<Theofragen>

Al Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said something on his radio broadcast that deserves a moderating response. I want to thank my friend Blake for the tip.

Mohler writes, "If Jesus was not conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of a virgin, if he was not born in Bethlehem as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy, if there were not shepherds on a hillside visited by angels, then good bye Christianity."

In one fell swoop, Mohler has essentially excommunicated droves of deeply committed Christian men and women all over the world who do not agree with his fundamentalistic, inerrantist hermeneutic. Mohler seems adept at offering his audience one-sided fallacious arguments and them knocking them down like he is Mike Tyson. By Mohler's standards, the only biblical writer who would pass his test of orthodoxy and could thereby be considered a Christian is Luke. Luke is the only biblical writer who mentions a virgin birth in Bethlehem amongst the presence of angels on a hillside. Although he discusses the virgin birth in Bethlehem, Matthew does not say anything about shepherds. Neither Mark nor John even mention the birth narratives (indicating at least that the birth accounts were not crucial to their telling of the Jesus story and at most that they were later additions--which is the position held by most real scholars. Neither Paul nor any of the other biblical authors say one thing about the virgin birth. In fact, since he wants to get all biblical, it would help if Mohler would read things other than his 101 Ways to Defend Inerrancy book! Maybe try reading about the kind of faith that Paul was proclaiming in Romans 10:9-13. I would argue, along with the majority of Christians world-wide, that faith in Christ alone is requisite of salvation. To paraphrase Paul, "Neither inerrantist heresies, nor tyrannical seminary presidents, nor gynecological obsessors, nor geographic pedants can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

If assent to gynecological virginity was SO important, why do we only find it in Matthew and Luke? Futhermore, if Jesus HAD to be born in Bethlehem for Christianity to be valid, why are all of the biblical authors in unison in calling him "Jesus of Nazareth?" His likely name in a first-century, Jewish context would have been "Jesus son of Joseph." However, given the questionable nature of his conception, Jesus was probably considered a mamzer by many of his contemporaries--especially if Joseph died when Jesus was young, as tradition attests. FYI: Neither biblical scholars nor historians have been able to provide any extra-biblical attestation of a census every taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. It seems that Matthew and Luke have arranged their source traditions in such a manner in order to bring Jesus' birth into alignment with OT prophecies. To quote one of my undergraduate professors, "Any idot can claim that the moon is made of blue cheese but that does not make it so."

Mohler is reacting to the Newsweek article about Jesus that suggests a hermeneutic other than his inerrantist position. I think he needs to understand that he is propitiating a rigid, indefensible understanding of what a Christian is or isn't. Just because he has a radio program and he and his cronies were successful in overthrowing a denomination with their virulent rhetoric and macarthyistic practices doesn't mean that they are right. When one checks out Al Mohler's blog and reads "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" one may ponder whether he is more concerned about propagating the truth of Jesus Christ or the truth of Al Mohler. My money is on the later!

You are Wrong Mister President!

6 Comments: