Theological Concerns & the Virgin Birth

by   Dave Couric                                                                                                                                         Vol. VII, No. 8, October 1994

Though it hasn't been much of a controversial issue throughout most of church history, the virgin birth of Christ has recently become an issue for Southern Baptists. For both sides of the growing controversy, discussion of the doctrine that Jesus had no earthly father reflects a larger problem:

– For the conservative leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention in general, the virgin birth question is a theological one, which leads directly to the heart of the gospel and Christ's atoning work on the cross.

– For the moderate leadership of 3-year-old Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the recently raised virgin birth issue is simply another diversion in an ongoing battle for political power in the SBC.

The current controversy began when O. S. Hawkins, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, suggested in his church newsletter column that larger issues surrounding the firing of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Russell H. Dilday Jr. might be more theological than political. Hawkins used as an example some comments CBF leader Cecil Sherman once made about the virgin birth. Citing a 1983 article in Christianity Today, Hawkins quoted Sherman to the effect that the virgin birth is not necessarily an essential doctrine, so a Southern Baptist teacher should not be fired for not believing it.

Sherman sent a memorandum to Baptist Press and state paper editors on April 29, titled "Responding to O. S. Hawkins about the Virgin Birth." The six-page statement affirms Sherman's belief in the doctrine. He also classifies it as not one of the "big doctrines." He says doctrines like the virgin birth are "true" but "not so important" as ones mentioned more times in the Bible.

The sudden interest in his decade-old statements about the virgin birth, Sherman writes, is a "diversion" to make the CBF appear liberal just because "I said at one time that I was not sure we ought to fire every professor who doesn't (believe in the virgin birth)."

The famous doctrine is serving as a catalyst for discussion of what appears to be a larger theological issue in the SBC reminiscent of the "fundamentalist-modernist" controversy early in this century: What is essential to believe about the Christian gospel, or what are the fundamentals of the faith? In the controversy of the 1920s the virgin birth was included as one of the five fundamentals, along with inspiration of Scripture, deity of Christ, the atonement, and the resurrection/second coming.

Closely related to the content of the gospel, in the current controversy, is the question of what employees of Southern Baptist agencies and educational institutions should be required to believe. Sherman described the issue, seen of course in a different light by each of the opposing sides, in his written response to O.S. Hawkins: "Some folks want to argue about a guy who is uncertain not about the virgin birth but about the hypothetical question of whether or not I would fire a professor who did not believe in the virgin birth."

Similar to the popular political position that starts out "I'm personally opposed to it, but...., the question from the conservative perspective is not what individuals believe as much as what individuals think is important enough to require that Southern Baptist teachers believe.

As William E. Bell Jr., dean of the religion department at Dallas Baptist University, sees the, situation, "You don't have to deny the virgin birth to be a problem in the Southern Baptist Convention. All you have to do is say, `I believe in it, but I think there's room for those who don't.' And at that point you open the door to heresy, and you're in trouble."

Although some theologians try to hold to the deity of Christ, while rejecting the virgin birth, Bell explains the theological significance of the doctrine in this way: "If Jesus was not born of a virgin, then when he was born, he inherited the guilt and sinful propensities of Adam and therefore could not have been our Savior because he would have been a sinner himself." Bell goes on to sound a warning about further theological consequences in the controversy: "It is not an accident that those who deny the virgin birth, or don't think it's particularly important, also have no place in their theology for penal substitutionary atonement.

The virgin birth makes possible the sinless Savior and thus the penal substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. If one does not believe that Christ died as our substitute, as our sacrificial lamb, then he has denied the essence of historic, biblical Christianity. So when someone says, `I believe in it, but I think there's plenty of room for those who don't,' then what he's really saying is that there's plenty of room for those who reject historic, biblical Christianity. What this means is that the person who rejects the virgin birth of Christ simply does not accept the Christian faith."

Also involved in the debate, says Bell, is the integrity of Scripture. "If the virgin birth as described in Scripture is not true, how do we know that the incarnation is true? How do we know that the substitutionary atonement is true? How do we know that the resurrection is true?

Another problem with not holding to the virgin birth, Bell points out, is finding an alternative to it. That Jesus was simply the son of Joseph and Mary is not the only alternative. In fact, those who deny the virgin birth frequently make the claim that Jesus was the illegitimate child of Mary and a Roman soldier. (Bell cites, for example, Nels Feffe's "The Sun and the Umbrella").

Historically, all main confessions of faith, such as the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed, and every major branch of Christendom – Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox – have affirmed the virgin birth. The Baptist Faith and Message also includes the doctrine.

Some, like Sherman, raise the objection that the virgin birth is not mentioned in Paul's writings. They also point out that the virgin birth is in only two gospels, Matthew and Luke. Therefore, the objection goes, the doctrine can't be that important or necessary to believe.

To this Bell replies: Paul never had occasion to deal with the virgin birth in the first place, the "argument from silence" is a weak one in logic, and Paul never said anything to conflict with the doctrine. As a matter of fact, Paul dealt more with the work of Christ than the person of Christ, Bell notes.

As for the gospels, Bell observes, Matthew and Luke are the only gospel writers who even deal with Jesus' birth at all. To the infrequency-of-mention argument he responds, "How many time does something have to be taught in the Bible before we are required to believe it'?" [BP. Bold print added to the above for emphasis.]