Editor responds: We apologize for errors in editing the letter: It was an accidental misreading. However, that we had to edit it was a result of space limitations and the many letters engaging in the debate. So, with all due respect to the previous letter writer, we are publishing the complete version of Ms. Ballard's letter below.
With regard to Calvin Brown's article in the January 2007 Record, there are some aspects which need to be considered also. It may be that the early church fathers insisted that belief in the virgin birth was essential to thinking that one was a Christian, but, speaking as a woman, their attitude toward women, and thus to any topic in which gender issues are involved, can hardly be seen as most healthy and so their attitude in this regard could be seen to impinge upon/undermine their authority somewhat. However, this is too large a topic to deal with here and is merely an observation – speaking as a woman. Rather, this article responds specifically to Mr. Brown's contention: “If we do not believe in the Christmas story, including the virgin birth, then we have no good reason to believe Jesus is really God”, and his claim this “must be believed by Christians”.
To return to the article, I note that now even we Protestants capitalize “virgin” when referring to Mary. Will our next move be to draw Mary's mother into this holy picture?
If Jesus' mother being a virgin was crucial to his authority as being the Son of God (Son of Man), it is interesting to note (if one reads further along in the gospels) that Jesus is challenged many times as to His authority (we are not referring to the authority of scripture per se here) for His actions, as well as for His teaching and He never once falls back onto a claim that His mother was a virgin.
He defends Himself over and over again, even frequently referring to scripture but He never refers to, nor claims that well-known pronouncement of Isaiah which we hear every Christmas, as relevant to His birth. He makes no reference to His birth nor His mother's virginity as having any relevance in any way to His authority in acting the way He did or for teaching what He taught; nor did He refer to His birth circumstances as 'proof' that His authority came from His 'Father'. He did use their own scripture to confound their claims to authority in their criticisms of His actions.
Also, when John the Baptist, while in prison, sent some of his disciples to Jesus with the question “Are you he who is to come…”, John was asking Jesus if He were the Messiah. What did Jesus reply? Did He try to reassure John by reminding him that His mother was a virgin (with a capital 'V')? Did He mention His mother at all in His reply? No, He referred immediately to what was happening wherever He went. “Go and tell John…” “No good reason to believe Jesus is really God?” It seems that was good enough for Jesus!
And in the gospels, in any reference to Jesus talking to His mother, He never makes an opportunity of her presence to teach or explain to those gathered that is was through her 'circumstances' that He had authority to claim to be speaking for God as His Father. In fact, in one situation where He is informed that His mother is looking for Him and wishes to speak with Him, He exclaims “who is my mother?…Whoever does the will of my Father, the same is my mother…” He gave His words and His actions as His 'reference' as to His authority that:
1. He knew God2. He knew Him as His Father”Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me, but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. (underlines mine for emphasis) “No good reason to believe Jesus is God?” Again, Jesus seemed to believe that He Himself had supplied sufficient reason. And He gave Himself and His Father as the two witnesses demanded for His claim for authority to teach and act as He did, audacious indeed!
We have in the scriptures of the New Testament first the issue of the authority Jesus claimed for Himself which is on-going throughout all the gospels. Then we have the issue of the authority of the writers themselves. What did they say was their authority in writing what they did? Well, the averred that they were eye-witnesses, so they presented this as an authority to which the reader could cling in order to accept their statements. They also claimed that through this witness which they were presenting, the reader could, any time, meet the Spirit Jesus promised to send to the reader/inquirer which would be the same as meeting Jesus Himself.
They back this claim by providing the directions as to how the reader could recognize the way ('Way'?) to have this happen for them and to them. These 'directions' are referred to generally as “the scriptures”. By recognizing this Way as not ratifying one's ordinary manner of living, but in teaching an entirely different attitude towards oneself and others as well, the readerinquirer will be constantly introduced to this Spirit over and over, empowering and enabling that one to live this new Way and to be, also, themselves a witness to this Way which is lived by the authority of the presence of this Spirit of Jesus in them and meeting them at every turn in this new type of life and being.
“And we will come and live in him…” The reading of the New Testament with this expectation and hope will result in a new life. In other words, it is not that believing is the crucial end of this whole life of Jesus and or the accounts of this life of Jesus. Belief does not result in believing; believing does not result in belief; belief/believing result in a new life lived with the Spirit of Jesus. As I understand it, the Spirit of Jesus and God the Father is generally referred to as the Holy Spirit which, also generally, is referred to as the third Person of the Trinity. This is generally. I note that Mr. Brown refers to Jesus as the third Person…? Perhaps the new statement of faith touches on this…?
So the authority of scripture is to be found in the fact that these words, writings will back the claim Jesus made to be able to introduce the reader to a new life, lived by meeting Him through the gift of the Holy Spirit, the authority that is possible to meet and to know the living God and to know this God as totally, reliably, ineffably compassionate and forgiving as Jesus Himself and to live a new life in His name. “…but these things were written that you may believe and believing have life in His name.”
I have not given the specific scripture references found in this article as they are neither unique in the gospels nor to be seen as 'proof texts' but merely as typical of the issues touched upon and to which hundreds of centuries of lives could enlarge upon and provide further overwhelming witnesses to.
