Joy Beyond Suffering

– “He is Risen” by Jorge Cocco

When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome brought spices, so that they might go and anoint [the body of Jesus], and very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

– Mark 16:1-2

The Wild Reed’s 2024 Holy Week series concludes with a fourth excerpt from Joyce Rupp’s 2023 book Jesus, Companion in My Suffering: Reflections for the Lenten Journey.

______________

Several women hurried in the early dawn to anoint the body of Jesus. As precious as the spices they carried was the devoted love stored in their sorrowful hearts. This tender affection, strong as their grief, moved the women onward toward this compassionate deed. As the women walked to the tomb, they could not have envisioned anything that would soften the pain of the previous days. Had they stayed home, they would have missed the powerful experience of hope that arrived in the angel’s announcement.

The story of these women assures us that our suffering, too, can be transformed. When we go forth to anoint others with our attentive compassion, we find that our wounded hearts have something of value to offer them: empathic understanding and intentional care.

If we are willing to look beyond self, to reach out to those who bear life's injuries and sorrows and anoint them with our kindness, we will find our own pain lessened. I've known this in my life and in that of others who've borne the weight of suffering. The joy we receive will be not as earth-shattering as the Resurrection of Jesus but more like a slow-flowing stream that gradually washes the pain from our hearts and turns us toward gladness.


Joy of My Life,
may the love that dwells within my heart
be as fervent as that of the dedicated women
who intended to anoint your entombed body.
Come and surprise me with the gift of renewed hope.
Revive what has been lying dormant in my spirit.


Today: I anoint people around me with the joy of gladness.

– Joyce Rupp
Excerpted from Jesus, Companion in My Suffering:
Reflections for the Lenten Journey
Ave Maria Press, 2023
pp. 106-107

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• He Is Risen, and So Are You
• Resurrection in an Emerging Universe
• Resurrection: A New Depth of Consciousness
• A Discerning Balance Between Holiness and Wholeness: A Hallmark of the Resurrected Life
• Jesus: The Revelation of Oneness
• The Resurrected Jesus
• And What of Resurrection?
• Jesus: The Breakthrough in the History of Humanity
• To Believe in Jesus
• Resurrection: Beyond Words, Dogmas and All Possible Theological Formulations
• The Passion of Christ – Jesus Appears to Mary
• The Triumph of Love: An Easter Reflection
• “And Still We Rise!” – MayDay 2015 (Part I)
• “And Still We Rise!” – MayDay 2015 (Part II)
• Easter for Mystics

Image: “He is Risen” by Jorge Cocco.

Mary Magdalene: “A Courageous Woman . . . Infamously Maligned”

The following is written by my friend Phillip Clark. I share it today at The Wild Reed with his permission.

Today the universal Church celebrates Mary Magdalene, a courageous woman who has been infamously maligned throughout the centuries. Mary of Magdala was one of Christ’s most devoted followers. John’s gospel describes Mary as the first to witness the resurrection and entrusted with sharing this joyous revelation to the other male disciples.

Mary has been honored as “apostle to the apostles” for her unique role of announcing the Good News. The Gospels of Mary, Philip, and Thomas are Gnostic texts that describe Mary as being a pivotal leader in the early Jesus movement, on par with, and often, eclipsing Christ’s male apostles – specifically Peter.

Gnostic gospels are works of Christian mysticism that emphasize the importance of cultivating spirituality within and promote an alternative, non-hierarchical vision of Christianity transcending patriarchy. These gospels were widely read until male bishops designated Gnosticism as heretical, in the name of “orthodoxy,” and excluded Gnostic materials from the books that comprise the Bible most Christians know today.

As the Catholic Church consolidated its temporal power, Pope Gregory I incorrectly labeled Mary Magdalene as a prostitute during a sermon in 591 CE. Only recently has biblical scholarship rehabilitated Mary of Magdala from being a repentant sinner to rightly being celebrated as a powerful leader, teacher, and apostle in the nascent Jesus movement.

Gnostic stories describe Mary Magdalene and Jesus as sharing an intimate bond, one that may have even been romantic. This narrative liberates Christianity from the limitations of navigating sexuality through patriarchal constraints.

Mary of Magdala reminds us of the foundational role women have always played in Christianity. There is no basis for prohibiting women’s ordination, on the grounds of Jesus only choosing male apostles, when he specifically charged Mary, calling her by name, with sharing the resurrection to the rest of his frightened male followers in the wake of the crucifixion.

St. Mary Magdalene, pray for us, and be our guide in creating a Church that welcomes and cherishes women’s leadership in preaching the Risen One’s transformative message of love and reconciliation!

– Phillip Clark
via Facebook
July 22, 2023

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Mary of Magdala
• Apostle to the Apostles
• Thoughts on The Da Vinci Code
• Thoughts on Ordination, Intellectual Dishonesty, and the Holy Spirit of which the Prophet Joel Speaks
• Tell Them, Mary
• The Model of Leadership Offered by Jesus: “More Like the Gardener Than the Owner of the Garden”
• A Prayer on the Feast of Mary Magdalene

For more of Phillip Clark’s writings at The Wild Reed, see
• The Magi as Archetypes of “Witchy Faith”
• Acknowledging Where We Are
• Quote of the Day – April 15, 2020
• Phillip Clark on the “Karmic Wake Up Call” of a Year Ago
• In the Wake of Trump’s “Catastrophic” Election, Phillip Clark on the Spiritual Truths That Will Carry Us Forward
• Heartening

Image: Linzy Arnott.

A Prayer on the Feast of Mary Magdalene

Wisdom Spirit, help me recognize and accept my call to witness to Your power to bring life from death.

When Jesus called Mary by name, she recognized him. Saving One, give me ears to hear and eyes to see my true name, calling deep within.

Jesus sent Mary, Salome, and the other women disciples to proclaim the Good News to the Apostles even though they would not believe them. Rabboni, teach me how to proclaim the miracle of your Risen Love in a disbelieving world. Because of her witness and fidelity, Mary of Magdala is known as the Apostle to the Apostles.

Help me, O God of Righteousness, to accept your apostolic call "to go and tell” our brothers and sisters of Jesus' power to heal . . . even wounded structures which exclude.

Women were faithful disciples of Jesus and significant leaders in the early Christian communities.

Help me Most Inclusive One, to reclaim my baptismal call to leadership.

– Christine Schenk, CSJ

Writes author and spiritual director Susan Stabile:

Today the Catholic Church celebrates the feast of Mary Magdalene, faithful disciple of Christ. Until last year, we referred to this day as her “memorial,” but Pope Francis elevated the memorial to a feast day, giving her the same level of celebration as the other apostles.

Maligned for centuries, all we know of her origins is that she was a woman “from whom seven demons had gone out.” What we do know from the Gospels is that she was one of the women who followed Jesus to the cross and who stayed there while the male disciples fled.

We also know that Mary was the first to actually see the risen Jesus, and today’s Gospel recounts that beautiful scene. What is apparent from the encounter of these two is how much she loved Jesus. (Father Raymond-Leopold Bruckberger, O.P., once wrote that Mary loved Christ “with all the force of her being.”) We can see evidence of that love in the grief Mary displays outside of the tomb when she discovered Jesus’ body is gone. We see it in her tears and frantic search for any information she can find that will help her find the body. And we see it in her joy when she realizes that the person she has taken for a gardener is, in fact, the risen Jesus.

– Susan Stabile
Excerpted from "Mary Magdalene:
Apostle to the Apostle and Woman of Love"
Creo en Dios!
July 22, 2017

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Mary of Magdala
• Apostle to the Apostles
• Thoughts on The Da Vinci Code
• Thoughts on Ordination, Intellectual Dishonesty, and the Holy Spirit of which the Prophet Joel Speaks
• Tell Them, Mary
• The Model of Leadership Offered by Jesus: "More Like the Gardener Than the Owner of the Garden"

Related Off-site Links:
She Was NOT A Prostitute – Fola Folayan (4lah.com, April 13, 2017).
What Would Mary Magdalene Do? – Phyllis Zagano (National Catholic Reporter, July 18, 2012).
What Mary Magdalene and the Samaritan Teach the Church – Jamie L. Manson (National Catholic Reporter, July 24, 2012).
A Homily for the Feast of Mary Magdalene – Diana Culbertson, OP (The Progressive Catholic Voice, July 22, 2011).
The Woman from Magdala – James Martin, S.J. (America, July 22, 2009).

Image: Chipo Chung as Mary Magdalene in NBC's 2015 mini-series, A.D. The Bible Continues.

The Model of Leadership Offered by Jesus: "More Like the Gardener Than the Owner of the Garden"

.

I've spent a good part of today shifting and sorting through papers and documents dating back to the mid-1990s. In the process I discovered a piece I wrote for the Dignity Twin Cities newsletter in 1997. It was written in response to then-Archbishop Harry Flynn's remark that "the pastor is the head honcho." It's interesting to read the response I penned in light of recent revelations that detail Flynn's – along with his predecessor's and successor's – scandalous lack of leadership in response to the decades-long clergy sex abuse crisis in the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis. Perhaps if an alternative model of leadership other than that of "head honcho" had been promoted, say, a model that was open to a range of perspectives and which allowed for accountability and transparency, then the archdiocese might not be in the mess it's in today. Drawing on the insights of Donna Schaper, my article from 1997 offers an alternative model, one which although reflective of the gospel message of Jesus, is still yet to be fully embraced by the church's clerical leadership.

____________________________

Archbishop's "Head Honcho" Model of Leadership
at Odds with Gospel Message

By Michael J. Bayly

Dignity Twin Cities Newsletter
March-April 1997

At one point during the question and answer session of the February 22 Archdiocesan Assembly Day, Archbishop Harry J. Flynn commented on the role of the pastor. "The pastor is the head honcho," he said, "I would be less than honest with you if I let you go home today thinking anything else."

The archbishop's comments were in response to concerns related to the archdiocese's commitment to the servant model of leadership. "Canon law explicitly states that pastors have the final say in all parish matters and disputes, and Catholics must respect such authority," the archbishop said. "It would be wrong to think that, in a parish, the pastor doesn't have the last word. He does."

The archbishop's comments and in particular his choice of vocabulary, say much about one model of leadership operative in the church. Yet there are other models, a fact which makes this issue worthy of theological analysis and reflection. Undeniably there is a need for leadership at the parish level. Yet must this leadership be personified by individuals whose model of leadership revolves upon having "the last word"? There is an element of fear and mistrust inherent in advocating and insisting on such a model; an element that is totally alien to the trusting and compassionate model of leadership embodied by Jesus.

In one of her Lenten reflections, author Donna Schaper writes on the leadership of Jesus She notes that Mary Magdalene's confusing of Jesus with the gardener on Easter Sunday morning indicates "the radical nature of the risen Christ: he is more like a friend, more like the gardener, more like a woman." Continues Schaper:

[Jesus] is not big but little, not strong but weak, not above us but one of us. We will be raised from the dead when we understand that Jesus is accurately confused with the gardener. He is more like the gardener than he is like the owner of the garden.

Schaper goes on to apply this example of "gospel democracy," and the "friendship model" of leadership it facilitates, to ministry. She notes, for example, that:

We minister in a world that is ideologically hostile to the gospel, that word from God in which Jesus says to all the disciples, not just the ordained ones: "I have called you friends." Here Jesus is illuminating us to a radically new relationship between people and God . . . It is like a garden we all work in together, not a garden where one is employed and the other the employer.

This "democratic understanding" of the resurrection, Schaper contends, is ironic as it places "even more responsibility on the individual and the autonomous while basing itself fully in the grace of the common." Given Archbishop Fylnn's recent statements, one could contend that the hierarchical church has a tendency to view with suspicion and fear both this autonomy and grace, and to demand in their place the installation of "head honcho"-type figures.

We as church, however, do not require "head honchos" – individuals more concerned with the question Who's in charge here? than questions such as What are the responsibilities of a leader in this particular situation, this particular parish? or What and where are the checks and balances for the model of leadership active in this parish? Such questions are the hallmark of authentic leadership – a mode of being that acknowledges and celebrates the diversity of the Christian church and understands that true leadership cannot be monopolized.

Perhaps for those present at the Archdiocesan Assembly Day event the archbishop's citing of "official" church teaching was an adequate response. Yet for many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) Catholics well acquainted with the fallibility of so-called "official" teachings, the archbishop's response raises a plethora of questions and concerns. We and others know that a "because our tradition says" response reflects a model of church (and thus revelation) that has a strong tendency to ignore (even condemn) specific experiences of the sacred in human life. In so doing, tradition is placed before truth – a situation untenable for followers of Jesus.

Accordingly, the church should abhor the term "head honcho" and the sexist and militaristic elitism it implies. Likewise, the ecclessiastical model that such a term readily springs from needs to be transformed into one that more truly reflects the reality that it is the spirit of the Risen Christ which is the one true pastor of the church; the reality that this spirit speaks through the life experiences of all people regardless of their position within (or outside) the male-designed and dominated structure we call church hierarchy – a structure that by its homogenous founding and maintenance cannot adequately represent or speak definitively for the richly diverse reality of the church as understood as the people of God, the Body of Christ.

Ultimately we must all take to heart the gospel call to be a priestly people. Our pastors, male and female, should exemplify this call in a distinct though non-elitist way. The exact nature of their vocation is certainly not what the official church advocates as articulated by Archbishop Flynn. Instead we would all do well to listen to the spirit active in the lives of the poor and disenfranchised – GLBT people included – so as to ascertain a clearer understanding of the role of the pastor. What is needed throughout the church is a compassionate willingness to truly hear – not just to merely listen and then fall back on church doctrines. What is needed is a trusting and vulnerable openness to the voice of the spirit present in the life experiences of others – a willingness, in other words, to take to heart Mary Pellauer's observation that "If there's anything worth calling theology, it is listening to people's stories, listening to them and cherishing them."

In short, we are all called to be continually making leaps of faith – not because our position or rank demands it, but because our call to be followers of Jesus demands it. Self-authenticated action is the hallmark of true leadership, regardless of whether or not such action is framed within positional and/or functional roles. And in taking such action, it is the example of the humble shepherd and the Easter-morning gardener that we are called to emulate.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Genuine Authority
• Thoughts on Authority and Fidelity
• Gospel Leadership
• Remembering Oscar Romero
• Bishop Gumbleton: A Priesthood Set Apart and Above Others is Not the Way of Jesus
• Francis: The Servant Pope
• Nicole Sotelo: "Jesus Was Not Focused on Priesthood"
• Bishop Gumbleton: It Isn’t the Church You’re Being Asked to Say Yes To . . . It’s Jesus
• A Uniquely Liberated Man
• Answer to a Troubled Liberal Catholic
• Tony Flannery in Minneapolis
• Pan’s Labyrinth: Critiquing the Cult of Unquestioning Obedience
• My Response to Archbishop Flynn
• For the Record

Related Off-site Link:
Betrayed by Silence: How Three Archbishops Hid the Truth – Madeleine Baran (Minnesota Public Radio News, July 14, 2014).

Image: Artist unknown.

"An Icon For Our Century"

The reflection I share this evening is written by Joan Chittister, OSB, and marks the occasion of today's feast of St. Mary Magdalene. This beautiful and powerful reflection was shared this morning at Spirit of St. Stephen's Catholic Community, and can be found online on the website of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference's National Office for the Participation of Women.

______________________

An Icon For Our Century - Mary Magdalene

By Joan Chittister, OSB

It is Mary Magdalene, the evangelist John details, to whom Jesus first appears after the resurrection. It is Mary Magdalene who is instructed to proclaim the Easter message to the others. It is Mary Magdalene whom Jesus commissions to “tell Peter and the others that I have gone before them into Galilee.”

And, then, the scripture says pathetically, “But Peter and John and the others did not believe her and they went to the tomb to see for themselves.” It is two thousand years later and little or nothing has changed. The voice of women proclaiming the presence of Christ goes largely unconfirmed. The call of women to minister goes largely unnoted. The commission of women to the church goes largely disdained.

Mary Magdalene is, no doubt about it, an important icon for the twenty-first century.

She calls women to listen to the call of the Christ over the call of the church.

She calls men to listen for the call of the Christ in the messages of women.

She calls women to courage and men to humility.

She calls all of us to faith and fortitude, to unity and universalism, to a Christianity that rises above sexism, a religion that transcends the idolatry of maleness, and a commitment to the things of God that surmounts every obstacle and surpasses every system.

Mary Magdalene is a shining light of hope, a disciple of Christ, a model of the wholeness of life, in a world whose name is despair and in a church whose vision is yet, still, even now, partial.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Mary of Magdala
Apostle to the Apostles
Thoughts on The Da Vinci Code
Thoughts on Ordination, Intellectual Dishonesty, and the Holy Spirit of which the Prophet Joel Speaks
Tell Them, Mary

Related Off-site Links:
What Would Mary Magdalene Do? – Phyllis Zagano (National Catholic Reporter, July 18, 2012).
Controversy Energizes FutureChurch's Annual Magdala Celebration – Kate Oatis (National Catholic Reporter, July 23, 2012).
What Mary Magdalene and the Samaritan Teach the Church – Jamie L. Manson (National Catholic Reporter, July 24, 2012).
A Homily for the Feast of Mary Magdalene – Diana Culbertson, OP (The Progressive Catholic Voice, July 22, 2011).
The Woman from Magdala – James Martin, S.J. (America, July 22, 2009).

Image: "Apostle to the Apostles" by Janet McKenzie. Writes Janet McKenzie of her painting: "The Gospel of John tells us that the Risen Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and told her 'Go to my brothers and tell them I am ascending to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God' (John 20:17). She is seen here as in medieval paintings of her as preacher with the characteristic gesture of forefinger raised toward the heavens, proclaiming the Resurrection to Peter and 'the one whom Jesus loved.' The Beloved Disciple, who is sometimes understood as a symbol for the Johannine community, is listening to her but Peter is not."

"I've Been Changed,Yes, Really Changed . . ."

A musical interlude this evening at The Wild Reed with Yvonne Elliman's beautiful rendition of "I Don't Know How to Love Him" (from the musical Jesus Christ Superstar). She's playing the role of Mary Magdalene.





See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Revisiting a Groovy Jesus (and a Dysfunctional Theology)
Mary of Magdala
Apostle to the Apostles
Thoughts on The Da Vinci Code
Why Jesus is My Man

Recommended Off-site Links:
The Woman from Magdala - James Martin, S.J. (America Magazine, July 22, 2009).
Who Framed Mary Magdalene? - Heidi Schlumpf (U.S. Catholic).

Apostle to the Apostles

Today is the feast of St. Mary of Magdala, the “Apostle to the Apostles.”

We honor you, Mary of Magdala,
Strong Sister, Loyal Leader,
Determined Disciple, Faithful Friend.
Direct the church again
as we seek to announce
a discipleship of equals
and a world renewed
in the Risen Christ!

Writes Janet McKenzie of her painting, “Apostle to the Apostles” (pictured above and the third panel in her Succession of Mary Magdalene series):

The Gospel of John tells us that the Risen Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and told her “Go to my brothers and tell them I am ascending to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17). She is seen here as in medieval paintings of her as preacher with the characteristic gesture of forefinger raised toward the heavens, proclaiming the Resurrection to Peter and “the one whom Jesus loved.” The Beloved Disciple, who is sometimes understood as a symbol for the Johannine community, is listening to her but Peter is not.

