Feminist Theological engagement
with Mary
Introduction:
Mary the mother of Jesus was the most prominent women of all ages and highly
regarded by Christians. She is one of the Catholic Church’s important doctrines
and without her, their sacred history is impossible. The Catholic Church
offered women compensation and reflected glory by equating them to Mary. The Protestants
object to a Catholic Mary who is almost equal or more important than Jesus is.
Protestants’ objections serve the purpose of reducing women’s roles in marriage
to those of wife and mother, safely domesticated within patriarchal family
boundaries. Mary is an important figure who points towards the mystery of
Christ and the Church and who is a norm against which new theological
conceptions have to be measured.
Mary in the Bible: -
Mary is the one woman in the Bible who needs no instruction.[1] Mary
appears in the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. She appears in the Jesus
ceremonial purification (Lk.2: 22-38), flight to Egypt (Mt.2: 13-15), return to
Nazareth (Mt.2:19-23), Jesus visit to the temple of Jerusalem at the age of
twelve (Lk.2:41-50), and the wedding at Cana in Galilee (Jn.2:1-11), she was
also concerned for Jesus safety (Mk.3:21,31f), present at the cross
(Jn.19:25f), waiting at the upper room along with the brothers of Jesus and
disciples (Acts.1:14). Few references are found in other books because they did
not know anything about the details of Jesus birth or the stories in Matthew
and Luke are later creations of the believers which are scientifically and
historically unproved.[2]
Disobedience of Mary:
- Bible blindly led us to believe that she was obedient but by accepting divine
instruction she disobeyed Jewish tradition which forbade women from doing just
this. Mary did not run to her father or her husband Joseph for help in
understanding God’s message as good Jewish women were expected to do. She
ignored tradition and trusts her own intelligence and judgment in the matter.
Again she flouted[3]
Jewish tradition by willingly agreeing to become an unwed mother and to face
the social ostracism[4]
that would inevitably result. She obeyed even though she knew she was breaking
the tradition of men.[5] The
unclean label that tradition has fixed to women because of menstruation and
child bearing becomes meaningless, when we look Mary. God chose her procreative
function as the means to bring salvation to the world. God has thus honored and
blessed women’s biological endowment; it can no longer be called unclean.[6]
A Mariology from below:
- Christian tradition has elevated Mary and shaped her image to create a
perfect model of feminity for women to follow a model which has also helped to
keep women in their place.[7] The
study of Mary is called Mariology; Traditional Mariology elevates Mary to the
heavenly sphere and given her the status of a super human being. But this kind
of Mariology is facing crisis today, many people including those whose
traditions hold a highly developed Mariology are unwilling to accept the
doctrines of Mary’s perpetual virginity, her Immaculate Conception and
assumption into heaven. These doctrines project a distorted picture of Mary. It
is difficult to regard Mary as a ‘virgin forever”, the sinless Madonna, or the
lofty Queen of Heaven on the basis of normal Biblical interpretation. If she
remains a heavenly figure and can hardly provide any useful pattern for us. She
should be liberated from the distorted images that have been imposed on her
during the course of church’s history of worship and devotion.
But such assignation became hindrance to achieve
respect for women hood and better status in the church and society. Devotion to
heavenly Mary has not promoted the cause of women, and the churches where Mary
is the object of adoration does not give women an equal status.[8]
The belief in female figure in heaven became a comforting compensation for one’s
tendency to oppress women on earth. There is no need to postulate a heavenly
Mary to have a Mariology. The Biblical facts about Mary are a sufficient basis
for us to have a Mariology. And that Mariology will be from below, as Hans Kuhn
puts it, not a Mariology from above. Such Mariology will be helpful for us,
because Mary from below will be a human being like any of us, our sister and
our ideal representative. Let Mary remain a normal woman, a model for women and
all humanity, and not a supernatural being absolutely sinless and perfect.[9] Daly
criticizes the Catholic Church’s dogma of Mariology, because it belongs to the
patriarchal past. According to Daly, Mary, as a symbol was used as a two-edged
sword by its male promoters and that the God-like status of Mary is remnant of
the ancient image of the Mother Goddess.[10]
Mary and incarnation of Christ: -
Mary would have had no prominence if God had not sought her participation in
the execution of his plan of incarnation.
