Two Marian dogmas often
attacked by Evangelical Christians are the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s
perpetual virginity. Both Catholics and Evangelicals can cite Scripture verses
that seem to uphold their side of the argument. In fact, these two topics accentuate
the limitations of a “Bible-only” approach to faith, for Scripture does not
explicitly proclaim one side or the other definitively to be right (if it did,
there would be no on-going debate.) So one has to necessarily accept the
limitations of Scripture to address these questions—it only takes us so far.
An Evangelical may
respond to this by saying: “The reason Scripture does not explicitly confirm or
deny these dogmas is because they focus on Mary instead of Jesus—the Gospel is
concerned with the Lord, not his mother, so ultimately these so-called dogmas
don’t matter.” A Catholic would counter with: “They matter because they don’t
stop with Mary—they ultimately point to Jesus, and who He is and what He means
for us. And for that we have to go beyond the limitations of Scripture.”
Rather than dive into
the perpetual whirlpool of these eternally circling arguments, I want to pose
this question to Evangelical Christians: What is it about these two Catholic
dogmas that strikes such a raw nerve? When you contemplate Mary’s unique
relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are either of these dogmas really
that outrageous or out of sync with basic Christology? And if so, why?
Let’s first take a look
at Mary’s unique relationship with the Holy Trinity with these excerpts from my
article “Mary: Not Just an Ovum Donor”:
“No Bible-believing
Christian can deny that Mary is the only woman in history to conceive a child
with the Holy Spirit instead of with a man. Nor would a Bible-believing
Christian belittle or diminish the sacred relationship between any two persons
who conceive a child in a covenant of love, or deny that this most intimate
interaction between persons involves a permanent commitment of love and trust,
and a distinct role to play in and for the duration of the lives of each other and
the child.
“The conception of Jesus
established Mary in a spousal relationship with the Holy Spirit, an exclusive
relationship to which no other woman has ever been privileged. To deny that
Mary enjoys this uniquely intimate relationship with the Holy Trinity—that the
Holy Spirit conceived the Father’s only Son with and within her, and through
her consent—is first of all to deny a basic Christian truth. To deny this also
reduces Mary to merely the ‘ovum donor’ for the Son of God; yet this is what
the Evangelical treatment of Mary implies….
“Evangelicals imply that
despite the Scriptures’ declarations of Mary as “favored one” and her exclusive
spousal union with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:28, 30, 35), that she is blessed
among women (Luke 1:42), that all ages will call her blessed (Luke 1:48), that
Mary shares in Jesus’ suffering [which the Scriptures tell us is for the
redemption of the world] (Luke 2:34-35), that Jesus was obedient to her as he
grew in wisdom and age and favor (Luke 2:51-52) and responded to her
intercession (John 2:1-5), that Mary’s role was simply to provide the ovum and
the womb, because anyone who does God’s will is Jesus’ mother—there is nothing
unique or efficacious about the motherhood of Mary.
“(In fact, to reduce
Mary to merely an ‘ovum donor,’ one must still acknowledge that the Savior of
the world came to the world through her. To then claim that her role in giving
Jesus to the world stopped there, that God just used her body parts and had
no use for her from there on, is to put God in the same place as a man who uses
a woman for a temporary purpose and then lets her go.)”
Given all this, is it
really that outrageous that the woman chosen for this unique, spousal
relationship with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit who would penetrate the most
intimate part of her to unite divinity and humanity fully and completely—flesh,
blood and spirit—would first be preserved from original sin in preparation for
this unique union of God and man? That the God who created the first woman in a
state of original, sinless justice at the first creation would create another
in the same state to begin His re-creation of mankind? That God would first
create an undefiled temple for His only Son to be conceived, gestate and be
born to the world?
Is this really that
outrageous? Why does it strike such a nerve?
Or that Mary, having
given birth to the Son of God, would remain a virgin the rest of her life, that
the gate of the temple through which the Lord passed would remain eternally
shut for that reason (Ezekiel 44:2)? That Joseph, her earthly spouse, out of
reverence for Mary’s Heavenly spouse would not honor the sacredness of that
relationship and refrain from entering the intimate sanctuary where divinity
and humanity joined in a unique and all-sacred manner?
Is this really that
outrageous? Why does it strike such a nerve?
