The Silent Majority

By M. J. Benson

When Alexander Vanos joined the priesthood, he was as serious as any other making his vows but not with any intention of making a lifetime commitment. Fr. Vanos loved the priesthood and seemed perfectly suited for it. However, after a few years, he begins to question certain doctrine and teachings of his church and finds himself on a quest for truth. He discovers there are other priests who share his concerns; they unite and commit to study doctrine and teachings and come to a monumental decision: confront the powers that be and demand answers.

In the process, this now-former priest meets and falls in love with a Christian woman. This has its own unique set of obstaclesmaintaining an interracial, interfaith, and multistate relationship. Will either of them convert to the others faith? Or join together and mesh the two? Or compromise?

In this sequel, the enthusiastic group of former priests believes they have been called by God for something special, and they delve deeper into prayer, meditation, and study. Their mission is to confront errors of the past with those in highest authority. After gaining tremendous global support, even from other denominations, this group of former priests is now ready to make the trip of a lifetime and take a stand for truth with results that none of them could have foreseen.

Their final destinationRome.

• Language: English
• Publisher: WestBow Press
• Release date: Dec 13, 2017
• ISBN: 9781512798791

M. J. Benson

This is a revision of the author’s first book titled No Ordinary Nothing (originally released in 2008 by another publisher), which she says developed from childhood dreams. But the childhood dreams developed into a passion for reading and writing; and for the plain truth of God’s word after receiving Christ as her Savior. Single, and the mother of three grown sons, she makes her home in Columbia, South Carolina. She enjoys teaching a Sunday School Youth class at her church. One of her passions is to inspire her students to love God’s Word and be committed to reading it.

Book preview

Copyright © 2017 M.J. Benson.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotes marked (KJV) are taken from the King James Version of the Bible.

This is a work of fiction. All of the characters, names, incidents, organizations, and dialogue in this novel are either the products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously.

WestBow Press

A Division of Thomas Nelson & Zondervan

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.westbowpress.com

1 [phone]

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-5127-9880-7 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-5127-9881-4 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-5127-9879-1 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017912628

WestBow Press rev. date: 11/30/2017

Contents

Acknowledgements

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

That if thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thine heart that God has raised Him from the dead, thou shall be saved.

(Romans 10:9, KJV)

59985.png

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

(Jude 3, KJV)

Acknowledgements

I thank thee, Heavenly Father, for your love, grace and mercy, and most of all for your Son Jesus Christ who gave Himself that I might live for all eternity. Thank you for showing me the TRUTH of your word. You are truly the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-wise God, the Ancient of Days, and there is none like you. Praise the name of our God.

I desire nothing more than to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, and to worship and honor you!

To all of you who provided even the most miniscule piece of encouragement and support, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I shall forever be grateful for your faith in me and this book, your encouragement, advice and any other acts of kindness….no matter how small. Peace and blessings.

1

A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. (Lao-tzu)

S pring…finally! After weeks of back-and-forth bantering, spring finally convinced Old Man Winter to release his cold, tight-fisted grip on skin and bones. Bearable only because of the expectation spring would bring, many happily greeted that first ray of sunshine and hurriedly turned on their sprinklers or dragged water hoses out to resurrect dead lawns. After all, spring was the perfect time for….well, resurrection, renewal, rebirth, spring fever, baseball, and almost anything else. The sometimes brutal hair-raising, skirt-blowing, umbrella-snatching, pollen-carrying force of March was over ( well, almost) and the ease and beauty of April settled in. Cold, gray skies were exchanged for sunshine, light breezes, and fresh, fragrant air after a spring shower. The cold and dullness of winter were left behind. The beauty and brilliance of April spread out over the landscape like a colorful canopy shamelessly advertising her splendor with everything new. Unlike the shout and howl of March, April seemed to whisper to mankind that all was well, and all would be given another chance to get it right. Small wonder then, that Easter (or Resurrection Sunday), proms, Mother’s Day, graduations, weddings, baseball, and a host of dormant activities were birthed in the spring. Everything came alive—including creatures buried beneath the earth but digging their way to the top for fresh air and boldly forcing their way inside. Bulky clothes and boots were shed for the bare minimum; draperies were pulled back and windows were opened to let in what the cold had shut out. The delight of spring, annuals, and blooms popping up all over creation, would eventually make their way to the newly renovated Missionary Baptist sanctuary for the Denin—Vanos wedding.

