Portions of this story appeared in the Atlantic by Karen Swallow Prior: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/let-it-be-marys-radical-declaration-of-consent/266616/.
In this era of #MeToo, Eric Sprankle, an associate professor of Clinical Psychology and Sexuality Studies at Minnesota State University Mankato, made an interesting assertion. He tweeted that he wasn’t quite sure if the Virgin Mary had given “consent” when an angel came down from the heavens and told her that she would conceive the Christ child.
On Monday, Sprankle wrote, “The virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen. There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario. Happy Holidays.”
The virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen. There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario. Happy Holidays.
— Eric Sprankle, PsyD (@DrSprankle) December 3, 2018
Another Twitter user responded, “Sorry. LK 1 26:38 states clearly that the angel communicated God’s plan for Mary and in verse 38 she agreed. Whether you believe or disbelieve, it helps if you actually read the text.” The angel waits until Mary says, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Only then does the angel leave. This seems to indicate that Mary consented to God’s will.
Sprankle responded, “The biblical god regularly punished disobedience. The power difference (deity vs mortal) and the potential for violence for saying ‘no’ negates her ‘yes.’ To put someone in this position is an unethical abuse of power at best and grossly predatory at worst.”
Sprankle’s position is interesting but not does take into account other parts of the text. Scripture teaches that God created humans with freedom and that God respects human freedom. Jesus Christ is the basic proof that God respects human freedom. Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), and therefore is the one to whom we turn when we want to discover how God relates to people. Jesus did not force people to follow him or to do what was right. He chose Apostles, but he only invited them to follow, and when Judas turned against him, Jesus did not force him to choose the right thing. He allowed Judas to say no. When Jesus invited the rich young man to follow him, and the rich young man turned away, Jesus did not force him to change his mind (Mk 10:17-22). When Jesus said, “I am the bread of life,” and many of his disciples refused to believe him, Jesus did not force them to accept his word; he let them walk away (John 6:60-71). Therefore, Jesus, the image of the invisible God, teaches us that God respects human freedom.
If Mary did not consent, and she became pregnant by a miracle to which she did not freely consent, this would mean that the Son of God became a human being in the womb of a woman who did not want to become his Mother. This would mean that God completely disregarded human freedom and human choice in this one event. So, there are two possibilities: God either invited Mary to become the Mother of God’s Son and accepted her consent, or God simply made Mary the Mother of God’s Son without her consent. The first choice is consistent with scripture. The second presents an image of God which is pagan in its implications contradicts Scripture.
Here is the account of Mary learning that she’ll be the mother of Christ, as told in the first chapter of Luke’s gospel:
In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 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, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
The text makes clear that the angel Gabriel’s words at the Annunciation convey to Mary what will happen, not what has happened, a future conception, not a past one. The Annunciation—which is celebrated in the Christian liturgical calendar nine months before Christmas, on March 25, is the commemoration of God’s choice of a woman to bear the Savior of the world and of her willing acceptance of that role.
We do not have Mary’s firsthand account of the events, only what is written in Luke. Luke is reported to have been a doctor and is characterized by modern scholars as among the most cultured writers of the New Testament, distinguished in his writings for his overriding concern for women, the poor, the sick, and the outcast.
Luke mentions Mary more than any other biblical author. Some scholars believe that Mary was one of Luke’s firsthand sources for his gospel, providing both textual and historical evidence. In the absence of a record of Mary’s own account, Luke is the definitive record of the event.
With respect to the statement that “(S)cripture teaches that God created humans with freedom and that God respects human freedom,” I would counter, based on my studies, that “scripture” means whatever a particular religious sect want it to mean.
Scripture does not teach that God created humans with freedom.
It may imply that, but again, that would depend on who you were talking to, and what their religious background was.
In Book I of his “ON THE PREDESTINATION OF THE SAINTS and ON THE GIFT OF PERSEVERANCE,” entitled “ON THE PREDESTINATION OF THE SAINTS Addressed to Prosper and Hilary,” the venerable to some St. Augustine makes us out to be little more than robots programmed to act in certain manners at the beginning of time, which some will recognize as the Newtonian “Clockwork Model.”
For example, in Chap. 42, “Old Testament testimonies,” St Augustine states as follows:
Therefore also it is in vain that objectors have alleged, that what we have proved by Scripture testimony from the books of Kings and Chronicles is not pertinent to the subject of which we are discoursing: such, for instance, as that when God wills that to be done which ought only to be done by the willing men, their hearts are inclined to will this, inclined, that is to say, by His power, who, in a marvellous and ineffable manner, worketh in us also to will.
end quotes
According to that view, Mary really had no choice in the matter, for that choice had been stripped from her at the beginning of time.
