Revisiting the Christmas Story

*Upon further reflection, I have edited this post slightly.

As I was listening to Christmas music today, I heard the song "Mary Did You Know?" I have heard that song hundreds of times, and I have always enjoyed it. However, today I suppose I was listening a bit differently or perhaps I just heard it differently. There is a line that says, "This child that you delivered will soon deliver you." Initially, I thought how interesting it was that when Jesus was born, he was a vulnerable baby who needed his mother's care, but that eventually, it was Mary who stood in need of care, or ultimately redemption. Perhaps that thought was momentarily heartwarming. However, it was only seconds until that thought became alarming.

The Christmas story is always made out to be a warm and triumphant event. An angel comes to Mary and tells her that she will be with child, even though she is a virgin. Initially, Mary is afraid, but then comes to terms that she is about to become a mother. Although there is no room in the inn, Mary and Joseph find shelter within a stable, where the Christ-child is delivered. People come from miles arounds--responding to angels' messages--to see the babe in Bethlehem. However, perhaps this is the over-romanticized version of the story.

Mary, a girl likely only to be in her early teens, receives word from an angel that she will be pregnant. Apparently, the Holy Spirit is to come upon her and impregnate her supernaturally. Glorious? Perhaps. Yet does it strike anyone that this was all against Mary's will? Sure, Mary then called herself a willing servant to fulfill the will of God. However, this was after it was announced--what will be will be. The angel did not come to Mary asking if she would be the willing servant to bear the Christ-child. No, the angel came to Mary and told her it was a done deal--it was going to happen. Some scholars equate what happened to Mary as rape. There are those who suggest that she actually did experience sexual intercourse, forcefully against her will. While I haven't done extensive study, I am not sure there is evidence to support that claim. She was going to be pregnant, and there was nothing that she could do about it. Yet, it does make me wonder if speaking up and saying no was even an option? Since Mary complied, but did not particularly will this event that was to take place, even by means of the Holy Spirit, is it really too far out there to call this rape? Semantics aside, Mary was going to be pregnant. So, she had to face the man she was about to marry; she had to face her parents. She had to face society—a society whose customs frowned upon unwed mothers so much, she could have faced death. More than glorious, this seems to be violent and ugly.

I'd like to revert back to that statement, "The child that you delivered, would soon deliver you." Isn't it interesting that this Savior was a man? While I have heard Jesus' gender be used as a basis for the gender of God, I must vehemently disagree. I can somewhat understand why a male Savior was necessary, in this case, as he was coming to a society deeply rooted in patriarchy. In a time when women were viewed not much higher than animals, there would have been little room for a female Messiah. However, really, would a female Savior been that far-fetched? If God can bring the Holy Spirit upon a woman, making her with child, then make her husband, parents, and society understand...if God can raise Jesus from the dead, surely God could have impressed upon the minds of the world that this woman--this Christ-child little girl--was to be their Savior and Messiah. And while Jesus is considered to be savior of the world, the line that Mary needed her son--a man--to deliver her leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I suppose it's the overall outlook on women, during that time, that troubles me. Historically, in some traditions, it is believed that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit so that he would not inherit the sinful nature of Joseph, as original sin and other traits were passed through men. This notion seems to make the woman merely a vessel, with the man as the one who determines who or what the child is.

All of this is troubling. For advocates of free human will, Mary seemingly had no free will in this case. She was, in essence, forced to bear the Christ-child, and any cry of opposition would likely not have changed her pregnant state. She was not asked to bear Jesus, she was told to do it. Furthermore, while on one hand, I can understand why Jesus came in male form, I am also troubled that even our theology tends to perpetuate the ideology that women are in need of men--in this case, in need of a man for salvation. Yet, perhaps what is even most challenging is that mainline theologians and church-goers refuse to call into question these details. The story, itself, has become so sacred that they see the narrative at face-value, with no room for explanation. And so, we receive opposition when we suggest that a male Jesus does not necessarily mean a male image of God.

I am more than willing to suggest and comply that Jesus' maleness was a secondary detail--that Jesus maleness does not mean God's maleness. I am willing to rationalize that when Jesus gave of and emptied himself upon the cross, that he, too, surrendered his manhood. However, until the church is willing to also concede to these details, we are stuck with a male savior. We retain a history of male dominance and violently forced submission upon the part of women. With these details in mind, the Christmas story just doesn't sound the same anymore.