I was dismayed to read in Calvin Brown's January article, Debating The Virgin Birth, that “some liberal Christians who deny the virgin birth of Jesus in any realistic sense” are undermining “the whole authority of scripture.” I understand Brown to mean that the virgin birth literally happened — it was an historical event.
The real issue is the way we interpret scripture. We can read the Bible literally — as Brown does — or we can read much of it metaphorically. Biblical criticism, which both Brown and I have studied, can be helpful here.
Without getting into the issue of the virgin birth, which I do not take literally but do take metaphorically, I wonder what Brown does with the problem of divorce and remarriage which Matthew and Mark report Jesus spoke against but which our church allows. If he does not take literally the words of Jesus against divorce is he not doing exactly what he quotes St. Augustine as deploring? Let us compare what Jesus is reported to have said on divorce with what we know of God's love in Christ before we deny divorce and remarriage to our people.
I find it hard to accept that if I do not agree with Brown's literal interpretation of the virgin birth I am undermining the authority of scripture any more than I would be undermining the authority of scripture if I did not agree with his theory of the atonement or his understanding of the resurrection or his explanation of the ascension.
I trust, however, that Calvin and I are united by our commitment to Jesus as Lord whichever way we read the Bible.
