Easter Sunday

This is the lightly edited version of the transcript of the podcast version of my sermon for Easter Sunday.

Easter Sunday

Reading: John 20:1-18

We have come today to the last of the four characters I want to look at for Holy Week and Easter this year. I have chosen Mary Magdalene for today both because she features prominently in our Gospel reading and because she was the first witness of our Lord’s resurrection. Mary Magdalene, however, is probably the most difficult of the four characters to talk about, not because of what the Gospels do – or don’t – say about her, but because of the common distortions to her image. These distortions make it harder to understand her as a person.

The first reference to Mary Magdalene in the four Gospels occurs in St Luke’s Gospel. It is worth quoting in full:

‘Soon afterwards he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources.’ (Luke 8:1-3)

This is not only the first reference to Mary Magdalene, it is the only reference to her until we get to the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion. Mary herself would, of course, have been known to many of the first readers of the Gospels. Firstly, she would have been known personally to some of them. The characters in the Gospels didn’t cease to exist after Jesus’ death and resurrection apart, that is, from Judas who hanged himself. They would have been members of church communities, and people would have known them. Secondly, others would have known about her from the stories they had heard about our Lord’s death and resurrection. Notice that I say stories about our Lord’s death and resurrection. The Gospels’ concern is with Mary Magdalene’s part in the story of Jesus, and it is her relationship to him that is the key, as we shall see, for understanding her.

But first we need to bring Mary Magdalene’s image into focus and deal with the various distortions to it. St Luke, in the passage I have just quoted, is describing a preaching tour of Jesus through the cities and villages of Galilee. On this tour, his closest disciples, known as the Twelve, are with him as well as, St Luke tells us ‘women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities’. These women ‘provided for them out of their resources’. This may mean that Mary Magdalene was from a wealthy background, rich people get ill and possessed as well much as anyone else, but it may denote other types of service as well. As with other background details in the story of Jesus, we are not told because that was not what the Gospel writers were interested in, and initially in the history of the Church much of the background to the story would already be known to the first audiences of the Gospel stories.

That Mary Magdalene had been severely disturbed is clear, and we are meant to understand that it was Jesus who healed her and the two other named women, Joanna and Susanna. Also clear is that Mary Magdalene travelled with Jesus and that the journey took her eventually to Jerusalem, where she is one of those who watch Jesus being crucified Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; Luke 23:49; John 19:25). The Gospels also list her as one of the women who first visit the tomb where Jesus was buried and find it empty (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 20:2). After finding the tomb empty, the women we are told all report back to the apostles, who go to the tomb and also find it empty just as the women have reported. St John then alone has this account of Jesus’ appearance to Mary Magdalene.

So far so good. The problem is, however, that, after this, understanding Mary becomes difficult because of how what we know of her is distorted by those who wish to use her image for their own purposes. In the same way that the Mary Magdalene of the Gospels had to have seven demons cast out of her, there are seven distorted images that each need to be banished if Mary is to be presented to us clearly today and we are to hear what she would say to us.

1. Mary the Name

The distortion begins with her name itself. The demon of historical inaccuracy brings with it all the other demons of distortion, and we can see the distortion beginning even with the speculation about Mary’s name. At first it seems harmless enough, but it opens the way for more harmful distortions to come.

As we have seen, Mary was one of the most popular girl’s names at the time. To distinguish her from all the other Marys at the time, and the many who appear in the Gospels, she was known as Mary Magdalene. Magdalene refers to Magdala, which was a busy fishing village, six miles south of Capernaum. Magdala means ‘tower’ in Hebrew and it most likely got its name from the geography of the area.

Recently there have been significant discoveries and excavations at the site of ancient Magdala. It is now one of the most exciting archaeological sites in Galilee, and not one, but two synagogues have been discovered there. Some of us have been following the virtual Pilgrimage for Lent led by a member of a wonderful church community there, known simply as Magdala.

This you would think is all straightforward enough, but recently there have been, what are best described as ‘sentimental speculations’ that Mary was called Magdalene not simply or so much because of where she came from, but because of her own ‘towering faith’ in Jesus. Magdala being seen as referring to her faith rather than the place. It’s good sermon stuff, and, at first sight, harmless enough, but once we have started to leave historical accuracy behind in favour of our own imaginings, it is hard to stop, and we see how it can take a more harmful turn in the next distorted image.

2. Mary the Prostitute

Historically, the most popular image of Mary Magdalene has been that of a prostitute, and this image of her still persists in popular culture. It would not matter if Mary had been a prostitute. Jesus welcomed and forgave prostitutes, as he welcomed and forgave all types of sinners. It just happens not to be true. Belief that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute was the result of a confusion and conflation of characters that, ironically, a Pope is partly responsible for. Mary Magdalene came to be identified with Mary of Bethany, whom we thought about for the Fifth Sunday of Lent, and the ‘sinful woman’ of Luke chapter 7 (Luke 7:36-50). Pope Gregory I (c. 540-604) himself made this identification in a sermon, although it is one that was already around at the time. Pope Gregory, however, in confirming it, gave authority to it.

The image of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute stuck, and it is still with us. People love this image of Mary Magdalene, and it is deeply rooted in popular culture. It is an image that has been the basis for paintings, books, films, and even musicals. ‘I’ve had so many men before’, the character of Mary Magdalene sings in ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’, and that’s how people often identify her.

It is, however, a false identification. Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany are two different people, and neither of them is the sinful woman of Luke chapter 7.

3. Mary the Submissive Woman

As well as the image of her as a prostitute, who not only has demons cast out of her by Jesus but is also forgiven by him, the next image sees Mary Magdalene as having gone on to become a kind of female groupie on the road with Jesus.

Those of a more traditional type of faith would not, of course, describe her like that, but, in their portrayal of her, she certainly doesn’t appear as an independent person in her own right. In the best versions of this particular distorted image, she is depicted looking after Jesus and offering support to him and to his male disciples. More sinisterly, those who take this approach often use image of Mary Magdalene and others like it to argue that women should submit to men and take a role in society that is subordinate to men. A recent book by a woman on the Catholic understanding of the role and place of women argues just that. It is called tellingly, ‘Ask Your Husband’.

While it is true that the women did minister to Jesus’ needs, this image is also used to imply there are limits to the sort of ministry that women should allowed to perform today. Specifically, it is an image that has been used in the past to justify women not ordaining women or allowing them to preach.

The question of what role women should have in ministry is one that the Church has different views on. Anglicans, for example ordain women as priests; Roman Catholics don’t. The fact, however, that Mary Magdalene took a supporting role to Jesus, as opposed to being one of the Twelve, doesn’t offer support one way or another to views on women’s ministry today. Jesus himself was with us as one who serves. As we saw on Maundy Thursday, washing his disciples’ feet was one of the last things Jesus did before his arrest (John 13:1-11). We are all called to serve. The question of how women are to serve today is not answered by how Mary Magdalene served Jesus and the apostles during Jesus’ ministry.

4. Mary the Wife of Jesus

A twist on Mary the Prostitute image is that of Mary the girlfriend or wife of Jesus. This has become popular in recent years thanks not least to works of fiction such as the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Brown suggested in the book that Mary and Jesus were married and that Mary had given birth to his child. Fearing for the safety of her child, she had fled with her child to France. In some versions of Mary the Wife of Jesus, the wedding at Cana of Galilee was the marriage of Jesus and Mary. This particular demon can have a field day with this distortion, and people are attracted to the image and the story that accompanies it because who doesn’t love a good romance?

But it is romantic fiction. Dan Brown tried to argue that while he was writing fiction, it was fiction all based on fact. Sadly, if you tell people a lie often enough, they will come to believe it, and we know whom Jesus himself described as the ‘father of lies’ (John 8:44). It is perhaps, then, little wonder that this particular lie is so popular.

There is, of course, no reason theologically why Jesus shouldn’t have been married, and every reason to suppose he found women attractive, and they him. Jesus was fully human and, if sexuality is part of being human, Jesus must also have been a sexual person. Believers may get nervous at this sort of talk, but probably this is simply because we have a deficient understanding of the incarnation and what it means. The incarnation really does mean Jesus becoming like us in every respect (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15).

But while there is no theological reason why Jesus could not have been married, there is no evidence that he was. It is just pure fantasy, and a dangerous fantasy, because it takes our minds off the story of Jesus and what he came to do, and domesticates it, turning it into a story of romantic fiction. But, again, it is just that: fiction.

5. Mary the Apostle

Exorcising the demons that have given us the different images I have described, although not easy is, nevertheless possible simply by looking at the evidence for them or rather the lack of it! But there are now new distorted images that are, if anything, even more difficult to get rid of, even if they are no more historically based than before. So far, these different images of Mary that I have named, all, in their different ways, have Mary as being dependent on and subject to men. But that is no longer the spirit of our age. So, it is perhaps not surprising that the nature of the distortions of Mary’s image should have changed to make her image conform to that of the world we now live in.

One of the most popular images of Mary Magdalene in the Church at the moment is that of Mary the Apostle. It was St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century who described Mary as the ‘apostle to the apostles’, even if he didn’t mean by that phrase what more modern users of it mean by it. Ironically, it is another more recent Pope who has given support to this image. Pope Francis elevated the memory of Mary Magdalene to the status of a Feast on July 22, 2016 in order to stress her importance, affirming in the process her title as an apostle.

People now find this image of Mary Magdalene an attractive one because, again, it is one we want to believe in. It is an image of Mary that has been seized upon to justify women’s ordination and to argue for the elevation of women to positions of leadership in the Church. But again, the image itself says more about us and the age we live in than it does about Mary Magdalene herself.

In the same way that it is wrong to use the submissive image of Mary as a justification for restricting women’s ministry, so too it is wrong to use her image to justify removing all restrictions on it. Those who want to use this image of Mary Magdalene to promote their view of women’s ministry claim that Jesus valued men and women equally, which he did, and that he commissioned both men and women to be apostles, which he didn’t. The Risen Jesus in our Gospel reading told Mary Magdalene to go and tell the disciples what he had said to her, and this shows trust. He did not tell her to go and preach the Gospel. She is not even called a disciple in the Gospels, however legitimate we may feel it is to describe her as such.

6. Mary the Assertive Feminist

In the same way that the image of Mary the Submissive Woman builds on the image of Mary the Prostitute, so too this image of Mary the Assertive Feminist builds on that of Mary the Apostle. For many, Mary has become a feminist icon. They see her as strong, independent, confident, and able to hold her own as an equal to the men. Feminists in the Church find inspiration in this image for their attacks on traditional understandings and approaches to women. They look to her for support in dismantling what they see as patriarchal structures in society and the Church.

In the same way that those who are attracted to the image of Mary the Prostitute are not bothered by a lack of historical evidence, so too those attracted to Mary as an Assertive Feminist are not too bothered either. Mary was doubtless strong, but she certainly does not fit the image of someone who broke free from the limitations that a patriarchal society places on women or even that of someone who would want to. What would that even look like in the first century? Quite how we get from someone providing for the men out of her resources to being a feminist icon is, however, perhaps a question for another day.

The fact remains that as much as we may not like it, the society Jesus lived in was patriarchal. And as much as we may today want to change social structures and free society from patriarchy, we should not do so by changing the image of Mary to fit our own modern-day prejudices and beliefs.

7. Mary the Saint for Today

And so, we come to the ultimate exaltation of Mary Magdalene. Now no longer the female prostitute, submissively following Christ, not even simply a disciple equal to the other disciples. The image of Mary for today is not just as the ‘apostle to the apostles’, in the sense that she was the one who took the message of Christ’s resurrection to the apostles, but the ‘apostle of the apostles’, in the sense that she is the standout apostle among the apostles! To quote from one reputable website:

‘Her status as an apostle, in the years after Jesus’ death, rivalled even that of Peter.’

No evidence is given for such a breath-taking assertion, but who needs evidence when it’s what you want to hear? Mary has become what one British newspaper described as the figure from the Bible for the #MeToo era (Independent, April 2019).

It has been quite a journey for someone whose image for many years was that of a previously possessed prostitute who provided for Jesus. But whether the image is that of repentant prostitute or divinely appointed apostle, they are distortions that hide rather than reveal the Mary of the Gospels.

What is clear is that at different times these different images have made Mary Magdalene attractive to different people for different reasons. We find ourselves irresistibly drawn to her or, more accurately, to the image we have of her. It will need another sermon on another day to explore the reasons for this.

Having attempted to banish the distorted images, which prevent us seeing St Mary Magdalene as she is, I want to offer three words that I think describe her as she is presented to us in the Gospels, and so allow Mary Magdalene herself to speak to us about our relationship with the Lord.

1. Faithful

Something that Mary Magdalene shares with the Blessed Virgin Mary, who we looked at on Good Friday, is that she is faithful. Sadly, today the two women are seen to be in contradiction to one another. The website I have just quoted also says this:

‘Christians may worship the Blessed Virgin, but it is Magdalene with whom they identify.’

For many, Mary Magdalene is the complete opposite to the Blessed Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin Mary is commonly portrayed as submissive and sexless, Mary Magdalene is seen as strong and sexy. Of course, a generation obsessed with sex is going to prefer a woman it can portray in its own image to one who seems to sit in judgement on it.

The truth is that both women are being misrepresented by many who claim them for them own. Mary Magdalene submitted herself to the will of God no less than the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the sexuality of either woman is of no interest to the New Testament writers, not because it is unimportant, but because they had other more pressing concerns and saw in both women, not models of sexuality, but models of faith.

Again, as we saw on Good Friday, the Blessed Virgin Mary willingly heard the Word of God and kept it. Mary Magdalene did exactly the same. Both women experienced both joy and pain as a consequence. Both were united in faith as together they watched as the one they loved and served die an agonisingly painful death, and both were rewarded by our Lord for their faith and commitment. The Blessed Virgin Mary, by being given to the Church as its mother, and Mary Magdalene by being given the privilege of being the first to witness and announce the resurrection.

