Peter Rollins, "A Miracle Without Miracle"

http://peterrollins.net/2013/11/a-miracle-without-miracle/

by Peter Rollins

November 17, 2013

Here’s a little parable from The Orthodox Heretic. For the next couple of weeks you can listen to an audio version of this by clicking here and pressing the play button beside the name “Miracle Without Miracle”.

After Jesus had descended from the Mount of Olives he came across a man who had been blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he cannot see?”

            Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.. We must carry out the works of him who sent me while it is day for night is approaching, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

Having said these things, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man’s eyes with the mud and said to him, “My friend, go, wash in the pool of Siloam.” So he went and washed and returned in jubilation shouting, “I can see, I can see!”

            The neighbors and those who knew him as a beggar began to grumble saying, “Has this man lost his mind, for he was born blind.” Some said, “It is the same man who was blind.” Others said, “No, it is not, but he is like him.” In response to this grumbling, the old man kept repeating, “I am the same man. Jesus anointed my eyes and said, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ So I went and washed and now can see everything.”

            To ascertain what had happened they brought him to the Pharisees. “Give glory to God,” they said. “We know that this man Jesus is a sinner.” But the old man answered, “Whether or not he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.”

            But the Pharisees began to laugh. “Old man, meeting Jesus has caused you to lose your mind, you had to be carried into this room by friends, you still stumble and fall like a fool, you are as blind today as the day you were born”.

           “That may be true,” replied the old man with a long deep smile, “as I have told you before. All I know is that yesterday I was blind but today, today I can see”.

Be Amazed by God's Weakness... Not by His Divine Power!



Cirque of Unclimbables, Nahanni National Park, Northwest Territories, Canda



I am not familiar with today's author, David Henson. Not his beliefs. Not his theology. However, in today's article I felt he has touched upon a subject that we have looked at before. A subject that asks how we are to imagine God's power in relationship to God's creation. A creation which appears all-powerful, and oft times, out-of-control, or unsubmitted, to God's rulership.

 

I say "all-powerful" because many of the astronomers, cosmologists, and physicists of the world become geeked-out over the depth, the wonder, the strangeness of our infinite universe (or universes!). In the eyes of a godless science it only sees unending power stretching across the vast voids of time and space. But for the Christian scientist, s/he sees the God of the bible who stands behind the universe's emptiness and amazing wonders. Who Himself had cast its beginning from the span of his hands and very heart. Who has shared Himself through a universe and creation which we sometimes tremble before in its displays of deadly power and terrible acts of random destruction.

 

Certainly we know God's creation to be out-of-control.... Are we ourselves not the essence of this statement by our heads, hearts, souls, and spirits, as we strive against one another instead of with one another? Are we not unsubmitted to the Creator God of the universe who fills our hearts with timeless wonder before the ant or sun, the rainstorm or rolling expanse of mountain, desert, and saged prairie? Before endless meadows, the violent turbulent seas, and endless icy plains of snow and tundra?

 

And yet, in the sublimity of God's holy creation He would empty Himself of His omnipotence and share this power to His handiwork... to we ourselves as even to the created realm we find ourselves... to use, work, and live within, by His allowance, will and divine submission of power. To wield His creative majesty as would please ourselves and not Himself (not that I would ascribe existential willfulness to mortal-less matter... ). For this is the essence of creative indeterminacy and human free will. To exert power at the behest of the created thing or man. To allow the wind to become a deadly storm. The water a fatal force. Or man a wicked thing.

 

More simply said, when God did create, He created at the same time the freedom that we find in ourselves and observe within our ecosystems, sun, moon, and stars. This "creaturely freedom" the bible calls "sin." For in the granting of indeterminacy to nature, and of freedom to man, God did allow for its immediate affects and causations. But, God did also immediately begin exercising His divine sovereignty (how could He not by being who He is!?!?) by implementing His plan of redemption back to all. This we have observed in the progressive evolution of the universe, and of nature, and of man. However, within this redemption is the purposefulness that is held in what can be known as the "weakness" of God.

 

And it is to this biblical expression of God that I have found today's article quite helpful. So rather than asking the wrong question of "Why isn't God all-powerful?" Or by making the incorrect statement that foolishly asserts "God isn't all-powerful!" Let us behave our theological tempers and learn to appreciate the "weakness of God" emanating pervasively throughout His creation. And to likewise discover what this means to us, most implacably. That God has granted to man the use of His power. That it is we ourselves who must bear God's divine responsibility of using our freedom aright. That it is we who bear His divine accountability. Who must seek to behave our human willfulness. To learn God's heart of grace and merciful forgiveness so that we might more ablely share some small portion of God "Power" back with one another. And to the ecosystem that we live within.

 

To me, this is the better question to ask. Questions that we should ask of ourselves. Of our responsibilities within the larger redemptive scheme of things. And to pay attention to the smaller nuances of the biblical record as pertaining to Jesus who not only was God's representative to us on this earth. But was very God Himself come to show to us God's "weakness' in the wisdom of His purposeful creation. To show to us what it meant to "empty" Himself of His divine power in submission to the flesh through Incarnation; to the powers of this world; to the cross of redemption; and to the sinful freedom of man's willfulness.

 

This then is the ultimate example bourne by God's "servitude" to the redemption of both man and cosmos. That in the re-ordering of all things according to His will, mind and heart, it is God's purposeful "weakness" that we most find God. Not by demonstrations of His creative power (not that we haven't observe this in the biblical record). Nor by His amazing feats of coercive miracle (again, something we have also observed within biblical passages). But by His willing submission of His power to redeem all. Be amazed at that... and not by God's subjective use power demonstrations for we-of-little-faith. Rest then in the sleep of Jesus, wearied upon a boat at sea, thrashed by violent waters, and know even then that our God reigns!

 

R.E. Slater

May 29, 2013

 

 

 

Sleeping Through Storms: Rethinking Theodicy, Natural Disasters and God’s Omnipotence

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidhenson/2013/05/god-doesnt-control-the-weather-theodicy/

 

David R. Henson

May 28, 2013

Comments

 

God is not all-powerful.

 

At least, not in the ways we tend to define power.

 

For us, power means that we get our way, that we can impose our will upon the world around us, that we can conform others into our images in order to achieve unity and security. In our minds, we equate power with control, sovereignty.

 

So, when the world spins out of control as it did in Oklahoma this week, and at the Boston marathon a month ago, and at Sandy Hook Elementary six months ago, we begin to wonder what happened to this all-powerful God to whom the skies and seas and nations are supposed to bow.

 

Are the heavens really declaring the majesty of God when an E-5 tornado destroys an entire town?

 

Only the most deranged and pathological of leaders suggested in the tornado’s wake that God was in control of the situation or was somehow, ultimately, responsible for the deadly twister. That includes, apparently, folk like John Piper and our own president, who seemed to imply that the tornado was a part of God’s plan. I’m sorry, but tornadoes are not part of God’s plan. Most of us can admit that without losing our faith, just like we can admit that God isn’t really calling the shots when it comes to jet streams, weather patterns and 200-mile-per-hour winds.

 

Instead of attributing the destruction to God, we tend to reassure ourselves that, in spite of it all, God is with us in the destruction, with us in the suffering, weeping with us. What we imply in this, but don’t often say, is that, deep down, we know God is not in control. And secretly, we give thanks for that. Naturally, we then ask where exactly is God in the midst of tragedy and suffering. This existential question doubles as an unconscious and fragile prayer of thanksgiving and relief. While we may feel desolation and alienation from God in the midst of great natural disasters, we also feel grateful — hopeful, even — that God isn’t orchestrating all the pain and destruction in the world. It is a relief not to be worshipping a God who sends tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, disease, and pestilence. It is a relief not to pray to a God who indiscriminately kills children with the same heavens which declare God’s glory.

 

God is not in control of the weather. Thanks be to God, God is not in the business of controlling anything.

 

But if God isn’t in control in the midst of such destruction, then who is? Something more sinister? Maybe something more dangerous than a sinister being. Perhaps no one — and nothing — is in control. It is a scary and disorienting thought to begin to consider God isn’t our bodyguard protecting us like the divine Secret Service from the suffering and tragedy in our world.

 

We find this idea jarring because I think we misunderstand what divine power is. God doesn’t control the weather, because that isn’t the nature of God’s power. God’s power is something stranger, more paradoxical.

 

God’s power is in the giving up of power, in the act of disarming divine omnipotence in favor of covenant and relationship with creation.

 

God’s power is in the act of becoming empty (kenosis), in becoming one of us.

 

God’s power is in incarnation and immanence, not omnipotence and distant transcendence.

 

In the gospel of John, Jesus tells us that when we see him, we see God. There’s a popular aphorism based on that notion, suggesting the radical nature of the Christian faith is not that Jesus is like God, but that God is like Jesus. And Jesus is in the business of emptying himself of power to the point of utter alienation and forsakenness by God. So what if God is indeed like that, like Jesus?

 

But, you might argue, there is a story in the gospels about Jesus and his power to control the weather. And it’s true. In the gospel of Mark, a terrible storm rises on the sea, threatening to swamp the disciples and the boat they are in. They are terrified, undone at the prospect of capsizing and drowning. They are baling water from the boat, struggling with wind-whipped sails, hanging on for their lives.

 

Jesus, meanwhile, is sleeping.

 

“Don’t you care that we are perishing?” they finally shout at him to wake him.

 

Jesus rebukes the wind and commands it to quiet down. “Peace! Be still,” he says, and it is a rebuke directed as much at the disciples as it is at the wind.

 

The disciples marvel at his power, asking, “Who is this, then, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”

 

We are like the disciples. We want God to calm the wind and seas. We want to shout at God, “What’s the matter with you? Don’t you see we are perishing? Don’t you see so many of us — children, even! — have already perished? Wake up, God! Stop sleeping when we need you most!”

 

Like the disciples, we believe the power — the divine — is in the ability to control things. We assume, like the disciples, that the miracle is in Jesus rebuking and calming the storm.

 

But if you notice, Jesus only reluctantly uses his power. He doesn’t seem to want to do anything. He wants to keep sleeping! He goes so far as to rebuke his disciples for even asking for his help. He calls them faithless. This storm-calming power isn’t the kind of power Jesus came to demonstrate. Rather, it is the exact kind of power Jesus came in order to give up, to empty himself of. It is the same power he rejects when he refuses to throw himself from the pinnacle when he is tempted in the desert, the same power he turns down when he refuses to kneel before the Adversary, that same superficial power that controls earthly things.

 

As much as we might like, this isn’t a story, I don’t think, about Jesus’ ability to control the weather. He is bothered to do it and is bothered that his disciples even asked. This is a story, rather, about how little we believe God to be with us in the midst of an overwhelming storm. It’s about how, deep down, maybe we don’t really believe that a God-with-us is actually enough. It’s about how what we really want is a God who is in control. And it is an indictment of the disciples and of us.

 

I don’t really think the miracle in this story is about Jesus calming the storm and taking control. The miracle in this story is that Jesus with the disciples in the water-logged and weatherbeaten boat, experiencing the same terrible storm, the same terrible waves, the same terrible danger.

 

And that alone should have been enough.

 

God’s power isn’t in the control of creation or of people, but in being in covenant and relationship with them. It isn’t in imposing the divine will or insisting on its own way but in sojourning with us as we fumble around and make our way in the world. God’s power is not in miraculous interventions, pre-emptive strikes in the cosmic war against suffering and evil, but in inviting us to build a kingdom out of love, peace and justice with God. God’s power is not in the obliterating of what is bad in the world, but in empowering us to build something good in this world — even if that is something as small and life-changing as constructing storm shelters at every public school on the tornado-strewn plains.

 

And isn’t this true power? Instead of enforcing control and solutions onto the world, God’s power is revealed in coming alongside us, journeying with us, suffering with us, and even staying with us in the boat when the storms come.

 

The omnipotence of God isn’t about having all the power. That’s would turn God into an insecure narcissist. Rather, the omnipotence of God is in the sharing of power.

 

 



 





 

The God of Miracles: Stepping Out On Faith: A Minnesota Missionary's Disappearance in Mali, West Africa

 

FIND JERRY: Minnesota pilot missing

off West Africa coast

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/22003019/find-jerry-krause-pilot-missing-off-west-africa-coast

 

Updated: Apr 17, 2013 12:48 PM EDT

 

facebook.com/HelpFindJerry

 

By MICHELLE FAUL

Associated Press

 

JOHANNESBURG (AP) - A small plane carrying only its American pilot disappeared 10 days ago just miles from a refueling stop at a West African island in the middle of a tropical storm of thunder and lightning.

 

Since then, searches with a plane and boats have found no trace of the pilot, 54-year-old missionary Jerry Krause, or the twin-engine Beechcraft 1900C that he was flying from South Africa to Mali.

 

Krause's family in Mali, where he has lived for 16 years, and in Waseca, Minnesota, believes he is alive and could have landed in hostile territory.

 

"After much research and digging, there is a 50% chance that Jerry's plane crashed," says a message posted Wednesday to their website www.findjerry.com

 

"That other 50% is the probability that he was captured and forced to fly for some drug lords or guerrilla members. There is evidence now to support both scenarios."

 

Family members reached by email would not elaborate on any possible evidence, and the suggestion could not be immediately backed.

 

The posting said that a missing person's report has been filed in the United States so that the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board can start an investigation into Krause's disappearance.

 

The Krauses have launched a multifaceted campaign to "find Jerry." Family members are lobbying officials, posting messages on social media and using the Internet to encourage a relay of prayers for his safe return.

 

Krause's last contact was apparently with the control tower at Sao Tome island, a couple of kilometers north of the equator and 150 miles (240 kilometers) from the coast of Gabon.

 

"We have no idea what happened to him," Januario Barreto, the control tower chief, told The Associated Press by telephone Wednesday.

 

He said Krause called in to say he was 9 miles (14 kilometers) from the island when lightning struck the tower and knocked out the power. That was just before 4 p.m. local time (1600 GMT), still in daylight, on Sunday, April 7. When generators kicked in, soon afterward, Krause could no longer be reached, Barreto said.

 

He said air traffic controllers immediately contacted the nearest control towers on the African mainland at Libreville, Gabon and Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, to see whether they had heard from Krause. They had not.

 

Navy and Coast Guard vessels are still looking for any trace of Krause's plane, Barreto said.

 

The family's website said they have sent a Portuguese-speaking envoy to Sao Tome, at the family's expense, to "get the official documentation as to what actually took place there from Jerry radioing in to land to their responses and follow-up.

 

"Their stories haven't been confirmed and haven't been consistent," the message complained.

 

Krause's employer, Eric van der Gragt, said the control tower did not inform others that there was a missing pilot and plane until almost 24 hours after the disappearance.

 

"The tower just didn't inform people that he had disappeared," van der Gragt, owner of Bamako, Mali-based Sahel Aviation Service, said in a telephone interview.

 

He said he sent a plane to search for Krause for two days that week, after the Sao Tome Coast Guard had found nothing on the Monday and Tuesday following his disappearance. The Sahel plane searched around the twin-island nation of Sao Tome and Principe, he said.

 

Van der Gragt said the turboprop Beechcraft that Krause was flying did not belong to his company but, he believed, to a company based in Senegal.

 

Krause's family is heartened that searchers have found nothing in the Gulf of Guinea, saying that an absence of wreckage or emergency locator transmitter signals are hopeful signs.

 

The oil-rich Gulf of Guinea, where Krause disappeared, has been increasingly targeted by armed pirates who hijack ships' cargoes, including a British ship in February.

 

At their Web site and on Facebook, the Krause family details how they lobbied officials of the French cellular service Orange, to which the pilot was subscribed, in an effort to get them to try to track his iPhone and discover his last position. At first the company resisted, then said it was unable to help because his subscription was based in Mali, according to the Web site. Orange was able to turn off the iPhone from afar, to conserve its battery.

 

Krause's family last heard from him when he called his wife Gina from South Africa to let her know he was on his way home to Bamako. The two have lived as missionaries in Africa for 25 years, the last 16 of them in Mali, a mainly Muslim country. Krause had served as a missionary pilot for the Nampa, Idaho-based Mission Aviation Fellowship until 2009 when the air service pulled out of Mali.

Jerry and Gina Krause stayed on. Many foreign companies and charities have left Mali since jihadist fighters swarmed over the north last year. France and several African nations sent troops this year when the Islamic fighters, allied with al-Qaeda, started to advance on Bamako, the capital.

 

"God knows where Jerry is," Gina Krause says, expressing certainty and her faith in a posting at the findjerry Web site. "I know I serve a God who can do the IMPOSSIBLE."

 

AP writer Barry Hatton in Lisbon, Portugal contributed to this report.

https://www.facebook.com/HelpFindJerry

 

Read more: FIND JERRY KRAUSE: Pilot missing off West Africa coast - KMSP-TV http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/22003019/find-jerry-krause-pilot-missing-off-west-africa-coast#ixzz2TAxm6uRC

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

YouTube.com Link -

 

Interview with Wife and Family

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5OknZSZiTNY

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Missionary Pilot Goes Missing En Route to Mali; May Have Been Captured

http://www.christianpost.com/news/missionary-pilot-goes-missing-en-route-to-mali-may-have-been-captured-94262/

 

(Photo: Facebook/Find Jerry)

 

The Krause family is raising awareness for Jerry Krause, a 54-year-old missionary pilot who went missing on April 7 when his plane hit a tropical storm while en route from South Africa to Mali.

 

 

By Katherine Weber , Christian Post Reporter

April 18, 2013|6:32 pm

 

A family is searching for answers after a pilot, who has served as a missionary in Africa for the past 25 years, went missing 10 days ago when his plane was hit by a tropical storm on his way to Mali.

 

The family worries that the pilot may have been captured by guerilla forces or drug lords.

 

Jerry Krause, 54, went missing on April 7 while flying a twin-engine Beechcraft 1900C near the island of São Tomé, where he was due for a refill of fuel, en route to Mali from South Africa.

 

About nine miles away from the island, an intense tropical storm reportedly hit and the missionary pilot lost contact with the local control tower at São Tomé; he has not been heard from since.

 

"We have no idea what happened to him," Januario Barreto, the control tower chief, told The Associated Press by telephone Wednesday.

 

Barreto claims that the tropical storm caused lightning to hit the São Tomé control tower, causing it to temporarily lose power shortly after it had its last verbal communication with Krause.

 

When the generator at the control tower restored power, Jerry could not be contacted.

 

Jerry's family, which includes his wife, Gina, his brother, Jeremy, and three children, Alyssa, Nathan, and Jessica, has set up a website, www.findjerry.com, to provide updates about their search for their loved one, implore government officials to help with the search, and encourage followers to pray for Jerry's safe return.

 

The family has also set up a social media campaign, starting the Twitter trend "FindJerry" and setting up a Facebook page to spread awareness about their missing loved one.

 

The Krause family wrote on the FindJerry.com webpage that they believe the São Tomé control tower did not follow protocol when Jerry's plane went missing, and could possibly now be trying to cover their tracks to avoid reprimand.

 

"Sao Tome air traffic control DID NOT contact mainland airports to check on Jerry's status as they should have," the family says on the website.

 

Additionally, the family refuted the claims of the control tower that lightning from the tropical storm knocked out the power of the control tower for a temporary time when Jerry went missing.

 

"[The control tower officials] are either stating this now to cover their tracks since they didn't follow protocol when a plane went missing or they are involved somehow with the disappearance," the family argued.

 

"It would have made sense had they come out and said that from the beginning, but such thing was said last week about electricity going out," the family noted.

 

The family also believes that because no plane wreckage has been found, it's possible that Jerry is alive and surviving.

 

Unfortunately, there is a 50 percent chance Jerry could have landed his plane in enemy territory and could now possibly be used as a pilot for drug traffickers against his will.

 

"After much research and digging, there is a 50% chance that Jerry's plane crashed. That other 50% is the probability that he was captured and forced to fly for some drug lords or guerillas members. There is evidence now to support both scenarios," the family stated.

 

In an earlier blog post, the family wrote that Jerry's plane would have crashed into "a million pieces," which surely would have been washed ashore by the changing tide or scooped up by fishing nets, and therefore, because no plane fragments have been found, "there is more potential that he was potentially ambushed or kidnapped."

 

"Again, there is no proof of kidnapping, but it's becoming more of a reality. Please pray for the US Embassy officials to get answers and for other countries to cooperate as we continue to search," the family wrote.

 

The family has also been making progress in spreading awareness of Jerry's absence to the authorities in both the U.S. and South Africa, successfully filing a missing person's report in the U.S. to enable the National Transportation Safety Board and the South African Civil Aviation Authority to begin their investigation into the pilot's whereabouts.

 

Additionally, the Krause family offered a $5,000 reward for information on Jerry's whereabouts, including providing fragments of his plane, but no one has come forward with any evidence.

 

The family continues to remain hopeful and faithful during this time of uncertainty, writing on their Find Jerry website that they are grateful for the prayers given to their family and to Jerry.

 

"We serve a God who can move mountains and whose mighty hand is over this entire situation," the Krause family wrote.

 

Jerry Krause has worked as a missionary in Africa for the past 25 years, spending the past 16 years in Mali with his wife, Gina. He most recently worked for the Sahel Aviation Service, a commercial company which provides air transportation in the areas around Mali.

 

Prior to that, Jerry also worked as a pilot for the Mission Aviation Fellowship for 22 years, which works to help over 1,000 Christian and humanitarian organizations with air transportation and delivery.

 

Jerry worked for the MAF until 2009, when the air service ended its work in Mali.

 

Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/missionary-pilot-goes-missing-en-route-to-mali-may-have-been-captured-94262/#xzU8j2BwErEDAUR0.99

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Update: May 30, 2013

From Huntington, IN

 

Follow on Facebook 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

To those who we will be forever grateful to...

 

Just so you can plan ahead in great anticipation for the next update :), I plan on updating once a week, updating on Monday or Tuesday (even though today is Wed) unless something urgent comes up.

 

My intention for this update is to explain why we believe my dad to still be alive. We are almost at two months since he disappeared. And looking at the evidence, as I've mentioned previously, the most logical perspective would determine my dad to be dead. As time progresses, the easiest solution would be to count my dad dead. That final verdict would end the waiting, the effort of searching, and the perseverance of continuing to pray. I would be relieved to have the test God placed in the lives of my family to have ended many weeks ago, to be in a place where we could just move on. But, God's timing is beyond my understanding and the test has not ended.

