Iconoblog

Virgin on the Ridiculous

Happy New Year!

Apologies for the absence of posts over the seasonal period - being somewhat domiciliary challenged at present (homeless, for the uninitiated), I have found it difficult to get in front of a PC with an internet connection. Today I have to visit the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine for a jab, but as I have to prepare hymns for Sunday's services, I thought I would briefly blog and run at the same time.

I was going to write something on the Immaculate Conception of Mary this morning. Time won't really allow that, but after a few introductory comments, here are a couple of minutes on another equally strange Papal pronouncement - the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

We evangelicals need an element of care in how we speak of Mary. Timothy George's recent article in Christianity Today, while still jarring with me a little in places, helpfully reminds us of that.

Of course we need to emphasise the fact that Mary is no more special or influential for Christian people today than any other character in the NT. She isn't sinless, she didn't have an immaculate conception, she wasn't a perpetual virgin, she wasn't assumed into heaven, and she should never be prayed to, venerated, or cherished in statues or pictures. She has no mediatorial role, carries no authority as queen of heaven, and is certainly not a co-redemptrix. All of those things are contrary to the teaching of the bible and damaging to the souls of men. We do Mary no favours by unduly elevating her.

She is, however, a wonderful role model, a woman of faith, and dear to Christ. In our attempts to restrict her to the role and postition that is biblical, we must not go so far that we denigrate and disrespect her.

So to the issue of Perpetual Virginity. If I may say so, for our Roman friends to seriously suggest the everlasting virginity of the mother of Jesus, is virgin on the ridiculous. However you feel about the role of the magisterium in interpreting God's Word, you cannot claim and uphold things clearly denied on the page of Scripture.

It's all a matter of authority. On this issue there are no grey areas. You can't have two masters - it is God or the magisterium. Unless we wish to take scissors to Matthew 13: 55 and also to Mark 3: 31 - 35, Galatians 1: 19, 1 Corinthians 15:7 & John 7: 1 - 10, (leaving us with a NT looking more like a piece of snip-hole origami than the sole, sufficient and infallible guide to faith and conduct) we have no option but to concede subsequent children proceeding from Mary's womb. The presence of James, Jesus' half-brother in the Early Church is a little perplexing if he doesn't actually exist...

Considering the unbelief of the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the verses above, Psalm 69 is difficult to brush under the prophetic carpet:

"8 I have become a stranger to my brothers,
And an alien to my mother's children;
9 Because zeal for Your house has eaten me up,
And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me".

Aside from that, Matthew 1:24 - 25 is modest yet obvious - unless we re-interpret it slightly ("Mary! Hi, I'm Joe from Nazareth! Nice to make your acquaintance...)

When you shake the NT, Mary's subsequent minimum of 6 (count them!) other children fall out. If I may say so without sounding too offensive, it makes the refutation of this perplexing teaching seem about as difficult as shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel.

But hey, what do I know? All I have is a Bible... Wish I had the magisterium to help. Ho hum.