59872.png

The stunning seventeenth century-style French country estate, site of the reception, sat majestically in the middle of ten acres surrounded by lush golf-green hills with a spectacular waterfall. Designed primarily for special occasions of the elite kind, it hosted weddings, receptions, dinner parties and other high-class entertainment. It even included a small dance and recording studio. The picture-perfect estate, with its peaceful, uncluttered setting, reeked of old southern charm and elegance and reminded Laura of a southern plantation house with a French twist. It was a favorite of discriminating brides, particularly those with money. But it smelled like too much money in Evian’s mind. The moment she stepped on the grounds, she thought, No way on this earth! From the looks of the place, every dime she had would be spent there alone.

The first thing that caught Evian’s eyes on entering the spectacular entrance, with its gleaming Brazilian cherry hardwood floors, was the colorful custom water panels in the middle of both sides of the walls. Her eyes had never witnessed such a spectacular display, and she, as well as the others, gasped at the sight. The owner explained that the vertical waterfall was adapted after the design of the Le Meridian in Cairo. The magnificent globe chandeliers cascading from the recessed ceiling created just enough light for a soft, warm ambience that perfectly complemented the panel waterfall. They kept turning around as they walked away, gawking and expressing their admiration.

Ideas and discussions came forth as they toured the various grand ballrooms with spectacular, gleaming chandeliers, velvet-covered chairs, and special bridal suites.

I think it’s perfect, Alex commented as they walked around.

I’m with you, Laura remarked. It’s a bit pricey but absolutely spectacular.

Evian began to walk away, taking it all in while trying to capture her vision of the reception area: a Cinderella—type theme sans the ball gown and with a Victorian twist.

Alex watched her for a second or two and then sneaked up from behind and encircled her waist. He whispered, What’s the matter?

Nothing. It’s…absolutely breathtaking! I probably never would have found it on my own. But I’ll be as broke as the Ten Commandments when it’s all —

Alex chuckled heartily. I thought this was all settled. Pop is handling most or all of this, so don’t worry about it.

Evian turned around. I know. But I can still be a little frugal even if someone else is picking up the tab, or most of it. No need to spend extra if you don’t have to.

I agree, for everyday living and ordinary things. But for our one-time only wedding, no. Let’s settle this right now. Plan it just the way you want it, and forget about costs. When she raised her eyebrows in surprise, he repeated, Forget about it. He was not kidding this time and seemed almost irritated.

In her mind, she could hear one of her father’s favorite maxims—If it’s not a problem, don’t make it one—. All right, all right. Just remember I was trying not to overspend.

Dear, I’m not likely to forget that.

59983.png

The next morning, the second conference began in one of the small meeting rooms at a convention complex in the Peachtree district. The former priests were armed with information from their own private studies. As each man signed in at the registration table, he was given a nametag and a copy of the list of names and mission statements for the group.

This session was more intimate, as the room was smaller and everyone closer together. Daniel provided Alex copies of the applications for membership after the first conference; after examining them, he was surprised at the diversity of the ethnic groups represented. Roughly 45 percent identified themselves as Caucasian-American, while African-Americans made up 25 percent. The remaining applications represented Mexico, Panama, India, Italy, and Kenya. Alex believed this infusion of cultures would be pivotal in reaching out to many in those countries.

The discussion would center primarily on celibacy and the importance of being united in Christ. After dispensing with the usual protocol including prayer, a song, and a short get-acquainted session, Alex said, "Jesus says ‘For where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.’ (Matthew 18:20, KJV). My focus is on the word ‘together.’ Being in a small group does not necessarily mean everyone is of the same mind because some may have their own agenda. His call for unity among the brethren is repeated throughout Scripture and before we get into our study, I want to make sure we are all still on one accord. We are beginning a very difficult journey; one that may require you to disavow your faith or cause others to disavow it for you. Some of the things you’ve heard and will hear may be hard to grasp. If we are not prepared to see this through to the end together, regardless of the outcome, if we become fearful or discouraged, the enemy has already won. I ask you to take the teachings and policies as you know them and compare them to Scripture, not some historical writing or church paper, but the Holy Scriptures themselves. We must do what Paul tells us: Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV).

Notice that it says we are to study to show ourselves approved unto God, not the church. But in so doing, we have to know what the truth is to rightly divide it and help strengthen Jesus’ church in the process. The only way to do that is to know our history, to know what transpired during the early centuries, and to compare the doctrine and policies to Scripture. God holds us accountable when we come into the truth. We must remain faithful to the end and be willing to make sacrifices if necessary. If anyone has any problems, fears, or apprehensions, let’s get them out in the open now.

When none were raised, he said, "Praise God. Before we begin our study, let’s take a minute to read the e-mail on the last page of our agenda, which I received just last week:

An elderly woman had just returned to her home from an evening worship service and was startled to find an intruder in her home. Catching the man in the act of burglarizing her home, she yelled, Stop! Acts 2:38. (Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit).

As the burglar stopped dead in his tracks, the woman calmly called the police and explained what she had done. Shortly, several officers arrived and took the man into custody. As he was placing handcuffs on the burglar, one of the officers asked, ‘Why did you just stand there? All the lady did was mention a scripture verse.’

‘Scripture?’ replied the bewildered burglar. ‘She said she had an ax and two 38’s!’

As the light-hearted laughter settled down, Alex commented, How our stress level could be greatly reduced if we only laughed more, and enjoyed some good old-fashioned humor.

I’m keeping this one! yelled someone from the back.

"Now, I’d like to start something a little different this time. When I get to certain Scriptures, I’ll ask for a volunteer to read them from a version other than the King James. Because the truth of God’s Word is why we’re all here, it helps to have another version as close to the KJV as possible for clearer understanding. I say that because the wrong translation may change the meaning of a passage and cause confusion. Also, get a good concordance if you are able. Let’s stand, and I’ll start with John 8:31-32 from the KJV:

Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed on him, ‘If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed. And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.’

When he was finished, Andrew Chiles from Savannah remained standing. I’ll read from the—uh— he looked up, obviously a little embarrassed. He hurriedly and quietly said, The International Children’s version. It reads—

What version was that? yelled someone facetiously from across the room.

Andrew braced himself for what was sure to come, and repeated, The International Children’s version.

He heard a few chuckles, with some of the men not bothering to conceal their light-hearted merriment. But Andrew said good-naturedly, "You laugh, but Jesus said ‘unless you are converted and become like a child, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.’ That quieted them a bit. Andrew then read:

So Jesus said to the Jews who believed in him, If you continue to obey my teaching, you are truly my followers. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.

Thank you, Andrew. It’s always good to get a deeper understanding even from a children’s Bible. Some of them couldn’t hold it in and chuckled again. "Depending on what version of the Bible you have, it may say ‘obey my teachings’ or ‘my words’, or ‘my commandments,’ but not the teachings, rituals, ceremonies, and traditions of men. Notice that little word my. His Word stands forever; it’s what makes us free, but man’s word is unreliable and changes like the direction of the wind."

The subject of marriage and church-mandated celibacy for priests, monks, nuns, and other clergy naturally generated great discussion and debate. Every Scripture on the subject (Leviticus 21, Matthew 19, First Corinthians 7, First Timothy 3, etc.) was researched, with Moses, Aaron, Caiaphas the high priest, and even the apostle Peter as examples.

Alex, if we must accept what we read in Scripture, how did all of this confusion begin? Justin asked.

That’s a good question. Five people can read the same Scripture and come up with five different interpretations based on their perception of what they think it’s saying to them. Rarely do we pray for revelation from the Holy Spirit but that’s exactly what we should do to avoid confusion. Man-made rules are subject to change and do so, whereas God’s Word is absolute and never changes. There are many Scriptures that leave no room for misinterpretation, are explicit in their meaning and can be taken quite literally, and those supporting marriage among the clergy are some of them. Our Lord did not mandate celibacy. He considered it voluntary and basically said in Matthew 19 that men accept celibacy for different reasons but it shouldn’t be a stumbling block or forced upon them. Let’s turn to Numbers chapter 6 for a second.

When it appeared that all had found the passage, he continued. These verses are in line with Matthew 19 and describe the Nazarite vow, a purely voluntary act of a man or woman consecrating or setting themselves apart for service to the Lord God. The person making the vow was required to abstain primarily from eating or drinking anything made from grapes or vine products and from touching dead bodies. This vow was not permanent and nowhere is a celibate lifestyle mentioned. If this is the basis for the church’s celibate priesthood, then additional requirements including celibacy were added later. Obviously, vows can be made regardless of marital status because it has more to do with a state of holiness than with a state of matrimony. But today, with added restrictions, some find the priesthood more of a burden than a joy. As stated in the Old Testament and during ancient times, priests and even the High Priest were allowed to marry but monks preferred to keep their celibate status. The high priest Caiaphas, who conducted the second trial of Jesus, was married. Celibacy was rarely practiced among Jews in particular because of a strict Jewish law that considered it almost a sin not to be married by age twenty. Most of the early Christian leaders were married. As time went on, the church allowed priests and deacons to marry, but apparently it had to be done before their ordination and not afterward. If memory serves me right, it was Leo the Great who ended the practice of allowing clerical marriage and even that was periodically waived through the centuries. It’s interesting that both Greek Catholics and Episcopalians allow marriage among priests. We accepted this vow of chastity as an obligation of our calling, but to fulfill it requires us to meet a standard higher than God’s, which is its own undoing. The Bible says man is called to be holy, not celibate, and being celibate does not make one more holy than one who isn’t. Now, the apostle Paul makes a distinction stating that a married person focuses more on pleasing the spouse whereas a single person focuses more on the things of God. But the decision to marry should be left up to the individual, not the church. The Lord could use the spouse in the ministry as well. If you think about it, God didn’t intend for man to be alone. That’s why He created Eve for Adam. Consider how much reverence is applied to the apostle Peter. Scripture clearly states Peter was not celibate! But, if God gives a priest or nun or anyone else a special calling to live a celibate life, that’s an entirely different matter.

Similar to the call he gave to the prophet Jeremiah, one man piped in.

Exactly.

A short discussion followed on the vital importance of being united in Christ and with other believers and thereby creating an atmosphere of defending the faith against dissension, heresies, and false teachings. There were many Scripture references, but Alex focused on 1 Corinthians 1:10 and 6:17, Ephesians 4:1-6, John 17:20-26, Psalm 133, 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 and especially Acts 2:42-47.

Afterward, Daniel returned to the front holding a list of suggested names for the group. There’s a three-way tie for the following…. After he read the names on the list, he said, Now, we’ll ask that you signal your vote by standing for the name of your choice. The third name received the most votes as the majority jumped up and applauded or whistled and yelled. Daniel made the motion and someone else seconded that their new name, Catholic Christians United for Change be accepted.

59870.png

The session with Rev. Conley was Evian’s second and Alex’s first. It was split into a forty-minute session with each one individually and then another forty minutes together. He gave each of them a booklet titled God’s Design for Successful Marriages and Homes accompanied by its CD. The two-part CD examined the responsibilities of a husband and wife, teaching the children and explaining how a husband could become the priest of his home. The CD even explained that the origin of the word husband came from an Old Norse word husbandi, meaning master of a house and its many verb meanings including to conserve, budget, economize, save up, etc. It also explained another meaning, to protect an asset from loss or destruction. Rev. Conley said it was the central role of the man, ‘to protect his family from loss’ and explained the biblical method for doing this.

He discussed several Scriptures including 1 Corinthians 7 and 11:3-9, which he said were often overlooked in each person understanding his or her position in God and in marriage. Verse three was of particular importance: The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God; as well as verses eight and nine:

For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man; neither was the man created for the woman but the woman for the man. (KJV)

In explaining God’s design for marriage, Rev. Conley briefly touched on Genesis, chapter two stating that God did not bring Eve to Adam until after Adam had been taught and instructed by God and only after he had been given dominion over the earth and was ready to meet his ‘help meet.’ He explained that the woman was created from man’s rib to protect the heart of her husband while emphasizing the importance of God bringing two people together in His own time. He mentioned the book of Ruth in discussing how God brought her together with Boaz. Evian gave Alex a knowing smile, reminiscing of their time in the park when he was studying the book of Ruth. Rev. Conley urged them to attend a church-sponsored marriage preparedness retreat, and also mentioned other biblical principles aimed at successful marriages but steered clear of mentioning women working outside the home. That was one debate he was not about to tackle. He used a familiar passage of Scripture, Matthew 19:5, in explaining that ‘a man and a woman must cleave, or bond, or stick to each other’ and that God should occupy the central place in the marriage and in each other. When a man marries, he said, his wife becomes his number one priority and vice-versa and that each other’s welfare should be the others’ priority. He stressed that it was paramount that a man loves his wife and equally important that a wife submits to her husband’s headship as directed by Paul in Ephesians 5. He also emphasized faithfulness and communication and being submissive to each other, which he said were pleasing to the Lord.

Rev. Conley mentioned his lengthy conversations with Father Avilah and agreed with Evian’s idea of a crucifer or acolyte for the processional. Later, they stood and held hands as Rev. Conley stormed the heavens on their behalf, centering his petition on any unresolved ‘baggage’ or past issues, unforgiveness, oneness in Christ and in each other, and any other related issues that came to mind. But he continued his counseling sessions with Alex by phone and e-mail and one or two short sessions with Evian after Sunday services. On one occasion, he mentioned that after talking with Alex, there was no doubt in his mind that the young man has some issues with his church.

Meeting the music director and several members of the Atlanta Symphony at the concert hall was quite a treat. Already a fan, Evian’s excitement kicked into high gear just listening to the sample, but some of that excitement dissipated when she realized that there were not many days left to learn the waltz.

60003.png

Later that night, after watching movies that featured the waltz, and studying the dancing couples, they practiced for a few hours. Many awkward missteps followed, but after awhile, they seemed to get the hang of it. Not particularly thrilled at the prospect of dancing to a waltz but because she wanted them to learn, Alex suggested they each take a few lessons at a dance studio and then practice together when he returned to Atlanta.

Evian agreed. Just don’t get too cozy with your dance partner.

59867.png

When he returned to Seattle, he noticed the voicemail light blinking on the house phone. He hit the message button as he unpacked. There was only one call, a very detailed message from none other than Christy. Christy! What on earth? The gist of it was that she wanted to check on him and needed some counseling for a very personal matter. Was it possible for her to come over or him to come to her?

He thought he’d seen the last of Christy, especially after that fiasco last Christmas. If she really needed counseling, why didn’t she call her priest or seek other help? Was this someone who simply refused to give up? He quickly dismissed the thought. There had to be more to it than that, and perhaps it was not about him at all. He used the automated return message feature, telling her she needed to call her priest and if necessary, get referrals for counseling. If that was not feasible, he said, he would schedule an appointment for her to meet him or Fr. Avilah in one of the counseling rooms at church. He stated emphatically there would not be a private meeting.

After leaving the message, he lay down on the bed. Immediately, he sensed the Spirit of God speak—‘And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren.’ (Luke 22:31-32 KJV).

Lord, what are you trying to tell me? This call was no accident, was it?

Alex immediately fell to his knees and began praying, reminding God that he said in Isaiah 41—‘Fear thou not; for I am with thee; be not dismayed, for I am thy God. I will strengthen thee, yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.’ (KJV). He then quoted several verses from Psalm 34, reminding God as if He needed reminding, of His promise of deliverance for those who trust in Him and do His will. He did say a prayer for Christy but God knew his heart wasn’t in it and so did he. Realizing she might really need prayer, he quickly repented and petitioned the Lord on her behalf. Something about her timing, though. He suddenly remembered—Jesus’ first temptation in the wilderness occurred after John baptized him, and after he received the anointing from the Holy Spirit when he came up out of the water! He prayed again, but this prayer centered mainly on ‘withstanding the fiery darts of the enemy’, for boldness and courage-not only for himself but for the entire group.

Alex felt an immediate sense of relief and thought no more of Christy, knowing full well that the enemy leaves you alone for a season. He understood that Christy was not his enemy but he also knew the real enemy uses whoever is open and receptive to do his unholy deeds. His only concern now was whether to bother Evian with it, but as he contemplated on making the call, she saved him the trouble.

You have impeccable timing. I was going to call you in the morning. Got a minute?

For you, always.

He told her of Christy’s call and his returned message. When he finished, there was silence on the other end, but he didn’t break it. He knew her well enough to know she was thinking, contemplating. How did she get your number?

It’s in the phone book. I intended to have it unpublished but never got around to it.

Does Christy know where you live?

That thought hadn’t crossed his mind, but it was just like Evian to think or ask something he hadn’t thought of. I’m not sure, but she did ask if she could come over.

If she shows up on your doorstep, or calls you again, just give her my number.

