Comment and/or Quote
posted April 23rd, 2007 at 8:02 pm by Betty
Perhaps the fastest way to begin our conversation of the two new books, The Secrets of Mary Magdalene and The Magdalene Mystique , is to post comments and quotes. I’ll start with quotes from the first chapters of both of these books. Join in the fun and comment and/or quote. (See the earlier post entitled “Two Groups reading about Mary Magdalene” where I mentioned we would be experimenting with an online book study).
Here are my quotes:
Elaine Pagels, page 6 of Secrets: The author of the Gospel of Philip “sees Mary Magdalene as a powerful spiritual presence, as one who manifests the divine as it appears in feminine form — above all as divine Wisdom, and the Holy Spirit.”
James Carroll, page 31 of Secrets: “the figure who most embodies the imaginative and theological conflict over the place of women in the “church,” as it had begun to call itself, is Mary Magdalene.”
James Carroll, page 33, Secrets: Although Jesus rejected male dominance, as symbolized in his commissioning of Mary Magdalene to spread word of the Resurrection, male dominance gradually made a powerful comback within the Jesus movement. For that to happen, the commissioning of Mary Magdalene had to be reinvented.”
Magdalene Mystique, page 1: “We are a spiritual people on a quest to reclaim our true humanness.”
Magdalene Mystique, page 2: “Our community has begun to consider the soul damage inflicted on both men and women by an old way of thinking and feeling and its emphasis on ‘my group.’ We’ve recognized that we must begin the work of respecting all peoples. We must become shared peace.”
Please comment and/or quote. Hope you will join us in this experiment.
the secrets of mary magdaleneThis entry was posted on Monday, April 23rd, 2007 at 8:02 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Mary Magdalene has become the embodiment of the divine for me. She is a very real spiritual presence in my life, right now, much more so than the masculine divine/Father God. I haven’t rejected the Father God, it’s just that communing with the Feminine Divine has proved to be very healing, as well as very joyful and very powerful.
As I’m reading “Secrets”, I have read more from those who feel that by assigning the role of wife and mother to Mary Magdalene, we are buying into the male dominance view of Her and demeaning Her. I don’t agree. It is my belief that by denying those roles to Mary Magdalene, we are denying Her part of her “femininity” and her womanhood. No, not all women are called or are blessed to give physical birth to children, but that isn’t the sum total of our ability. We also have the ability to give birth to other creative processes.
I will continue to shout from the rooftops (so to speak) that until “feminine” is reclaimed by women as a desireable trait and until all people value and honor and respect a woman’s creative power, be it childbirth, writing, leading a country, or whatever, the human race cannot achieve the peace so many of us desire with all of our hearts and minds and souls.
Bridgitt
April 24th, 2007 at 11:26 am
I’m excited to report that a Mary Magdalene study group has recently formed in Atlanta, and some friends of mine are among the women who started it! They’ll be having their second meeting next week and are very welcoming of my “masculine presence” in their group. They are studying the Secrets book, too. I plan to introduce them to The Magdalene Mystique!
I especially like the quote from Elaine Pagels posted here, about “Mary Magdalene as a powerful spiritual presence, as one who manifests the divine as it appears in feminine form.” The Divine Feminine has been a very real and healing Presence in my life. This is the breath-prayer, taught to me by John Westerhoff, that has sustained me over the past 13 years ~
Gentle Loving God,
Mother of my soul,
Hold me as your own.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Darrell,
I am so pleased that a Magdalene study group has begun in Atlanta. You can serve as bridge for Atlanta and Houston. Wouldn’t it be marvelous if other groups started and we could connect online?
Since you and Bridgitt both mentioned the quote from Pagels from The Secrets, let’s pursue that topic next.
Back to page 6 of The Secrets, Pagel is emphasizing that the Gospel of Philip shows “how many early Christians saw Mary Magdalene — as Jesus’ constant companion.” Pagels says that certain contemporary readers, and Dan Brown is of course one of these, have taken this literally to mean that she was Jesus’ lover and wife.
