Introduction: This essay
regarding Mary and the nature of the gospels who speak of her is part
of a conversation with Edward Fudge( edward@edwardfudge.com) and
another writer regarding what they had written about her. I am
unable to retrieve their original essays. In blue are some of
Edward's comments.
Letter: Hello Edward. Can you entertain with me that the elevating of Mary as somewhat ' more and more' than woman was developed overtime as the story of Jesus was told and retold? The downside of such exaltation may be that it takes away the glory of being 'just woman'. It has hardly given real women through the ages a role model that was within their human grasp. It is not a picture of woman that kept women from being manipulated and discriminated against by men through the centuries. The earliest NT writings indicate that the first believers had little interest in Jesus' birth and any superior qualities of His mother. In all of Paul's teaching and preaching which we have his only reference to Jesus' birth or Mary is simply, "In due time he was born of woman".
Similarly the first gospel Mark which is some 40 years after Jesus' death makes no mention of any story of Jesus' birth. The last gospel written John makes no reference to Jesus' birth. The story of Jesus must have been originally quite complete to the earliest believers without any statement regarding his birth or the superiority of his mother. Beyond the NT Matthew and Luke such story development continued into more claims about Mary which you reject as not true. I see those 'not true' statements developing in the same very human way that the birth stories of Matthew and Luke( which are not consistent with each other in many details) developed. I share with millions the need to have my worship directed to a God who is not male only. The symbol of Mary's divinity is helpful and appealing to my own sense of God. A sermon on Mary during advent is one of my favorite ones to deliver for I think it meets deep psychological and spiritual needs in most of us. In our effort to understand these developments and the earliest preserved writings it is so urgently important to not force on these writers the role of reporters or historians. That was not what they were attempting but rather to describe how the deep personal and group impact of Jesus on their recent forbears could be explained. Also they were responding to attacks and critical questions being asked regarding their still developing faith including stories circulated of an illegitimate birth of Jesus.
I'm
just hitting briefly key questions and concepts as I respond here but
they all center around coming to grips, and I must say also for myself,
with increased appreciation of the writers, and of the actual nature of the NT
writings. And beyond that the development of the Christ story through
the centuries in the dogma of the church. When taken as symbolically
alive and thus true even the later statements of the Catholic Church
universal, which you reject as meaningless, can be seen as important
developments of Christian truth and presentation. Understanding this a living myth does not at
all mean that I cannot enter into the hearing and telling of these
gospel stories and benefiting from it. Even more so than I did when I took them as literally and physically true. Their language is that of
symbolism(as are our nightly dreams) which has the capacity to touch
the deepest parts of the human soul. I hardly ever sing 'O Holy Night' at church without tears welling in my eyes. But if I hear and teach
insisting on the details being physical historic fact I create a split in
my own and other post- modern human minds, seeking to enforce a
basic dishonesty within my own God given understanding of creation
and natural law. Christianity has to face the real truth of its own
history and of its writings if it is to redeem what is truly timeless, redemptive and
relevant. (This is another example of dealing with the shadow reality
in order to arrive at greater wholeness and a more genuine authentic truth. And just
as with the personal, community and institutional shadow is often
resisted bitterly for fear of losing something.)
The
application of the term 'Madonna' to Mary, mother of Jesus,
began in Italy in the Middle Ages. The painting below by
Fillipo Filli is one of numberless examples of
worshipful images of the Madonna. A ten inch statue of the 'Madonna with child' has sat openly on a shelf in my home for two decades. My eyes frequently go there. Something very strong and deep resonates with such an image in the hearts of many, not just Catholics. 'What is this timelessness of mother and child about?' we might profitably ask ourselves.The Italian term meant
'important woman' and came to be nearly exclusively applied to
Mary, the mother of Jesus. The term literally translated is
'My Lady' and for the church became 'Our Lady' from
Medieval Times forward. This image became perfect for the
unconscious 'anima' (a Jungian term for the inner female function)of the male, and perhaps also female
Western psyche, which is typically projected onto an outer object or person.. This means that for at least a
thousand years the church managed to have an appropriate icon
for the inner feminine image to be truly alive in the hearts of the
masses of Christian people. This aspect of the eternal feminine
archetype was during that time experienced, mostly
unconsciously, as a felt connection to the femaleness of
the Sacred by untold millions of people. This was a huge step in the
Western 'image of God' moving away from an all male God to
include the feminine as equal and mutual. Sadly this sound
psychological disposition was nearly completely lost in the
Reformation Movement where the images of the Madonna were no
longer given the authority and approval of the Protestant Church .
This is a good example of how a very appropriate and real
personal experience of an archetype of the Sacred lost its capacity
to be such a bridge of Unconscious content to consciousness. This is
the most important purpose of all religious symbol and the
Protestant church , by eliminating so much of the sacrament and
images that had naturally evolved
in the Church, left itself quite barren and offering primarily
an experience of the 'head and law' rather than also 'heart and
grace.' One who hears 'O Holy Night' with only the rational and reasoning mind set is not at risk of crying. But many of us are caught by surprise, when we are not thinking, by such symbols and wonder, 'why am I crying?'
On the plus and necessary side such
a stance against the sacramental aspects of the Catholic church
ushered in the 'Age of Reason' with its Objective and Scientific
World views. This major shift in state of mind in the West has made
possible all the scientific and technological progress of the past
400 years. But now we find ourselves very cut of from a Religion
based on images that reflect the eternal archetypes including the
much needed 'feminine' principle. And even though the Catholic Church still exalts such images of Mary, it too was pulled into the
rational emphasis in reality as much as the Protestants. So the
Madonna does not offer what it once did even to many Catholics.
It is true the past 200 years has been a time that Western Humanity has been searching for its own lost soul, trying to find a path to reconnect to the Collective Unconscious in ways that are supportive of human life as it is today. I have hopes that process is becoming more conscious. There are encouraging signs, eg the movement toward the equality of women and other marginalized groups and emphasis on human rights that the needed archetypes are beginning to live again. I have had some direct experience of this in my dreams and 'vision-like' phenomena. I, along with many others, now have a greater understanding of why Mary, Mother of Jesus, the Madonna was such a powerful and living experience for so many in our past Christian Tradition.
It is true the past 200 years has been a time that Western Humanity has been searching for its own lost soul, trying to find a path to reconnect to the Collective Unconscious in ways that are supportive of human life as it is today. I have hopes that process is becoming more conscious. There are encouraging signs, eg the movement toward the equality of women and other marginalized groups and emphasis on human rights that the needed archetypes are beginning to live again. I have had some direct experience of this in my dreams and 'vision-like' phenomena. I, along with many others, now have a greater understanding of why Mary, Mother of Jesus, the Madonna was such a powerful and living experience for so many in our past Christian Tradition.
Edward,
I know we are far apart on such topics and I seem to have little
choice but to respond for I realize there is a great mass
of religious people who see these things your way. I know I once did.
It is how it was presented to me. I know from my own experience that
my taking and understanding the stories by the gospel writers as
primarily symbolic rather than definite history and literal, does not
reduce or lessen the effectiveness or the quality and benefit of my
faith in the Christ. Faith simply is not primarily anchored ever in
history, which is always suspect and selective even when the writers
are attempting to write objectively. But recording historical fact was
not the nature or purpose of the gospels' creation. Faith via
history is more akin I think to attempting to' walk by
sight
and not by faith.' Faith is anchored in our very inner person
through symbols received that are in harmony with what is in our very
nature as carriers of the 'image of God'. Such is the process that eventually led in early 1950's to the accepted Catholic
dogma of Mary being 'Assumed Into Heaven', thus becoming a part of
Christian Deity. This may to some seem like gibberish or blasphemy. But I am
quick to respond that I am concerned for the destructive effect of
trusting in supposed literal Bible story rather than a God 'in whom we live
and move and have our very being.' I am convinced that such a
God, in our day, cannot be found through grasped for literal history. Rather the ancient wisdom, 'The word is near you
and in your heart' is more appropriate.
Cordially,
Jim
PS.
