The Real Mary
Paraclete Press will soon be sending me a copy of Professor Scot McKnight's latest book The Real Mary: Why Evangelical Christians Can Embrace the Mother of Jesus to review for my blogs. They also offered a link to a sample chapter online. It begins this way:“Why are you—a Protestant—writing a book about Mary?” I’ve been asked this question many times. In fact, one person asked me the following question: “Wasn’t Mary a Roman Catholic?” (No kidding.)
Why write a book for Protestants about Mary? Here’s why: Because the story about the real Mary has never been told. The Mary of the Bible has been hijacked by theological controversies whereby she has become a Rorschach inkblot in which theologians find whatever they wish to find. In the midst of this controversy, the real Mary has been left behind. It is time to let her story be told again. Over the past ten years I have read shelves of books and articles about Mary, and I have discovered that almost no one is interested in what the real Mary was like in her day. The Real Mary attempts to fill in that gap and underscore the real Mary.
Why a book about Mary?
Because while Mary’s story is that of an ordinary woman, it is also the story of a woman with an extraordinary vocation (being mother to the Messiah) who learned to follow this Messiah Jesus through the ordinary struggles all humans face. In this sense, Mary represents each of us—both you and me—in our call to follow Jesus.
Why a book about Mary?
Because for years the view of Mary in the Church has been unreal. Mary has become for many little more than a compliant “resting womb” for God, and she has become a stereotype of passivity in the face of challenge, of self-sacrifice at the expense of one’s soul care, and of quietude to the point of hiding in the shadows of others. Nora O. Lozana-Diaz, a professor at the Hispanic Baptist Theological College, traces the influence of what she calls marianismo on Latin culture and claims this false view of Mary (marianismo) oppresses women instead of challenging them to live with courage before God—as Mary herself did! If a false view damages all of us, a more accurate view can encourage all of us, women and men.Why write a book about Mary?
Because she was the mother of Jesus, and being the mother of Jesus ought to matter to each of us.
Read the rest of this chapter here.
You can order a copy of the book from the publishers, Paraclete Press for 20% off before December 3rd. There is also a free study guide available online.
BTW, if you're in the Chicago area, the Emergent cohort I lead (up/rooted) will be joined by Scot McKnight himself to discuss the book on Monday, December 11 from 7-9pm at Redeemer Church in Park Ridge, IL. Join us if you're able.
posted by Mike Clawson at 1:20 PM
18 Comments:
"Mary has become for many little more than a compliant “resting womb” for God, and she has become a stereotype of passivity in the face of challenge, of self-sacrifice at the expense of one’s soul care, and of quietude to the point of hiding in the shadows of others."
McKnight is right. I cringe every time I hear someone call Mary "just a vessel". She was chosen from among all women---past, present and future--to carry God incarnate within her womb, to give birth to Him, and to nurture Him to manhood!
Mary does not often speak in the Gospels, but when she does it's powerful stuff.
She speaks a simple sentence in John 2:5 that sums up the life of a disciple of Jesus in 5 words.
The Spirit is working in and thru Professor McKnight!
Peace,
Felicia Swavely
Amen Felicia!
I don't see how anyone can read the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) and come away with an impression of Mary as a passive woman. Mary was a social and spiritual revolutionary! IMHO, the Magnificat is one of the most powerful pieces of religious poetry ever written. She wasn't just a passive vessel. She knew exactly what she and her son were getting into, and she welcomed it.
She's an example to all Christians, male or female, Protestant or Catholic.
-Mike
While the book certainly has the right thoughts behind it in re-introducing Christians to Mary, the author appears to have a few heretical beliefs regarding Mary.
In the sample chapter he refers to "Mary's sons". In an excerpt in Christianity Today magazine he mentions Mary going with "her children" to Capernum.
Neither the Scripture nor any historical document of the time states that Mary herself had any children. There is a Scriptural passage concerning Jesus brothers and sisters, but they are never ever identified as Mary's biological children.
(BTW, My own wife has a sister. But, my wife's sister is not my wife's mother's child. In fact, none of the three women are biologically related.)
While I do believe in some creative license for authors, creating events and relationships that are clearly not mentioned in Scripture is a clear violation of the principles of sola scriptura.
- Timothy
Timothy,
While I don't think it's a point worth arguing over, (I don't really care if Mary had other kids or not. Doesn't seem like it really much matters.) I do have a few questions:
1) Are you Catholic?
2) If the people referred to in Scripture as Jesus' brothers & sisters aren't Mary's children, who are they exactly?
3) Is it really appropriate to say that it is "heretical" to believe Mary had other children? This seems like a highly disputable (and highly trivial) matter upon which Christians could disagree without having to call each other heretics. That's a rather inflammatory term.
1) Yes, I am Catholic.
2) Scripture alone does not provide enough information to conclusively identify the relationships of these individuals to Mary. No historical documents of the time identify any children of Mary except Jesus, our Lord.
The Catholic Church interprets the passage to mean kinsmen/cousins.
The Orthodox Church has long held that these are step-brothers and step-sisters from Joseph's earlier marriage.
Personally, from my studies of Scripture and historical documents, I lean to the Orthodox interpretation. I base my decision on the lack of respect for Jesus by his brothers. Their attitude is against Jewish law and custom if they were younger children by Mary, but completely appropriate if they were older than Jesus, as in step-children by Joseph.
3) Yes, it is appropriate to point out heretical statements that endanger the Christian faith. The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is not a trivial matter as you suppose.
The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary has been long held for 2,000 years by Christians and is still held by the overwhelming majority of the world's Christians. Even Luther and Calvin held and taught the doctrine of perpetual virginity and for good reason.
The Helvidian Heresy, as its known, made its first major appearance in the 4th century and the dispute was answered and settled by several Church fathers.
In the seemingly trivial acceptance of Jesus having other biological siblings, completely lacking a divine nature, the Helvidian Heresy opens the door to call into question the divine nature of Jesus himself. If Mary had five or more children and they were mere mortal men, then how could Jesus possibly be divine? Thus, Muslims would have stature in claiming that Jesus was a prophet, but not God.
See how this heresy works its poison? The heresy pulls the rug out from under Christianity.
- Timothy
Can someone be rightly called a heretic if they don't accept the authority of your church in the first place? A heretic is someone who dissents against the orthodoxy of a community of which they are or were a member. Scot is not a Catholic and does not accept all of the teachings of the Catholic Church as authoritative, thus he cannot be a heretic.
Or, I guess you could say that he is a part of the Protestant heresy, but in that case he's got much bigger problems than just his view of Mary, according to your church.
Personally, I can't speak for Scot, but I'm ambivalent about the perpetual virginity of Mary. On the one hand, I think the fact that at the crucifixion Christ told John to take care of Mary is a strong point in favor of Mary not having any other children.
However, on the other hand, I dislike some of the theological/cultural assumptions that underlie the doctrine, especially the belief that virginity=holiness (with the corresponding assumption that there is something inherently defiling about sexual intercourse). I think we've had just about enough of those kind of negative views of sex in the church over the centuries.
So really, I could go either way. I think it's likely that Mary had no other children, but I don't think there's any biblical basis for asserting perpetual virginity. Maybe Joseph was shooting blanks.
This is a good discussion, especially when we start dealing with the nature of "heresy"!
My Orthodox brother and I have had discussions about Mary's perpetual virginity, and I'm inclined to support it. NOT because I think sex is inherently sinful, or because I think Mary was sinless (which I don't). I agree with the Orthodox interpretation of Jesus' half-siblings and His entrusting Mary's care to John. It simply makes the most sense to me.
I think the insistence on Mary having other children is based primarily on an anti-Catholic (and thus, anti-Mary) attitude. "She's nothing special," we Prots have maintained. And so by affirming the Prot interpretation, McKnight in the end weakens his argument. I suppose he doesn't want to tip the scales in the other direction.
My final reason for believing in Mary's perpetual virginity is visceral: it would take a lot of chutzpah for Joseph to "know" Mary after she gave birth to the Son of God!
Blessings, Ben
Are we really to believe that in a cultural where wives were generally considered property to do with as one pleased, children (male children) were of highest regard, and that had yet to be influenced by conceptions that chastity=higher spirituality that Joseph never had sex with his wife? I can buy the miracle of the virgin birth, but to stretch cultural values that far is a little beyond me.
"... that Joseph never had sex with his wife? "
What was Mary's position in society prior to her marriage?
Who were Mary's parents and how did Mary come to be born?
How old was Joseph when he married Mary? (Hint: The young buck in the forthcoming nativity movie doesn't match the historical record.)
None of those questions are answered in the canon of Scripture, but the answers are found among the historical documents of the day.
What if Joseph was an elderly, pious Jew?
What if Mary were a virgin consecrated to God by her parents?
Would a pious, elderly Jewish man defile a virgin, consecrated to God from birth?
Finally, what of God's grace? Does God have the power to fill two of His chosen people with sufficient grace to avoid temptation?
How about just filling one with grace (Luke 1:28) and would that have been sufficient for both to avoid temptation?
- Timothy
None of those questions are answered in the canon of Scripture, but the answers are found among the historical documents of the day.
You overstate slightly... the answers to which you refer are found in church traditions and apocryphal documents that date several centuries after the time of Christ. In fact, most of the details about Mary and Joseph come from the apocryphal "History of Joseph the Carpenter" which dates from the 4th or 5th century.
Of course, the difference is that while you, as a Catholic, are bound to uphold such church traditions as authoritative, the rest of us, being mostly from a Protestant denomination, are free to weigh the evidence and determine for ourselves whether these documents seem reliable. I have no reason to think that they aren't, but I'm also not going to assume that they must be true because the church says so.
Would a pious, elderly Jewish man defile a virgin, consecrated to God from birth?
Yeah, see, that's kind of what I meant about the negative view of sex that this whole thing seems based on. Why should it be considered "defiling" to have sex with your wife? I don't buy that.
Oops... I forgot to also mention The Gospel of James which does date quite a bit closer to the original events (AD 150 - still a century and a half after the facts). But of course, this document was declared heretical by the Roman Catholic church around 495, so I guess it doesn't count.
Just a passing thought...
Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit" in Mary's womb.
Would it be godly for her to then conceive a child by Joseph in that same womb?
I dunno???
Felicia Swavely
PS. Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" may be a good place to start to understand the dignity, even holiness, of marital sex:
"Through the "redemption of our bodies," the Holy Spirit impregnates sexual desire "with everything that is noble and beautiful," with "the supreme value which is love" (October 22, 29, 1980
Sorry for not replying sooner. My youngest daughter made her professsion of faith last night.
"...this document was declared heretical by the Roman Catholic church around 495, so I guess it doesn't count."
Just because something contains heresy, doesn't mean that it doesn't contain truth. The book in discussion is a case in point. Just because the author prefers to perpetuate a heresy, doesn't mean that other parts of the book are not truthful. Mary did give birth to Jesus, our Lord.
"... you, as a Catholic, are bound to uphold such church traditions as authoritative,..."
Not necessarily so. Catholics are bound to follow their conscience. We are also bound to develop our conscience.
" Why should it be considered "defiling" to have sex with your wife?"
Possibly, because the wife was under a Nazirite Vow (Numbers 6).
I noticed that lack of any response to the questions regarding the sufficiency of God's grace. Is this consent by silence?
- Timothy
I have no disagreements with what you said about the sufficiency of God's grace. I just don't see why we should suppose it was necessary. I.e. I don't see why we should think that it would have been a "temptation" for Joseph and Mary to have sex. Do you have any evidence beyond these apocryphal documents to suggest that Mary did in fact take a Nazirite vow?
Again, I'm not closed to the possibility that Mary remained a virgin. I just don't see much reason to think that she did, and I don't much like the implications it has had on our view of sex over the centuries. Regardless of what John Paul II has said recently, the hard truth is that the much of the Church's teachings on sex over the past two millenia has in fact left a lot of people with the impression that sex is inherently evil and "defiling" and is a temptation to be avoided. This is a view that I think needs to be resisted and overcome, and IMHO, doctrines like Mary's perpetual virginity simply don't help the matter.
But of course, it could be true regardless of whether I like it or not. I just don't see much reason to think that it is.
Peace,
-Mike
Timothy wrote: "Not necessarily so. Catholics are bound to follow their conscience. We are also bound to develop our conscience."
Just a clarification....Although this statement is generally true, RC's ARE bound to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary as it is a doctrine of the RCC.
And Church teaching "trumps" conscience every time. :-)
Felicia Swavely
And Church teaching "trumps" conscience every time. :-)
Yeah, that would be a clear difference between a Catholic and Protestant approach to faith. :)
RE:
Felicia: "And Church teaching "trumps" conscience every time(in the RCC). :-)"
Mike: "Yeah, that would be a clear difference between a Catholic and Protestant approach to faith. :) "
*****************
You say that as if it's a bad thing. ;-)
Should one's conscience be relied upon above Church teaching? Is it ALWAYS reliable?
This is the direction of the EC---toward a personal understanding, not only of one's relationship with Jesus, but of faith in the larger sense.
Church history is proof positive that men and women of deep faith, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, can hold not only different but even opposing views on matters of faith and morals.
Shouldn't there be one source we can go to for the "final answer" when we ask ourselves, "What does Jesus/Scripture mean by that"? :-)
There once was---the Church, in the persons of the Apostles.
Is it possible to ever return to the beauty and simplicity of the 1st century church?
*************************
I Tim 3:15 "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. "
Matt 18: 15-18 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
*****************
What happened???? (***puts tongue in cheek***)
Peace,
Felicia Swavely
Post a Comment
<< Home