Pagels thinks that if we were to look at the wider context of the Gospel of Philip, we would see that that community is thinking of Mary Magdalene as a “powerful spiritual presence, as one who manifests the divine as it appears in feminine form —above all as divine Wisdom, and the Holy Spirit.” For Pagels, the Gospel of Philip sees Mary Magdalene as divine Wisdom, as in the creation story in Proverbs, and as connected to Jewish mystical tradition of God’s presence in the world as shehkina.
In another lecture given by Pagels, one given at the Friends Meeting House (4th and Arch Street Meetinghouse)in Philadelphia on May 21, 2005, she referred to Mary Magdalene as an image of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of Philip. (By the way, you might want to get this taped lecture for your group -we spent three weeks listening to the lecture and found it very helpful.)
But scholars differ, and I refer you to an article in Vigiliae Christianae 55, 225-261, by April DeConick entitled “The True Mysteries: Sacramentalism in the Gospel of Philip.”
DeConick finds “one of the most telling passages” in the Gospel of Philip about human marriage is 64:31-32: “Great is the mystery of marriage! For [without] it the world would [not exist].
Here, DeConick explains, is the view that human marriage is a mystery and about procreation. In her reading of the Gospel of Philip, marriage was considered sacred and a sacrament, to be experienced in this life and in the life to come. For the community that authored the Gospel of Philip, DeConick says, marriage would have been expected.
Wow! The implication seems to be that for the community of the Gospel of Philip, it would have been expected that by Jesus’companion the community meant marriage companion.
Have you checked out Dr. DeConick’s blog? Her focus lately has been on the Gospel of Judas.
http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/
April 26th, 2007 at 10:36 am
I agree with April DeConick to a point. Human marriage is a mystery and should be considered sacred and a sacrement, but shouldn’t be considered only about procreation. It should be about the divine union between two souls. In DeConick’s point of view, a marriage between same gender partners wouldn’t be sacred, and I don’t agree with that. I’m also not saying that if a marriage becomes truly destructive, it shouldn’t be ended.
However, that’s not really my point. My point is, I believe that Mary Magdalene should be paid the honor of being BOTH Jesus’s spiritual equal and partner as well as His physical equal and partner. To me, denying Her either role is belittling and demeaning. I don’t see why making Mary “Mrs. Jesus” makes her any less of a spiritual leader. Balance of the Divine Union is the key.
Bridgitt
April 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Bridgitt,
I,too, would be happy to have a Mrs. Jesus, as long as we also see her as spiritual guide and apostle/missionary and as a person in her own right.
My guess is that DeConick would agree with you about the limitations of the Philip community in their thinking. She might also add that for the community behind the Gospel of Philip, marriage could be characterized, to use your words, as a “divine union between two souls.”
It’s hard for us to think back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries for their world views seem to us, well, “antiquated.”
I think behind DeConick’s interpretation is the point that this community was unusual for its time. The community that authored the Gospel of Thomas, for instance, was encratic(celibate). That the community of Philip advocates for marriage (with desire included) was highly unusual among Christian communities of its time. It made it possible for them to think that Jesus was married.
It is generally thought that in Syria, for example, the early Christians encouraged a life of celibacy, or chastity within marriage. This attitude was part of an eschatological expectation of early Christians, the sense that the end of the world was at hand and the Second Comming was expected at any time. In Syriac Christianity, there was a strong sense of living like the angels, and that meant living celibately. There was a mind-set that if one could live now, in this present dispensation, as one would live then, one could hasten the coming of the new world.
So the community of the Gospel of Philip holds a rather moderate view - not only do they accept marriage but hold that it is sacred. By the end of the 2nd century, the views of Christians become even more radicalized and move into an encratic lifestyle. This lifestyle eventually moves into monasticism.
Jesus,on the other hand, approved of marriage,(see the Sermon on the Mount)and my reading is that he was not an ascetic.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Not having read much of DeConick yet, I may have been making assumptions based on one passage. I see what you are saying that the moderate view of the community of the Gospel of Philip would have been unusual. It’s interesting that even at such an early stage, many of the early Christians were becoming separated from the body. I certainly don’t see that as a good thing then, nor is it now. I do understand the mindset to a certain degree, that living as the angels would hasten the coming of the new world, but from the teachings of Jesus that we find in the non-canonical gospels, I don’t believe that’s what Jesus was trying to teach his disciples.
And obviously, I don’t see Jesus as an ascetic, either!
Bridgitt
April 26th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I don’t see Jesus as ascetic, either. I don’t see the Gospel of Thomas community as encratic or celibate. I know some scholars do, like John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman, but I respectfully disagree. Crossan seems to base his view on a (mis)translation of the word monakhos as “monastic” or “single.” Other versions, though, translate the word in terms of “standing alone” - i.e., standing in one’s own truth, a translation that has nothing to do with marital singleness or celibacy.
Two versions of Thomas that show the more earthy, incarnational side of the text (and of the Jesus we see in the text) are the translations by Stevan Davies and Jean-Yves Leloup. Both of these versions translate monokhos in terms of “standing alone,” not celibacy.
Having said that, I agree that the Gospel of Philip is rather unique in that it is more celebratory of the sacredness of marriage. I plan to pick up Leloup’s version of the text very soon. I think he did a masterful job translating the Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Betty wrote,
“I, too, would be happy to have a Mrs. Jesus, as long as we also see her as spiritual guide and apostle/missionary and as a person in her own right.”
I agree. I have a problem with people who see Mary Magdalene ONLY in terms of her relationship with Jesus, not as a person in her own right. In my upcoming workshop on the Gospel of Mary, I plan to emphasize her roles as Visionary Prophet and Healing Presence.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:45 am
The biggest obstacle for contemporary spirituality is trying to overcome the antiquity of the sacred texts used. Biblical texts as well as the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip were written at a time when the understanding of human nature, the human body, even the cosmos was very different from today. Patriarchy was the dominant force. Homophobia was felt in all Christian churches. Sex was dubious at best. It was understood to be for procreation within marriage. All other forms of sex, even with a marriage partner, was viewed with suspicion because of the fear that one’s lust would lead to adulterous relationships. So chaste marriage was the norm.
In the Valentinian tradition, we see a relief to some extent, a glorification of marriage as a sacred act of union that involved not only the partners, but also the angels. Procreation is considered what God does. S/He is creative, expansive, always coming into being. So sexual behavior imitates God, and properly performed, is the highest activity that humans can be involved in.
But keep in mind, this ancient tradition does not address contemporary views about sexuality. Heck, it was only in the 1960s that the Catholic Church allowed sex between married partners to express the bond of affection, not just for procreation. So this means I think, when you are trying to apply these ancient texts to contemporary spirituality, it will be necessary to allow for leeway, to adjust the spirituality so that it makes sense within our modern world and views.
So what are the principles of the spirit that these texts present us (minus the antiquated views of the patriarchal culture)? I can think of a couple of things immediately. That God is S/He. That men and women have equal access to the spirit, participate fully in and as God. That gender makes no difference to leadership within the Christian churches. That the sex act is sacred, and should be treated as such by the partners. That God is evergrowing, in the process of becoming, and we are part of that process.
What other ideas can we add to this?
April 27th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
How about the idea that denigration of “the other” - any other, or any thing that exists in the universe that may be unlike us - is a denigration of God’s grace and spiritual presence?
April 27th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
How about the idea that the Kingdom of God is within us ALL, not just the members of a particular faith?
(Prof. DeConick, I am really looking forward to your upcoming book on the Gospel of Judas!)
