timeimmortal

The Annunciation is chronicled in the Gospel of Luke, and — along with the wedding at Cana — gives us the best glimpse into just who Mary was. For those who might be interested, it should be noted that the first half of the Hail Mary prayer is derived directly from Luke 1.

In the section concerning Mary as the New Ark, we looked at Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, and at how the yet-unborn John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice. This, of course, paralleled David’s leaping and shouting before the Ark of the Covenant, and is a part of Luke’s confirmation that Mary herself is the New Ark of the Covenant. Prior to this incident, though, is the actual Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her of God’s plan.

Let’s look closely at the Luke’s detail of the Annunciation.

[26]In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,

[27] to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Notice here the rather profound significance that Luke gives to Mary’s virginity — two mentions of it in a single verse. This could just be an attempt to give attention to the prophecy concerning the virgin who would conceive and bear a son, but it should be noted that even a goodly number of Jewish scholars note that the relevant passage from Isaiah is more properly translated as “the young woman shall conceive…”

That’s not to say that Isaiah was not referring to Mary, of course; he was. The point is that the emphasis on Mary’s virginity is significant above and beyond its relevance to prophecy. Luke is drawing our attention to it.

[28] And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

This is an off topic observation, but I might note that a slightly different translation of this greeting is basically the first like of the Hail Mary. “O favored one” is often translated as “full of grace”. The Greek term used is kecharitomene, which is always used as a description of a characteristic quality of a person, and its use here is an implication on the part of Luke that Mary was in a state of sanctifying grace at least at the time of the Annunciation (that is: prior to her being overshadowed by the Spirit), and possibly from the very beginning.

[29] But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.
[30] And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
[31] And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
[32] He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High;
and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
[33] and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever;
and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
[34] And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”

Luke 1:34 is the most significant line here, for a variety of reasons. First, it should be noted that the line has been translated in a variety of ways. The King James Version, for example, puts the line as follows: “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Other translations end her question with “since I am a virgin.” We’ve already discussed the concept of “know” as it is used in different parts of the Bible; I trust the meaning here is likewise understood by the Reader.

Now, let’s pause and consider something: why did Mary respond in this way?

Mary was betrothed to Joseph — we are told this directly. She was to be married to him in short order, although they had not dwelt in the same house at the time she conceived Christ — this is confirmed by the Gospel of Matthew (c.f. Matthew 1:18). Now, correct me if I am wrong, but if I walked up to a blue-eyed bride and remarked to her that her kids are probably going to have nice blue eyes as well, her response would probably not be “how can this be?” Indeed, if you were to talk to most brides, they probably wouldn’t express surprise if you noted that somewhere along the line there might be a baby or two that gets born.

And if any bride did respond with incredulity, what would that mean? Well, in our modern era, it probably means that either she has no idea what sex is, or that she and her husband have decided to make heavy use of various birth control methods. In the past, though, it could have either meant that the bride was indeed in need of a bit of a talking-to regarding “the birds and the bees”, or that she had elected to remain celibate even into marriage.

We’ve already covered how Jewish law allowed for just such an undertaking — that is, how it allowed for a young woman to take a vow of celibacy that her husband would have implicitly assented to if he did not object within the day he learned of the vow. We have likewise covered, O Reader, how if the husband were to withdraw his approval of the vow after that first day, the sin of breaking a promise to the Lord would not be upon the wife: it would be upon the husband. Joseph, being a righteous man, would certainly have been cognizant of this fact, and would not have acted to bring about an occasion of sin for either himself or his wife, if in fact Mary had taken such a vow.

Scripture does not explicitly confirm that she had made just such a vow, of course, but — in noting that point — we still have to come back to her response to the angel. Indeed, if we look at it in context, we note that of the two possible explanations for her incredulity (ignorance regarding sex & reproduction vs. vow of celibacy), only the explanation that she had taken a vow of celibacy makes sense.

Regardless of the translation, the nature of Mary’s response in Luke 1:34 confirms, at least, that she knows a thing or two about “the birds and the bees” — she understands that children are a natural result of sex. And even if somehow she did not understand sexuality to that extent, the angel spells it out plainly for her (c.f. Luke 1:31). So we can safely discard the possibility that Mary had absolutely no knowledge concerning the functional aspects of reproduction.

And if we assume that Mary was an observant Jew — that is, that she had found favour with the Lord in part due to her diligent (c.f. Deuteronomy 6:17) observation of the extant covenant between God and man — and that she was even partly aware of the tenets of the law of Moses, we can certainly assume that she knew what sex was, and what it was for. Mosaic law is full of ordinances concerning sexuality, after all.

So the only explanation for Mary’s incredulous response that makes sense at all is that she had intended to live out her days under a vow of perpetual virginity.

Possible Objection #3: what about Matthew 1:24-25? It says very clearly that Joseph took Mary as his wife, “but knew her not until she had borne a son.” This completely confirms that they must have had sex after the birth of Jesus.

Response to Objection #3: the Greek word that is translated as “until”, heos, does not always imply a reversal. Consider its use in Matthew 28:20:

And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.

Are we to infer, then, that Jesus will not be with us after the end of the age? Of course not…but if we are to be consistent in our interpretation of Scripture, we should take care and make sure that when we interpret Matthew’s earlier description of the state of marital relations between Mary and Joseph, we do not interpret the verse in a way that we would not dare use to interpret a later verse in the same Gospel account.

Possible Objection #4: but in Matthew 1:25, the term used is heos hou. This is a different phrasing than in Matthew 28:20. It must imply a reversal.

Response to Objection #4: actually, it doesn’t; it is, as Clay Randall notes, “a Koine Greek shorthand for the phrase heos hou chronou en hoi (translated “until the time when”) and both phrases do not always mean a reversal of the condition being described in the main clause; for example:

“And when Paul appealed that he be held in custody for the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar” (Acts 25:21)

Does this mean that Paul was no longer in custody by the time he was sent to Caesar? No.

Consider Matthew 13:33, “the kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of wheat flour until the whole batch was leavened” Does this mean that once the batch was leavened, the woman removed the yeast? Of course not.”

Randall also provides a list of other passages of Scripture in which “until” is used in a non-reversing manner: “Genesis 8:7, 26:13, Numbers 20:17, Deuteronomy 2:15, 34:6, 2 Kings 6:25, 1 Chronicles 6:32, 2 Chronicles 21:15, 2 Chronicles 26:15, Judith 14:8, Judith 15:5, Tobit 2:4, Psalm 57:1, Psalm 72:7, Psalm 110:1, Psalm 123:2, Psalm 141:10, Psalm 142:7, Ecclesiastes 2:3, Song of Solomon 1:12, 2 Samuel 6:23, Isaiah 14:2, 33:23, Ezekiel 24:13, 1 Maccabees 5:54, Matthew 13:33, Matthew 14:22, Matthew 16:28, Matthew 18:34, Matthew 26:36, Matthew 28:20, John 4:49, Romans 8:22, 1 Corinthians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 15:25, Ephesians 4:13, 1 Timothy 4:13, 1 Timothy 6:14, 2 Peter 1:19, Revelation 2:25-26.”

And since what is at really under discussion here is a Greek phrase, then if we look at the Septuagint we can note that in the Old Testament, the following passages feature an example of heos hou specifically, in which it is used in a non-reversing manner: “Genesis 26:13, Deuteronomy 2:15, 2 Kings 6:25, 1 Chronicles 6:32, 2 Chronicles 21:15, 2 Chronicles 26:15, Judith 14:8, Judith 15:5, Tobit 2:4, Tobit 2:5, Psalm 57:1, Psalm 72:7, Psalm 123:2, Psalm 141:10, Psalm 142:7, Ecclesiastes 2:3, Song of Solomon 1:12, Isaiah 33:23, Ezekiel 24:13.”

Now, as the Reader can see, we are beginning to jump all over the Bible here. This, then, gives us a very natural entrance into the next part of our discussion: how Mary is referenced in the rest of the Gospels, and how these other references pertain to her perpetual virginity.

Within several Christian denominations, but especially Catholicism, the Blessed Virgin Mary is known by several different titles, one of which is “the New Ark”. In fact, within Catholic theology, Mary’s revelation as the New Ark of the Covenant forms an integral piece of the justification for the Catholic belief in her perpetual virginity, as well as for her unique place and role within Christ’s plan of salvation for all people.

That’s not just some whimsical Catholic invention, mind you; it is right there in the Bible. Looking back at what we covered regarding hermeneutics, and reading the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, we can see that Scripture itself justifies the belief that Mary is indeed the New Ark: the language used to describe Mary during her pregnancy with the Lord very neatly parallels the language used to describe the Ark of the Covenant.

Brant Pitre notes that “a case can be made that the Ark is in fact an Old Covenant type that points forward to a new Ark, and that this new Ark of the Covenant is the Virgin Mary. Although we don’t have the space to go into detail here, suffice it to say that numerous Catholic commentators have noted that Luke’s account of the Annunciation bears striking parallels with the Old Testament accounts of the consecration of the Ark (Exodus 40) and the bringing of the Ark by David into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 15). Compare the following:

1. The Descent of the Glory Cloud
The glory of the Lord and the cloud cover the Tabernacle (containing the Ark) and “overshadow” (episkiazen) them (Exod 40:34-35, cf. v. 3).

The Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and the power of the Most High “overshadows” (episkiasei) her (Luke 1:35).

2. The Ark Goes into the Hill Country
David “arose and went” to the hill country of Judah to bring up “the ark of God” (2 Samuel 6:2).

Mary “arose and went” into the hill country of Judah to visit Elizabeth (Luke 1:39).

3. How Can the Ark Come to Me?
David admits his unworthiness to receive the Ark by exclaiming: “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)

Elizabeth admits her unworthiness to receive Mary by exclaiming: “And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)

4. Leaping and Shouting Before the Ark
David “leaped” before the Ark as it was brought in “with shouting” (2 Samuel 6:15-16)

John “leapt” in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice and Elizabeth cried “with a loud shout”: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed in the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:41-42)

5. The Ark Stays for 3 Months
The Ark remained in the hill country, in the house of Obed-Edom, for “three months” (2 Samuel 6:11)

Mary remained in the hill country, in Elizabeth’s house, “three months” (Luke 1:56)

In light of these startling parallels, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke is highlighting the parallels between Mary and the old Ark of the Covenant to suggest that she is New Ark. Just as glory cloud had overshadowed the Tabernacle in the Old Testament, so that God might dwell among men, so now the Holy Spirit overshadows Mary, so that the Word becomes flesh and “tabernacles” among us (John 1:14). The New Ark is Mary’s body. Just as the old Ark housed the 10 Commandments, the Manna, and the Priestly Rod of Aaron, so too the New Ark houses the Word of God, the Bread of Life, the True Priest.

Now, should there be any doubt that these parallels between the Old and New Testaments in the Gospel of Luke are drawing a connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, it should be recalled that these are not the only texts in the New Testament that connect the Ark and Mary. In another famous text, the revelation of the location of the Ark — in heaven — is juxtaposed with a vision of the Mother of the Messiah — also in heaven:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars… (Revelation 11:19-12:2)

Clearly, there appears to be some connection between these two figures: both the Ark and the Woman appear in God’s Temple “in heaven.” Moreover, a strong case can be made that the woman — who is an individual, just like the “child” (Jesus) and the “dragon” (Satan) mentioned in the same passage are (Rev 12:3-4)—is indeed Mary, the Mother of the Messiah.

In light of passages such as these, Mary was revered in the ancient Church — and continues to be revered today in the Catholic Church — as the new “Ark” of the Covenant.”

It would take a very deliberately blinded person to deny that the woman, clothed in the Sun and giving birth to the child within the apocalyptic vision that is the Book of Revelation, is in fact Mary, the Theotokos, the mother of Christ who is God enfleshed.

Now, as I noted, the belief that Mary is in fact the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Ark, is an integral piece of the Catholic belief that Mary remained perpetually virginal unto the day of her Assumption into Heaven. The significance is that Joseph, being a faithful Jew, would certainly have understood the significance of Mary’s pregnancy, for he was specifically told by the angel that the child within her womb was holy, and from the Holy Spirit (c.f Matthew 1:20). Out of his earnest Jewish faith, it is likely that Joseph would have immediately grasped to deeper significance of what he was being told, and would have understood that the womb of his wife was a dwelling place of the Lord — the holiest of holies, akin to the innermost area of the Temple.

Now, let’s think about where we’ve gone before, up to this point. We noted that in the Book of Leviticus, even a sexual act between husband and wife would result in ritual defilement until the next evening, provided that there was a discharge of semen that resulted from it. We also know, from numerous descriptions and passages within the Bible, that Jews held the Ark of the Covenant not only in high regard, but in fearful esteem; the power of the Ark was well-attested, and in the common practice of the Jewish Religion only the high priest could enter into its holy presence. It was death to the enemies of the Hebrew people, and full of the power of God.

In short, the Ark ought to have inspired reverence, and yet a most dreadful fear, in the hearts of all who knew its purpose and power. And for the average Jew, it did just that.

We know from Scripture that Joseph was a faithful, righteous Jew who followed the law of Moses. For Joseph, the Ark would indeed have been the holiest of holies, something which he would be (rightly!) fearful to approach, if he beheld it. Of course, at the time that Joseph learned that Mary, his bride-to-be, was with child, the Ark had long been absent from the Temple. But the tabernacle was still present, and every Jew understood its meaning. Joseph certainly would have understood it.

