I have just issued the following statement:
“I am delighted to hear that the Anglican Church in Brazil has just changed its marriage canon to allow same-sex couples to get married. As we have rejoiced in St Mary’s Cathedral Glasgow in recent months with couples who have waited years to be married in church, so we rejoice with couples doing the same thing in Brazil.
“All God’s children are equally beloved. We rejoice as greater equality comes to another part of the Anglican Communion”
Mildly serious question that has never occurred to me before. Why does she still get called the Virgin Mary when Jesus had brothers she presumably had in the normal way?
Well, there are those who try to make the case that she remained “ever” Virgin and that the reference to Jesus’s brothers is an oblique and more general reference to the men of the extended family – cousins, uncles and so on. I think that’s rather silly myself.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is simply one of the titles afforded her because of the persistent story of Christ’s birth. For myself, I think there is more interesting theological ground to be ploughed by thinking of her as exemplifying a virgin world waiting in longing and expectation for God to come. That kind of thing seems to me to be considerably more potent than birth-story tittle-tattle.
When I was young I was sure the birth story was ‘just a myth’ – but then as I got deeper into history I got more experienced at evaluating stories. Not, you understand, ‘form-critical’ experienced, but historical experienced. What now strikes me with force is that two very different writers tell very different stories about the birth of Jesus with very different genealogies. However, despite the two birth stories coming from markedly different traditions, both bill Mary as a virgin. In any other context, I would find that more than convincing. So here, too, I let myself be convinced. As a sober historian, and cynic, I find it the most probably explanation. Not the only historically possible one, just the most generally convincing.
Generally, I find historical thought more satisfying than the more circular arguments of form criticism. I am fairly sure I could use form criticism to disprove the fact that David Cameron is currently the PM.
Thanks – I have no problem with the virgin birth, its been humanly possible for decades now so I reckon God could have arranged it easily enough a couple of thousand years ago.
Well, actually it is NOT humanly possible – even with IVF. You cannot get a boy baby, humanly speaking, without a father. But then, humanly speaking, bodies do not resurrect, and walk and talk and eat…
Rosemary, I think you are being a bit technical. Where I come from a virgin is someone who hasn’t had sex.
The problem is that it is not the ‘having sex’ but the chromosomes in the baby. Or to put it another way – how did Jesus get his X? It is easy enough to get pregnant without ‘having sex’ but harder without ‘having sperm’. Despite that, the evidence is that two unrelated stories believe it was done. And two unrelated stories believe the babe was born in Bethlehem. Very interesting.
From God?
Sperm from God? Not I think, stories ‘from God’ except in the general sense that all understanding is divine. No. Stories from history. And the biology? Truly beyond current understanding. But, here you have it – if one understands it ceases to be amazing and people say : ‘Now we understand, that is not a miracle and Jesus is not form God.’ And if we do not understand, people say: ‘We do not understand and so it cannot have happened, and Jesus is not from God.’
If I didn’t believe God could knock out a few sperm as and when required I would have Sunday mornings free.
I was intrigued by the statement made to the Equal Opportunities Committee of the Scottish Parliament of someone representing the Church of Scotland. They seemed to suggest that if they don’t get their way in stopping same-sex marriage then they might stop conducting marriages altogether. BBC report here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24063468 I think that it is interesting…
Here’s an interesting interview with Richard Holloway. Talks about institutional unity vs justice, the prophetic tradition and never losing Jesus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YYoxqd8Xwc
We’ve been clearing some old documents out of the dank crypt this week and one or two interesting things have emerged. Not least a couple of photographs from 1962. We forget now that we photograph anything and everything all the time that in previous decades a photo was relatively rare. This one was taken at…
Leave a Reply