April 29th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
As April DeConick noted, the antiquity of the worldview expressed in these texts is a huge obstacle, and to make matters worse, an enormous proportion of contemporary Christians think that the texts should be read literally and without the interpretative lens of their cultural context. That way of reading leaves us stuck in a late-antique worldview in perpetuity: bad news for women, since not just patriarchy but outright misogyny was part of the wallpaper, so to speak.
I agree with Betty that we have to be mindful of “othering.” So how do we deal with the fundamentalist voices that shout down non-literal or contextualized interpretations of canonical texts, and invalidate extracanonical sources altogether? Can we be in conversation with those voices and not be “othered” by them?
How do we deal with the enormous repression of sexuality that is intrinsic to traditional Christianity? We can see the tragic results of this repression, from the marginalization of women in church leadership to the sexual abuse of children by supposedly celibate clergy. It’s a shame the Valentinian view of sexuality didn’t gain more traction!
I have a question for Bridgitt: how do I keep from feeling “othered” when my friends want to reclaim and revalorize “the feminine” but I can’t even figure out what the word means? I ask the question both honestly and with humor. I have been trying for years to understand what people mean by “the feminine” without making any progress whatsoever. Not a bit. To quote Sojourner Truth, “Ain’t I a woman?” But I don’t feel that I am either “feminine” or “masculine.” I am just a person.
It seems to me that what we need is a revalorization of our humanness, of which our femaleness or maleness is one facet of many, a facet that is not determinative of how our creativity manifests itself. It is in our creativity—of which sexual generativity is one manifestation—that we most reflect the divine image. We—male and female—create friendships, networks of relationship, ideas, blogs, works of literary, visual and musical art, theories, inventions, and all manner of stuff. Sex and procreation are important human activities too, but not everyone procreates (or even wants to), and we know now that healthy sexuality expresses itself in various ways.
I am feminist who would like to see the need for feminism come to an end. In a world in which gender was not the first category assigned to everyone, and was never seen as limiting what an individual could be or accomplish, we could revalorize our unique and individual humanity.
Gee, that sounds sort of like the Gospel of Mary, doesn’t it? “Do not weep and be distressed nor let your hearts be irresolute. For his grace will be with you all and will shelter you. Rather we should praise his greatness, for he has prepared us and made us true Human beings” (trans. Karen King).
April 30th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Pam,
My answer to your question, with honesty and humor, is “I don’t know.” I think “feminine” is an attribute each individual must define for her, or him, self. For me, femininity is part of how I have always defined myself and something I have always felt comfortable being. I’m not even sure I can explain why.
I also define myself as a feminist and like you, would love to see the need for feminism to come to an end. I’ve become aware recently, however, that many young women see feminism itself as antiquated. The trouble is, the societal conventions that feminism sprang up to fight are still incredibly pervasive…one glaring example is the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding reproductive rights.
One thing I try to remember, and frankly, it took a very long time for this to sink in, is, to paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt, “No one can make you feel othered without your consent.” I certainly don’t mean that to sound pat because I find myself feeling othered by people, my family in particular. I remind myself that I do not consent to being othered. And as more and more “others” are standing up and refusing to be othered, the individual humanity of all will be revalued and revalorized.
And that is the message I now carry in my heart…that the Teacher “has prepared us and made us true Human beings.” That divinity and salvation is found within each and every one of us, male or female, masculine or feminine, or anywhere in between or outside of those narrow definitions.
So shall it be.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Oh, Bridgitt, I was hoping that you would be able to answer my question!
But your response underscores the difficulty of defining the terms “masculine” and “feminine” without resort to what ultimately come down to a bunch of stereotypes.
In the end, I think that it is our life’s work to find the perfect humanity within ourselves–the perfect humanity in which is found our divinity. I am not advocating androgyny as the remedy for the gender divide, but acceptance of ourselves and others in our unique individuality.
Marjorie Procter-Smith wrote in her book Praying With Our Eyes Open that what women need is not the Divine Feminine but the Divine Feminist. And I would add that we need her on the Supreme Court!
April 30th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Dear All, I have read your discussion with great inspiration! I believe that everything here expressed is so much true in a new perception of the legacy of Jesus Christ! These comments are running in to the future and is a joy to take part of. I have read The Magdalene Mystique but not the other book. I feel it is a bit aqward to join in this discussion so at the end (?) of it, sorry about that, but there were some questions and I just wanted to share my view. You were brainstorming new ideas of what principles of the spirit that these texts present and I joyfully agree with all the ones presented! I have felt, in agreeing and addition to Darrells “The Kingdom is within us all” (Jesus is more than Jesus, so to say) that the fact that Jesus Christ was here on earth, visible to us, living among us, is that Jesus with his example has showed us who we really are, or rather, who we may be. That we are Jesus. We are the sons and daughters of God. Further, it is fun to read the comments on what femininity is and I so much agree with Bridgitts and Pams comments. So true that the first fundamental fact is that we all are human. Still it is very obvious that we are made woman and man. Gender IS, but look what we did to it! The differences between our bodies are obvious. And our body is the tool with which we percieve the world. The problem arises when we generalise about what we percieve as woman or a man. Some things a man cannot know anything about. There are things a woman cannont know about percieving as a man (I guess!
. This is of course where the individual experience comes true and is the truth. Femininity for me is the way a woman percieves and experiences the world. I do not know another way to be than feminine(I am after all a woman). I am first of all human but unsure where the line within me between human/woman goes. Of course it is not at all dualistic (male/female) but like a void, just like the way I can percieve spirituality the “Magdalen way”: like an openness between entities. Finally, about otherness, I believe that the problem with otherness is connected to being victimized. To be a victim of something is so totally un-powering. (I have felt it important to be empathic with my fellows around, but not to “feel sorry for” them. To cry With my fellow, not cry for my fellow.) The way around this otherness (a way which is so terribly difficult) I believe, is to start with not victimizing myself and my life in this world. To be “the other” is to allow “them” to name me, to denominate my experiences. We can always experiment with different ways to percieve and understand things that happen in our lives. When I am OK with who I am and how I percieve, “they” (the ones that create the space between us)cannot denominate what I am, at least not without consulting me.
Please bear with me and read this last thing. Do you also feel that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Angels and “their” world (heaven) is very near (eg. close, real). It is invisible to the eye, but so close so we can touch. It is real. It is true. Jesus whispers in the ear and strokes the hand. This is what the spirituality of Mary Magdalene is for me, to be that close.
Peace be with you all!
Anneli
May 1st, 2007 at 10:19 am
Wow. Thanks to you all for so much richness here!
I want to respond to several things expressed here & listen to your feelings and thoughts. I am not a scholar, or even able to read much at this time, so I am speaking only with myself as my source - and you all, since I am in response to you.
“Mary Magdalene has become the embodiment of the divine for me.” — Hopefully without arrogance, balanced by the divine I find all around me, I have become the embodiment of the divine for me.
Re: gender definitions/stereotypes discussion…
For me the aspect of the “definitions” we encounter in our culture & ourselves which we ignore to our peril is that most of our conceptions are based on a patriarcal paradigm. Indeed Aint I a woman? For me the process of finding a language which expresses unity IN difference is part of the journey of the Magdalene example and teaching - the more deeply we are able to journey inward and experience our own “otherness” - in other words, “stand alone in our own right” - and simulatniously deepen our conciousness of both the otherness and our oneness of each entity we encounter the more deeply we will live in the infinitely diverse divine.
For me this ties very closely to the sacredness of sexuality. For me this is not about procreation or ordering of society or the mystical experience as it is expressed by non-mystics. My experience of sex as sacred is double. First, my greatest joy/ pleasure lies in creating joy/pleasure in my Beloved. My awareness in this reality enlivens every aspect of my life. This is as true for same gender love as for mixed gender love. Perhaps hardest of all in my understanding & certainly last in my awakening to the sacredness of our sexuality is that it is true even - maybe especially - is my still awkward sensing that I am also my own Beloved, and I am also honoring my own spark of divinity.