And it is Joseph who provides us with our first hint, in the New Testament that Mary was indeed a virgin for all her days after the birth of Christ. Joseph feared to take Mary as a wife, and had to be reassured by the angel that it was the Lord’s will that he do so (c.f. Matthew 1:20). Why would Joseph feel fear? Granted, the passage appears in the context of Joseph suspecting Mary of adultery, and in our modern, sex-saturated culture it would be only too easy to eisegetically assume that this was the source of his fear; the law of Moses imposed a harsh penalty on any man who consorted with an adulteress.

But that isn’t really what the angel is saying, is it? The angel tells Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife — that is, Joseph is not to be afraid of Mary herself. And while it seems strange to our sex-saturated culture to think so, the view of Christians throughout history has been that what Joseph actually feared was Mary’s sanctity. The angel assured Joseph that the child within her womb was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and it is reasonable to expect that Mary, once Joseph learned of her pregnancy, had shared with him the angel’s own words to her (c.f. Luke 1:35). Taken together, these facts would have surely given Joseph pause, and would certainly have made him piously fearful of the body of his wife-to-be, as surely as any faithful Jew would be afraid of the power and sanctity of the Ark.

Thus, I ask you: approximately how anxious do you, O Reader, suppose that Joseph would be to defile, even if only until the evening, the woman standing before him with a holy child from the Lord within her womb? How anxious do you suppose Joseph would be to defile that which was as holy as the very Ark itself, knowing (as he would certainly have known) that for him to engage in even normal marital sexual relations with Mary would have brought about a customary, temporary ritual defilement upon both her and him?

Now, up to this point, O Reader, we haven’t directly examined the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity as can be justified directly from Scripture. That is coming up next, and will take us first into the Gospel of Luke. With a little luck, I’ll even get it written today…if not, rest assured that it will be the first thing I work on come tomorrow.

The Book of Leviticus is an interesting read, although it should be noted that the shifts in topic can be rather glaring at times. Leviticus 14 seems primarily concerned with leprosy and the response of the community to a leper, and Leviticus 16 concerns the “holy place” (presumably there the Ark of the Covenant was kept), and also discusses sin offerings. And wedged between these two wildly divergent topics is Leviticus 15, which concerns male and female “discharges”.

The first half of Leviticus 15 concerns seminal discharge by a man, and concludes its treatise on the attendant ritual uncleanliness that accompanies a discharge of semen with the following observation:

[18] If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening.

I don’t think it needs to be said that when one is reading the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch, one should be mindful of the common euphemisms for sex. In the Book of Genesis, the term “know” is the typical euphemism for sexual intercourse; “lies with” is also used quite often, especially in the articulation of the law of Moses.

Possible Objection #1: We could just take “lies with” at its plain meaning, and assume that it does not refer to any actual act of sexual congress.

Response to Objection #1: True enough. But were we to concede that point, we would likewise have to concede that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not refer to any homosexual sex act. And I think most faithful Christians would disagree with just such a conclusion.

Anti-Marian Christians tend to believe that even if Mary did have sexual intercourse, this would not would not have prevented her from e.g. being called “blessed” of all nations. This is technically true, but where some anti-Marians have gone wrong is with the assumption that, under Jewish law, “sex in marriage is not sinful”, that “Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph, her husband.”

Let us come back to Leviticus 15:18, then. The verse would seem to suggest that, according to Jewish law, any sexual act between a man and a woman that results in an emission of semen renders both man and woman unclean until the evening. It’s a minor defilement, admittedly, but it is still a ritual defilement.

Jumping ahead to Leviticus 20:10, we note that adulterers — male and female — are to be put to death. Given the absence of mention of any death penalty in Leviticus 15, it is probably safe to assume — since pre-marital and extra-marital sex carry death penalties under Levitical Law (c.f. Levititus 20, almost the entire chapter) — that Leviticus 15:18 refers to normal sexual relations between husband and wife (or between a man and a slave woman, as per Leviticus 19:20-22, but that is another matter).

Let us be clear, then: if a husband and wife have sex, and if there is a discharge of semen as a result of that sexual act, then this results in a minor ritual defilement for both man and woman: both are unclean until the evening (presumably, this means the next evening). So when the concerned anti-Marian Christian objects that proper marital sexual relations do not bring defilement upon the couple, he or she is actually incorrect, and perhaps a bit ignorant of Levitical Law.

I will grant, of course, that Christians do not need to follow all the ordinances of the Law of Moses (although most Christians tend to think that at least a few select ordinances thereof are still binding), because Christ has fulfilled the law. But let us not forget that both Mary and Joseph were Jews, not Christians, and would have lived according to the law. Had they had any sexual relations, they would certainly have observed the tenets of the law pertaining to seminal discharge…and in doing so, they would have been following the extant covenant between God and mankind at the time.

Now, it would be tempting to jump ahead at this point and begin looking at, for example, the Gospel of Luke. However, before we do that, we need to look at the Book of Numbers for a moment, and at what I am sure is, for many Christians, a little-known aspect of Jewish religious devotion: vows of sexual abstinence taken by women, married and unmarried.

Often, when raising opposition to the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, Christians will insist that we take Scripture at its plain meaning, that we pay attention to the “clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.” The latter sentiment is a good one; the former is not.

How should we approach Scripture, hermeneutically speaking? This could make for a lengthy topic in and of itself, I suppose, and then one I don’t have much time to get into in detail. Most anti-Marian Christians that I have encountered tend to suggest that we employ a firmly literal hermeneutic when interpreting Scripture, and that (as noted above) we take what is written in the Bible at its plain meaning.

The problem with insisting on the use of literal hermeneutics, and with insisting that Scripture be taken at its “plain meaning”, is that nobody really does that with any kind of consistency. Let me put that more plainly: no Christian ever takes Scripture at its plain meaning at every opportunity — indeed, many of us are often guilty of a certain hypocrisy when we insist upon just such an approach. More often than not, what we really mean when we insist on taking things at their plain meaning is: “let us use my interpretation of Scripture; let us take it at what I say its meaning is.”

That’s a rather harsh thing to say, I admit, but let’s consider a few examples. There is not a perfect 1:1 correlation between anti-Marianism and a rejection of e.g. Eucharistic doctrine, but most of the Christians I’ve met who denounce the perpetual virginity of Mary as a flawed Catholic teaching tend to likewise denounce the Eucharist — the real, literal presence of Christ in the bread and wine — as false. And yet, if we take John 6 at its plain meaning, we should have no other choice but to assume that Christ intended for us to receive that which was literally his flesh and blood in our repetition of the Last Supper.

[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

There’s really no two ways about that: if our hermeneutic is to always take Scripture at its most obvious meaning, on a passage-by-passage basis, then we should all be Eucharistic Christians. That we are not all Eucharistic Christians means that we do not always take Scripture at its plain meaning; we only do so when it is convenient to the point we are making.

But let’s take a few more generalized examples, to better illustrate the point. Consider Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:

[27]“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’

[28] But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
[29] If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into Hell.
[30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Taking this passage at its plain meaning, it would be very easy for Christians to justify, say, plucking out the eye of a person caught reading Playboy magazine. Likewise, it would be very easy for Christians to justify lopping off the hands of thieves. And yet, no legal system which as a Judeo-Christian basis to it issues such punishments; moreover, many Christians rightly denounce Islamic countries which do effect such disfiguring punishments upon convicted criminals. Here again, then, we see that we do not always take Scripture at its plain meaning; we only do so out of convenience, when it suits our point to do so.

Similarly, rare indeed is the Christian who takes the Book of Revelation at its plain meaning. The last book of the Bible is full of fantastic imagery and whimsical creatures; it simply cannot be taken at any kind of plain meaning, but is instead widely understood to be a profound metaphor, both for things to come and for things that have already transpired (Revelation is not just an eschatological prophecy; there is strong evidence to suggest that it was also intended as a message of hope to the persecuted churches of the day, using its amazing imagery to describe events happening under the reign of Nero).

In like manner, rare is the Christian who takes James 2:20-24 at its plain meaning — to do so would be to advocate for works-based salvation, which is of course incorrect. Similarly, when Christians look at the Song of Songs, we do not take it at its plain meaning, at least not directly. That book of the Bible mentions God very rarely (you can easily count the instances of His mention in it on one hand, and then probably without using all five digits), and at its most basic meaning is nothing more than page after page of erotic love poetry, a back-and-forth dialogue between two lovers. The most plain meaning at which Christians take that book’s contents is as a powerful image of the love that should bless the marital union of man and woman; more often, however, the Song of Songs is understood as a metaphorical image of the intensity of God’s love for humanity, which Paul tells us is imaged in the marital union (c.f. Ephesians 5:21-33).

To put it plainly, then, and succinctly: no Christian takes Scripture at its plain meaning at every opportunity — were we all to do so, we would all be Eucharistic in our faith practice, and we would lop the hands off of convicted thieves. Taking the plain meaning of what is written in Scripture can be an important hermeneutical step, to be sure, but it is not a valid hermeneutic on its own. Indeed, Paul confirms this when he instructs us to hold to the traditions by which we were taught (2 Thes 2:15), and to trust in the Church — the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) — to reveal the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10) according to those traditions.

This, then, begins to point us in new direction by which we should attempt to understand Scripture and its teachings, and it is this direction which I propose to use in the analysis that follows: let us take Scripture at its intended meaning.

Of course, this is a difficult proposition. Living as we do nearly 2,000 years after the authors of the New Testament, and many additional centuries after the authors of the Old Testament, it is impossible for us to fully know the minds, or the intent, of those who wrote the various books of the Bible. We can only see in a mirror dimly, and can know only in part.

But we are not totally blind, either. The Spirit wove its breath and intent through the whole of Scripture (c.f. 2 Timothy 3:16-17), and one truth cannot contradict another. Therefore, it must be the case that there exists a coherency between the teaching of any one particular part of Scripture and the whole of Scripture.

Jesus actually gives us an example of this principle in action, when he met Cleopas and the other disciple on the road to Emmaus (c.f. Luke 24:13-31). He opened the Scriptures to the two men and, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. He didn’t just enumerate His own teachings, or his own acts, but tied all of those things into the broader picture of history and prophecy, demonstrating the consistency of the whole of Scripture as it pertained to His own life, death, and resurrection.

That’s a lesson for us, in our own attempts to make sense of Scripture and its teachings; it is the model for our own hermeneutics. We should take care to consider each passage and teaching in Scripture in the context of the whole of the Bible. This helps us form an understanding not only of the intent of the authors of any particular part of Scripture (who would, of course, have been mindful of other, pre-existing written texts that eventually became the books of the Bible), but of the intent of the Spirit when and as it inspired them.

So, as we turn now to the formal matter of Mary’s perpetual virginity, let us attempt to take Scripture not at its most plain meaning, but at its intended meaning. To do that, we must first journey into the Old Testament, to help us understand a few things about Judaism, the law of Moses, sex and marriage within that paradigm, and celibacy.

Let’s begin with the Book of Leviticus.

It is interesting to note how quick many Christians are to take the worldly view and deny that Mary, after giving birth to Christ, remained celibate for the remainder of her days. Exactly why some Christians feel the need to argue against Mary’s virginity mystifies me — did not Paul teach us that to remain celibate for the sake of the Kingdom was a high calling indeed? (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7) Is it not possible that Mary chose this path of devotion for herself, knowing that it was pleasing to the Lord? Is it not possible that Joseph, her faithful and righteous husband, would have been unwilling to defile his wife in the sexual act (c.f. Leviticus 15) after her body had given birth to the Son of God, meaning in turn (as Luke reminds us, in how he structures his account of the Annunciation) that she was the New Ark of the Covenant?

We live in a sex-obsessed world, and moreover we live in a world which has been getting more sex-obsessed as the centuries have rolled along. Look back at the early church; even in Martin Luther’s time, as well as long before that, the virginity of Mary was an accepted part of Christian teaching. Martin Luther certainly believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and it should be noted that his tomb is inscribed with an image of the Assumption of Mary, the Blessed Virgin.

Indeed, the mainstreaming of the denial of Mary’s virginity is a fairly recent thing, and I think it has quite a lot to do with the direction the world’s attitude toward sex has taken. Many Christians don’t even want to acknowledge that Mary is, according to the Bible, to be called “blessed” by all nations (and then presumably in all ages). I would wager that many Christians also don’t want to admit, with any kind of frequency, that Mary is the foremost example of Christian devotion to the will of the Lord.

And I’d wager, following along from that, that many Christians, too worldly in their thinking about sexuality, don’t want to consider the possibility that the Mother of the Son, the foremost example of Christian devotion to God’s divine will, she who is “blessed” to all the nations, the woman clothed with the Sun…was also virginal for the remainder of her life on Earth. The Church sets forth this example against the changes of the ages, as a reminder to all that God’s way is a higher way, above the whims and fancies of men. The example of Mary is many lessons all bundled into one, not the least of which is that the world does not revolve around pelvic issues, despite what the magazines tell us.

Lately, though, this special recognition of Mary has been dismissed, by some Christians, as a “vain philosophy” and a “tradition of men”, yet one more example of how Scripture has apparently been “twisted” by the Church. This despite the fact that historically, Christians of all stripes have accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary as factual.

Moreover, the Catholic belief (and, by extension, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox belief) concerning Mary’s perpetual virginity is attacked as being against Scripture. Verses that are often cited in support of this claim are sourced from all four of the Gospels, and much of the rest of the New Testament, and include verses which reference the “brothers and sisters” of Christ (Matthew 13:55-56, Acts 1:14), logistical analysis of e.g. the flight to Egypt (c.f. Matthew 2:13-15), or the implication of sexual relations between Mary and Joseph after the birth of Christ (Matthew 1:25).