So too the case of Jesus, which point is made by St. Augustine in Chap. 31, “Christ predestinated to be the Son of God,” where we are told as follows:
“Therefore Jesus was predestinated, so that He who was to be the Son of David according to the flesh should yet be in power the Son of God, according to the Spirit of sanctification, because He was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary.”
end quotes
If Jesus was predestined, where then does any free will in the matter on the part of Mary enter in?
So, are we to believe that Ed Sprankle, as he ends his scientific assessment of a miracle with “Happy Holiday,” is an athiest? or an agnostic? Or does he have some other motive?
If a theologian opined about this question, I’d listen carefully. And most theologians would help 21st century listeners understand the context of this event – in a patriarchal society with a strict hierarchy and social order. This society bears very little resemblance to our current framework of rights.
When a “professor of clinical psychology and sexuality” opines about a religious belief in social media – and attempts to do it in a sound byte, it continues the public refrain of bias and hostility for people who profess a faith in God.
He should confine his analysis of the impact of religion on individuals to his practice of clinical psychology instead of damaging his credibility as a scientifically-trained professional.
You people are sick. You really need help. We The People will not allow this sickness to continue for much longer. It is getting ready to come to a head. There is a man who has your number. May God have mercy on your souls.
Is this the same We The People who enshrined in the Constitution a separation of church and state, and wanted its citizens to have freedom to practice (or not) the beliefs of their choosing?
Separation of church and state has been drummed into our heads for a couple of generations now.
But I’m here to tell you that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
The Constitution says “”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” because the founding fathers were wary of a state sponsored religion.
So all the US Constitution does is forbid the FEDERAL government from sponsoring one religion over another.
The phrase “separation of church and state” actually comes from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptists in Danbury county, Virginia, in which he explained that the First Amendment had erected a wall of separation between church and state, to the effect that the government was expressly forbidden from establishing an official religion. (The Baptists were worried about the establishment of a State religion).
So, the entire concept of “separation of church and state” is to allow for the freedom of conscience, NOT freedom from religious involvement in politics.
The Left would have you think otherwise but as we know from President Reagan, so much of what they know is wrong.
HEAR! HEAR!!
It is exactly these types of stimulating intellectual discussions on real issues of importance to us as a people that keep drawing me back to the Cape Charles Mirror week after week.
Beats to vapid drivel the New York Times is putting out by a long shot!
You people have been at war against Christianity for many years now. It is time to push back.
Liberals allow the ‘minority’ to rule the ‘Majority’.
It is the damnedest think I have ever seen. The ‘Majority’ seems to allow it, for fear of being called a racist, or a bigot, or homophobic…ect. I still can not understand why the Majority cares if they are called those things. They are all sick and do not know to ask for help.
That’s the problem , Todd . The liberals don’t know who is authorized to help .
But more to the point : How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? That question has been out there , unanswered for a long time ; until now . Turns out that angels are spirits and therefore massless like a neutrino . So the answer is : As many as know how to dance .
Merry Christmas and a Democrat New Year
You do not know what the hell you are talking about. It appears the Kool-Aid worked well on you.
600 examples of government hostility to religion
A joint report by two religious freedom groups, the Family Research Council and Liberty Institute, has documented “more than six hundred recent examples of religious hostility” (Starnes, p. 208). Some of these and others are noted in an article titled “Persecution of Christians on Rise—In U.S.” on the WND.com (formerly WorldNetDaily) website (Michael Carl, Sept. 17, 2012). Here are several examples, as listed in the article:
” • A federal judge threatened ‘incarceration’ to a high school valedictorian unless she removed references to Jesus from her graduation speech.
” • City officials prohibited senior citizens from praying over their meals, listening to religious messages or singing gospel songs at a senior activities center.
” • A public school official physically lifted an elementary school student from his seat and reprimanded him in front of his classmates for praying over his lunch.
“• Following U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ policies, a federal government official sought to censor a pastor’s prayer, eliminating references to Jesus, during a Memorial Day ceremony honoring veterans at a national cemetery …
“• The U.S. Department of Justice argued before the Supreme Court that the federal government can tell churches and synagogues which pastors and rabbis it can hire and fire …
“• Through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, the federal government is forcing religious organizations to provide insurance for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs in direct violation of their religious beliefs. [This has been halted for now by a recent Supreme Court ruling.]
“• The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs banned the mention of God from veterans’ funerals, overriding the wishes of the deceased’s families.
“• A federal judge held that prayers before a state House of Representatives could be to Allah but not to Jesus.”
In the same article, American Center for Law and Justice senior counsel David French cites a particularly appalling example —”attempt[s] to ban any mention of God from historical markers, monuments or even museum exhibits … This represents an effort to whitewash God from American history and change our national identity.”
Government vs. traditional religious values
A number of observers have cited examples of hostility to traditional American religious values by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama. In April 2009, he put forward three nominees for U.S. ambassador to the Vatican who were pro-abortion—all of whom were not surprisingly rejected ( The Guardian, April 14, 2009).
In February 2011, he directed the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (in which same-sex marriage was not recognized by the federal government) against legal challenges. And in July 2011, he allowed homosexuals to serve openly in the military, ending restrictions that had been in place since the founding of the nation. Newsweek magazine showed him on its cover with a rainbow halo over his head and lauded him as “The First Gay President” (May 21, 2012).
Under the Obama administration, a Minnesota widow living in a government-funded apartment complex “was told she could not pray, read her Bible, or have private discussions of a religious nature in the commons area of the complex” (Starnes, p. 10).
In September 2011, the U.S. Army issued new guidelines for Walter Reed Hospital that read, “No religious items (i.e., Bibles, reading materials …) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit” (though the policy was rescinded after it was reported to the House of Representatives).
Furthermore, “two Baptist chaplains said they were forced out of a Veterans Affairs chaplain training program after they refused orders to stop quoting the Bible and stop praying in the name of Jesus” (Starnes, p. 152). (Read more in “Banning the Mention of God in Public Life “.)
Yet while government leaders attempt to push God and the Bible out, they welcome and finance alternative religion. The U.S. Air Force Academy in 2011 “dedicated an $80,000 outdoor worship center—a small Stonehenge-like circle of boulders with propane fire pit—high on a hill for the handful of current or future cadets whose religions fall under the broad category of ‘Earth-based.’ Those include pagans, Wiccans, druids, witches and followers of Native American faiths” (“Air Force Academy Adapts to Pagans, Druids, Witches and Wiccans,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 26, 2011).
The anti-Christian trend is not just in America. “A dispute over whether government can require Catholic schools to teach Wiccan and pagan rites as equal to the Ten Commandments and the resurrection of Jesus is heading to Canada’s highest court” (Bob Unruh, “Christians Ordered to Teach Wiccan, Pagan Rites,” WND, March 11, 2014).
Frighteningly, preferential treatment is now being given to Islam in numerous ways (see “’One Nation Under Allah? ‘”).
Are you aware that the VA has chaplains of various faiths, including Christianity, in the VA hospitals?
Karen Hall, do you have further details on any of these things you have reported on?
My goodness, some of these things are really serious sounding!
Scary, even!
Think about it, a public school official actually physically lifting an elementary school student from his seat and reprimanding him in front of his classmates for praying over his lunch!
What kind of world are we living in where that can happen?
And talk about some real serious government intrusion into our lives, can you imagine the gall of a federal judge threatening ‘incarceration’ to a high school valedictorian unless she removed references to Jesus from her graduation speech?
What judge was that, and where did that happen?
More to the point, how on earth did a federal judge know this girl even had references to Jesus in her graduation speech?
It wasn’t her father, was it, or some close relation who would know she was going to mention Jesus in her graduation speech?
Wow, can you feature it – getting sent to a federal prison by a federal judge for mentioning Jesus in a high school graduation speech!
What will they be coming up with next?
So God used unethical use of power & predatory behavior to bring a Savior into th e world? In 69 Years of life I have never read such an idiotic statement. Who should have God consulted be He acted?
I see a lot of words about a God that cannot be proven to exist at all. As a non-believer I will only accept God’s word over the text and thoughts of sinners. Your hate for “liberals” is the work of Satan. Individuals who hate atheists and liberals are only doing the work for Satan. Your job as “Christians” is to love people into believing in Christ.
Michael C Mckelvey, how exactly does someone who proclaims themselves to be a non-believer in a God that cannot be proven to exist at all end up accepting the word of a God that cannot be proven to exist at all over the text and thoughts of sinners?
If there is no God as you posit, then how can there be sins?
And what on earth did you mean by this, to wit: Your job as “Christians” is to love people into believing in Christ?
Do you mean fornicate with them to make them believe in Christ?
So Michael, according to your belief there is no God, but you do believe in Satan! Interesting!