a problem in some ways of speaking about faith and science. The problem is the reluctance to prioritize theology as our primary grammar of knowledge.
The basic reason to insist on the “literal” nature of the virgin birth is theological. The virgin birth was important to early Christological debates through which the nature of the incarnate Christ as fully human and fully divine was clarified. In particular, Christ is not merely a created being (Arianism) — he is the preexistent Son incarnate. The virgin birth is also important particularly in Catholic theology in that Christ could be fully human and yet without inherited original sin. Even without that latter point, however, it remains central to Chalcedonian (i.e. historically orthodox) Christology.
I understand the intellectual disaster “presuppositional” apologetic thinking has wrought on the ability to integrate Christian faith and the natural sciences. “It all depends on your starting point” is the cornerstone of young earth creationism — if you start from the presupposition that the Bible is scientifically inerrant and literal, you end up (probably) with a young earth and so-on.
Nevertheless, there is the germ of a correct instinct here: Christian thought is “faith seeking understanding.” Faith in the God revealed in Jesus Christ comes first, and all else follows from that — including how we think about things like scientific laws and divine action / miracles.
The fundamental problem with faith-science “warfare” postures such as YECism isn’t the priority of faith, it’s the adoption of bad theology that really belies faith — a theology that prioritizes science and rationalism and essentially demeans the incarnation.
But IMHO all Christians who are serious about thinking Christianly should hold Chalcedonian Christology (the shape of it at least, if not the actual letter), as well as a Nicene perspective on the Trinity, as the basic well from which all else flows. The Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection comprise the historic center of our faith. We are perfectly justified in holding to the “literal” nature of the virgin birth simply because it is basic to the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
4 replies on “Science and the Virgin Birth”
David,
You write very persuasively. My problem with your understanding is that the priority of theology seems to me to assume that theology is not subject to the laws of human nature such as would be in other disciplines. Is not theology subject to human error and to cultural limitations? In the matter of the virgin birth, it would seem to me that more has been made of it by post biblical writers by means of western thinking. I don’t think Paul uses the virgin birth at all to back up the Incarnation. Did he not know about it? But, it seems perfectly clear that the Incarnation can be explained without referring to the virgin birth.
How would you explain the biology as to how it happened to a questioning teen?
Ron, good comments. Sure, theology is subject to error. But let’s distinguish the human discipline of theology from the deposit of faith. The deposit of faith is that which God gave the Church in Christ. That is not subject to change — it is an objective event, the event of the incarnation and resurrection. We may err — we certainly will to some degree or another err — in how we understand and describe that event, but understanding and describing that event (in all its manifold implications) and not something else is our task. And so to say that theology has fundamentally erred in something as basic to Christology as the virgin birth would be a pretty significant claim. Paul’s Christology, BTW, is only part of the picture — I don’t think any of the individual NT texts pull everything together that was pulled together at Nicea.
As to a questioning teen — great question. Did God miraculously create a new sperm cell and unite it to one of Mary’s egg cells? Did God miraculously supply the necessary chromosomes to one of Mary’s egg cells without a sperm cell? While it sounds outlandish to say something like this, biotechnologists today can accomplish in vitro fertilization easily, and techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer and other cloning techniques allow for non-sexual reproduction of mammals. This isn’t to suggest that God worked in Mary as a sort of Divine biotech entrepreneur — the point is just that it doesn’t seem overly difficult to imagine God working in Mary’s body to produce a zygote without a sperm cell. And finally — I would say that we don’t need to know “how” every miracle happens. While we don’t use “mystery” as an excuse for a flabby mind, “mystery” is nevertheless an important part of faith. There are many things in the universe we don’t know or understand (explain Dark Matter for example!) and that is ok — indeed it offers the gift of an opportunity to humbly seek understanding.
“Chalcedonian (i.e. historically orthodox) Christology”
Can you please elaborate on what you mean by “historically orthodox”? How would you describe those orthodox, apostolic churches that did not accept Chalcedon?
Refs:
The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, Fr. V. C. Samuel, 2005
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/
On the unity of Christ, St Cyril of Alexandria, 1995 (McGuckin)
Hi Ed. I meant small-o “orthodox,” i.e. what historical theologians usually mean by that term. I wasn’t intending to pass any kind of judgment on various branches of Eastern Christianity.