Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Letters from the Edge of Elfland

Home
Catholic
Sexism, Celibacy, and the Male Genome: More Reflections on the Virgin Birth

Sexism, Celibacy, and the Male Genome: More Reflections on the Virgin Birth

Last updated on: December 20, 2016 at 11:58 am by David Russell Mosley

Sexism, Celibacy, and the Male Genome: More Reflections on the Virgin Birth 2016-12-20T11:58:02-04:00 David Russell Mosley

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

David Russell Mosley

Vierge à l'Enfant, Abbaye de Fontenay (Marmagne, Côte-d'Or, Bourgogne, France)

Vierge à l’Enfant, Abbaye de Fontenay (Marmagne, Côte-d’Or, Bourgogne, France)

Advent
20 December 2016
The Edge of Elfland
Hudson, New Hampshire

Dear Readers,

I’ve gotten some wonderful, and some odd, comments on my last letter dealing with the sexism of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. I’ve also read a few pieces from the Tippling Philosopher over at Patheos Nonreligious, that make me think it might be good to write another letter on this important topic before the celebration of the even (namely Christmas) arrives.

One of the things that seems to bother people most about the doctrine of the Virgin Birth (aside from its supposed impossibility) is its focus on Mary’s virginity/purity. Now, I addressed some of this in my last letter, but I want to go a step further today and talk about virginity/celibacy in general. The truth of the matter is that for the early Christians virginity was seen as a better way of life than the married life. It was higher, holier, purer. And not just for women, but for all people. In 1 Corinthians 7, for instance, Paul makes it clear that he would rather people remained celibate just as he does, but that he understands not everyone can do so. Now, there are many ways and contexts in which to understand this passage, but, it is clear that the early Church took it seriously. How do we know this? By the rise of monasticism.

By the second century we have a rise in individuals going out to the desert to be alone and pray, living celibate lives. Soon these individuals have people gather around them. Athanasius writes his book about St. Anthony; Pachomius writes his Rule; Gregory of Nyssa writes on virginity; Augustine writes on marriage and concupiscence; Cassian writes about desert monasticism; Benedict writes his Rule; etc., etc. There’s no doubt about it, celibacy is seen as the higher, the better way of life. You might disagree with this, but what you can’t do is tell me that focusing on Mary’s virginity is sexist when the overwhelming tradition is of men and women committing themselves to celibate lives.

Celibacy as well as marriage have long been integral parts of Christianity and not just for one sex, but for both. I think there might be some weight to the sexism arguments were it the case that we lift up Mary for her virginity but lifted up Christ for his sexual prowess, or any saint. But we don’t. Sure, Catholics in particular and Christians in general lift up the ideals of family life, and some may have swung too far away from the celibacy as the ideal, but this is in no way inherently sexist, nor does it make the emphasis on Mary’s virginity sexist.

Shifting gears, as I said, I came across an article by the Tippling Philosopher which was on Debunking the Virgin Birth. As it turns out this was just one article in a series. It would take me far too long to rebut every article he’s written (all of which are companion pieces to a new book he’s written on this issue). For instance, he notes the problem that only two gospel writers (who were not eye witnesses of the birth of Christ) write about the birth of Christ. Like many, he ignores the fact that the earliest Christians seemed to have been aware of this since they collected these texts together and read them together. We would have to suppose that they were all a bunch of idiots incapable of seeing discrepancies, which seems unlikely on the whole. How they might have answered his questions is not in my purview at the moment, that they would have had answers is certain. But to the article I read and that I found most problematic as an argument.

In his article, “Debunking the Nativity: The Male Genome,” Pearce makes this argument: the ancients did not understand how conception worked (namely the coming together of two genomes, one from the father and one from the mother), therefore, if we apply modern understanding, the notion of Virgin Birth makes it impossible for Jesus to have been fully human. Which is really just to say, the Virgin Birth is only possible with a wrong understanding of conception, therefore it is impossible because we have a right understanding of conception. The issue, for Pearce, centers on the fact that with a correct understanding God has to somehow provide the genetic material for the father side of Christ in order for him to be a man just like any other man (albeit perfect and also fully God). The problems with this argument are manifold.