 

As I've thought through the reasons as to why we believe my dad is still alive, I've reread report after report of the investigations done searching for my dad in order to come up with the most logical reasons. But even after making a list of those reasons, I don't think they are the main reasons we still believe my dad is alive. Briefly, the logical reasons to believe my dad to still be alive include (in no specific order): 1. Not finding any piece of the plane, 2. The lack of effort on searching for a crashed plane by Sao Tome, 3. The negligence of the refuelers in Sao Tome in providing documentation of planes refueled on April 7th and 8th, 4. The discrepancy of the facts regarding the last conversation my dad had with the tower, 5. The corruption in the area and the benefit of having my dad (pilot, mechanic, and free plane).

 

And the list could go on. If you want more specific logical reasons, feel free to email me (Jessica)...

 

But, the real reason we believe my dad to be alive:

 

Because God is not allowing us to believe anything else. When we reach a point of starting to believe my dad to be dead, God keeps placing people in our lives and providing us with Scripture that does not give evidence to him being dead (including around 15 dreams). God keeps telling us: Pray, Persevere, and Trust Me. And so we have to keep doing that.

 

Please continue to partake in this journey through prayer. I know that is an area that God is testing me. And at the end of this, I don't want to be someone who stopped having faith or someone who believed in the logical and not the miraculous. This situation is one where God wants and is going to get all of the glory. And I have to keep asking, seeking, and knocking till God says I can stop.

 

May God be glorified in me and in you. May we each be able to stand before God and have Him say, well done my good and faithful servant, no matter what situation we each face. For God is good. His Love endures. And He will be victorious.

 

 

Continue to follow on Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/HelpFindJerry

 

 

 

What Can a Postmodernist Say You About the Virgin Birth?

  

What can a postmodernist say about the Virgin Birth of Christ concerning the immaculate conception of God in becoming incarnate man while retaining His Trinitarian divinity? Who, in Jesus, was fully God as He was fully man. With neither His divinity nor His participation in the flesh diminished. Who "laid" aside His divine being to be clothed upon in the garments of man's flesh ("the Word became flesh," Jn 1.14) without suspension of His divine being, authority, eternality, nor any other part of His unsearchable divinity. Who was Himself a man, and not a divine spirit indwelling a fully submissive man, but a man in His being and composition. Who was uniquely fashioned and historically dwelt among men as God in the flesh. And as man, lived with the help and agency of the Holy Spirit fully submitted and obedient to the Father God above.

These are paradoxes we do not understand. Mysteries we try to peer into whose fog withholds us from comprehension. Each centered in the person of Jesus, the Christ, Immanuel, God with us, the Holy One of God, sent from God as the Son of God the Father. Our Savior and Lord. The Son of David. Born of a virgin as the Son of Man. The only Incarnate God of history. This is what is meant by the theological term "Incarnation." That God became man and dwelt among us in all of our heartaches and sorrows, joys and laments. Who knew thirst and hunger, weakness and ability, pain and suffering, laughter and camaraderie. From a theological viewpoint we can only bow our heads and say, "Amen and amen."

John 1

English Standard Version (ESV)

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. ⁴ In him was life,^[a] and the life was the light of men. ⁵ The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

⁶ There was a man sent from God, whose name was John [the Baptist]. ⁷ He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. ⁸ He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

⁹ The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. ¹⁰ He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. ¹¹ He came to his own,^[b] and his own people^[c] did not receive him. ¹² But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, ¹³ who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (cf. the Suffering Servant, Isaiah 52-53).

¹⁴ And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. ¹⁵ (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) ¹⁶ For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.^{[d] 17} For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ¹⁸ No one has ever seen God; the only God,^[e] who is at the Father's side,^[f] he has made him known.

To this question, what can a postmodernist say about the incredulity that the Virgin Birth places upon our scientific presuppositions when considering what we know about the biological birthing of a human child requiring the agency of sperm and egg to conceptualize a living human being? When having the audacity to proclaim that Jesus was born fully human when knowing only the DNA portion of Jesus was birthed from His mother Mary. That neither his father Joseph, nor any other man, had any biological input to Jesus' birth. That Jesus was conceived within His mother's womb by the miraculous conception of the Holy Spirit who superintended over the division of the egg from 23 chromosomes to 46 in a parthenogenetic event, giving to Jesus His inherited male DNA from that of his mother as she had received it from her own mother and father. To consider Jesus as fully human because of this miraculous event, and as fully representative of mankind in His inherited genetic structure. For such was Jesus, born of the virgin Mary, born without a human biological father. From a scientific viewpoint we could argue doubt having not witnessed this as a normally occurring biological event except with the help and agency of a scientifically manufactured event.

And to each viewpoint - that of theology and that of science - one might be tempted to state a hard-and-fast line of demarcation. That each viewpoint remains as isolated from the other conceptually as they are ideologically. And yet, it might be that with the ironic help of science we may find that the incarnation of God as man is fully acceptable and abiding with biblical/theological statement. That each may interrelate with the other with no necessity for their perceived competing dualistic positions of immateriality and materiality.

So then, as a postmodernist, we have hard questions to ask of ourselves. And equally as important, we must similarly determine how to approach this very delicate subject in postmodern terminology. Whether we should abdicate one position over the other (as modernism would do in the presentation of dualistic categories). Or perhaps, simply hold both positions in tension and content ourselves in the problem itself without any further need for a final solution (which postmodernism would require). But to so simply decry either for theology, or for science, would work against the mystery of God's divine incarnation, and against the necessity for scientific discovery. For each are as equally important as the other within the creation of God.

