Another Assault upon Christmas

If there is one season of the year in which those on the Left unite together against a common foe it is the Christmas Season.  Their assault upon the season of our Savior's birth seems to know no limitations.  Over the years we have seen Christmas programs within our elementary and secondary schools changed to Winter programs.  We now celebrate snow and snowmen rather than the Savior and the shepherds.  (Note: I am grateful for those schools who have not bent the knee to this Leftist lunacy and who still allow their students to celebrate the real reason for Christmas.  I pray that they will continue to be firm in their resolve). 


Municipalities have battled for years the legality of having a Nativity set up on the Town Square.  When I was a boy growing up, nearly every little town in Iowa had its Nativity scene - some more elaborate than others, but each was a declaration by the community of the real reason for Christmas.  Now one must travel for miles in search of such a Nativity display.  The fears of lengthy and expensive litigation has now kept the manger in the warehouse. 


Then a few years ago it became marketable to not use the words "Merry Christmas" within the retail communities.  Yes, you could still use the greeting of "Happy Holidays" which I found to be inconsistent with their thinking.  Let's see, the word "holiday" is a contraction of two words "holy" and "day."  Now, let me ask you, "What makes this season, as opposed to, let's say August 25 or September 25 or July 25, a "holy day?"  Is it not the birthday of Jesus Christ?  So, when I say to a friend, "Happy Holidays," which I am really saying is this is a holy day because of Jesus.


But, just when you think the Left could not get more creative in their assault upon Christmas, a professor at Minnesota State University in Mankato dropped a bombshell this past week.  Dr. Eric Sprankle is a professor in the graduate school of psychology at the university and also teaches classes on sexuality in the undergraduate school.  Here is what Dr. Sprankle tweeted last week: "The virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen.  There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario.  Happy Holidays."  In other words, Dr. Sprankle is accusing God of sexually assaulting Mary against her wishes. 


Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas responded, "Dr. Sprankle's comments are nothing but blasphemous babble from a liberal who is completely ignorant of the Bible." (quote from his interview with Todd Starnes). 


Let's analyze the Biblical story to refute what Dr. Sprankle has said.  First, there is no statement within the Gospel of Luke that records any sexual involvement between God and Mary.  Here is what Luke simply says, "The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.  So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).  Why does Dr. Sprankle accuse God of sexual assault?  It is because he has a limited view of God.  According to him, there is only one way to create a baby and that is through a sexual union.  And, you know, for every human being since the time of Adam and Eve, that is a true fact.  But the conception of Jesus was unique.  There was no sexual union.  Mary remained a virgin until after she had given birth.  So, Dr. Sprankle, there could be no assault because there was no sexual union. 


Second, Luke records that Mary did consent to God's request.  Again, let's read from the Luke text: "'I am the Lord's servant,' Mary answered.  'May it be to me as you have said.'" (Luke 1:38).  Friends, those are words of consent.  Those are words still filled with many unanswered questions.  Those are words still shrouded with fear.  Yet, Mary agreed to this unique invitation from God.  She said, "Yes!" 


Did the angel put pressure upon Mary so that she had no other option but to say "yes?"  Certainly there is no indication of such pressure within the Luke story.  Did Mary fear the reprisals from God if she said "no?"  Again, there is no indication within the text.  No, Luke would have us believe that Mary made her decision based upon faith.  When approached, Mary volunteered for the assignment God had commissioned. 


Dr. Sprankle, you are just wrong in your understanding of the most beautiful birth narrative recorded in human history.  There has never been a baby born, either before or after, like Jesus.  His birth marks the defining moment in the history of mankind.  Calendars were changed because of His birth.  No, Dr. Sprankle, the only thing more difficult to understand than the birth itself, is the reason why God entered into His world.  And that reason can be stated with just one word; love.  Dr. Sprankle, I want you to know that John 3:16 is for you, just as it is for me: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."  Oh that you would know the truth from that text.