Virgin Mary: The Beauty of Surrendered Rights

Virgin Mary: The Beauty of Surrendered Rights

Posted on 17. Apr, 2010 by Tim Stoner in Blog, Life, The Church

It was a scene I found initially arresting. A few seconds later, it had suddenly become repulsive–as if I’d witnessed an indecency. It left me ambivalent and confused. It was a courageous moment of artistic freedom that I should, by all rights, be cheering.  

Patty and I were watching a documentary about a spin-off of the phenomenally successful American Idol show. What makes this film noteworthy is that it is set in Afghanistan, a nation mesmerized by their scaled-down version of this singing competition. Two of the four finalists were women—a minor scandal in its own right. Setara is the singer pushing the cultural envelope in hopes of becoming the next Afghan Star. The camera followed her performance as she tries to join the elite top three.  

It was deceptively prosaic–to western eyes—unremarkable. With the barest flick of the wrist the gauzy veil covering Setara’s black hair slips back as she sings in front of the panel of judges and millions of Muslim viewers. It was an assertion of independence from binding, implacable dogmatic constraints that dehumanize and demean. The hooligan, Boston Tea Party supporter in me was stirred by her bold act of defiance.

What looked to be a sly but calculated element of choreography was actually transgressive behavior similar to Bush’s invasion of Iraq. The Islamic viewership was to be simultaneously shocked and awed. But this little drama was much more than an artistic statement, a public rejection of cultural, religious norms. As her veil slid off her head it wrapped itself around the participant and her viewers in a conspiracy of shame. What was transpiring was an exhibition of public sensuality as scandalous as an Idol contestant disrobing in front of the four panelists. By exerting her right to exhibit her beautiful hair, Setara not only shocked, she shamed the conscience of a nation. Therein lies the explanation for my inexplicable queasiness.

I was caught off guard in the middle of a sudden nauseating storm. While the rebel, Son of Liberty raucously celebrated, the loyalist Tory in me was dismayed and repelled. Freedom at odds with Tradition. A rocking boat careening on the foaming waves of independence sliding into the quiet troughs of dutiful submission. And, oddly enough, I thought of Virgin Mary who had to survive a storm of her own to become the mother of God.

Apocryphal sources, which the early church declared to be useful but not divinely inspired, support the tradition that Joachim and Anne were the parents of Mary. According to the Gospel of James, written about 50 years after the death of the apostle John, they had been childless for many years but received a heavenly message that they would bear a child. When Mary was perhaps three years old, they brought her to the Temple in Jerusalem to consecrate her to God. The document recites the belief that Mary remained in the Temple until puberty, at which point she was assigned to Joseph as her guardian. Later versions of the story appear in the Gosple of Pseudo-Matthew and the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary. The Dedication of Mary are holy feast days still celebrated by the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church.

 I am used to thinking about Mary as a poor peasant girl, living a placid, rural life in a backwater town of no significance, at a far remove from the stimulating rhythms of religious and political power. I think of her as a little country girl, with not much to offer or to give up. These stories would indicate that she may have had more status, more on the line that I’ve been led to believe. The historicity of these narratives are not ultimately significant. What matters is the reminder that Mary was a young woman with rights—no less, but–perhaps, a little more than most of us.

Maybe she had the right to be treated as an honored individual who’d been raised and educated and faithfully served for years in the Temple. In a quaint, traditionalist country village, this would have made her a star. Perhaps little Mary was more like the winner of the Israeli Idol show—a big fish in a little pond. She was used to being admired as the golden-child; pointed to and nodded at approvingly. So, when the tide shifted and crowds began to clamor for her Son’s blood, maybe she understood all too well the sword thrusts of fickle admiration.  

Regardless. Whether she was famous or unheralded, celebrated or unknown, there is no doubt that as this tender, teenage girl was formulating the words of holy assent, with exemplary abnegation she had first had to utter a resounding, “no!” Her “be it unto me” was impaled on the barbed points of a thousand condemning stares behind a forest  of accusatory fingers. To accept the Archangel’s message was to deny place, status, honor, respect, dignity. It was a renunciation of the blessed, sisterly solidarity of the red tent. Mary’s assent was a willingness to become a curse-word, to be known as the one who fell, who failed, who let down her family and her entire village—to be stigmatized.

The bowed head was not obedience to command but submission to a wrenching vocation—a life-long death, culminating in what is worse than death, a mother’s heart being ground to powder as she helplessly observes her son’s slow, brutalizing murder. She was surrendering her right to personal happiness, to self-actualization, to freedom from shame, accusation, misunderstanding, to the full and free exercise of her gifts.

Being the handmaiden of God meant she gave up the right to position, to fulfillment of her dreams, to being significant, to having a voice. As far as she knew, she would henceforth never, ever be taken seriously again. Women and men would look at her as though she were of no value. She lay down all her rights and become her town’s doormat.  

How different the insatiable, rapacious greed of the Morning Star that replaced glory mantle with Serpent scales. His “yes” was a demand—for a place, a throne, recognition, stature and status, and the full and unrestricted exercise of his many notable gifts. His affirmation was also a denial, it was a negation of submission, self-dying, self-emptying, sacrificial love. “I shall not let God dictate the level to which I can rise. I shall not lay down but rather be lifted up to the heights!”   

Satan’s insistence was a defiant throwing off of the demure veil—“I shall expose all of my beauty to whomever I choose in the manner I choose. I deserve to be treated as an equal. No one shall put me under oppressive, negative, limiting, restrictions. I shall throw off the ancient curbs and checks; shall break through the condescending, demeaning hierarchical boundaries that oppress and circumscribe my identity. I am gifted. I shall not be denied. I am nobody’s inferior. I shall have a place!

Not so meek and mighty Mary whose beauty and exaltation—her everlasting glory was to accept the unjust veil, laden with inescapable shame–its cloying stigma of dishonor. Who in humbling herself to the lowest place is now revered as Queen of Heaven–forever.         

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “Virgin Mary: The Beauty of Surrendered Rights”

  1. Ron Duncan

    21. Apr, 2010

    Why do you believe Satan had a choice to be Satan? Did God make a mistake by creating an angel who would choose to be His arch-enemy? I can’t find anything clear in scripture to indicate this. The references in scripture for this belief is from Isaiah 14 (is Satan the king of Babylon? and was he a man as stated in verses 16 and 17?) and Ezekiel 28 (is Satan the king of Tyre? and was he a man as stated in verses 2 and 9?). I understand that this is what we have been taught but shouldn’t we check it out. Why else would 2 Cor. 11:14 say Satan masquerades as an angel of light? Rev. 12 calls him the red dragon and that he has angels, but never that he is an angel. I believe Satan is at work in the Church to mislead and deceive. I think this is just one of his exploits of scripture.

  2. Tim Stoner

    21. Apr, 2010

    If you do not believe Satan is an angel what is your belief about him? –an utterly corrupt, thoroughly perverted, 100% wicked being (a demon) created as such by God? And where did his followers come from? If they are fallen angels where is the difficulty in concluding that he was at somewhere near the top of the angelic hierarchy and fell also?

  3. Ron Duncan

    21. Apr, 2010

    I do not believe that Satan’s angels are fallen angels. There is no scripture to back that up either. I believe God created everything - including Satan and his angels. I believe God created Satan as he is - all the things you said. I have the biggest problem with the concept that Satan was a mistake by God. Somehow we have tried to teach that God does not create evil. I give you these verses for review:

    Isaiah 45:7 (ASV) 7I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

    Lamentations 3:38 (ASV) 38Out of the mouth of the Most High cometh there not evil and good?

    2 Samuel 12:11 (ASV) 11Thus saith Jehovah, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house; and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

    Romans 9:21 (ASV) 21Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

    Isaiah 54:16 (ASV) 16Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the fire of coals, and bringeth forth a weapon for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

    Proverbs 16:4 (ASV) 4 Jehovah hath made everything for its own end; Yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

    Jeremiah 4:6 (ASV) 6Set up a standard toward Zion: flee for safety, stay not; for I will bring evil from the north, and a great destruction.

    Jeremiah 6:19 (ASV) 19Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it.

    1 Kings 22:22 (ASV) 22And Jehovah said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also: go forth, and do so.

    Psalms 105:25 (ASV) 25 He turned their heart to hate his people, To deal subtly with his servants.

    Jeremiah 18:11 (ASV) 11Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith Jehovah: Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your doings.

    I cannot begin to think that I understand the why, but I trust that God has created evil for His good.

    I do not intend to be argumentative here, but I also think it is wise to know my enemy (Satan).

  4. Ron Duncan

    21. Apr, 2010

    Another interesting battle strategy that I think Satan has is to have us as Christians concentrate on external struggles when most of our struggles as Christians are internal. You know all the verses where Paul speaks about his struggles with the flesh and where James explains where temptation starts. I think this may somehow correlate to the verse in Revelations 13:18 - man’s number and the number of the beast being the same number. Our struggle is usually against our own flesh, our own will, our own mind. Satan would rather us focus on everyone else than on the struggle in us.

  5. Chris Thompson

    21. Apr, 2010

    The problem of evil is one of those that will likely never be satisfactorily answer this side of Heaven. Nevertheless, some comments:

    Rob, I’m slightly confused with your basic stance: you call Satan your enemy, and yet present him as if he’s working for God, created as is by God, and is doing God’s will. If God is the originator of evil, does that not make God your enemy as well? I’m not too familiar with the ASV, but from the little I know it seems the ESV and NASB are the versions to fall back upon when issues of definition are significant, and so I’m going to use them. I think the verses you cite do not indicate that God causes evil (allows sin, yes, but not causes or creates; if they do indicate a “creating evil” situation, it’s not a moral, sinful evil, but merely adverse circumstances and misfortune).

    For example, the Isaiah 45 verse mentions God creating evil in the ASV: the ESV and NASB both use the word calamity (quite different connotations than evil) and the NIV uses disaster. The original Hebrew word can mean evil, distress, adversity, injury, etc. In context of the chapter, it seems that God is saying that He is behind the activities of King Cyrus, and the calamity Cyrus is allowed to cause (which, the last 27 chapters of Isaiah indicate, is for Israel’s good and to God’s glory) is to God’s purposes although it seems tumultuous.
    The Lamentations verse, similarly, has “bad” and “ill” in ESV and NASB, and again the context speaks to the absolute sovereignty of God in the midst of Israel’s troubles, and I think that verse 40 is instructive: “Let us examine and probe our ways, And let us return to the LORD.”

    The reason for the “ill” that the Lord allows is to bring His people back; as Lewis said, Pain is God’s megaphone to the human race.

    That gets me to my quibbling-but-potentially-significant point: you say you trust that God has created evil for His good. This may seem a small qualifier, but I think it’s important: I think God has ALLOWED evil for His good.
    God does not tempt: James 1:13. (v17 is also key).
    God says all that He saw He had created was very good. Gen 1:31.
    and critically: “everything God created is good” 1 Tim 4:4.

    How a Holy, Sovereign, Omniscient God can create a world where Sin is even a possibility is a huge question: how He could actually allow it to occur is yet another equally huge question. For I do not allow that Satan was a mistake…yet his actions (though God can make good out of them) are not, in their moral content, flowing from God’s decretal will.

    That has gotten way too long for a post, and I haven’t even offered my meager attempt to reconcile the situation. but of course my explanation is not needed: I think, though, that the Bible does portray Satan and God working at cross-purposes, and nowhere does it show God initiating sin.

  6. Ron Duncan

    21. Apr, 2010

    Chris, You never stated your basis for believing Satan is an angel - do you have one?

    I have heard the phrase “God allows evil” but that sounds like He is not really in control of evil. I cannot imagine a world where God is not in complete control of everything. I believe God is in complete control. The verses I gave show this no matter which version of the bible you use. I always cross reference verses from at least 5-7 versions so that I can hopefully get the full meaning. I just used one version for simplicity. You can go back to the Hebrew and Greek if you like. I do not believe that it changes the meaning.

    Where does scripture ever say that God “allows sin”?

    If you hold that Satan was not a mistake, are you saying that God did not realize when He created Satan that he would turn evil?

    I said that I do not understand the why. I also take huge offense that you would imply that I think God is my enemy. I would appreciate you reading what I said and not add to my thoughts with your opinion. I try to only represent what I see in scripture. If the explanation is not there, I do not try to fill in blanks and call it my belief.

    I also never said that God initiated sin. He created you and me for that.

    If possible, I would like to continue my communication with Mr. Stoner. I have read his book and have a great respect for what he has to say. I do not know where you stand on anything, therefore I would rather not argue with you.

    I am always here to learn, if possible. I have no problem changing what I believe if God’s word can show me where my belief is wrong.

  7. Chris Thompson

    22. Apr, 2010

    Hi Rob, I certainly didn’t mean to offend by implying you thought God was your enemy–I was just asking (which is why I referenced my confusion; that wasn’t a rhetorical device) how to reconcile Him not being an enemy–and I know we both agree He is not–with such statements as these: “I believe God created Satan as he is,” “I trust that God has created evil for His good,” and “I also think it is wise to know my enemy (Satan).” It simply seems that you have presented Satan as, in a way, working in line with God’s original purpose for him. That seems explicitly in keeping with the statement that you believe God created evil…which, if you are talking about a moral evil, sounds to me like saying God initiated sin. Which–if that is what you are saying–makes it very unclear to me WHAT sin/evil actually is.

    The norm when Satan appears in Scripture is (or so it appears to me) that he unambiguously works against the purposes of God…though in God’s sovereignty, Satan always fails in the long term. One pretty clear verse along these lines is Acts 26:17-18: “I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” These are rival, though dreadfully unbalanced, powers.

    As to whether I believe Satan is properly called a “fallen angel,” well, it depends on how one understands/defines “angel.” it can be used specifically as “messenger of God,” in which case I would not claim Satan was an angel. But if “angel” indiscriminately means “celestial being,” then yes I think Satan was a fallen angel. I think (tell me if I’m wrong) that we agree that Satan is some sort of celestial being/principality/powerful spiritual entity. So the issue is whether he is fallen, right? For the sake of trying to limit my words, I’ll just mention Rev 12:7-13. Or Luke 10:18 (Jesus said “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”) That seems to square with the orthodox tradition of who Satan is/was. Also, Eph 2:1-2 reads as Satan and God being in a state of contention, not harmony: “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.”

    I’ll try to respond to a couple more of your questions, and keep it as brief as I can.
    Your point about allowing sin vs. being in control–I would say that the language of “allowing” implicitly includes “control over” something. If a parent allows a child to eat too much candy, the implication is that the parent could have stopped the child. If the parent couldn’t stop the child, there’d be no sense talking about “allowing.” Or, if I’m sailing, and I “allow” my boat to drift, that means that I am ultimately in control of whether or not it drifts. I may choose not to exercise that control, but if that control isn’t there in the first place I cannot technically allow it.

    Last question (sorry for the length, but I’m simply trying to respond to what you asked instead of ignoring the queries): you asked “If you hold that Satan was not a mistake, are you saying that God did not realize when He created Satan that he would turn evil?”
    No, I certainly think God fully realized what would happen, both when He created Satan and when He created us. I hold that He has complete foreknowledge and complete sovereignty. And I don’t think Satan was a mistake, but nor is his evil in keeping with God’s uncontaminated goodness. Satan DID and does disobey–the fact that he works against God’s purposes I think is illustrated by, among other passages, the Parable of the Sower.

    To show how Satan was not a mistake and yet nevertheless fell from obedience would take much longer than I should take here. I’m assuming you don’t want my opinion on that (though I’ve written a bit on that elsewhere), so I won’t offer it–I’ve just tried to answer the questions you’ve raised.

  8. Ron Duncan

    23. Apr, 2010

    Chris, It would probably be better to have this continue by email, so as not to take up the space on Mr. Stoner’s blog. You can email me if you would like and I can fully explain where I currently stand on this issue and we can debate the issue until we are satisfied that Truth has been found. My email address is: rondmtb@yahoo.com

    The only reason I brought up the issue to Mr. Stoner is that from reading his book, he does not seem to accept what most people do just because it comes from religious leadership and therefore, I was looking for his input.

  9. Diane Beadle

    08. May, 2010

    I came to read your blog on May 8.2010 because I have this unwavering conviction that Rev. 2:18-to chapters end has something to do with what Jesus is saying to the churches now. Your blog Tim seemed to me to be on the same thought in that what one may see as rebellion could be submission and what one might see as submission could in fact be rebellion. How is it that the church could be able to be seduced by a Jezebel except that she seemed to be working for the churches good?. It will take a decerning eye to know the Marys from the Jezebels. I praise God for the way you articulate the importance and the cost of choosing this day whom you will serve.

Leave a Reply