Incarnation means “taking flesh” which means “taking human nature”. The
people looked Jesus as the son of Mary, but they be held in him the perfect
nature of God and the perfect nature of man. The presence of both these natures
happened when an “incarnation” of God takes place. The most difficult part of
the story of Mary in the Bible is the way which she got pregnant by Holy
Spirit. When reading this in the modern scientific knowledge of human biology,
it becomes extremely hard to believe it. Jesus was both Mary’s son and God’s
son, which raised questions about the union between the spirit of God and Mary.[11]
The biological impossibility of a women becoming pregnant without the help of
male was not given importance but the glory of the son of God has been seen.
God’s incarnation would “make sense” only if Mary is regarded as an ordinary
human being.[12]
Jesus rejects the view that Mary could be reduced to her reproductive
functions. According to Jesus Mary’s blessedness consisted not in maternity,
but in her obedience to the will of God.[13]
Christ’s Humanity – A woman’s
contribution: - Jesus divine nature was bought into
effect by Holy Spirit, but the humanness comes from Mary. Disciples saw him in
the human form had no doubt about his human nature, and they don’t need any
explanation for his humanity. It becomes difficult to understand Jesus humanity
when it is affirmed Jesus had no human father, but only a human mother. The
virgin birth is an enigma, with reference to the origin of earthly life of
Jesus and with his human nature. The Bible affirms his humanity and virginal
birth.[14]
The reference to the Holy spirit as the agent of conception might “explain” how
Jesus could be fully divine, but the exclusion of male participation in
conception, it inevitably raises problems. There must be a physical union of a
male and a female sex cell to start a human life. The two problems related to
Christ’s birth are:
i)
Problem
of pregnancy without the male: - Mary herself asked
to angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?
ii)
Problem
of human nature: - The Bible doesn’t suggest that by
intervention of Holy Spirit Jesus received human nature, but it affirms it was
by the Holy Spirit Mary became pregnant.
Nikos
Nissiotis quotes, “Christ has not brought his human nature from heaven and has
not created it a new from the earth but he took it from the flesh and the blood
of the very pure virgin Maria”. Mary without the help of a male, provide to God
what was needed for him to become human. Jesus’ full humanity was contributed
by a woman Mary. The physical union is needed to have human nature but in Jesus
birth it is exempted. Maleness is not
the sole representation of standard humanity. If women lack anything that is
essentially human, Jesus cannot be regarded as a real human being. One cannot
at the same time both accept that Christ was really human and say that women
are an inferior kind of being.[15]
Mary the “Theotokos”:-
To be the mother of Jesus is the greatest privilege and honor that a woman
could ever get. Angel Gabriel addresses Mary as the ‘favored one” of God. The
council of Ephesus in A.D 431 discussed and favored the title to Mary
“Theotokos”, because they believed that this title would bring together the two
natures, divine and human. Cyril of Alexandria emphasizes the divine as well as
the human character of the child, from the very beginning of his conception in
the womb of Mary. The word “Theokotos” would do justice to this idea. The
council had no intention to picture her as the “Mother of God”, which gives the
status of Mary as a divine figure. And this was based on the Latin tradition
Mary was easily elevated to the level of God.[16]
Leelamma Athyal says, Mary is the woman who “humanly” and “temporally” gave
birth to God. But in doing so, she
remained human and temporal like any other human being.