Both women are a precious gift to the Church and models of faith. They both give us an example and a challenge. An example of acceptance and submission, which perhaps men more than women need to see and learn from, and a challenge to us all to turn away from the constant search for self-fulfilment that our own age is so desperate to pursue, and instead to devote ourselves to the service of him who gave his own life for others.

2. Devoted

We would expect someone who had been so severely disturbed as Mary Magdalene had been to be devoted to the one who healed her. In whatever way we understand demon possession today, what Mary was suffering from before Jesus freed her was obviously extremely serious. On being healed by Jesus, she became part of a group of women who were deeply attached to Jesus and who, within the confines of the society of their day, sought to support him and those closest to him in his work. To do this meant travelling with him and being with him in Jerusalem for the last days of his life.

They watched him die, which in itself must have been a distressing and deeply disturbing ordeal. Mary Magdalene was not the only woman there at the crucifixion, nor is it true to say that there were no men present. Yet again, as we saw on Good Friday, the Beloved Disciple was there with the Blessed Virgin Mary. What is true is that the women weren’t there primarily because of what Jesus taught, or because of what they hoped he would do, or even simply out of a desire to be obedient to God’s word, but because of what he meant to them. Their commitment wasn’t to a political or religious ideology or code of ethics, but to Jesus himself.

The women continued to show their devotion to Jesus after his death. They were not the only ones to do so, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were the first (John 19:38-41), but the women did so without hesitation or reservation, and, in doing so, they demonstrated their personal devotion to him.

It is, I think, fair to say that it is still the case that women are more open and consistent in their commitment to Jesus. I realize that this is a sensitive and controversial subject, and that anything said can easily be misunderstood or cause offence. However, it has certainly been my own experience that it is often women who keep the Church going and who are willing to perform tasks which are important, but which the men are often unwilling to do. Women, in turn, have often found in Jesus a person they can relate and respond to. It was true during Jesus’ ministry, and it seems to have been true historically. In the second century, for example, a pagan philosopher called Celsus made the accusation that Church’s message was only attractive to ‘the foolish, dishonourable, and stupid, only slaves, women and little children” (Cels. 3.44). It seems always to have been the case that women have been disproportionately attracted to the Church.

In the mystical tradition of the Church, which puts a strong emphasis on the presence of God and entering a relationship with him, women are especially represented. The four women doctors of the Church are all mystics: St Catherine of Siena, St Hildegard von Bingen, St Teresa of Avila, and St Therese of Lisieux. They each expressed a devotion to Jesus that also characterized Mary Magdalene in her relationship to Jesus.

St Mary Magdalene challenges both women and men to a similar devotion to Jesus.

3. Intimate

Which brings me to my final point, and here it gets dangerous. Dangerous, that is, because of the risk of being misunderstood. It is, however, a risk worth taking because it is risk that St John himself takes in Gospel our reading.

Mary Magdalene has been to the tomb with the other women as it is described in the first three Gospels and referred to in the fourth. They have told the men of their experience there and how they have found the tomb empty. The disciples all rush to the tomb to see what the women are talking about. St John describes the Beloved Disciple looking into the tomb and Peter going in. They both see the linen wrappings lying there and the tomb empty.

No-one knows what to make of it despite what the angels have said to the women. Two unnamed disciples on the road to Emmaus later express their confusion:

‘Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, and when they did not find his body there …’ (Luke 24:22-23)

We should not blame them for being confused. All this is outside their experience and unlike anything they have ever come across before. St John writes simply that that they did not understand the scripture. I can’t imagine we would have been any wiser.

After the disciples have all left and gone to their homes, Mary Magdalene remains alone in the garden. She stands outside the empty tomb weeping. As she weeps, she looks into the tomb still weeping and sees two angels where Jesus’ body has been lying. They ask her:

‘Woman, why are you weeping?’ (John 20:13)

Her reply expresses her deep, personal sense of loss:

‘They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.’ (John 20:13)

She turns and see the One she is looking for, but, in her distress, she mistakes him for the gardener. Jesus asks her:

‘Woman, why are you weeping? For whom are you looking?’ (John 20:15)

She asks him if he is responsible for taking him away and asks him where they have laid him. Jesus’ reply is incredibly powerful. He simply speaks her name:

‘Mary!’ (John 20:16)

She turns to him and recognizes him. Jesus is the Good Shepherd who has laid down his life for his sheep, and who now calls them each by name. Jesus said:

‘My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me.’ (John 10:27)

Mary must have thrown her arms around him in joy, for Jesus tells her not to hold on to him, but instead she is to go to his ‘brothers’ and tell them he is ascending to his Father and their Father, to his God and their God.

Mary Magdalene understands his meaning. She goes, not to his physical brothers, but to his disciples, to those who ‘hear the Word of God and keep it’. This is the first time Jesus has called the disciples his ‘brothers’. In the Upper Room at the Last Supper, he had called them ‘friends’ (John 15:14-15), now, however, as we saw on Good Friday, they are family.

We too are invited to join the family, but before we can, we must meet its head. He must call us by name, and we must hear and respond in faith. Not intellectual faith, not even simply obedient faith, but with a personal faith. This is about relationship.

In the Gospels, it is the women who seem to understand this the most, and especially the three Marys: Mary, the Mother of our Lord, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene. But this is not only an experience for women; women may lead the way but, as the Beloved Disciple shows, we are all invited, women and men, into an intimate relationship with the Risen Lord, a relationship he has made possible by his death for us and his blood shed for us.

We may be looking for a cause to be committed to, a philosophy or creed to believe in, or a club to belong to, but what we are offered is a person to know and to love.

Today, it is Mary Magdalene with the demons of distortion cast from her who shows us what such a relationship looks like. It is not about power and position, but a person. It’s about the One who died for us, but who is alive and who calls us by name as he called Mary. Today, Mary, the Mary who saw the risen Lord in the garden, announces to us as she announced to the disciples:

‘I have seen the Lord!’ (John 20:18)

May we rejoice at her words and announce it to others.

Alleluia, Christ is risen!
He is risen indeed, alleluia.

Amen.

Mary Magdalene (Part Five)

Part Five: Mary Magdalene in the Gospels

Too often, in all the controversy surrounding Mary Magdalene - controversy which is largely invented to serve people's own agendas - it is important to step back and see the very real message that St Mary has for us.

What we know for certain about St Mary is that she was a woman from Magdala, a town in Galilee, and that, when she first met Jesus, she was a deeply troubled woman. We don't know quite what form the possession she suffered took, but that St Luke tells us she had seven demons cast out of her suggests that it was quite severe. 

Her encounter with Jesus brought her deliverance and healing. So complete was her healing that she was to become prominent amongst the women who followed Jesus, so much so that St John in his Gospel singles her out as the first person to see Jesus after his resurrection. 

The first lesson then that we can learn from Mary is that meeting Jesus is life-changing. Being a Christian is first and foremost about coming to know God in Jesus Christ. It is about a relationship with him. Yes, this will later involve us believing certain things about him and doing certain things for him, but it all begins by coming to know him for ourselves. 

It is quite simply impossible that a meeting with the God who created us in the person of Christ can leave us the same as we were before. 

However, a meeting with Jesus can leave us worst off than we were before. 

Meeting Jesus can bring forgiveness and healing to those who need it, but it also brings a challenge. It is a challenge to let Jesus change us. Sometimes we prefer to hold on to our demons - if I can put it like that. We certainly prefer to hold on to our sin. 

The rich man famously went away 'sorrowful' after meeting Jesus. Jesus had invited him to become one of his disciples, but he turned down the opportunity of a lifetime because he was very rich and following Jesus would have required sacrifice and a change of priorities. 

Others want the healing that Jesus can bring, but don't want the commitment that Jesus asks us to make. With Mary, Jesus didn't have to ask twice. She followed him faithfully to the Cross and beyond. She was one of those who ministered to Jesus and his disciples. She was prepared to serve. 

So secondly, Mary challenges us to leave ourselves and our demons behind and to commit ourselves to following and serving Jesus. And serving Jesus will mean serving others who follow Jesus. There is no discipleship without service of others. 

Thirdly, Mary was one of those who watched Jesus being crucified. Meeting Jesus is not a happy ever-after story. I believe it will always be a story that has a happy ending, but that ending may not come for many of us until after this life is over. In this life, there will be pain, tears, and suffering. Jesus told all who followed that they should expect to suffer because of him. There is no escaping suffering for those who follow Jesus. 

But Mary never stopped loving Jesus. Even when she was convinced he was dead, she kept on loving. That, after all, was why she was in the garden on the third day in the first place. 

Finally, Mary shows that for those who commit themselves to Jesus then no matter how great the pain - and the pain will sometimes be very great - there will always be hope. 

But this is not something we can keep to ourselves. Mary was sent to tell Jesus' disciples that he was alive and they were then sent to tell others. 

When Jesus has changed our lives as he did Mary's, and we have come to know him, not as a dead teacher, but as our Living Lord, then of course we will want to tell people. 

And when we do that I like to think we wipe away Mary's tears and bring a smile to her face. 

Thank you Mary for showing us what it means to love Jesus.

Mary Magdalene (Part Four)

Part Four: Mary Magdalene in the Gospels

When thinking about Mary Magdalene and what she means for us today, we need to try to step back from the disputes of the present and from our desire to make her represent what we ourselves believe, and see her instead as she is portrayed in the Gospels themselves.

The first thing to note is that we are not told that much! So what are we told?

1. St Luke tells us (Luke 8:1-3) that Mary was someone from whom the Lord had cast out ‘seven demons’. That she was ‘demon possessed’ does not mean that she was a bad woman, a prostitute, or any such thing. It does mean that she had been a deeply troubled person who found liberation and healing through Jesus.

2. That she is described consistently in the Gospels as Mary ‘Magdalene’ means that she most probably came from the town of Magdala on west bank of the Sea of Galilee. That she is described using the name of a place rather than a person also means, in all probability, that she was not married, which, given her former condition before meeting Jesus, is hardly surprising.

3. St Luke tells us that after her deliverance and healing, she became one of many women who accompanied Jesus as he went through the cities and villages proclaiming and bringing the good news of the Kingdom of God and who ministered to Jesus and the twelve apostles ‘out of their resources’. We are given the names of three of these women, Mary herself; Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward, Chuza; and Susanna. This implies that these women had financial resources they could draw on. This may also indicate that Mary too was a person of financial means. How she came to have them we are, again, not told.

4. All the Gospels describe Mary Magdalene as having been present at the crucifixion together with other women, some of whom are named. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke it is Mary Magdalene and other women with her who are the first witnesses of the resurrection. St John, in his Gospel, also describes the women, including Mary Magdalene, as having been present at the crucifixion (John 19:25). In describing the discovery of the empty tomb and the events following it, however, St John only describes Mary Magdalene's visit to the tomb. After she has told the disciples about the empty tomb and they see it for themselves, St John goes on to describe Mary meeting Jesus and being told by him to take a message to his disciples in the same way as St Matthew describes the Risen Jesus telling the women to take a message to the disciples in his Gospel.

5. St John, however, records that when Mary first reports the discovery of the empty tomb to the disciples that she says, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we do not know where they have laid him’ (John 20:2). That Mary uses the word 'we' would seem to suggest that there were others with Mary and that St John realized that Mary was not alone in the events he is describing. However, by singling out Mary in this way, he confirms the impression that we get from the other Gospels that Mary Magdalene was prominent amongst the women who followed Jesus.

All this is simply a description of what the Gospels say about Mary. The Gospels themselves do not use the word 'disciple' or 'apostle' to describe either Mary or the other women associated with Jesus. This may or may not be significant and there are legitimate arguments to be had over the significance or otherwise of this. Many would argue that the mere fact that the women are described as following Jesus would suggest that they are regarded as ‘disciples’, but this is something that the Gospels themselves stop short of saying.

This is not to devalue the role of the women or for that matter the role of others in the Gospels, both men and women, who are not described using the word 'disciple', but who were clearly devoted to Jesus and loved by him. Mary, Martha, and Lazarus of Bethany come to mind. We may want to broaden the meaning of the word today, and it may, indeed, be legitimate to do so, but for now I am simply trying to describe what the Gospels themselves actually say.

Now I realize that many want to take what is said about Mary Magdalene and draw lessons from it beyond what the Gospels say. And again, it may be legitimate to do so, but this then is about how we how we apply what the Gospels say to today. We will, however, only get our application right if we are clear about what is actually said rather than what we want to be said.

What is clear from the Gospels is that Mary was prominent amongst the women who followed Jesus, that she loved him very much, and that Jesus valued her and the other women with her highly.

In the next and final post, I will attempt to write about what I think Mary can teach all of us today.

Mary Magdalene (Part Three)

Part Three: Moving Beyond Prejudice

In my previous post, I wrote of how Mary Magdalene has become for many the saint for our times; the de facto saint of the #metoomovement.  Traditionally, of course, another Mary has been the role model for both men and women: the Blessed Virgin Mary.  In what is a startling reversal of fortunes, it is Mary Magdalene who is now in favour and the Blessed Virgin Mary who is seen as problematic.

For many, the Blessed Virgin Mary – or, at least, the traditional image of her – is regarded with suspicion.  She is seen as patriarchy’s archetypal female: sexually pure, passive, submissive, and obedient.  In disgust at this image, many have rejected the Blessed Virgin Mary and turned instead to Mary Magdalene.  In contrast, she is seen as sexually ambiguous, active, dangerous, and rebellious.

Quite what St Mary herself would make of this is another matter altogether.  Her sexual reputation is based, as I have said previously, on a papal misunderstanding and the preferred contemporary description of her as the ‘apostle to the apostles’, while complimentary and doubtless well-intentioned, goes way beyond how she is described in the Gospels.

Ironically, it is again a Pope – the present Pope no less – who in recent pronouncements has confirmed her in her new exalted status.  While what the Gospels actually say is that she was amongst the women who looked after Jesus and his male disciples (see Luke 8:1-3), which is not exactly what many are looking for in a female icon.

So what are we to do if we want both to be faithful to Scripture and Tradition and also to treat women equally as in the image of God?  Needless to say, I am not going to be able to answer this in a short sermon (not even in this extended version of it!).  And I would probably upset everyone and please no-one, whatever your views, if I was to elaborate on my own thoughts on the subject.  So let me limit myself to saying what I think we should all agree on, regardless of our own personal take on the subject.

1. Firstly, we need to be honest.  We really can’t go on pretending or claiming that we believe in gender equality and, for example, the ordination of women and then acting as if we don’t.  We need to make our minds up.  I suspect that there are those in the Church who deep down do not want to see too many women in positions of leadership, but who feel that they have to go along with the idea in theory.  But it’s really not good enough, and we must come clean about what we do or do not believe and act accordingly.

2.  Secondly, there needs to be mutual respect between men and women in the Church.  The Church has to acknowledge that it has failed to treat women with respect in the past and, in many cases, is failing to do so in the present.  Whatever we may believe about the roles of the sexes, there can be no justification for the abuse that women have suffered and are suffering both in and out of the Church.  Being in the image of God demands minimum standards of behavior regardless of what we think about the roles of men and women.

3.  Thirdly, we need to stop the name calling.  The incontrovertible fact that the Church has been guilty of abusing women and defending that abuse in the past does not mean that all in the past were abusers or even that they were wrong in their thinking.  Equally, just because some in the Church today still believe in different roles for men and women does not necessarily mean they are bad people or anti-women.  Respect is a two-way street.  As Christians, we should respect both those who believe that men and women should have exactly the same roles and those who don’t.

4.  Fourthly, the Church in thinking through its attitudes to gender and the roles of men and women needs to do better than simply conforming its thinking and behaviour to that of the world around it.  We are called to follow Christ not trends in society.  We are called to confess Jesus as Lord not to parrot the slogans of a godless society, no matter how popular they may be on social media.

5.  Fifthly, while the Church needs to be critical of itself and its past failings in its treatment of women, it also needs to be critical of the society in which it lives.  Much that passes at the moment as the championing of ‘freedom, liberty, and equality’ for women is nothing of the sort, but is just the Devil’s old trick of masquerading as an ‘angel of light’ to promote values, attitudes, and actions that are as destructive and abusive as those being criticized.

In my next and penultimate post in this series of posts, I will write of how St Mary can show us, both men and women, the way forward as we seek to be faithful to Christ.

Mary Magdalene (Part Two)

Part Two: How to Solve the Problem?

In the previous post, I began to describe what I have called the Church’s ‘women problem’.  I closed the post with these words:

‘The difficulty in trying to respond to the problem is knowing and agreeing on what should be the basis on which we come to an opinion.  How, as Christians, are we to determine what it means to be male or female in today’s world?

The Church, in the past, has sought to answer this question and questions like it by appealing to Scripture and the Tradition of the Church.  The difficulty for many is that both the Bible and Tradition are seen as irredeemably patriarchal and biased against women.  For those who wish to appeal to the Bible to support men and women being treated the same, with all roles equally open to all, the Bible, at the very least, has to be interpreted creatively.

There is nothing wrong with this in principle.  Interpreting the Bible for today is a challenge at the best of times, but it does mean that it leaves room for legitimate differences in interpretation and approach.

Church Tradition, however, leaves little room for differences in opinion.  Church Tradition is quite unambiguous in its attitude to the roles men and women, which is precisely the problem that feminists are seeking to address.  Feminists argue that that Church Tradition is this way because the Church in the past, like the society of which it has been a part, has been largely patriarchal and biased against women.  The Church, they argue, must free itself from the patriarchal culture that has blinded it to the truth of the Gospel, which reason and a commitment to justice can help us to see.

This sounds great in theory.  It is certainly a popular approach and one that creates the least problems in today’s world.  But before enthusiastically adopting this approach and privileging Reason above the Church’s Tradition and, as some believe, the Bible itself, it is worth reminding ourselves that feminism is itself a cultural phenomenon.  This does not necessarily mean it is wrong, but rather that Christians should be cautious of following any path just because it is popular.  It was, after all, popular opinion that got our Lord crucified.

Feminists in the Church will respond to this by arguing that what they are demanding is not for the Church to follow popular opinion or adopt the culture of the world, but justice and what is right.  This means treating all people equally and recognizing that men and women are both created in the image of God.

I personally would respond to this by saying that this is not in dispute.  What is in dispute is what this means in practice.  Does the fact that men and women are both equally in the image of God mean that they must have the same roles?  For feminists the answer to this is obvious and men and women must be allowed the same rights, roles, and opportunities.  For others, this is not something that automatically follows – or, at the least, it doesn’t follow logically.

So what, you may ask, has all this to do with St Mary Magdalene, who has prompted these posts?  Well, quite simply, St Mary has been adopted by many as the role model for those who are campaigning against what they see as bias against women and for men and women to be treated the same.  She is the person seen as best suited for the role of Patron Saint of the #metoomovement and all it represents.

Whether she fits this role will be the subject of the next post!

Mary Magdalene (Part One)

The next few posts will be an extended version of the sermon I preached for the Feast Day of Mary Magdalene.

Part One: The Feast Day of Mary Magdalene

July 22, just past, was the Feast Day of Mary Magdalene.  St Mary is one of the most famous women in the Bible, but who exactly was she?  She has been seen in many different ways since her first appearance in the Gospels: sinner, witness, saint, prostitute, and wife – to name but a few!

The most common image of her remains that of the ‘reformed prostitute’.  This image comes not from the Gospels, but from Pope Gregory 1.  Pope Gregory, in a sermon in 591, identified her with the unnamed ‘sinful woman’ in Luke 7 who washed Jesus’s feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.  This identification has no warrant from the Gospel itself.  It was quietly dropped by the Roman Catholic Church in 1969 and it is one that the Church no longer makes.  It is an identification, however, that has stuck in the popular imagination being repeated in art, books, and films.

While in the past the emphasis has been on Mary the prostitute, in recent years there have also been those who claim that she was Jesus’ ‘love interest’ and even his wife.  The Da Vinci Code popularized this view claiming that Jesus fathered a child by her.

On historical grounds, most scholars reject both the image of Mary as prostitute and as Jesus’ wife.  That, however, doesn’t stop people from continuing to believe in either or both images.

At the moment, however, she is enjoying a more exalted status being cast in the role of the ‘apostle to the apostles’.  This image of her has the support of no less a figure than Pope Francis.  St Mary has become the saint who appeals to those campaigning for the rights of women and fighting what they see as discrimination and male oppression.

The problem with all these images of St Mary is that they say very little about the real Mary.  They do, however, say a great deal about what can be described as the church’s ‘women problem’ (with apologies to women!).

The problem, quite simply, is this: historically much of the Church’s work has been done by women, a situation that is still true today.  Some of the Church’s most devoted and outstanding members have been women.  I have talked here of people like Saints Perpetua and Felicity and Saint Hildegard and there are many more women besides.  However, all positions of power and leadership in the Church have been occupied by, and restricted to, men.  In an age when it is believed that the same opportunities and roles should be equally open to women, this creates a real challenge to the Church.

Some Churches have sought to address the problem by ordaining women and allowing them to become pastors and preachers, priests and bishops.  This is the case, for example, in the Anglican Church.  It is not the case, however, in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches to which the majority of the world’s Christians belong.

But, even in some of those Churches that ordain women and permit them to take on teaching and leadership roles, the problem has still not gone away.  Churches often claim to believe in gender equality while the majority of leadership roles in the Church are still predominantly taken by men.

I am simply at the moment describing the situation as it exists and not arguing either for or against women’s ordination and appointment to leadership roles in the Church.  What I would suggest, though, is that we can’t claim to believe in gender equality and the ordination of women and then act as though we don’t.  To do so gives the impression of inconsistency at best, and hypocrisy at worst.

While some Churches agree to ordain women and to treat men and women the same and then don’t, many other Churches and Christians are seeking to tackle the problem by going further than simply opening up leadership roles to women.  They are also actively and consciously embracing the attitudes and approach of many in society at large who are campaigning and working for women’s rights.  For them, this means seeking to remove what is perceived as bias against women at every level of the Church and fighting any suggestion that men and women should have different roles in either society or the Church based on their biological sex.  To suggest otherwise, they argue, is to be guilty of the sin of supporting patriarchy.  Patriarchy being for many the cardinal sin in today’s world.

This way of thinking is having radical consequences in the Church and for the Church.  So, for example, the Episcopal Church in the United States is, at the moment, revising its Prayer Book with a view to removing all gender specific language not only when referring to the worshipper, but also when referring to God.  No longer will God be described in predominantly male terms.

This is very much the way the wind is blowing in many Churches.  It is, after all, very hard to argue that men and women should be treated the same in society, with the same rights and opportunities as men, and then to argue that they should be treated differently in the Church.  And it would be a very brave person today who would argue for different roles for men and women in society in general.

The difficulty in trying to respond to the problem is knowing and agreeing on what should be the basis on which we come to an opinion. How as Christians are we to determine what it means to be male or female in today’s world?

It is with this question that I will begin the next post, and no, I haven’t forgotten that I am meant to be writing about St Mary Magdalene!