I would be more careful in how I express these kinds of things if I
were writing for the public but in the note below to another friend
I allow myself to speak straight from the heart without being overly
'careful', similarly as I have reflected to you above: "On
a personal note regarding this topic. The image and symbol of Mary,
and the qualities that are a part of it, had a large impact on me
during my time of creative illness and recovery. So much so that a
sermon on Mary was the very first sermon I prepared and preached
after not preaching for some four years. So I might say that the
scriptural and divine symbol of Mary, mother of Jesus, was my step
back into public ministry after being whisked away for four years. I
say this to try to explain how believing in a supposed historical
reality of a spiritual story has little to do with the impact of a
genuine and living symbol on one's faith and spirituality. In fact I
feel that historcizing that which is more legitimately symbolic
makes the spiritual impact less than what it can be otherwise."
Again Edward, I owe you for getting my thoughts stirred toward this very
personal content. I'm grateful that you are encouraging your readers
to ponder the meaning of Mary, the mother of God. Best to you, Jim
Jim,
I understand
what you are saying but I cannot be where you are in thinking about
it all. You say the unhistorical Gospel narratives are meaningful to
you as mere symbols. I see them as historical (even 50 years for
Matthew is too soon to be circulating lies of such proportion and to
get by with it if these stories are not true) and meaningful. There
was a time when I would have argued that they cannot be meaningful
to you if not historical. I am not in that place now. You will have
to be satisfied with that. God who knows the hearts will be final
judge of us both. May he have mercy on us both.
Cordially,
Edward
Edward.
Thanks for your willingness to explain and respond. I will only
mention now two phrases that indicate to me I have not
successfully communicated the grand meaning and effect of
SYMBOL--mere
symbols, circulating lies. These
reflect something that is far from my meaning and belief. Regarding
the short time for myth(also easily misunderstood as 'less than' and
'mere') and symbol to develop, these texts were born of extreme
times
of chaos in the Jewish community- war time, total destruction of the
structure and organization of their religion . Also, Christians and
Jews alike were having to probe more deeply and desperately than
ever
to
restate(reinterpret) the meaning of their Messianic hopes that had
been dashed. Christians and Jews alike had expected that two
courageous and bloody Jewish revolts and the destruction of
Jerusalem and its temple to bring in God's new reign in the world
and their vindication as God's people. It
did not but
only brought the natural chaos and destruction that follows a total
defeat in war. The things expected had not come 'in this
generation'(words attributed to Jesus in the gospel), as had been
believed and stated, or the generation following. The gospels and
some letters attributed to Paul are 'honest and believing' efforts
to reinterpret all this and in the process created this rich
symbolism. We should be ever grateful to their spiritual and
creative work born of much suffering and need , very similar no
doubt to the actual life of the one they seek to honor. I shake to
contemplate what we hold in our hand and is before our eyes and how
it was all produced by the influence of the one we still explain as
the one in whom God fully appeared.
Final Personal Note: I understand perhaps what kind of human communications can be born of desperation and the deep seeking it sometimes brings in human life. For that is how I interpret what I 'found' in the depths of my own suffering and separation from all that was home and foundational to me. I refer to the early months of 1985 and following. Much of my experience is best described I think as an example of a 'symbol producing time' in one's life. Much of my experience was a response from 'within' even though it was brought about by the unimaginable, to me, external environment and situation my life had encountered. I experienced a total 'dead end'. It does not take long in a 'fullness of time' situation for genuine myth and symbol to generate. It takes suffering desperation and a willingness by some to seek the very depths of one's reality and to have the energy left to risk communicating it. Original symbolic revelatory material lacks beauty and practicality. It takes the work of many over long periods of time to form it into a work of beauty. I only know something of the experience of receiving some raw material from the Collective Unconscious.
I
do not mean to be dramatic regarding my own strong and unexpected inner experience or to
compare in anyway its significance to the development of The Christ
Story, but it has helped me to understand how it likely happened. To
me 'the symbolic' will never again be 'merely' or 'only' and
certainly not ' a lie'; but is instead 'foundational' to the
meaning of religious experience and the formation of all forms of what are now called Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment