Related articles and links |  1 of 8

Nicholas Kristof's false dichotomy
Weblog was a bit surprised at the beatingNew York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof took from some religious folks back in March when he complained about the lack of evangelicals in the nation's newsrooms. (CT sister publication Books & Culture had a fine response from historian Mark Noll that deserves wider recognition: it's available here.)

And last May's Kristof column on evangelicals being "the new internationalists" brought quite a bit of praise, though most observers asked "where has he been?"

But Kristof will be fortunate if yesterday's blackout shut down his e-mail server. Today's column is, in a word, bad. And he's going to get slammed for it.

Noting that Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83%) as in evolution (28%), he writes, "The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time."

That's right. If you believe in the Virgin Birth, you're anti-intellectual. And, along with a quote from Hans Küng (who continues to practice theology in spite of the Vatican's revocation of his license), here's how he proves it:

The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America's emphasis on faith because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth, and for Mary's assumption into Heaven (which was proclaimed as Catholic dogma only in 1950), as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith. … Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91 percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians.

That's right, not only did he lump Jesus' virgin birth and Mary's assumption together as equal dogmas (one is in the Bible, the other is not), he ignores the huge number of serious biblical scholars who do accept the Virgin Birth.

But what's really troubling about Kristof's column is what he's really troubled about: "I'm troubled by the way the great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic."

In other words, if you actually believe the stuff your church teaches, you are evidence that the church's great intellectual tradition is withering.

Weblog won't go into great length here about the false dichotomy here between faith and intellect—refuting such nonsense is basically the whole raison d'etre of our sister publication Books & Culture and behind much of what we do here at Christianity Today, not to mention the myriad institutions of Christian higher education. But suffice it to say that it turns out Cal Thomas was right: Nick Kristof really does need to get out more and meet some actual evangelicals.

By the way, for a good refutation of Kristof's claims about the Virgin Birth, check out this 1990 Christianity Today article by Richard N. Longenecker.

Defenders of intellectual tradition?
Of course, there are church leaders who deny the Virgin Birth. And the divinity of Christ. And sometimes even the existence of God.

"For all of the fuss over the Episcopalians choosing a gay bishop, what should have been an even bigger scandal has received scant attention," writes Gene Edward Veith in this week's World. "For decades, the Episcopal Church and other Anglican bodies have been electing bishops who are not even Christians. … Heresy is even more harmful to a church than homosexuality. Choosing a bishop who is gay is bad enough, but choosing a bishop who rejects Christianity is surely even worse. And it should not be surprising that a church that has rejected the authority and the truth of the Bible would take the far lesser step of saying that sexual immorality is okay."

next page... |  1 of 8

August (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47