2

To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but dream, not only plan but believe. (Anatole France)

T o eliminate travel expenses, some meetings including this third one would occur through web conferencing. The study session focused entirely on one very sensitive subject, the study of Mariology and the unique role of Mary invented in Catholicism. The agenda included the November 1, 1950 declaration from Pope Pius XII , who solemnly declared:

‘By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.’

Every Scripture was researched, in addition to information in outside materials including books or commentaries. More importantly, however, they were to continue in prayer and meditation. Many brought their commentaries or other reading materials with them.

Alex addressed them from his chair as he stared into the camera. "Brothers, the Bible says: Teach me thy way, O LORD, I will walk in thy truth; unite my heart to fear thy name (Psalm 86:11). And "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth (John 17:17, KJV)

Pilate asked, ‘what is truth?’ Jesus gives us the answer throughout the gospel accounts. He says He is the truth and His word is truth. The inspired word of God is inerrant, but we cannot walk in it if we don’t know its truth and the truth of the word is the only reason we’re here. The truth is what brings us to our study of the prominent role we’ve created for Mary in our lives, something much needed for the understanding of why we do, think, and say those things about the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Alex elaborated further by stating what they all knew from various sources, including the Protoevangelium of James, of many of the church’s teachings particularly related to Mary’s perpetual virginity, her ‘sinless’ nature, and role as the intercessor of mankind. They studied what was known of Mary from the Old Testament Scriptures, predicting everything from the virgin birth to her espousal to Joseph, the Enunciation, and her life after the death of Christ. Alex also emphasized that all Christians, regardless of denomination affiliation, should never minimize Mary’s unique role in salvation, and as one ‘highly favored’ is truly blessed among women for her obedience, humility, and praise to God. She should be honored and praised for who she was and what Scripture says she did and nothing more. When he opened the floor for discussion, one man asked, Are you saying the Church is in error in its interpretation and teaching of Matthew 1:18-25?

"Well, if the Church’s teaching of perpetual virginity is based on Matthew, then it is in error. No matter what version of the Bible you read, Matthew clearly states in verse 18 that Mary was either pledged, engaged, betrothed or espoused to Joseph, and that ‘before they came together,’ she was found to be ‘with child’ or ‘became pregnant through the Holy Spirit.’ What I find so interesting, something that a lot of people miss is verse 20:

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)

"This angel of God is delivering a message to Joseph. This tells me that God desired Mary to become Joseph’s wife. If the angel told Joseph not to fear taking Mary as his wife, why do we doubt that he did what the angel said? I believe most of the teaching on perpetual virginity comes from the Protoevangelium and perhaps some other non-canonical writings, but not biblical doctrine because there’s no support for the teaching. I think the premise of the teaching is that as the mother of our Lord, she could not have transmitted inherited sin to her son because she was sinless by special grace. One of the non-biblical doctrines debated for centuries is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which we all know teaches that Mary was kept free from original sin through her own conception and passed that sinless nature to her son. There’s also the dogma of the Assumption, that she was preserved from the corruption of the grave by her body and soul being taken up to heaven as Pope Pius XII declared, and that she was the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise in John 14:3, which by the way refers to all believers. What I find interesting is that the Church even declares there’s no biblical basis for this concept. The more significant question is—do these teachings hold up under the truth of Scripture as taught by our Lord and the apostles? There is very little known of Mary after the Ascension, and there’s a tendency to speculate when information is not available as we’ve discussed before, and speculation can become a tradition when it is believed and repeated often enough. The Immaculate Conception proclaimed by Pope Pius IX back in 1854 is just one example of various teachings instituted or changed by whoever occupied the papal office at the time. The theories supposedly make the stories more holy, but how can you make God’s word more holy than it already is?"

"Let’s go back to the Scriptures and see if this doctrine is plausible, and then you decide for yourself. If she remained a virgin that would mean the gospel writers erred in not following the direction of the Holy Spirit. Earlier in another session, we looked at Scriptures that supported Jesus had brothers and sisters, which puts perpetual virginity to rest. Of course, the church doesn’t teach siblings of our Lord either. Let’s revisit the Scriptures that defined the term ‘knew’ as stated in Matthew 1:24-25:

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife, and knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)

Some other translations state that Joseph ‘did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son,’ or ‘kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son.’

"And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord" (Genesis 4:1, KJV).

"Some other translations state Adam lay with his wife Eve or had relations with Eve. They all mean the same thing. Obviously in this context, the word ‘knew’ or ‘lay with’ or ‘had relations with’ means sexual relations because right after that, Eve conceived or became pregnant as a modern translation states. Notice that Matthew says Joseph did as the angel of the Lord had said. This alone could end the controversy. But for the sake of argument, you can even compare the stories in Judges 19 of the Levite and his concubine or Genesis 19. For the sake of time, we’ll focus on the Genesis account. This story involves the angry men of Sodom who surrounded the house of Lot to take the two men or angels that visited him. We know the men of Sodom were homosexuals, but here again is the word ‘knew’ in future tense: And they called unto Lot and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (KJV)

"In this context, as before, the word know or knew refers to sexual relations. It’s clear that they were not interested in talking. Some other translations go so far as to say ‘that we may have sex with them’ or ‘have relations with them.’ But notice Lot’s mind-boggling response: And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man. Let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes. (Genesis 19:7-8, KJV).

"Again, some other translations say ‘you can take your pleasure with them’, or ‘do as you please with them.’ What wickedness was Lot referring to? Men having sexual relations with those they thought were men. And then he offers his two virgin daughters, and we know they were virgins because he said they ‘have not known men’, or never had sexual relations. As in Matthew, and other Scriptures we’ve read, Joseph did not know, or have sexual relations, or was not intimate with Mary until after Jesus’ birth. We know Joseph and Mary were at least legally committed to marrying because of verses 20 and 24 in Matthew 1, both of which state Mary was Joseph’s wife, though they may not have been living together at the time. Some have argued that the term espousal or betrothed means that they never married, but we know that is not the case because of the 24th verse in Matthew 1. The Jewish custom at the time was that vows were actually said at the betrothal and required a divorce to end them. That is why Joseph thought to ‘put her away privily’ as verse 19 explains. Brothers, we need to be absolutely clear on this, clear in understanding and agreement. If anyone disagrees, or has further questions, or comments, now is the time to get them out in the open."

One man spoke up. Well, I don’t have a question of understanding or agreeing. My question has to do with how many of us actually taught this theory?

That’s an interesting question, and I’d love to hear some explanations from those who taught this theory. Why did we teach this when our instruction manual, the Bible, clearly states something entirely different? Why do we accept speculation and theories instead of the biblical truth?

Because Church officials command that we teach it, Lindell explained from clear across the country, basically echoing the sentiments of the others. And many times, I questioned it but got nowhere, except that it’s been taught that way for centuries.

And that, brothers, is exactly why we’re here right now, Alex commented, to dispel many of these centuries’ old myths and teachings. But we also have to remember that a lot of this confusion stems from apocryphal books, many of which are considered as legends, such that even the early church fathers couldn’t agree on their content, accuracy or value. If something isn’t based on biblical doctrine, it shouldn’t be taught as doctrine; otherwise, it’s known as the ‘doctrines of devils,’ as Paul calls them. The Protoevangelium includes an elaborate narrative of Mary’s life and became such a hot topic during the Reformation that anyone disputing it was branded a heretic. I realize this is a very sensitive, potentially explosive subject but we must not shy away from it; we must stand our ground, and be united when we do. Does anyone disagree, or have any questions before we move on?

No, Daniel piped in after a few seconds, I believe we are all in complete agreement.

Sounds good. I believe everyone indicated complete agreement that there is absolutely no biblical support for the dogma of the assumption, and none of the theologians and scholars I contacted could locate any reference to it from our Lord Jesus or the apostles or anyone else. The Scriptures plainly state the only two saints who ascended to heaven were Enoch and Elijah, and the rest of us will have to wait til Christ’s return for His church. What’s also interesting is in John’s gospel, chapter 19, it indicates one of the last things Jesus took care of from the cross was to entrust Mary’s care to the apostle; therefore, based on that, John took care of her until her death. If there are no objections or questions, we’ll move on to the sinless nature of the mother of our Lord. As I got older and began to understand things, the more confused I became as to why the church would teach this. But before we move on, does anyone want to share their thoughts or opinions on this?

Several spoke up at once, but all who wanted to speak did, and as Alex gave them the opportunity, each said in one way or another that they knew this doctrine not only contradicted Scripture but also the common old adage that ‘no one is perfect, never was and never will be.’ A few said they were quite uncomfortable with the idea and tried to shy away from teaching it, which got them in ‘hot water’. But, as one man said, the teaching prevails because most accept it instead of reading the Bible for themselves.

"And that’s exactly what we want to change. To some, it may seem that we’re downgrading Mary’s significance, but this is clearly not about that. Let’s look at a few scriptures. David tells us in Psalm 51 that we are ‘born in sin.’ Now, in Leviticus, chapter 12, at the end of purification new mothers are instructed to bring a lamb for a burnt offering and a turtledove or pigeon for a sin offering, but if she could not afford either, two young turtledoves or two pigeons would suffice. The Lord required this for cleansing and to make atonement for sin. Luke, chapter two says when Jesus was presented before the Lord in the temple, Mary was to bring that same offering as indicated in Leviticus. That offering was certainly not on behalf of her son who didn’t need an offering because He was the offering. The sin offering was for Mary’s atonement. Also, Romans, chapter 5 tells us that by one man, Adam, sin entered the human race and all die, but 1 Corinthians 15:22 says for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (KJV). Notice that little word all which excludes no one. Since Jesus was born through a human vessel, He inherited the human nature of His mother, but not the sinful nature because He was also divine. But the church teaches that because of some special grace she received, and her birth through an Immaculate Conception as well, Mary was sinless and therefore passed that sinless nature to her son, instead of teaching that He was sinless because of His divinity. In other words, He came from God or came down from heaven as He repeats many times in Scripture and therein is His sinless, divine nature. It has absolutely nothing to do with Mary, who we know was a godly young woman, but not without sin since she refers to her own need for a Savior. Look at the Magnificat in Luke: And my spirit hath rejoiced in God, my Savior. (Luke 1:47, KJV).

The church’s teaching of her ‘sinless nature’ is not based on Scripture whatsoever. If you really study the Magnificat, you recognize a spirit of humility, an expression of strong adoration and praise to God from a godly, humble young woman. Does that sound like someone who would approve of a position bestowed upon her by someone other than God? I believe she would say, ‘Look not to me but to my son.’

After reviewing many other Scriptures, including Romans 3:23—for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God—Alex said, "I believe the word all means all, not all minus one. Since Mary was human and all humans have sinned, she can hardly be called sinless. The sin nature of humanity resulted from original sin in the Garden; it is universal and no one is free from it or its effects. Consider what the Bible says: And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1John 2:2, KJV). The whole world would include Mary. There was only one perfect, sinless person ever, and that is our Lord Jesus Christ! Do we need to continue the discussion?"

They said no, but one asked, Why do we teach it is ok to send prayer petitions to her and other dead saints?

"It’s just one of those things that we blindly accepted. We have to remember that these dogmas or concepts were developed by the church and were proclaimed as such by a pope or ecumenical council but not supported by Scripture. When Gabriel said ‘Hail, Mary’ in Luke 1, it was a form of greeting, a salutation, and Webster defines one of the meanings of the word ‘hail’ as an exclamation or greeting. It also means to greet with approval or summon by calling and to call out. Since Mary was called out for a special purpose, Gabriel greeted her appropriately. I mentioned earlier that in many Bibles, and I don’t know about all of them, Luke 1 refers to Mary as the Virgin Mary because she was a virgin at the time. However, subsequent chapters refer to her simply as Mary, or Jesus’ mother because she was no longer a virgin. At the wedding feast in John 2, it states, ‘the mother of Jesus was there,’ and if you continue through verse 12, there are several other references to his mother or the mother of Jesus.’ The church continues to refer to her as the Virgin Mary because of perpetual virginity, which as we’ve seen is in error. She should not be called the Virgin Mary unless you’re dealing with the period prior to the birth of Christ. After that, she should simply be called Mary, the mother of Jesus, or Mother of our Lord if you prefer, but not Theotokos, the Greek word meaning ‘mother of God.’ Now, the church defines ‘Hail, Mary’ the same way Webster does: ‘A Roman Catholic prayer to the Virgin Mary that consists of salutations and a plea for her intercession.’ Notice it’s specific to Roman Catholics and not any other denomination; and the intent of the biblical passage certainly was not to use Hail, Mary as a prayer of intercession for the saints as our denomination teaches. One simple, heartfelt prayer in faith to the Lord will avail