Dan Brown maintains that by Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and having a child with her he was elevating women. Frankly what Jesus really did for Mary was much more radical. He saw her as a person. He didn’t have to have sex with her, marry her, or have children with her for her to be valuable. He instead recognized her intrinsic worth. In most societies around the world and throughout history, that has not been true. Even now in the US most of my single women friends are agonizing about still being single. Without anyone saying it, there’s a sense that something is ‘wrong’ with them. If they were smarter, nicer, prettier, more willing to compromise, etc. surely they’d be married by now. But Jesus values women for themselves. They were part of the group of disciples as unmarried women. He let himself be touched in public by an ‘unclean’ woman (who wept over his feet, dried them with her—unbound=prostitute—hair, and anointed his feet with perfume). His masculinity didn’t need a woman for validation and he valued the feminine in woman without needing to possess her.OTRgirl is so strong and clear about this, that I was groping after in posts like "Upside Down..." and "A special deformity of conscience?" She's nailed the DaVinci Code thing good and proper, and made a superb point about one of my favourite Gospel people in one hit. Stunning stuff!
Monday, June 12, 2006
About the Sacred Feminine & such things...
I just found this wonderful post, "Sacred Feminine?" on OTRgirl's fine blog. What she says about Mary Magdalene bears quoting in full: