Thanks to everyone who signed up for the class, Mary & the Mystery of Salvation, especially to those who joined live last night and spoke up to share their stories.
As promised, I’m opening a conversation here about Mary/mariology—even for those of you who couldn’t take the class or haven’t yet heard the lecture (the recording is now available, BTW).
So, fire away and I’ll try to respond as best as I can as quickly as I can!
Why is the concept of the Virgin Birth that includes a bloodless delivery important? I have difficulty in identifying with a woman who has miraculously escaped the rigors of childbirth. seems somewhat Gnostic, as in 'body bad, only spirit good'.
I hear you! Admittedly, it's easy to go wrong here, and unfortunately much of what has been said about it—perhaps also by me!—is misleading or confusing. That said, there *is* something vital in the "otherness" of her conception, pregnancy, and delivery. The point is emphatically *not* that she escaped the pains of childbirth, even less that the body is unworthy or bad. Remember, she suffers with Christ. The point is that her child-bearing makes a new beginning, an out-of-nowhere act that counter-acts and speaks against the evils we suffer in this fallen age. Perhaps we could say it like this: Mary does not escape, but God instead makes a way of escape for us through her!
First, knowing you a bit I’m assuming the movie reference is intentional and I’m all here for it! The theological comedy content we all need. Second, and I’ll show my Protestant cards here, it seems so much of the discussion around Mary comes down to how we view the role and authority of tradition. How can we who have grown up under strong anti catholic and tradition biases begin to overcome those things to actually see Mary for who she is?
To your first point—of course I meant it! (As Ebert said, that movie is a triumph of the best kind of bad taste! )
To your second—not primarily. I'm afraid the dominant forms of American Evangelicalism have warped not only our sense of "tradition" but also distorted our readings of Scripture. That was a focus of last night's lecture.
I have an issue with the concept of Mary’s perpetual virginity as held to in Catholic and Orthodox teaching (I’m sure there are nuances between East and West). I’m beginning to understand the significance of the Virgin birth, and your comment Chris above is very helpful, but why insist on Mary’s virginity post Jesus? Such a stance leads to the insistence that Jesus’ siblings were adopted and not actually biologically related, presumably so as to protect the uniqueness of Jesus, but this seems to push us towards Docetism.
Her virginity is what makes this a mystery. To bear a Child that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit that has been with the Father , not created but chose to reveal Himself by becoming Human in obedience to what the Father’ plans to save us from the beginning of time. There is no time with God. He envelops all things . When you see creation, you see God. Jesus is the Word and is the I am.
Absolutely gorgeous poem, Amber! You've caught the playful, powerful, down to earth/earth revealing heaven wonder of this woman/child of God: She who redefines what child of God means for the world as both disciple and infant-God-bearer, who then becomes the child of Jesus - who defines/redefines it all!! I'll be sitting and playing under your words for years to come.
I know see Mary as the Eve that God dreamed of . A woman that love God (Jesus) with all her might and truly is the first Disciple . What a relevation. Chris, He truly has given you Solomon’s
I appreciate your poetic response Michael but I’m not sure it helps answer my question. Christ is the full manifestation of both God and humanity, and to preserve Mary’s virginity as a means of protecting the uniqueness of Christ is to overshadow, in my opinion, the creaturely aspect of Christ’s hypostasis. I can understand that there is something akin to creation ex nihilo going on in Mary’s womb, a new thing happening with the conception of Jesus, but why does that have to be the case with Jesus’ siblings. After all, the bringing forth of creation is followed by the command to be fruitful and multiply (I appreciate my logic might be hard to track here).
Certainly it does not *have* to be the case that Mary remains perpetually a virgin. There’s no necessity at work in her story, at least not as it has been traditionally understood. Plus, if you believe, as I do, that the church has made its most grievous errors in how it’s spoken of women, then it’s not foolish to ask what’s really being claimed in this teaching, and why. So, I appreciate the question.
And of course you’re also right to say we should avoid Docetism in whatever guise it presents itself. But then again we know that only because of what the Fathers say, reflecting on the Gospel’s claims! So, it seems to me we should be slow to speak against that tradition, and quick to suspect our own reasoning of having been misshaped by fundamentalist propaganda.
If what the Gospels proclaim is true, then we cannot let our assumptions about what’s possible determine what we believe happened to Mary. And why would something (e.g. virginity) that is true and good and beautiful in Jesus be anything less than that in his mother? Besides, virginity need not imply sexless or unerotic.
It is helpful in these cases, I believe, to ask, “What if it were true?” And then weigh the possibilities that emerge, asking whether they awaken faith, hope, and love. Poetics is a legitimate form of theologizing. Especially irreverent poetics!
Thanks Chris for, as always, an enlightening and thought provoking response to my many questions. I shall continue to ponder these things in my heart. I think your highlighting of the conditioning one often receives from the hands of fundamentalist religion is definitely on point.
Why is the concept of the Virgin Birth that includes a bloodless delivery important? I have difficulty in identifying with a woman who has miraculously escaped the rigors of childbirth. seems somewhat Gnostic, as in 'body bad, only spirit good'.
