Before, during and after

I'd say that the ever-virginity of Mary is the hardest issue for a lot of people.

Some people who are considering Orthodoxy have been misled into thinking that the Orthodox Church is a more "evangelical" (or protestant-friendly) form of Catholicism.

This is not the case. While the mariology of Catholicism differs from that of Orthodoxy, the fact remains that the latter possesses a more demanding set of doctrines about Mary than the former. The Roman penchant (over history) to approach the idea of the Mother of God being also a "co-redemptrix" is due to its less robust mariology.

Orthodoxy has clung to its identification of the Mother of Jesus as the Mother of God mainly for the purpose of enshrining its Christology -- which, in turn, is a doctrinal "doubling down" on the revelation of the divine possibility of salvation for every human being ever conceived.

I like to tease evangelicals that their feeling that they are saved by a simple belief in Jesus is inherently related to the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. They mostly roll their eyes, like I'm the infirm, slightly "off" uncle in the house, prattling on again.

But some remain behind, listening to more.

They are better off listening to the late Archbishop Dmitri. The good and late hierarch gently challenges the idea that our mariology is predicated on extra-biblical sources. He accepts, as we all do, the fact that Orthodoxy is not confined to a narrow (and quite impossible) epistemology of "sola scriptura." But he also insists that all Orthodox doctrine is rooted in and formed by the Bible.

In my overused sardonic metier, I like to suggest (not too gently) that the failure to venerate Mary (and the saints in general) shows at least a rather inconsistent application of sola scripture -- if not a a complete wrecking of the same.

But ever-virginity, it must be admitted, is a hard thing. Even for Orthodox. I am sure there are many who try to take comfort in intellectual contortions: like, "the Nicene Creed identifies the doctrines that are necessary," as if all the other doctrines are not. I sympathize with some well-known speakers who suggest that there are two kinds of doctrine in the Orthodox Church: there is a public mandatory set of "proclaimed" doctrines, but then there is an additional "in-house" set of more esoteric, possibly less mandatory doctrines we teach after the newcomers have settled in.

Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with this dichotomy. I am not sure it is predicated too well on precedent. I suspect this public/private duality was jury-rigged in the modern era, as a nice tool for the evangelization of "cultured despisers."

But I suspect, too, that such intellectual contortion is useful (if not entirely successful) for many Orthodox who orbit in academic and/or well-heeled circles. In these rarefied settings, conversations tend toward the more polite (and engaging) topics of mysticism and endless twists and turns of historic theology (e.g., my favorite is the idea that because gender might be post-lapsarian, then should sacerdotal gender be pre-lapsarian?).

Intellectual contortion makes for that best of intellectual luxuriousness: which is "deliberate ambiguity," especially couched in the rubrics of existentialism. 

But have a care: deliberate ambiguity always degenerates, over time, into something quite involuntary -- and passions rise when dogma is infirm.

No. Suffice to say that the Ever-Virginity of Mary is necessary and should not be dismissed.

I wonder why the thought is so hard? I do not think that the difficulty of ever-virginity lies with its impossibility. This is true of all the miracles. If you believe that God made the world, then His conception of His Son by the Virgin Mary should not be to hard a thing to accept (never mind the grasping). But maybe you don't believe God made the world -- but that is a different issue.

At least you believe that God can make a god out of you -- this is Grace, in all its forms -- all Grace, even for the most fundamentalist of Jesus' followers, consists of theosis. If you believe in repentance at all, in conversion at all, really in the possibility of love at all, then you already believe in something more impossible than the Ever-Virginity of Mary.

No. It is not the impossibility of the Virginity, or Ever-Virginity, of Mary. It is something else.

A clue for this "something else" that accounts for the true difficulty of the doctrine of Ever-Virginity lies in a curious opinion held by most evangelicals (and many ex-evangelicals in the Orthodox and Roman communities). And that is this: "I will accept the Virgin Birth, but not the Ever-Virginity of Mary."

Wow. Now that is just breath-taking. I.e., "I'll take the warp drive and inertial dampers from Star Trek, but not the transporter beam." Or, better (since you don't like my geeky allusions), "I'll take the possibility of the Sun, but not the sunlight."

So the impossibility of ever-virginity is not the issue. What is it? No, it is not the impossibility of virginity during or after birth-giving either. If you can accept a virginal conception, surely one can also accept -- propositionally -- an intact virginity concomitantly with nativity.

I suggest that the real difficulty behind Ever-Virginity is virginity. 

The virginity of the Theotokos disturbs and even offends -- and it offends about everyone. Here it is important to draw a distinction between the Virgin Birth and virginity. The former, I think, is acceptable in a mutated form -- in a narrative suited to a voluntarist frame. In this "re-telling" of the tale, the Virgin Birth is rendered as a dialectic between the Divine active and the human passive. The Virgin is pre-determined to be blessed. The Holy Spirit descends upon her. The Godman is formed in her womb. There is no meaning in the unanswerable question, "What if she said no?" Calvinists would simply dismiss this question as a hypothesis contrary to fact.

Thus the Virgin Birth is miracle done quite apart from the work of the Birthgiver. In fact, she is not at all a Birthgiver or God-bearer. She is hardly an actor or character, but rather a vessel.

Virginity, in this redaction, is taken away from the Virgin Mary. In a superficial telling of the story, that can be done to the Virgin Birth. It is harder to do so to the continuation of her Mary's virginity.

This insistence on her passivity accounts at least for part of the resistance to the Ever-Virginity of Mary.

But I think there is more to the resistance. I think there is a deeper reason why heterodox narratives attempt to redact the role of Mary into a passive, determined vessel:

There is a profound aversion to the human possibility of virginity. Of course there is a divine possibility of virginity -- no one disputes that (Calvinists do not, for example).

Here I think it is obvious by now that "virginity" is a term that is not exhausted by sexual behavior. Certainly -- and to be blunt -- the Theotokos did not have sex with Joseph -- before or after. I find it taxing that I am nearly always met with the complaint, "Well, the Bible doesn't say that, doesn't it?"

When, in fact, the Bible does: Mary is called "blessed," and could not be called so if she were to have relations with another man while the Father of her Son was still alive.

That logic was grasped by most of the traditional Fathers -- and those who did not grasp it usually had, shall we say, certain Christological deficiencies.

The virginity of the Theotokos extends before, after and during her birth-giving. God's part in preserving her intact virginity is certainly supernatural, as He can re-order natural events from a transcendent order when He chooses. 

But the human part of this event -- the free act of meek devotion -- is just as necessary, even if it is infinitely of a smaller part of the total achievement. And Mary's part in her virgin birthgiving -- that is, her being "Theotokos" -- remains only natural and not supernatural.

Her virginity was then, as it remains, a possibility within the current contours of human nature -- even after the Fall.

Indeed, her sinlessness -- which is not at all an "optional doctrine" that might be discarded by more sophisticated tastes -- is really an extension of her Ever-Virginity. And before we get caught up in some of the distortions produced by the heterodoxical innovation of the "Immaculate Conception," let me add quickly here that Mary's sinlessness did not -- and does not -- save her from death. Only the Cross could do that.

I think people by and large have a vested interest in denying this very sinless virginity. Most people would rather not have a single, regular human being succeed at being sinless. They certainly would not like the factual reality of a natural person actually doing the ascetical work of the Virgin's deathless intercession.

Because if someone were actually sinless like the Theotokos ... and if someone were actually successful in such ascetical devotion ... and if someone were truly virginal like Mary ...

... then oughtn't I do the same? Am I not beholden to at least try?

This terrifying thought is the main reason why the Ever-Virginity of Mary is so opposed.

But there is a secondary reason that is coming to the fore, in this day and age. And to that reason, tomorrow, I will take a turn.

I've give you a hint. This secondary reason has something to do with politics, of all things.

Comments

[David]

You are correct. I was saying almost the opposite. That while there is a "plain reading" (that is, we think it is plain when we do it, but really it is just our prejudices) this reading is clearly a distortion in light of the Church's teaching.

I like your analogy to sports. You see the problem isn't merely that there are great football players and so some high school kid feels bad that he can't be like him (though shouldn't that same kid be sad when he drops the game winning touchdown?); the problem is that in the exuberance, in the midst of the praise, the poetic license (not to say anything is false in them) and the adoration there is an inherent alienation to one who has known little success in their own spiritual battles.

I have seen more than one priest (and I've started commenting on this and making a bit of a fuss of myself over it) quoting all manner of "if you aren't X you just ain't Christian" quotes from the fathers.

There is nothing untrue in these quotes, but the quotes have context. I think there is something wrong with how they, and much of the inheritance of the Church is used in the days of mass media.

I'm starting to think that something which was obvious to me when coming to Orthodoxy is not so obvious to others. You are one of those who I assumed has a grasp of this... let me explain.

Last year there was a priest that wrote a nice blog post about how he couldn't be anyone's spiritual father over the internet. It was a good post, but it failed in one critical test. He never took responsibility for the things he did which resembled such a relationship. He imitated some features of fatherhood, but refused the responsibility of the role. Of course he is correct. He cannot be a father over the internet, but neither should he imitate being one.

These lives of the saints, these sayings, even the scriptures themselves are prescription-strength medicine. They need to be thoughtfully and responsibly applied to those in need. A doctor would never just hand out heart medication to everyone walking by merely because most Americans will die of heart disease.

So a priest shouldn't post on something just because most Americans will suffer from a particular sin.

You see, in a therapeutic relationship (which I believe you understand much better than I do) the therapist is responsible for their actions. They have a personal, immediate, accountable relationship. In some real sense, my bishop has such a ... fiduciary? ... duty. Instead I see a bunch of folks running around handing out pills like candy and throwing pearls before we the swine.

Yes. Stories of greatness can be very harmful. For many of the broken people I know personally, they are in fact potentially deadly. They do not inspire as the doctor thinks they might. They crush.

It could very well be true that this is the real problem presented at that terrible day of judgment. We will see Christ in all his greatness and goodness and some of us will simply not be capable of loving him, instead we will hate him for his goodness and only bow our knee because it is broken.

I don't know. I'm gladly not yet at that day.

But beware of your assumptions and your proscriptions so freely given. I apologies and beg your pardon for the one thing that I can say for sure: nothing I've written in this thread is wise (though it might be true).

Truth is a terrible weapon, fearful and awesome. No one can stand against it. This is only seen as a good think when one believes they stand with truth. As soon as you realize you standing against it...