Hmm . . . seems to many of us that “Peter” is still not listening.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Mary of Magdala
Thoughts of The Da Vinci Code
Thoughts on Ordination, Intellectual Dishonesty, and the Holy Spirit of which the Prophet Joel Speaks

Recommended Off-site Links:
The Woman from Magdala - James Martin, S.J. (America, July 22, 2009).
Who Framed Mary Magdalene – Heidi Schlumpf (U.S. Catholic).

Mary of Magdala

Today is the Feast Day of Mary of Magdala (also known as Mary Magdalene).

I can think of no better way to celebrate this day on The Wild Reed than by sharing excerpts from a very scholarly tract (from FutureChurch.org) about this remarkable woman of the New Testament. Enjoy!

_________________________

Mary Magdala – Apostle to the Apostles

Mary of Magdala is perhaps the most maligned and misunderstood figure in early Christianity. In Christian art and hagiography, Mary has been romanticized, allegorized, and mythologized beyond recognition. Since the fourth century, she has been portrayed as a prostitute and public sinner who, after encountering Jesus, repented and spent the rest of her life in private prayer and penitence. Paintings, some little more than pious pornography, reinforce the mistaken belief that sexuality, especially female sexuality, is shameful, sinful, and worthy of repentance. Yet the actual biblical account of Mary of Magdala paints a far different portrait than that of the bare-breasted reformed harlot of Renaissance art.


First Witness to the Resurrection

Nowhere in scripture is Mary of Magdala identified as a public sinner or a prostitute. Instead, scripture shows her as the primary witness to the most central events of Christian faith, named in exactly the same way (Maria e Magdalena) in each of four gospels written for diverse communities throughout the Mediterranean world. It was impossible to relate the story of the Resurrection without including “Mary, the one from Magdala.”

Luke 8,1-3 tells us that Mary traveled with Jesus in the Galilean discipleship and, with Joanna and Susanna, supported his mission from her own financial resources. In the synoptic gospels, Mary leads the group of women who witness Jesus’ death, burial, the empty tomb, and His Resurrection. The synoptics contrast Jesus’ abandonment by the male disciples with the faithful strength of the women disciples who, led by Mary, accompany him to his death. John’s gospel names Mary of Magdala as the first to discover the empty tomb and shows the Risen Christ sending her to announce the Good News of his resurrection to the other disciples. This prompted early church Fathers to name her “the Apostle to the Apostles.”

That the message of the resurrection was first entrusted to women is regarded by scripture scholars as strong proof for the historicity of the resurrection accounts. Had accounts of Jesus’ resurrection been fabricated, women would never have been chosen as witnesses, since Jewish law did not acknowledge the testimony of women.

Early non-canonical Christian writings show faith communities growing up around Mary’s ministry, where she is portrayed as understanding Jesus’ message better than did Peter and the male disciples. Scholars tell us that these writings are not about the historical persons Mary and Peter but instead reflect tensions over women’s roles in the early church. Prominent leaders such as Mary and Peter were evoked to justify opposing points of view. What is not disputed is the recognition of Mary of Magdala as an important woman leader in earliest Christianity.


What Happened?

Why are contemporary Christians uninformed about Mary’s faithful discipleship and prominent leadership role in the infant church? One explanation is a common misreading of Luke’s gospel which tells us that “seven demons had gone out of her.” (Luke 8,1-3) To first century ears, this meant only that Mary had been cured of serious illness, not that she was sinful. According to biblical scholars such as Sr. Mary Thompson, illness was commonly attributed to the work of evil spirits, although not necessarily associated with sinfulness. The number seven symbolized that her illness was either chronic or very severe.


Women Leaders Suppressed

In 312, when Constantine made Christianity the religion of the empire, the Christian community was caught in a cultural conflict as it moved from worship in house churches where women’s leadership was accepted, to worship in public places where women’s leadership violated Roman social codes of honor and shame. In the fourth century, male church leaders at the Council of Laodicea suppressed women leaders because of the belief that women were created subordinate to men. During this same time period, we see the memory of Mary of Magdala changing from that of a strong female disciple and proclaimer of the Resurrection to a repentant prostitute and public sinner. Scholars such as Dr. Jane Schaberg believe this was done deliberately to discourage female leadership in the church.

As knowledge of Jesus’ many women disciples faded from historical memory, their stories merged and blurred. The tender anointing of Mary of Bethany prior to Jesus’ passion was linked to the woman “known to be a sinner” whose tears washed and anointed Jesus’ feet at Simon’s house. The anointing texts combined all of these women into one generic public sinner, “Magdalen.” Misidentification of Mary as reformed public sinner achieved official standing with a powerful homily by Pope Gregory the Great (540-604).

Henceforth, Mary of Magdala became known in the west, not as the strong woman leader who accompanied Jesus through a tortuous death, first witnessed his Resurrection, and proclaimed the Risen Savior to the early church, but as a wanton woman in need of repentance and a life of hidden (and hopefully silent) penitence. Interestingly, the eastern church never identified her as a prostitute, but honored her throughout history as “the Apostle to the Apostles.”

“Mary Magdalene” by Sally K. Green.

Writes artist Sally K. Green:

Saint Mary Magdalene was a dear friend of Jesus. She was also a wealthy woman of stature in her community. She was there when Jesus was crucified, while other disciples fled.

Ancient tradition of the Eastern Church says that after Christ’s Ascension, Mary traveled to Rome. Due to her high social standing she was admitted to appear before Caesar to tell him of how poorly Pilate had administered Jesus’ trial.

To make her point, she picked up an egg from the banquet table, explaining that Jesus came out of the tomb like a chicken breaking out of its shell. Caesar scoffed and said, “a human could no more rise from the dead than that egg could turn red. ” As he said the words, the egg turned red!

It is believed that this red egg inspired the tradition of coloring Easter eggs.

Opening Image: Artist unknown.
Image 2: Eileen Cantlin Verbus.
Image 3: Sofia Christine.
Image 4: Artist unknown.
Image 5: Sally K. Green.
Image 6 (right): Janet McKenzie.

Recommended Off-site Links:
Who Framed Mary Magdalene - Heidi Schlumpf (U.S. Catholic).
What The Da Vinci Code Owes to Women - Christine Schenk (National Catholic Reporter, July 15, 2005).

See also the previous Wild Reed post:
Thoughts on The Da Vinci Code

Thoughts on Ordination, Intellectual Dishonesty, and the Holy Spirit of Which the Prophet Joel Speaks

It seems that Vatican officials continue to be in denial about the reality of female priests within the Roman Catholic tradition.

I say “reality” because 1) there are validly* ordained female priests currently ministering in the Church, and 2) Jesus invited women as well as men to become leaders – an invitation both celebrated and continued in the earliest days of the Christian Church.

Despite such realities, the Vatican, reports the Associated Press, is once again insisting that it is “properly following Christian tradition by excluding females from the priesthood [and that] women taking part in ordinations will be excommunicated.”

Monsignor Angelo Amato of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared in all seriousness that: “The church does not feel authorized to change the will of its founder Jesus Christ,” an apparent reference to Christ having chosen only men as his apostles.

My initial response to such, er, “reasoning,” was: Give me a break! Is this the best they can come up with?


Intellectual Dishonesty

Do I come across as disrespectful? Well, to be honest, I have a hard time respecting intellectual dishonesty within my Church – be it displayed by the pope or the guy next to me in the pew. And the Church’s stance on female ordination reeks of intellectual dishonesty as there are no valid theological or moral reasons for excluding women from ordination. And the Vatican knows it. It can’t defend its position and so resorts to forbidding people from even talking about the issue. As a thinking person and as a Catholic, I find such a ploy both pathetic and embarrassing.

Fear not, however. Here at The Wild Reed thinking and talking are not only allowed but encouraged. So let’s take a closer look at Amato’s statement, shall we? As has been noted, the gist of what he (and the Vatican) is saying is that the Church cannot ordain women because Jesus only chose men as his apostles. Furthermore, those apostles were the equivalent of today’s priests. All of this, we are told by folks like Monsignor Amato, is Jesus’ will, which presumably means: don’t even think of questioning or arguing with what we say, because if you do then you are questioning and arguing with Christ himself! Boy, they sure know how to clear a room of conversation.

Yet people will not be quiet. Nor is the threat of excommunication intimidating those women called to the priesthood. For instance, here’s part of a media release from the Women’s Ordination Conference:

We reject the notion of excommunication. In our efforts to ordain women into an inclusive and accountable Roman Catholic Church, we see it as contrary to the gospel itself to excommunicate people who are doing good works and responding to injustice and the needs of their communities. While the hierarchy prattles on about excommunication, Catholic women are working for justice and making a positive difference in the world.

This inappropriate use of excommunication and the Vatican’s stance on ordination are based on arguments that have been refuted time and again. In 1976, the Vatican’s own Pontifical Biblical Commission determined that there is no scriptural reason to prohibit women’s ordination. Jesus included women as full and equal partners in his ministry, and so should the hierarchy.

Discerning the Will of Jesus

The conversation continues here, as well, starting with a question concerning the “will of Jesus Christ”: As followers of Jesus, aren’t we called to look first and foremost to the example of his life? After all, if there’s anything that can be called his “will,” than surely it can be found there. And with regards to the place and role of women in the community, it’s clear that the example Jesus gave was one of radical inclusion and equality.

Another question: Did Jesus found the Roman Catholic Church? In other words, is the Church we have today what Jesus talked about and envisioned? Was Jesus the first Catholic?

I appreciate the perspective of Catholic theologian Hans Küng on such weighty questions. In his indispensable little book, The Catholic Church: A Short History, Küng writes:

[Jesus] did not seek to found a separate community, distinct from Israel, with its own creed and cult, or to call to life an organization with its own constitution and offices, let alone a great religious edifice. No, according to all evidence, Jesus did not found a church in his lifetime. But we must now immediately add that a church in the sense of a religious community distinct from Israel came into being immediately after Jesus’ death. This happened under the impact of the experience of the resurrection and the Spirit. . . [So] although the church was not founded by Jesus, for its origins it made an appeal to him, the one who was crucified yet lived, in whom for believers the kingdom of God had already dawned. The church remains the Jesus movement with an eschatological orientation; its basis was initially not its own cult, its own constitution, its own organization with specific offices. Its foundation was simply the confession in faith of this Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, as it was sealed with baptism in his name and through a ceremonial meal in his memory. That was how the church initially took shape.

But what about this idea of the apostles being the first priests? (Seriously, that’s what it comes down to for some folks. More on this later.) Well, first, we need to remember that although there were words for “priest” available during the time of Jesus and the early church, none of them were ascribed to the apostles by the writers of the New Testament. Indeed, these writers say nothing about clergy or ordained. Discipleship, not priesthood, is the dominant theological foundation of the early church. The few times that the Greek word for priest is mentioned it is in relation, firstly, to Christ and, secondly, to the whole people of God. The later rise of the ministerial priesthood is thus clearly a change, a development in the Church. Whether this development has been for good or ill (or both) is beside the point. The point is that there’s been change – a change, one could argue, from “the will” of Jesus. And this change was facilitated by the Church.

And while we’re exploring this idea of “the will” of Jesus, have you ever wondered how the example of Jesus’ life of simplicity and egalitarianism can be reconciled with the palaces of popes and bishops and the imperial trappings and triumphalistic attitudes of many within the Roman hierarchy?

Here is Hans Küng’s response to such a question, a response that begins with certain observations concerning the Jesus we find in the Gospel:

One who relativized the fathers and their traditions and even called women to his circle of disciples cannot be claimed in support of a patriarchalism which is hostile to women. . . . One who served his disciples at table and required that “the highest shall be the servant [at table] of all” can hardly have desired aristocratic or even monarchical structures for his community of disciples.

Rather, Jesus radiated a democratic spirit in the best sense of the word. This was matched by a people (Greek demos) of those who are free (no dominating institution, even a Grand Inquisition) and in principle equal (not a church characterized by class, caste, race, or office), of brothers and sisters (not a regiment of men and a cult of persons). This was the original Christian liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Mmm . . . it would seem that in the foundational matters of Christian liberty, equality, and fraternity, elements within the Church have had no qualms whatsoever, indeed, felt “authorized” to “change the will” of the man they claim to be the Church’s founder.


“The Twelve”


But let’s return to “the twelve.” Most biblical scholars agree that the twelve apostles are meant to correlate with the Jewish scriptures’ twelve tribes of Israel. It was a way for the writers of the Christian scriptures to support their claim that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures. Some would even argue that the concept of “the twelve” is a literary devise for the benefit of Jewish Christians audiences.

More importantly, if we are to insist that Catholic priests must be male because Jesus supposedly chose twelve male apostles, then these same priests should also be Jewish, speak Aramaic, and be able to marry. After all, if we insist on taking scripture literally, we need to be consistent.

And another thing: the early Church clearly recognized and celebrated Mary of Magdala as an apostle - indeed, as “the apostle to the apostles.” Writes scholar Ute Eisen, “This . . . reveals that [the New Testament writers] maintained a broader concept of apostolicity.” Yet somehow modern Roman Catholicism downplays all of this. And the question must be asked: is this yet another departure on the part of the Church from “the will” of Jesus?


The Appropriation of Pentecost

Of course, related to all of this is the Roman hierarchy’s appropriation and narrow interpretation of Pentecost to strengthen its own power. For instance, recently I heard a priest give a homily in which he declared that the authority of today’s bishops and priests stems from that first Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out onto the twelve apostles in that upper room in Jerusalem. In short, the members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy – and they alone – are the spiritual heirs of the twelve apostles.

Yet the Book of Acts clearly says that it wasn’t just “the twelve” in that upper room. Jesus’ mother was present, along with the disciples – and women (and probably youth and children) were among the disciples.

Thus contrary to what this young male priest insisted, the Holy Spirit was given to the Church, not just to the twelve male apostles. His ignorance of such a basic element of the Christian story made me wonder what on earth they’re teaching in the seminaries these days!

In her informative (and entertaining) book, Putting Away Childish Things, German theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann shares an interesting story related to this appropriation of Pentecost:

At a theological symposium in the diocese of Essen shortly after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the first speaker was the Jesuit Karl Rahner, followed by the then-bishop of Essen and later Cardinal Franz Hengsbach. On the subject of the council, Bishop Hengsbach said: ‘Well, the theologians [looking in Rahner’s direction] will have quite a bit more work to process what the Holy Spirit inspired us bishops with at the Council.’ We have Acts’ account of Pentecost (or what the Church has made of it) to thank for this sort of remark. There sat Karl Rahner, a great theologian, silent and modest and – in the bishop’s eyes – spiritually subordinate to the bishops, because he had been given no inspiration from the Holy Spirit. And there stood Franz Hengsbach, a theological midget compared with Rahner, trumpeting his owership of the Spirit.

Ranke-Heinemann also notes that the apostle Peter uses a line from the Jewish prophet Joel as a prophecy of the Christian feast of Pentecost. Writes Joel: “I will pour my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and daughters shall propesy, . . . on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit” (Acts 2:17-18). Observes Ranke-Heinemann: “This isn’t the only passage in the [the Bible] where [the] Jewish tradition is friendlier to women than the Christian [one].”

It’s also a line that “has not in fact been fulfilled,” and its nonfulfillment “convicts an arrogant male hierarchy of narrow-mindedness.” (Ranke-Heinemann sure doesn’t mince her words!)

She continues:

If the Church’s leaders claim in the Roman Missal that the Holy Spirit has come down on them ever since Pentecost, then this ‘and your daughters’ is the norm of the Spirit against which they must be measured. Hence, no Holy Spirit ever came down on that all-male company then, because there is no Holy Spirit exclusively for men. Which is why, as things now stand, the Men’s Church should for the time being keep silent about their Holy Spirit, keep silent at least until the Holy Spirit promised by the prophet Joel has really come down upon them.

The Role of Women: An Historical Perspective

So what has been the role of women, historically, in all of this? Bishop Patricia Fresen (and, yes, that’s Roman Catholic Bishop Patricia Fresen) addressed this question last summer in Minneapolis, when she presided over the ordination of two female priests and three female deacons.

Said Bishop Fressen:

In the early Church, we know that women and men presided at Eucharist. We know from some very scholarly research by people such as Dr. Dorothy Irvin that there were women who were deacons, bishops, and priests for many, many centuries. It was only after the twelfth century, when the first canon law code was compiled, that women were officially excluded from ministry as priests . . . Corruption and dysfunction in our beloved Church [has resulted from this exclusion]. Yet [the Church] is our family, the family that we love. And we want to work for a renewed ministry within a renewed Church.”

In closing, I bring to your attention the Vatican’s designation of today, the Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, as “World Day of Prayer for the Sanctification of Priests.” I’ll be setting aside time this evening to honor this designation, and I’ll be praying for that “renewed ministry within a renewed Church” of which Bishop Fresen speaks.

And when you think about it, this is another way of saying that I’ll be praying for the coming of that Holy Spirit of which the prophet Joel speaks. Perhaps you’ll join me.

_______________________

* Roman Catholic Womenpriests, for instance, receive their authority from Roman Catholic bishops who stand in full Apostolic Succession. These bishops bestowed sacramentally valid ordinations on the women listed on the RCWP’s website. According to this website: “All the documents pertaining to these ordinations have been attested and notarized. All minutes of the ordinations, including data about persons, Apostolic Succession, and rituals, together with films and photos are deposited with a Notary Public.”

Image 1: Graham English.
Image 2: “Rabbi Jesus Says To Love One Another” by Clara Maria Goldstein.
Image 3: “The Twelve Apostles Were Jewish” by Clara Maria Goldstein.
Image 4: “Mary Magdalene” by Richard Stodert.
Image 5: A contemporary depiction of Pentecost. Artist unknown.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Roman Catholic Womenpriests Ordained in Minneapolis
• Crisis? What Crisis?
• Reflections on The Da Vinci Code Controversy
• Thoughts on The Da Vinci Code

Recommended Off-site Links:
• Roman Catholic Womenpriests
• Women’s Ordination Conference

Thoughts on The Da Vinci Code

I finally saw The Da Vinci Code last Wednesday. I have to say it’s a pretty ordinary film. The suspense and excitement of the novel simply doesn’t translate well to film – or at least to this film.

As to the controversy that some find in the film’s treatment of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, I have to say it’s all somewhat of a ‘storm in a tea cup.’ The Da Vinci Code is so obviously a work of fiction – and an extremely far-fetched one at that.

But what of the film's portrayal of the Catholic Church? Well, as a member of the GLBT community I can only say one thing to those upset by the film’s negative portrayal of certain aspects of Catholicism: Welcome to my world!

For decades, gay and lesbian people have been portrayed stereotypically and negatively by Hollywood. Check out the documentary The Celluloid Closet to see what I mean.

Thankfully, things are turning around – largely because GLBT people have been more open about who they are and how they really live their lives. Such openness is ensuring that false stereotypes are slowly but surely being dispelled. Maybe those who are jumping up and down about the negative portrayal of Catholics should quit playing the victim and learn from the example of gay folks!