Second only because I am stuck in linear expressiion, but valuable because it is not separate, is that my experience of giving as my unltimate joy is not intellectual, not emotional, but cellular.
I experience the Magdalene as sharing her truth that divinity is not only very near (in the other/Jesus) but is part of (in her self). The wonderful mystery I think I will never stop learning from and absorbing is that each is complete in her/his self and simultainiously in essential need of other.
In gratitude - Madeleine Manning
May 1st, 2007 at 10:31 am
Pam…I wish I could have answered your question. But I’ve been thinking that perhaps a better word to use would be “female.” Perhaps there are fewer negative connotations. As Annali says, “Gender IS.” It’s what society has done to generalize what it means to be male and female that has created the problems. I, too, don’t know any other way to percieve the world than through my femaleness.
Annali, I loved how you put it: “we are Jesus. We are the sons and daughters of God.” I also feel the realm of the Divine is very near to us. That it is invisible, but close enough to touch and to touch us. What a lovely way with words you have!
Bridgitt
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:41 am
Dear Bridgitt, a heartily thank you for your encouragement of what I wrote. My words were indeed inspired by your comments - thats how the beautiful web of a great discussion is evolving! Dear Madeleine, after reading your initiated comments and the part about “divinity is not only very near (in the other/Jesus) but is part of (in her self).” I also felt inspired to develop what I expressed about the feeling of closeness to heaven as a Magdalene spirituality. And also connect it to Madeleines example of sex as a way of being spiritual with the Beloved One. I really believe that heaven is not only close, but within, just as Jesus said. Also as Madeleine writes about otherness/unity. So if I let myself unite with heaven (I believe I am the one that needs to take action, because Jesus has said that heaven is within me already), there will be kind of a fertilization, that is creating “something”. What would I do with heaven? What will I give birth to? What can I express or create? Maybe the same is happening when two loving people unite in love-making/sex: there is a fertilization - and now I do not mean the egg and the sperm - but heaven within two persons fertilize and create something heavenly (a spark? an angel? expansion of love, as a power?) This would in fact also be an example of otherness and unity at the same time. To be close to heaven AND to feel it within; to have heaven within and unite with someone else that has heaven within. And maybe it does not even need to be a concious act (”I now unite my heaven with yours”) but just a truthful, honest and loving act of feelings, not only for the Beloved One, but also for myself as the reciever of love, sex after all is both ways (and as Madeleine also writes about the Beloved being myself).
So, I guess the conclusion would be that love-making can be a heavenly act of fertilization (not only procreaton in the common sense)! And (with the discussion above in mind, about being human and having a gender) therefore love-making/sex is an act between Humans as well as between a woman/man, man/man, woman/woman.
Perhaps this is also why the image of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene as married is so inspiring to us! It shows us an inspiring image of what divine love is.
I am so happy to be a part of this conversation!
Anneli
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Madeleine has a knack for putting her finger on the pulse of the problem, as demonstrated in her statement that “the aspect of the ‘definitions’ we encounter in our culture & ourselves which we ignore to our peril is that most of our conceptions are based on a patriarchal paradigm.” This, I think, is where we get into trouble with conventional definitions of “the feminine.” It’s a male-defined feminine. I don’t pretend to understand much of what the French feminists have written, but I think that they have been trying to re-define this term from women’s perspectives.
The main thing I’ve been reading recently is Jeff Kripal’s book on Esalen, and I’m just past the half-way point. It’s a huge book, but well worth the effort. Slowly, gradually, as the perspectives of the various personalities who have left their stamp on Esalen seep into my consciousness, I become ever more deeply aware that the sacred is in our very cells. The divine could not possibly be closer to us in our human embodiment . . . it is just a matter of changing our perspectives.
In many ways the Magdalene energy has always, for me, been about moving closer to our divine selves and overcoming the barriers that create the illusion of separation.