Mary
and the fruit of her womb: - The understanding of Mary as “Theotokos” shed a
new light with the normal physiological function of a woman relating to child
birth.[17]
The biological process of the functioning of Mary’s reproductive system had to
play the most crucial role in the incarnation of God. Her role was not simply
to be a divine shrine where God could be preserved and sheltered until then he
appears in the form of human child. Mary’s body played an active role in the
whole process right from the beginning of conception up till the time of
delivery. The God – incarnate was truly the fruit of her womb as her Elizabeth
said (Lk 1:42). Mary’s role as “Theotokos” signifies the way God has blessed
and sanctified a woman’s function of child bearing. Her ovaries, fallopian
tubes and uterus, with their functions were most valuable to God in carrying
out his plan of salvation. Her whole reproductive system became the most sacred
realm of the mysterious activity of the holy God.[18]
Controversy of
Virginity:- Mary is often referred to as the
“Virgin Mary” and sometimes as the “Virgin” and the reasons why she was called
so is; she was virgin up to the time she conceived Jesus, her conception of
Jesus was virginal (Her pregnancy doesn’t
affect her virginity), had no marital relationship with anyone even after
the birth of Jesus. More over Bible nowhere says her as “virgin Mary”.[19]
It is not justifiable to refer to Mary as a “virgin” or “Mary the virgin”,
rather we can speak about the” virginal conception of Jesus”. To Macquarrie,
the virgin birth points to Jesus Christ’s origin in God.
According
to Daly, Mary’s virginity becomes a paraphrase for female autonomy - women have
to become independent of men and must not define themselves through their relationships
with men.Daly argues that most theologians uphold the most non-relational
aspect of Mary, her virginity, and that they tie this to the male savior and
the male God. By taking the virgin symbol out of context, women are defined on
a biological level with a kind of “inverse sexual and relational definition”,
and to think that Mary was a virgin “before, during, and after” the birth of
Jesus is absurd and says something about “female autonomy in the context of
sexual and parental relationships”. The virgin model in Catholicism is not
liberating to women; nuns are still dominated by men and are dominated and
confined by the physical, psychological and social powers of patriarchy. In
contrast, Protestant women have only Jesus, whereas Catholic women have the
“nun”. Protestant women have “the minister’s wife” as a more “liberating
picture”.[20]
According
to Leelamma Athyal she cannot be called or mention with that title because she
underwent the experience of pregnancy and child birth which never be
experienced by a virgin. Let us respect her as the woman who gave birth to
Jesus, rather calling her by name which gives lesser importance.
Mary and feminist theology: -
Feminist theologians have drawn various insights from Mariological studies to
make women more conscious of their place and role in the church and society.
i)
Mary
as female aspect of god: - Some regarded Mary as symbol for
the female aspect of God, which helps to enable women to affirm their authority
and dynamism. But this leads to an unnecessary elevation of an ordinary human
to divine status.
ii)
Idealizing
Mary’s virginity: - Some theologians idealize Mary’s
virginity with the idea of independence from men and thus makes Mary as the
symbol of woman’s autonomy over against man.
iii)
Mary is offered as a sign of God’s
recognition and respect of the femaleness and potentiality of motherhood in
women.
iv)
Too much value on the virginity of Mary
should strongly be disapproved.
v)
Mary’s reproductive system became the
unique instrument for God to become incarnate.
vi)
Jesus assumed his human nature from Mary
alone, points to the full humanness of womanhood.
vii)
She was not an agent forced to do God’s
plan but after due consideration of all consequences, deliberately agreed to
the divine suggestion and co=operated with God in executing his plan.
viii)
She was bold enough to question her
child birth without sexual intercourse, and made courageous and independent
decision for the plan.
Mary
remain as the ideal representative of women who could be studied with much
profit in formulating a right theology of human hood.[21]
Mary’s
social concern
She was well
informed and politically conscious young woman who was deeply concerned about
the poor and the oppressed. Mary’s song testifies her participation in the
prophetic tradition of the Hebrew people. She question angel and Jesus when he
was lost.
