Back

First, some background on the perspective I'm coming from. I'm by no means an "exvangelical" or someone who's suffered personally at the hand of mainstream Christianity. I was raised basically "non-practicing Christian". As a kid I went a couple times to Sunday School and VBS, but basically just as day-care with a little but of story-telling on the side.

2/N

Later (around high school age) I took a lot of interest in religion. To the extent that I've read more of the NT, more times, than most professed Christians, especially Bible thumpers and evangelicals. I have a familiarity with it from, at that point in my life, wanting to understand and appreciate what was there.

3/N

That's all in the distant past for me now; probably the closest thing to a spiritual alignment you can pin on me in recent decades is "humanist". But I felt like it was important context before I go where I'm going with this.

4/N

What follows is an indictment of anyone who clings to mainstream interpretations and is unwilling to challenge and deny them.

Folks who have been harmed by Christianity might like to take this as an indictment of anyone who calls themselves Christian, and I wouldn't fault you for that.

5/N

But from my perspective, this indictment is a challenge to anyone who wants to identify as Christian, but for it to be something "good", not to just grapple with, but to come out with a belief framework that's compatible with human values, and that doesn't glorify rape.

6/N

So, to get to the offensive point:

The mainstream Christian interpretation of the religion's founding story is:

"God committed rape, that's how we got our Savior, and that's A Good Thing."

And this is inseparable from political talking points that "sometimes something good can come out of rape".

7/N

Please, don't reply with excuses. I've heard them all before.

"Retroactive consent", whatever, doesn't exist and doesn't erase that rape is rape.

Whatever physical body parts were or weren't supposedly involved doesn't erase that impregnating someone who didn't consent to an act which risks pregnancy is rape.

8/N

The story as it's told and accepted literally was rape. By a supernatural being. If you're accepting that at face value, and worshipping that being, you are worshipping a rapist. It's as simple as that.

If not, you need to call out the people who are, and find an interpretation compatible with your values.

9/N

Don't act surprised when people who are literally, happily, worshipping a supernatural rapist also happily elect a human rapist.

10/N

So, what do I want you to do? If you want to believe in a supernatural being, this can be a sort of worldbuilding exercise:

"What circumstances would lead an actually-benevolent being people worship to convey to Mary the message you believe she received?"

11/N

I'm sure there are lots of things you can come up with, but to me the natural benevolent-being version has God giving the story to a young woman who found herself unexpectedly pregnant, whether by rape or consensual sex or whatever, and causing people to believe it, as a way to save her from a society who would condemn her for that.

12/N

Another somewhat plausible, but highly nonstandard/heretical interpretation is that God the Father, God the Rapist, was evil, and that his son replaces him. I don't think you'll find that very popular with Christians, but I guess it's an option.

13/N

If you don't want to believe in supernatural beings, I think it's all pretty straightforward: Mary is the hero for making up and getting people to believe a story to save herself from a violently misogynist society.

14/N

Regardless, people who, after having been challenged with these kinds of ideas, cling to the idea that their god *caused* Mary's pregnancy, and simultaneously tha their god is good, are monsters.

Monsters who are practicing what I've come to call Rape Theology.

15/N

I don't claim to have invented any of these ideas, but over many years (decades now?) I've been disappointed at how little I've seen any of it laid out this explicitly. And I haven't come across the phrase "Rape Theology" used elsewhere, despite the fact that the mainstream interpretation here is clearly a theology built around rape as the central glorified act.

16/N

@muvlon Yeah, that's cringe too, but as least it's arguably voluntary martyrdom. Vs "retroactively consenting to forced pregnancy and birthing".

@samiamsam @muvlon I don't doubt there are all sorts of horrors of spiritual abuse I've been fortunate not to have seen.

Here I was trying to focus on how, even among Christians who see themselves as not being "that kind", there's a horrible central premise that most won't challenge.

But I welcome perspectives like yours as additions to this thread.

@dalias @muvlon

thanks for calling rape theology out specifically

some of this is so insidious

many people just don't see it and when it is called out outside of 'tradition' which often equals we are just 'used to it' they are a bit shocked