A man running for political office found himself caught in a bribery scandal and feared his opponents or constituents would discover it before the election. He hired an individual to consult on the situation and devise a strategy.
The consultant uncovered corruption and scandal that would embarrass one candidate and a false witness for the other candidate. He felt very confident after this, for both opponents were shaken by the assertions.
At a debate close to election, an audience member stood up and asked about his involvement in the bribery scandal. The man had prepared for this, and easily answered the question by denying it had happened. He shrugged it off as a ploy to prevent his win, and called the tactics he himself used “deplorable.” The next day a news reporter contacted his office on the bribery scandal and asked to interview him further, indicating there were some unanswered questions that remained. The man declined the interview, ensuring his schedule was full for the next several days and hoping the momentum of the election would propel him to victory before any story could be written.
To his surprise, the news story was published without the interview. It included some credible evidence and a few witnesses who linked him to the scandal. The man and his consultant looked into discrediting the report, the reporter, and the witnesses. With little time before election, the consultant had no time to dig up much on the reporter. The decision was made he must meet with the reporter to convince him to retract his story or at least to admit there were flaws in the conclusion.
The reporter had a familiar face. He was polite and receptive to all the man had to say, disarming him in the process. He had expected a heated exchange and had prepared for that. He had intended to accuse the reporter of being one-sided and printing gossip, but it felt strange saying the words to one so open to his perspective. He began complaining about the political games played and how everything was so negative, hoping to imply the reporter was contributing to such games.
Because the reporter wasn’t peppering him with questions and did not seem defensive, he lost his focus. Finally he asked the reporter a question. “What’s in it for you? Why did you report this?” he asked. The reporter smiled slightly and replied, “because it’s true. I know this because I was part of the scandal and the cover-up. I have lived with the guilt long enough and I’m ready to face up for my part in it.” The man was speechless. There was no lie that would get him out of this.
Moral of the Story:
In Matthew 1:18 the virgin birth is described. The miracle of a woman bearing a child without a man is pretty significant. If we question this miracle, it is normal. However, the recognition that God is sovereign and can do anything is hard to get around. Many, many people love the idea of Christianity, of loving others and sacrificing for the greater good, being humble and kind.
Yet many of these same people if asked would tell you they don’t believe in the virgin birth. The idea of Christianity is completely unlike anything a human could come up with. It is counter to our need for power and recognition, it requires faith in things we can’t understand, it is not a blueprint on how to be a ‘good person’. Just because it is radical or hard to understand…doesn’t mean it is untrue. In this story I explore what denying truth means.
What does the virgin birth mean to me? It means God made sin His personal problem, but kept His hands clean from sin. To deny the virgin birth is to me a denial of truth, even if it I don’t understand it all.