As such, I have yet to discover a good scientific understanding of the Virgin Birth (which would include this present article included further below; AND its antecedent article from a year ago by NT Wright and  John Polkinghorne which I had also reported on). As a trained theologian I am completely confident in accepting the reality of the virgin birth of Christ. But from a scientific  point of view I am equally as sympathetic to the lack of evidence supporting this theological concept (unless parthenogenesis is actually the key to this topic. But if so, I still will have a lot of questions that must be answered).

And unlike my earlier stances of generally supporting science over today's more popular Christian opinions created by the ideologies of biblical literalism - which in my estimation (as well as that of others) has misapplied the literary texts of biblical oral legends in the early chapters of Genesis (sic, the Creation story of Genesis and the Noahic Flood, as example) with the scientifically erroneous conclusions of denying both biblical evolution with the disavowal of a regional flood in favor of spontaneous creationism and that of a global flood where there is no geologic evidence. So that in this instance, I cannot support the speculation that the Virgin Birth of Christ is itself an ancient Near-Eastern myth when there is no literary evidence for this.assumption - especially knowing that it runs against too many of the Bible's theological ideas about God and humanity. Nor can I accept jettisoning the Virgin Birth of Christ as scientifically implausible as some would like to say. Nay, I chose neither side and thereby reject both as spurious arguments by stating that the Virgin Birth is not a myth. Nor is it scientifically implausible. That there is no literary basis to make this claim. Nor is there any scientific basis to disprove this claim.

And when considering the article's stated intent below, can neither accept RJS nor Dr. Polkinghorne's further description of the Virgin Birth as an "enacted myth of the church" - by which I think they mean that it is a legend that rightly-or-wrongly has endeared itself to the church from the start. If anything, I would declare it as an enacted acceptance of an historical event passed along through the theological charters of the church. And if we were to go by the assessment that the Virgin Birth itself is mere myth without any historical, or scientific viability, than we would have to throw out our previously argued support for an evolutionary understanding of the bible and its related oral legends such as the Flood story. And instead hold in favor for a non-scientific understanding of biblical event-and-cause marking all theological endeavors as impractical as man's materialistic mindedness is deceivable.

Which returns us back to where we began 18 months earlier when broaching this very same subject here at Relevancy22 as we've waded through the highs-and-lows of arrogant humanism and misleading Christian thought juxtaposed around a sensible interpretation of the Scriptures integrated with our postmodern day knowledges across all human disciplines and discoveries, experiences and examinations. Certainly the church has many enacted myths that it should throw out - the one that most immediately comes to mind is that of its incongruent position of biblical literalism. It is misleading and filled with conjectures that are ideologically based. That we argue here for biblical historicity has been shown. That God's revelation is true and unerring, beyond a doubt. But not for Christian myths, dogmas, and fancied folklores that give precedence over God's truth. We wish only to pursue the best of theology using the best of our human knowledge. And when undertaking this task must always examine ourselves, our competing interests, and our counterveiling arguments, as is right and proper. Ditching the worst, keeping what we don't know in epistemic tension, and favoring the evidence that seems most true and proper. As always, it is this latter statement that is most often the most misleading. What is thought as true and proper may not always be so. As in the case of decrying the Virgin Birth as enacted myth while assuming its scientific implausibility.

Hence, I am perfectly willing to hold in tension the theological concept of the Virgin Birth without necessitating its support by present day science. To the geologic, cosmologic, and biologic sciences I have yielded deference believing that those disciplines have more than adequately explained Earth's - and mankind's - early prehistory from an evolutionary basis. However, upon the subject of Christ's miraculous birth I must still remain fixed in my doubt until science should someday better explain the Incarnate conception of Jesus to my doubting mind and heart. To that extent, we must leave the Virgin Birth of Christ as an accepted miracle that is "interactive with natural laws and not in suspension to natural laws" when produced within the boundaries of this creation. Which means we simply don't understand it yet. And to this position of understanding pertaining to the concept of miracle I will accede solidarity with RJS and the good Dr. Polkinghorne.

Consequently, rightly or wrongly, I cannot at this point yield on so important a theological concept pertaining to God's incarnation by birth from a flesh-and-blood woman with the absent agency of a man. Certainly we could argue sexism here by devaluing God's usage of a woman alone. But more so we can argue ideological assumptions where none need to be except in that of holding to the position of epistemic unknowing and humility. In being content to allow science to proceed apace with biblical discovery separately-and-apart until at such time congruency may be found unforced. Hence, God "clothed His divine being with the garment of flesh" (speaking poetically) and did not simply overwhelm (or possess)  a yielded holy man named Jesus, is without question. For if we did, it would give no good theological substantiation for Jesus' atoning sacrifice and redemptive restoration of both the cosmos and mankind if performed without the necessity of the Virgin Birth.

 As such, I am willing to hold in tension an incredulity between theology and science even though on many of the other biblical myths (as has been discussed) we have re-configured (or reframed) the bible's theological congruence with science pertaining to man's imaging in God (Adam), man's preservation by God (Noah), and man's salvific relationship to God (Jesus) without resorting to the imagined need for a literal bible (or a literal hermeneutic). We have done this by keeping the bible's literary content intact, and reapplying our allusionary ignorance forward into a larger, non-mythic understanding of the bible's historical reality and applicability, such that the bible has been enlarged to recapture man's primer sciences even as those same sciences force the postmodern theologian to reconsider all doctrinal angles and composite reactions.

In the offering we have argued against many of popular Christian suppositions that have delved into Christian folklore and legend, and not into the bible itself. As well have we argued against its counterpart of Christian liberalism, moving fearlessly forward to the overly cynical left. For should we do less is to lose the God of the universe to either forces - on the right, to a mystical spiritualism, and on the left, to a materialistic humanism. When in fact, by carefully removing our perceived theological barriers we are, in essence, freeing the God of the universe to be larger than we had believed possible (as if God should need our help!). Far too often it is more important to examine ourselves, rather than our neighbor, and be willing to critique how we came to our theological conclusions irrespective to our traditions and customs. Emergent Christianity allows a postmodern introspection to all things church and science - including our treasured dogmas and beliefs - so that we may arrive at a fuller bible that is more open, and more applicable, to postmodern man today. It changes nothing about God, and everything about ourselves, when we release ourselves from the theological boxes we have impudently placed ourselves within.

Thus, I will admit up front that science has yet to fully explain the Virgin Birth of Christ to my satisfaction. Nor does the accompanying imposed implication of enacted church myth help much here either. For neither position is satisfactory, and consequently, we argue for neither. And furthermore, we support the theological view of the miraculous/immaculate conception of Christ - not on the basis of perceived historical support by the church (the enacted part of the story), but on the basis of its theological necessity (the enacted part of the redemptive story of the bible) as inculcated by the Apostles to their disciples which then passed into the living charters of the early church. This New Testament-Apostolic position shows the most theological congruency with the redemptive story of the divine-human cooperative between God and man marking the Virgin Birth not as a myth but as an actual historical event.

Consequently, my God is big enough to allow us to doubt in as many ways as we can doubt. This is part of our human prerogative and divine allowance, if not man's very creational charter as given to him by God. As such, so should my postmodern examinations of the bible and its teachings be likewise held within the limits of doubt and human understanding balancing the one-over-against-the-over in a continual act of acknowledging our scientific limits and theological over-speculations. For myself, I do expect that at some later time science will show the viability of God's miraculous parthenogenetic act upon Mary.

However, I do not need to attribute it as either a  church myth, or as an illogical theological position. That would be to strip the Son of God of His incarnational divinity and thus making it theologically disjunctive to the redemptive story of God's atonement to the fallenness of man. It looses all import should Jesus be only mundanely human without being profoundly God. No apostle or later arising martyr of Christ's could take on this divine act for mankind. This divine act of agency was Jesus' alone. There was no other to fulfill it. Nor ever shall be from the very Godhead of the Trinity. This is the heart of Jesus' incarnation. To bear the sins of man upon the very heart/spirit/being/personage of God Himself in direct agency and propitiation. As the holy Lamb of God. Who was in Himself, both sacrificial lamb and atoning God, our very Mediator as both Priest and holy sacrifice (cf. the book of Hebrews). Verily has our Redeemer come. Amen and Amen.

R.E. Slater

December 27, 2012

That man should be made in God’s image is a wonder,

but that God should be made in man’s image is a greater wonder.

That the Ancient of Days would be born.

That He who thunders in the heavens

should cry in the cradle.

~ Thomas Watson,

Painting by Bernardino Luini

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

What About the Virgin Birth? (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/12/27/what-about-the-virgin-birth-rjs-2/

by RJS

Dec 27, 2012

Comments

Not quite a year ago I wrote about the relationship of science and virgin birth in the context of John Polkinghorne’s book Testing Scripture: A Scientist Explores the Bible. Recently I’ve been reading Robert Asher’s new book Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist and here the topic comes up again, but Asher has a different take on the question. As a result the topic is worth a reprise, considering the arguments put forth both by Polkinghorne and by Asher.

Most Christians have a deep appreciation for the scriptures. Many of our disagreements, especially the most heated discussions of science and faith arise because we respect and wrestle with scripture as inspired by God. As Paul tells Timothy, the scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. They are not to be taken lightly. On the other hand there are some pretty incredible events and stories contained within the pages of scripture and the virgin birth is one of these. For those who were not raised in the church however, or who have for any one of a number of reasons become distrustful of the reliability of the scriptures, questions about the virgin birth and other incredible events within the pages of scripture become a real barrier.

Matthew 1:18 relates the claim:

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

Joseph responds to Mary’s pregnancy by planning to divorce her and an angel in a dream reiterates the claim “what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.“ Luke 1:34-35 records Mary’s response when told she would conceive and give birth to a son, the Messiah.

“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

The very idea of a miraculous conception, that a virgin conceived and bore a son, hits a nerve in our secular Western society – both modern and postmodern. In Testing Scripture Polkinghorne describes why he accepts the virgin birth. In contrast Asher does not see acceptance of the virgin birth as traditionally understood to be either reasonable or necessary. The differences in the approaches they take and the conclusions they reach will help to flesh out some of the key questions.

How would you address doubts from a nonbeliever about the incredible events in scripture? How do you reconcile a belief in these events yourself?

In chapter six of Testing Scripture John Polkinghorne looks at the gospels. Within the historical conventions of their time they tell the gospel; the story of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as the good news of God’s work in the world. The Gospels record a reliable history. This is the key starting point, but there is more to it than just this.

What about miracles, including virgin birth?

Robert Asher is not an atheist; he does not rule out the existence of the supernatural or spiritual. He is, as he describes himself, a religious paleontologist. He is not evangelical, and like many he explicitly disavows the designation. Like Polkinghorne he sees the gospels as basically trustworthy with much of it (especially Paul’s letters and Mark’s gospel) written “well within the range of an oral tradition based on eyewitness accounts.” (p. 24 Evolution and Belief) Asher’s reasoning about the virgin birth is rooted in his understanding of cause and effect in science.

However, does this enable me to believe in an actual human being born of a virgin? No it does not – at least not in a biological sense, which is how most people understand this question and how, therefore, I should answer it. Female humans do not give birth unless they have been inseminated. As he was a human being, I infer based on what I know of biology that Christ would have developed in His mother’s womb, from zygote to morula to embryo to fetus. … (p. 24 Evolution and Belief) 

Everything that I understand about human biology indicates that He, too, had a biological father. There is no doubt, however, that this father was perceived as divine by his followers. As a human being, of course Christ had a biological father; it is not rational to believe otherwise. Personally, however, I really do believe that father and son were inspired individuals, worthy of the impressive documentation with which their legacy has been recorded. … Simply stated, Christianity is my faith. It is not an unshakable faith, nor do I believe literally in many parts of the Bible. Indeed, much of the text of this chapter disqualifies me as a theist Christian by most evangelical standards. Nevertheless, Christianity seems to me a legitimate account of the agency behind life, and while the causes of life’s diversity are fascinating, they are not of immediate relevance to this faith. (p. 25 Evolution and Belief)

Does God intervene?

This paragraph from Asher is rooted in a discussion of miracles, because the virgin birth, or more accurately virginal conception, if true in a biological sense, is a miracle. It is an intervention by God into the natural order.

I was passed a question just recently asking about Jesus and his DNA. What DNA would he have carried? Mary’s we presume – but would his DNA have also traced to Joseph? Was it something else entirely? Asher doesn’t bring this question up specifically, but he does focus in on the question of intervention. Rather than quote a large segment I will choose a few particularly pertinent sections:

Let me phrase this differently. Do I believe in miracles? If by “miracle” you mean a spontaneous failure of a natural law due to the contrary influence of some supernatural agency, then no. … However, this is not at all the same thing as denying the existence of a divinity, including the Christian sort. … The “do you believe in miracles?” question assumes an opposition between “nature” and “god” that is wholly our own fabrication, as if the two compete with one another for our attention. This question presumes a philosophy that the two things are independent, even antagonistic – but I don’t think they are. Rather one is an expression of the other. God cannot “intrude” into the normal operation of nature because, the way I see it, nature is a part of God; it represents God’s thought, or laws, in action. He cannot intrude upon himself. (p. 25-26 Evolution and Belief)

Asher’s view of the virgin birth is shaped by his understanding of biology, of cause and effect, and by his view of God. There a scientific, philosophical, and theological reasons to question the traditional view of the virgin birth.

Dr. Polkinghorne sees things a bit differently. He works through a number of different episodes and events as he describes his reasons for taking the Gospels seriously. The one we wish to focus on here, the birth narratives and the virgin birth, is the one he leaves for last.

I have left till last what are among the best-known and best-loved narratives in the Gospels: the stories of the birth of Jesus. We find them only in Matthew 1.18-2.12 and Luke 2.1-20. John, after his timeless Prologue, and Mark, without any preliminaries, both start with the encounters between John the Baptist and Jesus at the beginning of the public ministry. We are so used to conflating the two gospel accounts that it is only when we read them carefully and separately that we become aware of how different they are. 

Luke seems to tell the story very much from the point of view of Mary, and the visitors to the newborn Jesus are the humble shepherds. Matthew seems to see things much more from Joseph’s perspective, and his visitors are the magi. 

Luke gives us a very specific dating of the birth in relation to a Roman census, but there are severe scholarly difficulties in reconciling this with Matthew’s (plausible) statement that it took place during the reign of Herod the Great. 

A principle concern of both narratives is to explain why, if Mary’s home was at Nazareth, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as Messianic prophecy required. I do not doubt that there is historical truth preserved in the birth stories, but establishing its exact content is not an easy task. (p. 67-68 Testing Scripture)

As with some of the other stories in the gospels and in other parts of scripture there are discrepancies that can be difficult to reconcile and harmonize. There is no strong reason, however, to doubt a historical root, down to and including the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

The Virgin Birth. The conception of Jesus is a different issue. How can an intelligent, educated, experienced person, an eminent scientist, believe in a virgin birth? Dr. Polkinghorne gives his reasoning:

Luke, very explicitly in his story of the Annunciation (1.34-35), and Matthew, more obliquely (1.18), both assert the virginal conception of Jesus. Christian tradition has attached great significance to this, often rather inaccurately calling it the ‘virgin birth’. Yet in the New Testament it seems nowhere as widely significant as the Resurrection. Paul is content to simply lay stress on Jesus’ solidarity with humanity: ‘God sent his Son, born of woman, born under the law’ (Galatians 4.4). The theological importance of the virginal conception lies in its lending emphasis to the presence of a total divine initiative in the coming of Jesus, even if this truth is much more frequently expressed by the New Testament writers simply in the language of his having been sent. Jesus was not opportunistically co-opted for God’s purpose when he was found to be suitable, but he was part of that purpose from the start. The virginal conception is a powerful myth, and I believe that in the religion of the Incarnation the power of story fuses with the power of a true story, so that the great Christian myths are enacted myths. On this basis, I find myself able to believe in the virgin birth, even if the motivating evidence is less extensive than for the belief in the Resurrection. (p. 68-69 Testing Scripture)

Interaction not Intervention.

One of the most important criterion for thinking through the incredible claims in scripture is God’s interaction with his creatures rather than his intervention in his creation. The miracles ring true when they enhance our understanding of the interaction of God with his people in divine self-revelation. The virginal conception is part of the Incarnation, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us”. The magnificent early Christian hymns quoted by Paul in Col 1.15-20 and Phil 2.6-11 catch the essence of this enacted myth as well.

It makes no sense to try to defend the virginal conception, the resurrection, or any of the other signs or miracles related in the New Testament, separate from the story of the Gospel, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as God’s Messiah. In the context of God’s mission within his creation the miracles make sense. Separate from this they will never make sense.

What do you think? Do Dr. Polkinghorne’s reasons for believing in the virgin birth make sense? Is there an important distinction between intervention and interaction? Why do you believe in the virginal conception? Or if you don’t, why not?

- RJS

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.