If it’s on
the internet it must be true!
We all know,
don’t we, that we have to be really discerning when it comes to choosing what
to believe on the internet and what to take with a grain of salt.
The same
rule can be true if you try to find out about the saints of old.
If you use
your computer search engine to look up Mary Magdalene you will get some amazing
information. I looked up the first 10
pages Google identified for me.
I discovered
that she is often assumed to be the woman who wept on Jesus feet or anointed
his feet with perfume – but this was Mary the sister of Martha, or else an
unnamed woman of ill-repute; which probably led to the next thing I discovered.
I discovered
that Mary was probably a prostitute, and that she became the patron saint of
fallen women – so in the Middle Ages many “Magdalen Houses” were built and run
by nuns to gather such women in.
I discovered
that there are five Gospels that are not in the Bible that tell stories about
Mary.
I discovered
that Mary was cast out of Palestine on a boat without sail or oars and she
ended up in Southern France. Relics of
this are still present to this day.
I discovered
that Mary was actually the married to Jesus and some say there was even a
child.
I discovered
that she had starring roles in 40 movies since the first in 1912.
But none of
this is based in fact so what can we say about Mary Magdalene with any
certainty?
Firstly, she
is named more often in the Gospels than many of the Apostles – a dozen text
references. Apart from the birth
narratives, Mary the Mother of Jesus rates just eight Gospel references. So it is reasonable to regard Mary Magdalene
as very significant in the Early Christian community.
Mary
Magdalene was one of a group of women who gathered as followers of Jesus in
addition to the men, and Luke makes it clear that these women were of
sufficient well-being that “they used their own resources to help Jesus and his
disciples.” Luke 8:3
Luke also
mentions that Jesus healed her – the text says 7 demons, but since 7 is a
symbolic number it is a bit difficult to know for sure what she was healed of.
This is the
only reference to her prior to the Crucifixion and Resurrection stories.
- Matthew, Mark and John name Mary among the witnesses of the Crucifixion.
- Matthew and Mark note Mary as one of two women who witnessed the interment of Jesus’ body in the tomb.
- Finally, all four Gospel writers name Mary among the women who gathered at the tomb early on the Sunday morning and discover that it is empty and who then passed on the news or the instructions of Jesus, depending on how the story is told, to the Apostles.
Anything
else that you think you might know about Mary is either the product of the
accumulated tradition of the Church, or our tendency to merge the stories of
the various Mary’s into one and say this is Mary Magdalene.
So, what do
we make of this Mary? Why is it that she
occupies a very hallowed or noble place among the community of early saints?
In the
language of the Church she is called the Apostle of the Apostles. The word Apostle means a messenger or an
emissary – one who represents the words of another. Just as the 12 Apostles were sent by Jesus in
the Great Commission of Matthew 28, so Mary Magdalene was sent by Jesus with a
specific message for his disciples.
In the
scheme of things this seems to be a very strange state of affairs. As Dee reminded me during the week, in those
days the testimony of a woman held no weight in the courts. They were never taken seriously – I guess
because women are so often hysterical!
And we get a little bit of resistance to the witness from the men, don’t
we – but maybe that was because the idea of Jesus’ resurrection was unbelievable
rather than because it was some hysterical women who told them.
I don’t
suppose we will ever know, but it is clear from these references to Mary
Magdalene, and her very significant place in the early Christian community,
that she was acknowledged as someone special among the saints.
I really
hold an egalitarian view of life in the Kingdom of God, but many in the church have
held out an hierarchical view of things, even down to having a hierarchy of
saints. We have marked this difference
by having different names for the kind of commemoration we have of a saint. In the Anglican Church we have Principal
Feasts, Principal Holy Days, Festivals, Lesser Festivals and
Commemorations. Just this year, Pope
Francis has elevated the commemoration of Mary from a Memorial to a Feast –
right up there with the Apostles, Peter, James, John and Paul. Again, what this says is that Mary is really,
really important. We must not disregard
her as an insignificant or bit player in the story.
Given the
place of this woman as the first witness to the resurrection, as the one to
whom Jesus entrusted the task of telling his Disciples that he had been raised
to life, I think it really is sad that women have had to struggle over the
years to feel validly part of the Christian community.
In the story
of Mary Magdalene, in the story of Priscilla and Acquilla, in the stories of so
many of the women in the early church we see women accepted as equals in the
community of believers.
I want to
see a church in which this is more and more the case. We have come a long way in our lifetime in
redressing the imbalance that saw all leadership in the hands of men – and the
church is much healthier for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment