Recently, while reading some articles and publications stored away, I came across an interesting series written by B. J. Clarke, which was published in Power, which he was editing back in 2002. The articles were titled, “What’s Happening To Our Christian Colleges?” The second of these (from March of that year) included information about Pepperdine and Abilene Christian University. Clarke referenced the infamous article, “Christmas at Matthew’s House,” written by Abilene Professor, Andre Resner, and published in Wineskins in November, 1992. One wonders if Clarke or anyone else is writing a similar series today. One also wonders why certain “conservative” brethren are appearing on various lectureships with personnel from Pepperdine and Abilene. Has something significant changed in these institutions in the past seventeen years, or are conservative brethren just drifting in their direction? This article should remind us of some of the types of men on the faculties of those universities.
So many brethren complained against “Christmas at Matthew’s House” that a statement was made by Resner the following year (December, 1993). In it, the author claimed: “It was not intended to be seen as an attack on the doctrine of the virgin birth or the inspiration and authority of Scripture….” The reader will bear that in mind when reading what he wrote, along with his additional assurances:
…let me emphasize that I do believe very deeply in the divinity and virgin birth of Jesus—in his death, burial, and resurrection and in the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. … I wrote the article because of my deep love for the Lord and his church, not to show a disrespect for either. I regret that the article left a wrong impression concerning these important matters for some.
So, what did Resner write in “Christmas at Matthew’s house”? He pretends that he is at the house of the gospel writer, Matthew, for Christmas, but what he actually does is analyze the way Matthew begins his account of Jesus’ life. Why he chose such an approach is best known to him—it probably has something to do with being “literary.” It really amounts to nothing more than furnishing him with a way to discuss the opening of Matthew’s gospel narrative. Since Matthew is one of two writers who discusses the birth of Jesus, Resner decided to tie it to the denominational concept of celebrating Christmas as a religious holiday (something faithful brethren refuse to do). The entire article is on the Internet. Type in Wineskins, “Christmas at Matthew’s House,” Andre Resner, and it should appear. We can only cite certain portions of it. Bear in mind he claims not to be challenging inspiration of the virgin birth of Jesus.
After calling Matthew sneaky, he discusses his genealogy as beginning with sexual scandals. He writes:
Before he can tell the scandal of Mary’s “immaculate conception,” he has to subtly remind us of other scandalous women. You remember Tamar, don’t you?
“Whoa!” Most Christians are asking, “Why is he calling Mary’s immaculate conception a scandal? We most certainly do not believe that it was. And why is her immaculate conception put in quotation marks, as though there is some other reason for her pregnancy than that of the Holy Spirit coming upon her (Luke 1:35)?” Those are excellent questions. But before he gets back to Mary, he wants to smear the other women in the genealogy of Jesus.
It is true that Tamar dressed as a harlot in order to entice Judah, her father-in-law, to produce in her a child because he had not given her the husband to which she was entitled, but what she did had nothing to do with lust. Judah acknowledged that Tamar had been more righteous than he had (Gen. 38:26). This one occasion was the extent of their relationship. Harlotry was not a way of life for her.
The second woman cited is Rahab who had been a harlot—but would not be one living among the Israelites. Resner even impugns the motives of the two spies: “You remember Rahab. Prostitute in the promised land. The first place, interestingly enough, that the Israelite spies went when they went to explore the land.” Really? He has turned a great Biblical event into a sordid situation. Rahab confessed that the Israelite God was God (Joshua 2:9-11). The spies did not go there for carnal purposes. To even suggest so is disgusting.
These words are immediately followed by besmirching the name of the virtuous and selfless Ruth:
And Ruth … “dear, sweet Ruth.” Well, just what was she doing out there at the threshing floor at Boaz’s feet? And why did he want her to stay there all night, yet leave before daylight, and not let anybody see her. Hmmmm.
Brethren, no amount of apologies can undo the damage inflicted by such a careless presentation of the situation! Although Bathsheba’s name is not mentioned in the genealogy, the fact that she is the wife of Uriah the Hittite is. She actually did commit adultery, but none of these women are mentioned by Matthew to prepare the audience for immorality on the part of Mary.
Resner thinks that Matthew is preparing the reader for “the most embarrassing scandal” of all. He writes:
Though we’re still quite surprised by Matthew’s covert statement, “she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit,” Matthew has set us up for it. It’s a sort of “Here we go again, folks….” Another sexually questionable woman.
No! There was nothing sexually questionable about Mary. Is it possible to misunderstand the tenor of this article? How about what Resner says about Joseph?
A dream that was real, yes, but still a dream. Could it have been a message from God? Or, could it have been his own imagination, wanting to believe her so much that his subconscious produced a nocturnal justification for marrying her, even in the face of such an outlandish excuse? But there’s Joseph, crawling into bed with her every night the rest of his life, relying on a dream, believing in her word, that she really hadn’t slept with another man and used him to cover her shame.
How is this article not blasphemous? Resner may claim to have been misunderstood, but he was not misunderstood. His problem was that brethren understood him only too well—and were indignant because of it. But these days do brethren have any indignation? It seems that many are more willing to fellowship than fight those who challenge the virgin birth or the inspiration of the Scriptures or other false doctrines. Or they fellowship those who do fellowship liberals. Perhaps someone can explain this rationale.