Were I of a more facetious bent, I might opt to congratulate an anti-Marian Christian for citing such verses, which the Church has obviously never encountered in its nearly 2,000-year history. Surely the existence of these new-found passages from the New Testament must be immediately brought to the attention of the Pope, I might suggest, and the whole of Catholic doctrine concerning the Blessed Virgin must be re-examined (if not cast down entirely). Because we all know that no Catholic has ever read the first few chapters of the Gospel of Matthew!

Actually, the Church is fully cognizant of the existence of these passages of Scripture, and yet stubbornly continues to promulgate the doctrine — long-accepted by the vast majority of Christians, it should be noted — that Mary remained virginal even after the birth of Jesus. Indeed, Catholic doctrine pertaining to the virginity of Mary makes reference to many of the same verses that are often thrown out against it!

How can this be?

Well, as it turns out, the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is actually supported in Scripture; moreover, it is supported by all of Scripture, not just a handful of carefully chosen (read: cherry-picked) verses. I will be exploring this as thoroughly as I can as the day rolls on, beginning with what might be, for some, an unexpected foray into the Old Testament. But to get there, we have to take a detour through a discussion of hermeneutics.

The Anchoress has a touching, powerful reflection up that captures the raw power of marital love just too well:

This week, in the Boston Globe, I read the story of an elderly couple named Sol and Rita Rogers. They’ve been married 61 years. They’ve raised a family and lived a long and happy life together. A few years ago, that began to change. Rita developed . And she is slipping deeper and deeper into dementia.

Several weeks ago, she was taken to a health care center, where she now has to live. The first few days, she screamed and talked incoherently. She could barely form words with her mouth. Most tragically, she could no longer recognize her husband. She had no idea who he was. This was agony for him. He would go home from visiting her, trembling with grief, overwhelmed by sadness.

One morning, he went into her room, and saw her lying there and had an idea — an idea, he said, that could only have come from God. Sol climbed into his wife’s tiny twin bed, and put his arms around her. And he just held her. He hugged her. He whispered to her. That’s all. But something happened. As he put it, “I got into bed with her and loved her and it lifted my depression.” And Rita was transformed, too. She responded to his touch. And she began to talk.

He now does it every day. Rita’s doctor says that her “old memory” recalls being in his arms, remembers how he used to hold her, and part of her is able to come back.

Now Sol spends a couple of hours of every day, just holding Rita, telling her he loves her, and she tells him she loves him. Just as they have for 61 years.

I can’t think of a more beautiful example of what married love is all about — for better or for worse, in sickness and in health. The venerable Matt Talbot said that it is constancy that God wants. Persistence. Perseverance. Sol Rogers had that — and more.

Read on… this is a powerful and masterful exposition and when I read it, it gave me goosebumps. The story of Sol’s love for his wife is astonishing and moving, but more than that this is something we really need to read and absorb. It is is a reminder that life cannot be looked at as a purely utilitarian venture — that while one lives, one is entitled to the life one has, especially if there is a person — one single person on earth - who is willing to love that life. And even if not.

We forget that at our terrible peril.

There are those who believe that nothing is ever truly done for selfless reasons, and I often lament the narrow and limited worldview that such people must possess to form such a narrow, and then cynical, view of life. Chesterton once noted that it is only on those, who continue to hold on for a while past the point at which all hope has faded, that hope begins to dawn. I think that is very much the case for Sol Rogers, who instead of giving in to what anyone would have excused as a very natural despair over his wife’s condition, instead chose to love her even more, and to act on that.

And the results? Admittedly, there is a natural explanation for the change that transpired…but then, whoever said that God did not effect miracles by natural means?

Marital love is fruitful love, and we often think of that in the somewhat limited terms of children and procreation. And indeed, for most married couples, “fruitfulness” has quite a lot to do with that. But the example of Sol and Rita Rogers is another example of fruitfulness, of a very different kind, but still very much a natural outcome of the marital sacrament. It is still life-giving, in that the very act of compassionate love becomes the bridge by which Rita Rogers is able to cross back over, for a time, from her dementia. And it images the powerful, healing, compassionate love of Christ in that way.

As married love always should.

Please pray for the repose of the soul of Father Stan Lasko, who passed away last week at the age of 46.

Father Stan presided over my marriage to Grace, and was a faithful, earnest priest who brought God’s word to his parish in Vermilion, Alberta with a reverent love for Christ. He was also a gentle person, a giant teddy bear of a man. His funeral will be held today, August 15th, in Edmonton, at St. Joseph’s Basilica, and his ashes will be sent back to Poland following that for interment there.

His obituary can be viewed here; condolences and memorial testaments can be left there, if the Reader wishes.

Update: for all those who have asked me, I do not know the circumstances surrounding Father Stan’s passing. I only know that he passed away in Vermilion last Wednesday, in the rectory of Holy Name Catholic Church. I hope I speak for many when I thank you for your care and concern, but please understand that I only know that he has passed away, and that Bishop Richard Smith will preside over his funeral this coming Friday.

…just like sometimes we do not. None of us is perfect, and some of them make legitimate points.

But, their indoctrination is not different than ours, so if we are wrong to do it by their standards, then they ought not to, as Ken rightly notes. And if pursuing the truth is a worthy ultimate aim, the aim expressed in the article of using “all the tools of science and humanity” is good, if incomplete in its application because it denies some basic parts of humanity and is not ’science’.

A short response to a few of the dumber statements concerning that summer camp for skeptics:

“It seems kind of like an accident almost, like the Big Bang that created the universe was an accident…It was a beautiful mistake or something.”

Aside from the multiple uses of subjunctive or probabilistic phrasing, the thought behind this is interesting. To think that the Big Bang (or, whatever the physicalist will call the originating moment of the universe, be it the explosion or the proximal excitement of quantum fields before the explosion or whatever first cause they posit) was an accident or a mistake indicates a few possibilities. First, that the claimant is of the opinion that, despite the flawed nature of humanity and our understanding of the universe, that somehow the origin of the universe was somehow wrong. This is very presumptuous and puts the claimant in a “god’s point of view” or an onmiscient third party position. That any human is not knowledgable of all the knowledge humanity knows let alone all that is knowable and can never fully detach oneself from the first person persepective undercuts this possibility if one is to be rational.*

Another possibility is that the claimant, in a similar fashion to the above, can distinguish random chance from other possibilities. Other than the presumption, given that, when tested, people generally can not generate truly random sequences of coin tosses (perhaps experts in statistics can) it is improbable that humans can determine whether the confluence of variables, that we theists sometimes call anthropic principles, which operate in the origin and continuation of the universe are random or not. By what methodology can we, for example, determine whether the explosive force at Planck time (which, if fractionally more or less powerful, would not have resulted in the universe) was random. I know of none, but to claim our existence a result of chance we would have to be able to have such a methodology and test it, as we can with coins, if we are to be rational.*

“but the thrust of the camp is to teach children to think skeptically about everything, including Religion and the supernatural.”

But not science or the human intellect it would seem. To be a true skeptic, whether Academic or Pyhronhic, one must doubt the truth of anything that can be doubted. A classic example is Descartes‘ First Meditation in which the agent is unable to trust the workings of his mind or her senses. The only truth that remains is that the agent exists because he exists if his thinking is true and she exists if her thinking is false because in either case the agent is thinking something. If they do become true skeptics, they, technically, would not fear anything, including stepping in front of a bus, since they can not trust their senses.

What the camp is actually doing is training them to think, at best, empirically and, more likely, scientistically. They are supposed to trust their senses and only those statements issued by the senses are to be held as true, so long as they can be tested by others. Personal experiences, such as the presence of God as He forgives, heals, unites, or feeds an agent are not acceptable because they are not testable.

Thus, the author is not well versed in the actual meanings of words as opposed to their colloquial misuse.

“People are like, ‘Oh, fossils are planted and they aren’t really real’…Well, if the whole theory of evolution is just like a ruse or a prank, we’ve done a really good job. We’re really good at pranking people.”

Ad hominem. The article later seems to pick on Catholics a little bit and Christians in general, but the Catholic magisterium and many well educated Christians across denominational lines recognize the legitimacy of evolution. That all theists are grouped together under “people” is very disingenuous of the camp leaders and the author as it places the weakest position in theism (both scripturally/theologically and scientifically) as representative.

“As soon as someone mentions faith in an argument, the argument is over,” says 15-year-old Ryan Lee, who skipped high school and is entering his junior year of college in Arizona. “Faith and the scientific method can’t be combined in the same argument.”

So, the scientist’s argument is over once he admits to his faith in the empirical process or in the veracity of his sense experience? And why does faith end an argument? Is faith always right? Does it invalidate everything else said? And does faith need to be used or merely mentioned? If I say “Socrates was a man, men are mortal, God is good, thus Socrates is mortal” is my argument unsound or invalid?

Why is a junior in college going to summer camp? And, does the fact that he is a junior mean that his statements are more sound? Does having a doctorate mean that someone is more intelligent than someone else? Or simply more prosperous and educated? If he is speaking outside of his experience and education, he is no better than anyone else.

Well, if we grant that the universe is random chance (which seems unlikely) then from where do we get our assumption that the universe is such that we can study it and yeild fruitful results? Such results are less likely to be found in a universe ruled by chance (and by chance, I do not mean the indeterminacy of, say, quantum physics in which the specific outcome of event X is unknown but its probability is known, but where indeterminacy is more broadly and deeply present — QM still has a sense of order, but not determinacy) than in an ordered universe. Can “God orders the universe” be a sound assumption in a scientific process? I think so. Thus, science and faith can coexist in an argument.

“Bupp says polls show that people who believe in reason, not God, are among the fastest growing groups in America. And this camp is designed to teach children to investigate and question everything. They study fossils, they learn about Morality without religion, they meet an expert who debunks mysteries like weeping icons and ghosts and crop circles.”

Hmmm…God in Christ is Logos - Reason - made flesh. Why do ‘rational’ people seem to think that God and reason are, and only can be, mutually exclusive? Should they be skeptical of dichotomies? If they are skeptical about everything, then yes. But, they are not skeptics, only scientistics.

Also, if ’skeptics’ are among the fastest growing groups, a) are, say, Muslims growing faster? but more importantly, b) a group growing from 10k to 20k or 100k to 200k or 1m to 2m may be growing at a rate of 100% in the time period, but if Christians were to grow at that rate, they would go from ~240m of a 300m population to 480m of a 300m population. Theists can not grow as fast because they are a supermajority of the population. But they may grow 5m members for every 1m skeptics. They are still growing bigger.

Again, do they question their senses or the scientific method?

Also, what sort of morality? Utilitarianism, which objectifies people? Kant’s deontology? But why should I follow what reason tells me or what the utlity calculus prescribes? From where does anything other than me get worth?

Yeah, weeping icons and crop circles are so the same thing. And ghosts and cropcircles are believed in by all theists. Just because a scientific explanation can be given for something does not mean that that something is not mysterious. An icon that weeps a red-purple chemical due to a reaction of parts of its composition with water does not explain why the water and the parts reacted on, say, the feast day of the figure described in the icon on which the country the figure is a patron for was brutally attacked by an enemy.

“As an educator, I like to teach critical thinking at a deep and erudite level, because it’s not embedded in the curriculum as much as I’d like to see,” McQuaig says. “And this provides a place for kids to talk about deep questions that many into adulthood don’t even consider and contemplate.” Are they trying to create little atheists? “Absolutely not!” McQuaig says. “We want to create little thinkers. Little thinkers that explore their own capacity and the external world, with all of the tools of science and humanity. That’s why we’re here.”

I am all for deeper and more erudite education. But when students in the age group of the camp sometimes have trouble finding the answers to questions like “what was the French reaction to the American Revolution” in a short text that reads, in part, “The French saw the advancement of liberty in America and decided to fight for it” there is, perhaps, a reason, especially with our currently mainstreamed educational practice, to have a ‘dumbed down’ curriculum.

Oh, and why is ’skepticism’ or empiricism automatically assumed as the only legitimate form of deeper and more erudite education? Questions like “What happens after death?”, “What is and why should I be good?”, “Why am I here?”, “What is the ultimate nature of the universe?”, “Who am I?” are routinely addressed, at least in my experience, in religious schools before students reach adulthood. Again, why assume science = thinking? Is not faith a “tool of humanity”?

“As soon as they read Richard Dawkins,” he counters, “I win.”

How? I could just as easily say “As soon as they read Thomas Aquinas, I win.” but it is not nearly so simple.

“If God really, really wanted us to know he existed, he’d make daily appearances: Like ‘It’s 3:15. Oh, it’s God time!’”

Well, it is all His time, but…how can one know that the gentleman who helped you pick up your groceries or the lady who offered a comforting smile on the bus was not God mimicking a human being or a human being representing god through his or her own agency? Why do some need the whiz-bangery of miraculous appearances to even begin to contemplate God’s existence?

Why be scared of not existing? As the ancient Epicureans postulated, you are not there to miss yourself after you are dead. And budding philosophers would know something is askew with the arguments they are using, if not to my detail (which may be completely wrong) or my conclusion.

* rational here means the use of human intellect and senses as prescribed by empiricists such that reason is divorced from (seemingly - I don’t think it can be seperated from) faith.

Ken adds: I didn’t really comment on what the kids said in the article, because I very much doubt that it was their own thoughts they were expressing. The example of the kid going after those who denounce fossils as some kind of ruse was, in my opinion, very clearly parroting something “an adult” told her, and was not so much exercising her (I believe it was a young girl, at any rate) own capacity for rational thought as she was deferring to a dubious authority.

Not that I think fossils are a ruse, mind. I do, however, think the adult who instructed this child in what to say had a bit of an axe to grind.

As to the rest, Chris hits the nail squarely on the head. This is supposedly a camp for skeptics and agents of ‘reason’, yet on closer analysis the teachers and participants both display neither trait.

SegaGenesisfan writes in with some rather heated commentary. You know, O Reader, I’ve been a blogger for…well, I’ve been posting stuff online since about the summer of 2004 (so I guess that makes it four years now), and I’ve been blogging about issues related to the Church for around three years.

And now — finally, now! — I have attracted my first anti-Catholic fundamentalist detractor. I think. At least as far as my memory is willing to recall, this is the first.

http://www.guidedbiblestudies.com/40_015.htm

“1 ¶ Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.”

What your failing to realize that it is jesus talking against tradition in general Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Plain and simple, I tell ye not to replyeth by the way, because all you do is minipulate the words of god to fit your own interpretation. You dont really believe in the living god, just your own version of him. In catholic tradition they say they believe in jesus, but inside they really dont believe because of their traditions make the commandment of god of non effect. Try to spew that towards me? I aint got no traditions, so you completely fail in this.

I love how people who have never met me can deduce the innermost thoughts of my heart better than I can for myself. SegaGenesisfan is very confidently sure that I don’t really believe in God, this despite the fact that I’m on the record as being willing to have the Nicene Creed be my death warrant, in the event of a renewed persecution of Christians. I’ve never thanked God that the issue of who is worthy of salvation has not been left in the hands of internet Christians who are also fans of dead gaming systems, but perhaps I should start.

That first bit is from Matthew 15, by the way, and in it Jesus berates the Pharisees for practicing traditions hypocritically, and thus in vain. Notably, Christ is not attacking tradition itself, for He practiced the traditions of the Jewish faith during His life and ministry, and bestowed upon His disciples at least one major tradition, which He commanded be done in remembrance of Him.

But there SegaGenesisfan goes, rejecting any and all tradition as, apparently, unbiblical and against Christianity.

I’m going to go out on a limb and hazard a guess that this is the sort of thing one might expect to be said by a person who harbours a deep-seated animosity toward Catholics, but it is also what one might expect to be argued by a person who believes that only Scripture can interpret Scripture (a common trope). It’s also something one might expect to be told by a person who greatly fears that giving any authority to Church tradition will only result in the message and content of Scripture becoming tainted and perverted. The explicit rejection of tradition is…well…striking.

I ain’t got no traditions. Ignoring the double-negative, this apparently Biblical Christian makes one critical error: he assumes that giving authority to tradition is against the Bible. While I might be tempted to speculate that this is a result of a sola scriptura way of thinking, I will note that the rejection of tradition is itself actually an anti-Biblical concept.

For example, consider 2 Thes. 2:

[13]But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
[14] To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
[16] Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,
[17] comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.

We can see here that St. Paul actually places great importance on the Church holding fast to the traditions which the apostles taught to them. The traditions themselves go unspecified here, but the point is nevertheless that tradition forms an integral, necessary part of the practice of the Christian faith, and is itself a mode of teaching which the Church should strive to consider and convey.

Right here, we see the rejection of all tradition as a mode of Christian practice to be unbiblical. Moreover, we also begin to see the seeds of something else emerging — Scripture is not the only teaching authority which Paul himself recognizes or suggests the use of. Turning, briefly, to Ephesians 3, we can also observe that Paul taught thusly:

[7] Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace which was given me by the working of his power.
[8] To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
[9] and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;
[10] that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.
[11] This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
[12] in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him.

Here we see that Paul further expands the notion of where teaching authority, which would include interpretive authority over Scripture, is found: the Church itself is, in Paul’s desire, the means by which the wisdom of God should be made known to the world. This is confirmed in the first letter to Timothy, chapter 3:

[14] I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that,
[15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

The Church — not Scripture — is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” That is a Biblical teaching. So let’s tie this all back. We have the Church as the pillar and bulwark of truth, the means by which the wisdom of God (expressed in the Word of God) is to be made known to all nations and peoples. That means that the Church must be possessed of authority to interpret Scripture (the Word of God), and that it should do so while holding fast (and thus considering) the traditions which have been taught to it.

This does not mean that Christians lack the right of private judgement, of course — each person must work out his or her own salvation with fear and trembling, as Paul noted. But it does begin to suggest that each Christian should establish a relationship to the Church as that of a student to a teacher. Right of private judgement, again, exists, as does the right of each person to interpret out of Scripture for him or herself. But that interpretation must ultimately be in harmony with the teaching and interpretation of that which is the pillar and bulwark of God’s truth, as expressed through God’s Word: the Church.

And where private interpretation leads to a conclusion different than that of the Church that is disharmonious with the teaching of the Church, the Christian should, in humility, submit to the learned judgement of the Church and its interpretation of Scripture, rather than forging out in his or her own new direction. That is, again, beacause it is the Church — and not the individual — who is the bulwark of truth, and the means by which the wisdom of God is to be brought to the world.

And as to what my correspondent has said, it must be noted that no Christian can be both Christian and free of any tradition. The Bible itself is a tradition, in the sense that it was canonized in 390 AD. The very canon of Scripture is the tradition in this case; while there are differences concerning whether or not the Deuterocanonical books should be included in the canon or not, the point is that each Christian acknowledges a canon of Scripture that has been handed down by tradition, rather than elected by the individual, private judgement of each successive believer.

Moreover, things like sola fide and sola scriptura are traditions, and so anyone who adheres to such beliefs is following in a tradition handed down from Martin Luther. Indeed, such a person gives a great deal of authority to those traditions, as they form a part of the core of that person’s understanding of salvation in Christ, a key aspect of Christian faith.

I weep for Christians who are so deluded as to think that to be Christian means to be free of any form of tradition, for it is by tradition that we — the faithful alive today — are connected in spirit with those who have gone before us in Christ. If we eschew tradition and its authority, we cut ourselves off from those who went before us as believers in Christ. And in so doing, we are rather like the ship which burns the port it leaves, and then casts off its maps and compass as well.

We become, in essence, blinded by our own hand when we reject the traditions of the faith. And we likewise set ourselves against the Bible itself.

Let’s hope this sticks. Stockwell Day += cool.

Canadian border guards have been told to bar a fanatic church group that was planning to protest the funeral of a man beheaded on a Greyhound bus, reports say.

NDP MP Pat Martin told the Winnipeg Free Press that Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day sent the alert to border guards Thursday.

The church group, described in a British documentary as “the most hated family in America,” told CTV.ca earlier Thursday that it planned to protest at the funeral of 22-year-old Tim Mclean on Saturday.

The Westboro Baptist Church nutters are all kinds of crazy. Heck, their crazy went crazy long ago, and they’re still dealing with the fallout.

To wit:

The daughter of the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, [Kansas], told CTV.ca she and several other church members will go to Winnipeg on Saturday to demonstrate against what she described as McLean’s “filthy way of life.” Shirley Phelps-Roper said his life was emblematic of Canada’s moral decay.

“God handed us a gift,” Phelps-Roper said in a phone interview on Thursday.

She said McLean deserved his death by beheading on a Greyhound Bus last week.

“(His death was) supremely unemotional. You got God shaking in rage. There is no emotional component…He was a rebel against God. He was taught to be a rebel by his parents. He came from a rebel country…They brought this wrath upon his head. And it sucks to be him and it sucks to be them,” Phelps-Roper said.

She said his brutal murder was a sign from God.

“You gotta connect the dots, people…from your idols to your filthy way of life,” she said.

“Here’s what I know. He is dead and God does not do that to people that serve in his truth.”

I think I speak for pretty much every Christian when I say: get out and stay out! There is little else I can say about the Westboro crowd without devolving into rage, and so will not comment on their odious practices further.

I’m glad Stockwell Day has taken steps to ensure these malicious people are not allowed into Canada. Now, if we could just do the same for Sharia enthusiasts and Hezbollah/Taliban supporters, we’d be off to a great start.

Update: Damn. Apparently some of ‘em got through That’s okay…we can arrest them for that, can’t we? Ah, well, no harm, no foul — it would appear that even those who got through didn’t have the guts to actually show up and protest.

greg writes in with a few comments concerning my review of Pixar’s latest hit, Wall-E.

Thanks for your hard work on this, Kenneth. We’re using Wall*E as one of our “God on Film” movies at Jacob’s Well in Minneapolis. Your thoughts are helpful.

One thing that our creative team picked out was how similar the people in their hover chairs watching their holographic screens beside each other was to us sitting in our reclining, overstuffed movie seats in the theatre. Is Pixar saying, This is you! Be careful, even this great movie can be part of the problem if you don’t reach over and touch the hand of the person next to you, or talk about this afterward.

I also think the concept of responsibility is even bigger than you touch on in your commentary. The problem arose not only because of greed and laziness, but because of a lack of responsibility represented in their leaving the planet and having someone (thing) else take care of the problem for them. The problem was resolved not by having earth cleaned up, but by humanity returning to face the mess they’d made.

Thanks again!

I’ve heard the criticism/comment made in a few different quarters regarding the portrayal of humans in Wall-E, and have heard more than a few people attempt to classify it as a kind of cheap-shot, on Pixar’s part, against the audience. Barb Nicolosi felt that way about the movie. Personally, I don’t buy it for a moment, and I find that I can’t top Rod Dreher’s response to those who raise this issue: “It will be a good day when it becomes possible to criticize the excesses of American consumerism without being pilloried from the Right for being some kind of America-hating lib symp. Why on earth is it considered “liberal” to point out that gluttony is sinful, and that evil lurks in the hearts of men? Is the Bible liberal? Come on!”

No, Wall-E isn’t an attempt to insult or criticize the audience…but neither does it shy away from an important discussion: that of consequences. The generation is speeding itself toward just such an end. A recent article I read mentioned that upwards of 65% of Americans can now classified as being “overweight” or “obese” — a consequence of laziness (whether the laziness of a sedentary lifestyle or the laziness of never bothering to cook something fresh for oneself and one’s family). Wall-E is about taking responsibility, and about consequences of actions. As surely as Wall-E’s (here talking about the robot “him”self) experiments with a fire extinguisher in zero-gee are a handy illustration of action and reaction, the movie as a whole deals with actions and the outcomes thereof.

It’s not a cheap shot at the audience, in other words, although it is a caution sign. I do agree, however, that Wall-E is the sort of movie which could, and perhaps should, be followed up with some discussion; as can be seen, its messages are often subtle, and easily misunderstood.

“You Jews should be aware: You will never, but never have peace with Hamas. Islam, as the ideology that guides them, will not allow them to achieve a peace agreement with the Jews. They believe that tradition says that the Prophet Muhammad fought against the Jews and that therefore they must continue to fight them to the death.”

I’ve never understood Israel’s attempts at making peace with the terrorists next door; Hamas has vowed to throw or drive the Israelis into the sea, and will not rest until it has done just that. Relief monies that have been poured into Palestine have been re-invested in weapons and Qassam rockets. Still more of those monies have been directed into an education system that teaches the “glories” of “martyrdom” (read: murder-suicide) to young children, with textbooks that label Jews and Christians as “apes” and “pigs”.

There will not be a peace with this people, for this people knows only violence. And at the core of their violence is the death-obsessed cult that is called Islam.

Aside: this is a profile in real courage:

A moment before beginning his supper, Masab, son of West Bank Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef, glances at the friend who has accompanied him to the restaurant where we met. They whisper a few words and then say grace, thanking God and Jesus for putting food on their plates.

It takes a few seconds to digest this sight: The son of a Hamas MP who is also the most popular figure in that extremist Islamic organization, a young man who assisted his father for years in his political activities, has become a rank-and-file Christian. “I’m now called Joseph,” he says at the outset.

Make all your dung-Marys, and fly all your “Jesus Sucks” banners. You will no nothing of courage in your day, certainly not as this man does.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

I echo BCF’s question: can’t they both lose?

Fred Phelps is the lunatic in command of the Westboro Baptist Church, a lunatic-fringe religious cult (I refuse to call them “Christian”) that runs websites with such lovely names as “God HatesFags”, “GodHatesCanada“, and so forth. A more hateful man — and a less fitting witness for Christ — you would be hard-pressed to find. The Westboro cult are known from their habit of protesting the hell out of everything they disagree with.

They revel in the deaths of American soldiers, proudly proclaim that the space shuttle Columbia was destroyed by God, and claim that homosexuals are “worthy of death.” Not a nice bunch.

Conversely, Darren Lund is the anti-Christian activist and wannabe censor who hauled pastor Stephen Boissoin before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The complaint was decided in his favour, and pastor Boissoin was essentially ordered to renounce his Christian beliefs as a result (an order he has not complied with, of course). Also not a nice sort.

And it looks like there’s going to be an activist vs. activist cage match in Red Deer, Alberta, coming up!

WBC will picket The Laramie Project - at
6:30 to 7:30 p.m. - Friday & Saturday,
August 8 & 9 - at The Matchbox Theatre,
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada

Darren Lund is organizing a counter-protest.

Oh, this should be good. Someone, please get this on camera!

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

What a wonderful world we have created