Then again, I’m very aware that there is more than one way of being Catholic, and it should not be surprising that those ways that have betrayed Catholicism's rich diversity and denied it's ongoing development by the embracement of doctrinal fundamentalism and life-denying legalism, are often (and indeed, should be) subject to critical evaluation.

I don't believe Dan Brown (the author of The Da Vinci Code) or Ron Howard (the director of the film version of the novel) are interested in such critical evaluation. And to think they are is to take The Da Vinci Code far too seriously. That's not to say that this particular creative endeavor is above critical analysis, it's just that a lot of the criticism of the film by religious folks seems to be both misdirected and overblown.

One of the most insightful (and on target) critiques of Brown's book, and by extension, Howard's film, was offered recently by Sr. Christine Schenk (left) in the May 12 issue of the National Catholic Reporter. Schenk is the director of FutureChurch, a national coalition of parish-centered Catholics working for full participation of all Catholics in the life of the church.

Schenk begins her commentary by stressing that “Dan Brown’s popular fictional bestseller has actually done a disservice to the historical Mary of Magdala and other women leaders in the early church.” Elaborating on this point, Schenk observes that “while the book paints a compelling portrait of the underlying unity of male and female, it ultimately subverts women’s leadership by focusing on the fiction of Mary of Magdala’s marital status rather than the fact of her leadership as the primary witness to Jesus’ resurrection. Unfortunately this reinforces gender bias that women are only important in relationship to the men in their lives.”

Later in her article, Schenk explores the findings of epigraphical scholar Ute Eisen, as documented in Eisen’s book Women Officeholders in Early Christianity, and concludes that “[the] evidence indicates that there were single women and married women whose husbands were not officeholders who were given the title of ‘priest,’ as priesthood was understood at the time.”

Schenk then turns her attention to Mary Magdalene, noting that “many mistakenly associate the penitent woman sinner with Mary of Magdala, making her a prostitute even though there is no historical or biblical basis for the claim.”

“Neither is there any basis,” says Schenk, “for Mr. Brown’s Da Vinci tale that Mary of Magdala was married to Jesus. This idea is based on a 12th-century myth. The contention that ancient writers didn’t mention Jesus’ marriage and offspring for fear of Jewish persecution doesn’t really hold up because John’s Gospel and much of the apocryphal literature were written after the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70, when there would have been nothing to fear from Jewish authorities. If Mary of Magdala was Jesus’ wife and the mother of his child, it is improbable that such texts would have omitted such important facts, especially since both portray her in considerable detail as the primary witness to the resurrection and a female leader who, in many ways, understood Jesus’ mission better than the male disciples.”

Elsewhere, Schenk notes that “atypically, Mary of Magdala was named according to the town she was from, not by her relationship to a man. Biblical scholars believe this indicates she was a wealthy woman of independent means who, with Joanna and Susanna, helped underwrite Jesus’ Galilean mission.”

Schenk also reminds us that “all four Gospels show [Mary of Magdala] leading the group of women who accompanied Jesus through his crucifixion and witnessed his death, burial and resurrection. Biblical scholars see this as strong proof for the historicity of the Resurrection accounts. Had they been fabricated, women would never have been named as witnesses in a culture that did not accept their legal testimony.

Schenk concludes her piece with a stinging yet totally appropriate rebuke of the Catholic Church’s official stance on the issue of women and leadership: “Jesus’ inclusion of women in his itinerant Galilean discipleship and their prominent role as witnesses to the Resurrection provides compelling explanation for women’s experience of themselves as called and chosen to proclaim the Gospel and exercise leadership alongside their brothers in the early church. Unfortunately, our church has yet to catch up to the vision of Jesus, who loved, empowered and accepted the ministry of women but was probably not married to one.”

“Rather than speculate on whether Mary of Magdala was married to Jesus,” says Schenk, “it would be better to imitate her generosity and courage in accompanying a condemned political prisoner through a torturous death and her faith in proclaiming the Resurrection, God’s own affirmation of all the values for which Jesus suffered and died.”


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Reflections on The Da Vinci Code Controversy

Reflections on The Da Vinci Code Controversy

The Da Vinci Code will be released in US cinemas on May 19. The film stars Tom Hanks as a Harvard scholar who teams up with a French cryptologist (played by Audrey Tautou) to solve a murder mystery entwined in the works of Leonardo Da Vinci and a supposed alternative history of Christianity. A central premise of the story is that Jesus fathered a child with Mary Magdalene, and that a clandestine society has for centuries protected the identity of their descendants from agents of the Catholic Church.

Some Christians, among them Catholics, are denouncing the film (and the book by Dan Brown upon which it is based). The Vatican, for instance, has launched a public relations offensive against the film – which includes the producing of a rebuttal documentary entitled The Da Vinci Code – A Masterful Deception.


Fearing a work of fiction

As far as I can ascertain, there are three main (and related) reasons why some Christians are upset by The Da Vinci Code. The first is that it’s a popular work of fiction about Jesus. And why is this such a big deal? Well, folks like the Rev. Paul Jarvis, associate pastor at Our Lady of Grace Church in Edina, Minnesota, fear that the fictitious, alternative history of Christianity presented in The Da Vinci Code, will be mistaken for fact and thus led astray those unschooled in orthodoxy.

What’s needed, according to Jarvis, is a “more educated Christian community.” Within the Catholic sphere, he suggests “Catholicism 101, 201 and 301 classes for adults in every parish or cluster of parishes.” Of course, the assumption is that the orthodox version of events is the real (i.e., accurate) Christian history, something which is highly debatable. Jarvis’ remedy also could be read to imply that all people need to do so as to have faith is to rote learn facts and figures about Church history and doctrine.

Yet as John Haught notes in What Is Religion?, “Religion is not in the same category of understanding as, for example, knowledge of the multiplication tables. It hardly possesses that kind of clarity and distinctness. People do not become religious simply by performing automatic operations in logic. Religion instead is closer to interpersonal kinds of experience and knowledge” that open people to the reality of the sacred. Marcus Borg has defined whatever it is that opens the human heart to God as spirituality.

Contrary, to what some may think, people aren’t drawn to, or sustained in authentic spirituality by promises of formulated answers unrelated to the questions they’re actually living. Nor are people drawn to, or sustained in authentic spirituality by rigid religious doctrine that keeps them spiritually stunted. Rather, people are called into relationship with God by transforming experiences of God in their lives – experiences that open their hearts to the sacred and herald journeys of ever-expanding consciousness and compassion.

Such experiences often occur beyond the parameters of orthodoxy (as with the case of GLBT persons experiencing God in the loving and committed relationships they’ve built, despite the Church’s condemnation and insistence instead on lifelong celibacy as the only true way to be in right relationship with God). These transforming and liberating experiencing certainly cannot be controlled or monopolized by orthodoxy. Indeed, they often threaten orthodoxy as they have the potential to expose and shatter its false gods of exclusivity and rigidity.

I’m not saying there’s no place for orthodoxy. What I am saying is that the understanding of God that orthodoxy presents should always be open to being reshaped and rearticulated by the experience of God in the lives and relationships of people. Organized religion's lack of openness to the presence of God in people's lives is far more damaging to spiritual development than is a work of fiction like The Da Vinci Code.


The question of Jesus’ sexuality

A second reason why some people are worked up about The Da Vinci Code is that they don’t like the way that this particular work of fiction portrays the historical Jesus. It seems that this portrayal – one that emphasizes Jesus’ humanity to the extent that he expressed his love for another sexually – threatens some Christians’ faith.

Personally, my faith is not dependent on the sex life of Jesus, but on my experience of the transforming presence and power of the risen Christ. Such an (ongoing) experience is not dependent on an understanding of Jesus that must be made to conform to the expectations and demands of those fearful and distrustful of sex. And throughout history, such people have always been with us. Indeed, I think I was probably one of them myself at one time.

An underlying assumption held by many who are disparaging of The Da Vinci Code, is that any type of sex would have been unworthy of the living, breathing Jesus. What does this say about human sexuality?

Those who are railing against The Da Vinci Code argue that the film must be avoided because it’s inaccurate in terms of Jesus’ sex life. They say that we know for a fact that Jesus was never married, never sexually active. To which I respond, “Do we?” The reality is we simply don’t know if Jesus was ever married or was ever involved sexually with another (male or female). The gospels are not biographical documents. They’re the faith testimonies of people writing to certain audiences and doing so with distinct agendas. They, like all of scripture, are limited and biased.


Understanding Jesus’ divinity

Critics of The Da Vinci Code insist that the film denies Jesus’ divinity. Yet does a fully human understanding of Jesus (one that allows, for instance, the possibility of sexual relations with another) deny his “divine” nature? How do we understand the divinity of Jesus? Is our understanding of this crucial part of our Christian faith set in stone, or can it develop and expand?

In his book The Kingdom Within (Paulist Press, 1990), John Sanford says that the divinity of Jesus (like our own inner core of divinity) must be understood in terms of consciousness and wholeness as opposed to infallibility and perfection. Sanford and others suggest that the historical Jesus was divine because of the depth of his consciousness with regard his understanding and living of right relationship with himself, others, and the sacred force that infuses all creation.

Sanford notes that throughout his life and ministry, Jesus called others to likewise cultivate this depth of consciousness – to recognize and claim, in other words, the sacred within themselves, thus opening themselves to the sacred’s transforming love and channeling this love to others.

Like Sanford, John White in his article “Jesus, Evolution, and the Future of Humanity” (Grof, S., (Ed.), Human Survival and Consciousness Evolution, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988) reflects on the divinity of Jesus and concludes that “Jesus was a historical person, a human becoming; but Christ, the Christos, is an eternal transpersonal condition of being to which we must all someday come.”

White goes on to say that “Jesus did not say that this higher state of consciousness realized in him was his alone for all time. Nor did he call us to worship him. Rather, he called us to follow him . . . He called us to share in the new condition, to enter a new world, to be one in the supramental Christ consciousness which alone can dispel the darkness of our minds and renew our lives . . . Jesus taught and demonstrated cosmic consciousness, the Christic state of mind, the peace that surpasses understanding, the direct experience of divinity dwelling in us and all things, now and forever, creating us, preserving us, urging us to ever more inclusive states of being.”

Is Jesus' example and invitation diminished or annuled by the thought of him being sexual with another? I'm not suggesting that Jesus had to be sexual in order to be a fully conscious and compassionate human being, but neither do I think that a loving sexual relationship with another would preclude such fullness. For many, it's a wonderful pathway to greater consciousness and compassion. Are we to deny Jesus such a potential pathway? And if so, why?


The Da Vinci Code and women

I’ve read Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code, upon which the film is based, and found it to be an entertaining though disposable read. I’ve also read a lot of commentaries on the book, with one of the most insightful being written by Christine Schenk and entitled, “What The Da Vinci Code Owes to Women.”

Schenk suggests that Brown's immensely successful novel has “struck a chord in popular culture because people are more knowledgeable about the leadership roles held by women in early Christianity, roles eventually suppressed by male church leaders.” In short, people sense that the institutional Church (i.e. the keeper of orthodoxy) has got something to hide.

“For the past 50 years,” Schenk notes, “a critical mass of feminist historians, biblical scholars and archaeologists, both male and female, have been studying ancient texts and excavation sites. Thanks to their painstaking work, we now have proof that Jesus included women in his closest discipleship, that women probably underwrote his Galilean mission, and that women held leadership and ministerial roles in the early church identical to those held by men. Inscriptions and images found on papyri, tombstones, frescos and mosaics in Rome, Sicily, Jerusalem, Northern Africa, Egypt, Belgium, Jordan and Spain show early Christian women serving their communities as apostles, prophets, teachers of theology, priests, stewards, deacons and bishops.

“These early women officeholders were eventually suppressed by a philosophical system that viewed them as defective males and by a culture that accepted female leadership at home but not in public. When Constantine used Christianity to consolidate the crumbling Roman Empire, worship moved away from house churches where women’s leadership was accepted, to public venues, often Roman law courts, where women’s leadership violated cultural norms of honor and shame. A woman leader speaking publicly was viewed as outside her husband’s control and therefore dishonorable. That early male church leaders suppressed women’s leadership is a known fact . . .”

Schenk concludes her article by acknowledging that “eminent scholars are unanimous that there is no real biblical or historical evidence to support [Dan Brown’s claim that Mary of Magdala was married to Jesus and bore his child, beginning a royal bloodline that continues to this day]. . . But popular culture easily overlooks this, perhaps seeing it for what it is: a literary carrier for the far larger truth that the new ‘holy grail’ is the mutuality of love meant to exist between women and men – perhaps the first and best gift given by the God who loves us all.”

The full text of Schenk’s article can be found here.


NEXT: Thoughts on The Da Vinci Code