The Real Mary...

Just in time for Advent comes Scot McKnight's The Real Mary...

From the Amazon page:

From Publishers Weekly: In this slim, engaging volume, McKnight (Protestant author of The Jesus Creed) makes the case that the real Mary of the Bible has been hijacked by theological controversies. He begins by noting that Mary has been seen by turns as a compliant "resting womb," a damaging stereotype of passivity, a Christmas figure and a source of "reaction formation" by Protestants, as well as the mother of Jesus. "The real Mary is no offense to Protestants, but rather a woman for us to honor," he insists, envisioning her as an impoverished, bold, gutsy woman of faith. He also portrays her as neither goddess nor supersaint, but as the mother of God. McKnight lends interesting cultural context to Mary's simple and courageous words, "let it be," and unpacks the Magnificat as a song of protest and revolution. He poignantly portrays Mary's gradual knowledge that her son would not be the triumphant king envisioned as Messiah, and makes a somewhat controversial case for Mary having other children. His sections on the immaculate conception and Mary as mediatrix in prayer should help debunk some Protestants' false impressions of Catholic belief. McKnight's lucid, sometimes humorous, conversational style makes this an accessible book for a wide pool of evangelical readers.

Comments

[jason]

thanks for posting this, bob. we're getting our advent readings ready.

[Dan Brown]

The title "Mother of God" is perhaps the most vivid example of muddled Trinitarian thinking out there. Mary was the mother of Jesus, but she was ABSOLUTELY NOT the mother of God.

[bob]

Be careful about labeling other people's thinking like that. The title "Mother of God" rose early in church history to make a specific point about the deity of Christ. It may need a some unpacking for today's ears, but that doesn't mean to use it signifies "muddled" thinking... I think...
You can disagree with the theology without impugning the thinking capabilities of those using it, right?

[Jeff]

I don't see how a case made for Jesus having brothers and sisters could be that "controversial," considering that at least one birth narrative says that Mary and Joseph did have sex after Jesus was born and a few verses in the gospels that state outright that Jesus had brothers (i.e., Matthew 12:46, 13:55).

And what's so controversial about it, anyway? What doctrine demands that Jesus was an only child? It's not like there may have been some leftover Holy Spirit mojo in Mary's womb that may have rubbed off on her other children.

[bob]

The "Perpetual Virginity of Mary" is pretty standard Catholic doctrine... I'm trying to remember if the Orthodox believe in that as well...
If they do, that's a good two-thirds (or more) of Christianity that don't buy Jesus having brothers/sisters...

When they (the brothers and sisters) are mentioned in the Gospels, those defending this idea read "cousins"

[Dan Brown]

I didn't mean to impugn anyone's thinking capabilities. Perhaps I should have said "muddled Trinitarian philosophy" instead. At very least it's muddled terminology.

I don't know what the official Orthodox doctrine is, but I knew an Orthodox guy in high school who was deeply offended by the suggestion that Jesus had brothers.

[Dustin & Los]

You have been SpitBoxed! Check out your post at www.spitboxmedia.com