The determination with which nowadays Jesus’ birth “of the Virgin” is rejected cannot be explained by pointing to the historical problems. The real and sustaining reason inspiring the historical questions lies elsewhere: in the difference between our world view and the biblical account, and in the notion that the latter has no place in a world determined by natural sciences. Any world view is always a synthesis between knowledge and evaluation. And in this indeed lies the problem.
Regarding the tenets of our world view that would psychologically compel us to declare the Virgin Birth an impossibility, it is clear that this is not a result based on knowledge but on evaluation. Granted, a virgin birth, now as then, is improbable but not at all simply impossible; there is no proof of its impossibility, and no serious scientist would assert there is. By no means are we thus dealing here with incidentals but with the central questions – who was with Jesus? who or what is man? – and ultimately with the question of all questions: Who or what is God? This question, in the last analysis, decides the definition of what man is – even an atheistic conception of man, by way of denial, is determined in its question about man by the question about God.
The testimony about Jesus’ birth “of the Virgin Mary” is not merely some fringe devotional corner in the context of the New Testament Faith; it is not merely the private little sanctuary of two Gospel writers, easily and without loss dispensed with. Rather we touch here on the question about God: Is God somewhere, a deep dimension of all being, holding up everything like buoyant water, as it were, with no one knowing how; or is he the one who acts, who has power, who knows and loves his creation, is present to it and active in it, forevermore, even here and now? Natus ex Maria Virgine is in its core a theo-logical statement: it testifies to a God who has not abandoned his creation. On this is based the Christian’s hope, his freedom, his serenity, and his responsibility.
See: Daughter Zion, pp. 57-61