The account of the wedding at Cana (Jn 2:1-12)
clearly reveals Mary’s self assertiveness. Here she emerges as a strong
authoritative parent figure. Mary was the motivating force, the activist in the
episode who pushed her reluctant son to act. She was calm and bold enough to
instruct the servants. This incident shows the high social standing in that
community, the freedom to command servants and her name is mentioned before
Jesus. When the tradition of the society
which has forced on her is removed we can find the Mary of the Bible: a strong,
self confident, assertive, questioning, intelligent, well informed, socially
conscious and active women.[22]
Conclusion:
- Christian women should follow Christ, in the building of Christ’s kingdom
looking to Mary the mother of Jesus. Jesus never gave special directions for
their behavior as women he treated them always equal. In the context of
inequality and impurity in church and society, there is no reason that women
should be considered impure on account of their female biological functions.
Woman as such is created by God, in his own image and blessed her with all her
biological functions. Woman hood is an essential part of the humanity that God
has created, and the physiological functions of women are not only a precious
gift of God to humanity, but also the most important means which he used to
bring salvation to the whole world. The female archetypes and deities can never
lead to the liberation of women otherwise in India women would have achieved a
higher status long ago.
Bibliography
Emilye,
Heweit. Women pastors –Yes or No
Faria,
Stella. Corinne Scott(Ed), Biblical women
our foremothers; women perspectives,
Indore: Satprakashan Sanchar Kendra,
1997.
Gnanadason
(Ed), Aruna. Towards a theology of Human
hood: women’s perspectives, New Delhi:
ISPCK, 1986.
Webliography
Accessed from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/8820/thesis_wood_jm.pdf
on 16-01-2015 at 6:55pm.
Accessedfromhttp://tissabalasuriya.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/mary-human-liberation1.pdf
on 09-01-2015 at 09:11 am.
[1] Stella Faria, Corinne Scott(Ed),
Biblical women our foremothers; women perspectives, (Indore: Satprakashan
Sanchar Kendra, 1997), 35. (Here after cited as Stella Faria, Corinne
Scott(Ed), Biblical women our ….)
[2]
Aruna Gnanadason (Ed), Towards a theology of Human hood: women’s perspectives,
(New Delhi: ISPCK 1986), 50. (Here after cited as Aruna Gnanadason (Ed),
Towards a theology of Human hood…)
[3] Openly disregarded
[4] Exclude from society or group
[5] Stella Faria, Corinne Scott(Ed),
Biblical women our …, 35.
[6] Stella Faria, Corinne Scott(Ed),
Biblical women our …, 36
[7] Stella Faria, Corinne Scott(Ed),
Biblical women our …, 35.
[8] Aruna Gnanadason (Ed), Towards a
theology of Human hood…, 49.
[9] Aruna Gnanadason (Ed), Towards a
theology of Human hood…, 51
on
16-01-2015 at 06:55 pm
[11] Aruna Gnanadason (Ed), Towards a
theology of Human hood…), 51.
[12] Aruna Gnanadason (Ed), Towards a
theology of Human hood…, 52.
[13]
Heweit Emilye, Women pastors –Yes or No,67.
[14] Aruna Gnanadason (Ed), Towards a
theology of Human hood…, 52.
[15] Aruna Gnanadason (Ed), Towards a
theology of Human hood…, 53.
[16] Aruna Gnanadason (Ed), Towards a
theology of Human hood…, 54.
[17] Aruna Gnanadason (Ed), Towards a
theology of Human hood…), 55.
[18] Aruna Gnanadason (Ed), Towards a
theology of Human hood…), 56.
[19] Aruna Gnanadason (Ed), Towards a
theology of Human hood…), 57.
[20]
Accessed from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/8820/thesis_wood_jm.pdf
on 16-01-2015 at 06:55 pm
[21] Aruna Gnanadason (Ed), Towards a
theology of Human hood…, 59.
[22]
Stella Faria, Corinne
Scott(Ed), Biblical women our …, 36.
No comments:
Post a Comment