I hear you! Admittedly, it's easy to go wrong here, and unfortunately much of what has been said about it—perhaps also by me!—is misleading or confusing. That said, there *is* something vital in the "otherness" of her conception, pregnancy, and delivery. The point is emphatically *not* that she escaped the pains of childbirth, even less that the body is unworthy or bad. Remember, she suffers with Christ. The point is that her child-bearing makes a new beginning, an out-of-nowhere act that counter-acts and speaks against the evils we suffer in this fallen age. Perhaps we could say it like this: Mary does not escape, but God instead makes a way of escape for us through her!
First, knowing you a bit I’m assuming the movie reference is intentional and I’m all here for it! The theological comedy content we all need. Second, and I’ll show my Protestant cards here, it seems so much of the discussion around Mary comes down to how we view the role and authority of tradition. How can we who have grown up under strong anti catholic and tradition biases begin to overcome those things to actually see Mary for who she is?
To your first point—of course I meant it! (As Ebert said, that movie is a triumph of the best kind of bad taste! )
To your second—not primarily. I'm afraid the dominant forms of American Evangelicalism have warped not only our sense of "tradition" but also distorted our readings of Scripture. That was a focus of last night's lecture.
ICYMI Amber wrote this in reflection on last night's discussion:
https://twitter.com/AmberBenson/status/1572413617554821120?s=20&t=AFcSpQ6kOg5ejB8wfH0IzQ
I have an issue with the concept of Mary’s perpetual virginity as held to in Catholic and Orthodox teaching (I’m sure there are nuances between East and West). I’m beginning to understand the significance of the Virgin birth, and your comment Chris above is very helpful, but why insist on Mary’s virginity post Jesus? Such a stance leads to the insistence that Jesus’ siblings were adopted and not actually biologically related, presumably so as to protect the uniqueness of Jesus, but this seems to push us towards Docetism.
Her virginity is what makes this a mystery. To bear a Child that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit that has been with the Father , not created but chose to reveal Himself by becoming Human in obedience to what the Father’ plans to save us from the beginning of time. There is no time with God. He envelops all things . When you see creation, you see God. Jesus is the Word and is the I am.
Correction: brought forth by the Holy Spirit that is the Trinity, not created , etc .
Absolutely gorgeous poem, Amber! You've caught the playful, powerful, down to earth/earth revealing heaven wonder of this woman/child of God: She who redefines what child of God means for the world as both disciple and infant-God-bearer, who then becomes the child of Jesus - who defines/redefines it all!! I'll be sitting and playing under your words for years to come.
She also set Mary's song to music:
https://www.reverbnation.com/amberbenson/song/32342807-magnificat
Wow!!!!!
I know see Mary as the Eve that God dreamed of . A woman that love God (Jesus) with all her might and truly is the first Disciple . What a relevation. Chris, He truly has given you Solomon’s
wisdom.
I appreciate your poetic response Michael but I’m not sure it helps answer my question. Christ is the full manifestation of both God and humanity, and to preserve Mary’s virginity as a means of protecting the uniqueness of Christ is to overshadow, in my opinion, the creaturely aspect of Christ’s hypostasis. I can understand that there is something akin to creation ex nihilo going on in Mary’s womb, a new thing happening with the conception of Jesus, but why does that have to be the case with Jesus’ siblings. After all, the bringing forth of creation is followed by the command to be fruitful and multiply (I appreciate my logic might be hard to track here).
Certainly it does not *have* to be the case that Mary remains perpetually a virgin. There’s no necessity at work in her story, at least not as it has been traditionally understood. Plus, if you believe, as I do, that the church has made its most grievous errors in how it’s spoken of women, then it’s not foolish to ask what’s really being claimed in this teaching, and why. So, I appreciate the question.
And of course you’re also right to say we should avoid Docetism in whatever guise it presents itself. But then again we know that only because of what the Fathers say, reflecting on the Gospel’s claims! So, it seems to me we should be slow to speak against that tradition, and quick to suspect our own reasoning of having been misshaped by fundamentalist propaganda.
If what the Gospels proclaim is true, then we cannot let our assumptions about what’s possible determine what we believe happened to Mary. And why would something (e.g. virginity) that is true and good and beautiful in Jesus be anything less than that in his mother? Besides, virginity need not imply sexless or unerotic.
It is helpful in these cases, I believe, to ask, “What if it were true?” And then weigh the possibilities that emerge, asking whether they awaken faith, hope, and love. Poetics is a legitimate form of theologizing. Especially irreverent poetics!
Thanks Chris for, as always, an enlightening and thought provoking response to my many questions. I shall continue to ponder these things in my heart. I think your highlighting of the conditioning one often receives from the hands of fundamentalist religion is definitely on point.
Is there a recording of the class I could purchase? Sorry I missed it, sounds like it was amazing.
There is! The link’s available here: https://cewgreen.substack.com/p/mary-and-the-mystery-of-salvation
FYI, The signup link gives a error code of not existing.
Oh no! Hold on.
I see what the problem is, and I'm getting it fixed ASAP! (The course was accidentally overwritten, but I can access it.)
Ok! It's fixed! Here you go:
https://st-anthony.thinkific.com/courses/mary-and-salvation