For starters, as Pearce notes, while the ancients were not quite correct in their understanding of conception, their understanding doesn’t make the Virgin Birth any more possible. For the ancients, the sperm provided the moving cause for the fetus while the egg provided the material. The problem is, even with this understanding of conception, you still need a moving cause, you still need whatever it is the sperm normally provides. That still has to be supplied somehow. So, an ancient understanding of conception does not make the Virgin Birth any more possible than a modern understanding.

A second problem, of course, is also in the understanding of what it means for Christ to be fully man. Pearce seems to think it means he has to be a man just like himself, or me. What Pearce doesn’t recognize is that for Christians, Christ is not a man just like me, but is the perfect man who is sinless and perfectly united to God. He is the New Adam. What this means is that Christ is not required by Christian doctrine to be just like the rest of us, he is the perfect version of us, he is what we are meant to be. So the expectation that being fully human means being a human just like the rest of us is the wrong expectation. What Christians mean by that is that Christ is fully human and we are not. Now, this doesn’t solve the genome problem, but it is important.

So, what are we to do with the genome problem? Pearce thinks that if we have to say God magically supplies it then Jesus isn’t a human just like any other human. Of course, this involves an incorrect picture of God. See, in this picture, God is more like the God of the Deists or of Isaac Newton. He sets the world spinning and then steps in and intervenes from time to time when necessary. For Christians, however, God sustains every moment, every molecule at all times. In a sense, he is continuously creating reality out of nothing. What this means, then, is that if God simply supplied the male genome for Christ by creating it out of nothing (or if he simply used all of Mary’s genetic material to create the fetus) this is not magical, not a supernatural intervention but rather the Creator doing what he does at all times, creating.

This isn’t, of course, meant to convince the skeptic that the Virgin Birth really happened. My point is not to convince you that my narrative is the right one, even though I think it is. Rather, my point here is to ensure that if you’re going to argue against something like the Virgin Birth, then you need to understand what it actually means for Christians, and this means not treating it as if it took place in a secular understanding of the universe where God is presupposed not to exist, or not treating it as if it took place in a deist’s understanding of the universe where God occasionally intervenes in a self-sustaining universe, but to treat with the whole of the Christian understanding. This is the thing about Christianity. You cannot separate out its various doctrines and discreetly treat them separately, you must treat and refute the whole system, otherwise you’re arguing against straw men, against false understandings of what our doctrines are and how they work.

Sincerely,
David

Atheism

Being a Catholic Evangelical

Previous Post

December 17, 2016

Is the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth Sexist? A Response to Christian Chiakulas

Next Post

December 25, 2016 Arthur Elwood and the Charmwood Banshee

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category A Secular Age Advent Apologetics Atheism Beauty Being a Catholic Evangelical Being Catholic Being Deified: Poetry and Fantasy on the Path to God Blogging Book Reviews C. S. Lewis Catholic Imagination Catholic Social Teaching Catholicism Christmas Church Calendar Church Fathers Church Life Community Conferences Cosmology Creation Curdled Words Deification Distributism Easter Economics Education Epiphany Essay Extracts Eucharist Faerie Faeriean Metaphysics Fatherhood Films Folk Liturgy Food and Drink G. K. Chesterton Harry Potter J. R. R. Tolkien Jove King Arthur Language Lent Life Literature and Poetry Liturgy Medieval Theology Music My Publications Mythology On the Edges of Elfland Ordinary Time Ordination Parenthood Parish Patristic Theology Pentecost Politics Prayer Racism Radical Orthodoxy Restoration Movement Sacramental Ontology Saints Science Sex and Sexuality Sophiology Stories The Inklings The Radical Catholic Reimagination of Everything Theologians in the Church Theopoetics Thesis Research Uncategorized University of Nottingham What I'm Reading Writing

Select a Month December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 July 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz