The Washington Post gave audience to Ruth Everhart who said that the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus, offended her. Why? Well her reason for being offended started off as a claim that the virgin part about Mary was offensive because rape victims could no longer obtain virgin status. But then, if you read further into her statements, the offended lashes out at the church and the “patriarchs” for, as she alleged, making “vaginas inherently dirty” and says that attempting to protect ones virginity until marriage won’t work and was what she called, “the idol of sexual purity.”
This woman is also employed as a pastor so she should know that, first of all, Mary wasn’t always a virgin. She didn’t take a vow of lifelong celibacy or wear a chastity belt. She was a virgin before Jesus was born because Mary wasn’t married yet and was saving sex for marriage.
The virgin trait of Mary is emphasized in the Bible to show the deity or Godhood of Jesus. It shows that his Father wasn’t a human. His father was God. His conception was not the result of two humans procreating but, rather, a process of God.
The Bible was not commanding or encouraging women to never have sex. In fact, Mary went on to have several other children with her husband, Joseph. The situation with Jesus was something extremely special. It wasn’t an attempt of the Bible or “the patriarch,” who Everhart is critical of, to hold virginity up as the permanent ideal for anyone. As a pastor, Ruth Everhart should know that, but even if she wasn’t a pastor, even a casual student of the Bible should recognize that.
Mary “set an impossibly high bar,” Everhart writes. “Now the rest of us are stuck trying to be both a virgin and a mother at the same time.”
Yet no one is asking women to do that and the story of Mary being the mother of Jesus doesn’t do that. Even the suggestion is ridiculous. Churches, ministries, and Christian marriage books routinely encourage frequent and healthy sex between married couples.
This silliness of being offended by everything is a classic tactic of the left. They use it to weaken and silence their opposition. When their opposition, that is, conservatives along with everyday Americans minding their own business, are offended, the left calls them “intolerant.”
You see, if the left was as tolerant and as accepting as they like to claim, then the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus, would be a protected religious figure for Christians, as would be her story. Sort of like how the left scolds anyone who takes issue with Islam. We are told that Islam is off limits because it is a religion of deeply held beliefs and means a lot to its followers. Public schools in America are even allowing rooms to be used for Islamic prayer and allowing multiple dismissals for Islamic students to gather to pray in those rooms. People are said to be “Islamophobic” if they find anything about Islam “offensive,” such as the mistreatment of women, homosexuals, young boys, or anyone not of their faith. But have you ever heard anyone who slams a doctrine or tradition of Christianity described as Christophobic?
Though I’m sure it’s been suggested before, I think it would make sense for us to fight back by using that word and using it a lot. When someone is offended by a cross, instead of bending over backwards for them, Christians should tell that person to be more tolerant and to stop being a Christophobe.
If they ask for a definition, we will simply give them the definition of “Islamophobe” but modified appropriately to define those with a phobia of Christianity: “A Christophobe is someone who dislikes or is prejudice against the teachings of Christianity or Christians.”
The right to “not be offended” by something, as though the world should be an offense-free place, is a relatively new one and it is ridiculous. A society such as ours, who takes pride in protecting free speech can’t also be an “offense-free society.” To quote Ron Paul, “We don’t have the freedom of speech to talk about the weather. We have the first amendment so we can say some very controversial things.”
Yet that seems to be applied to everyone but Christians. Public schools, college campuses, government buildings, even our so-called public squares want tolerance for anyone and anything except for something Christian related. Taxpayer funded rooms in public schools are being used for organized, scheduled Islamic prayer during the school day, but a traditional manger scene on public property in a small town square as a symbol of our nation’s most popular holiday? Not anymore! The ACLU supported Islamic prayer rooms in public schools as religious freedom but sued an Indiana town for a cross on a Christmas tree. There are so many examples of double standards.
Perhaps Christians should go on the offensive and insist on others being tolerant of our views for a change.
If the Virgin Mary offends you, you are the one with the problem and not her or Christians. You are a Christophobe who should grow up and show more tolerance.
Rhett October is on Twitter @RhettOctober
