May is Mary's month, so I'm refreshing a vintage millinerd.com post with some new insights and bibliography, while doubling down on my claim that Mary was a virgin, not a prude.
Cynthia Bourgeault's claim is simply wrong. The earliest "veneration" of Mary on record occurs in the first chapter of Luke's Gospel and is voiced by a married, pregnant woman. Elizabeth in calling her "the mother of the Lord" is using a title that would have been recognized in the ANE as referring to the Queen Mother (I list the relevant OT verses in a footnote in my book, "Silent Rosary"). The honoring of Mary begins astoundingly early and at a time when the Church was still predominantly Semitic and not averse to marriage. Bishops, according to the Pastorals, are expected to be married (it's expressed with an imperative in the Greek) and able to govern their household, thus demonstrating their abilities to be good guides in God's household. (Extreme anti-sex literature in the supposedly Pauline tradition, such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla, were read but remained on the fringes of orthodoxy.)
Watching Bourgeault barely stay in the Christian tradition has been fascinating, and nerve-wracking. I was pilloried on her online community for suggesting in a recent article she was unwise to say the question as to whether or not Jesus and Mary Magdalene were sexually involved does not matter. It is so sad how she rehearses this wildly inaccurate view of Mary. Stephen Shoemaker's wonderful book Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion summarizes all the recent work that confirms your point entirely. Early Christian devotion to Mary, pre-431, arising from Jerusalem itself, is now undeniable. On the other hand, Bourgeault's witness to disaffected post-Christians in esoteric communities, where she scandalizes them with her insistence on the Trinity and actual resurrection, still cheers me. And the way she is stewarding the interpretation of Thomas Keating back toward traditional faith is remarkable, and perhaps something only she could do. I can't say she hasn't helped me. But all in all, I wonder if Bourgeault's trajectory show the limits of putting most of your eggs in the basket of Centering Prayer.
Centering Prayer is -- and I don't mean to sound smug -- a beginner's practice. I'm all for practices for beginners, mind you, but our goal is theosis. At some point, we have to wean off the milk, start on a meatier diet, and realize that our (infinite) goal involves real ascesis.
On further thought, may I ask you to follow up on this Addison? This is a hard saying. The Philokalia is shot through with counsel toward silent, imageless prayer, which is anything but a beginner's practice (or so it seems to me). A more rigorous introduction to Centering Prayer like Basil Pennington's book of that name, indeed is stuffed with Philokalia references. Are you counseling the Jesus Prayer instead? What does more advanced practice look like? Thanks!
As a long admirer of your work, I confess that the intense focus on sex being more-than-sex remains to me a puzzle. I’d love to think more about this, so thanks for the nudge.
I certainly hope I am offering nothing original, but just a reformulation of the traditional position in the face of contemporary (that is, sex-obsessed) challenges to the tradition. I like how Sarah Coakley puts it: "Freud must be - as it were- turned on his head. It is not that physical 'sex' is basic and 'God' ephemeral; rather it is is God who is basic, and 'desire' the precious clue that ever tugs at the heart, reminding the human soul - however dimly - of its created source" (Sarah Coakley, God, Sexuality and the Self: An Essay on the Trinity, 10).
Almost finished reading *Chastity: Reconciliation of the Senses* by Erik Varden and a lot of resonance there with your thesis here.
“mopey, almost self-pitying countenance” of Joseph is more likely contemplative and ready to sleep and dream at any time (one of his key tasks)
Much better!! Clearly an instance of projection from me. God help women from men in moods.
Ha! I need a chuckle react! ☺️
Cynthia Bourgeault's claim is simply wrong. The earliest "veneration" of Mary on record occurs in the first chapter of Luke's Gospel and is voiced by a married, pregnant woman. Elizabeth in calling her "the mother of the Lord" is using a title that would have been recognized in the ANE as referring to the Queen Mother (I list the relevant OT verses in a footnote in my book, "Silent Rosary"). The honoring of Mary begins astoundingly early and at a time when the Church was still predominantly Semitic and not averse to marriage. Bishops, according to the Pastorals, are expected to be married (it's expressed with an imperative in the Greek) and able to govern their household, thus demonstrating their abilities to be good guides in God's household. (Extreme anti-sex literature in the supposedly Pauline tradition, such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla, were read but remained on the fringes of orthodoxy.)
Watching Bourgeault barely stay in the Christian tradition has been fascinating, and nerve-wracking. I was pilloried on her online community for suggesting in a recent article she was unwise to say the question as to whether or not Jesus and Mary Magdalene were sexually involved does not matter. It is so sad how she rehearses this wildly inaccurate view of Mary. Stephen Shoemaker's wonderful book Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion summarizes all the recent work that confirms your point entirely. Early Christian devotion to Mary, pre-431, arising from Jerusalem itself, is now undeniable. On the other hand, Bourgeault's witness to disaffected post-Christians in esoteric communities, where she scandalizes them with her insistence on the Trinity and actual resurrection, still cheers me. And the way she is stewarding the interpretation of Thomas Keating back toward traditional faith is remarkable, and perhaps something only she could do. I can't say she hasn't helped me. But all in all, I wonder if Bourgeault's trajectory show the limits of putting most of your eggs in the basket of Centering Prayer.
Centering Prayer is -- and I don't mean to sound smug -- a beginner's practice. I'm all for practices for beginners, mind you, but our goal is theosis. At some point, we have to wean off the milk, start on a meatier diet, and realize that our (infinite) goal involves real ascesis.
I needed to hear this. Thank you.
On further thought, may I ask you to follow up on this Addison? This is a hard saying. The Philokalia is shot through with counsel toward silent, imageless prayer, which is anything but a beginner's practice (or so it seems to me). A more rigorous introduction to Centering Prayer like Basil Pennington's book of that name, indeed is stuffed with Philokalia references. Are you counseling the Jesus Prayer instead? What does more advanced practice look like? Thanks!
Actually Addison, I think you answered that quite well here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-163714423?source=queue#_ftn2
As a long admirer of your work, I confess that the intense focus on sex being more-than-sex remains to me a puzzle. I’d love to think more about this, so thanks for the nudge.
I know Coakley well. I find her work a bit wrongheaded on the issue. Either that or her prayer life is nothing like mine.
I'm not with her on all points.
I certainly hope I am offering nothing original, but just a reformulation of the traditional position in the face of contemporary (that is, sex-obsessed) challenges to the tradition. I like how Sarah Coakley puts it: "Freud must be - as it were- turned on his head. It is not that physical 'sex' is basic and 'God' ephemeral; rather it is is God who is basic, and 'desire' the precious clue that ever tugs at the heart, reminding the human soul - however dimly - of its created source" (Sarah Coakley, God, Sexuality and the Self: An Essay on the Trinity, 10).