earth momma vs. queen of heaven

we have just celebrated, or are about to celebrate if one is on the old calendar, a feast the official recognition of which by pius xii c. g. jung called the most important spiritual event of the twentieth century: the dormition of the theotokos or the assumption of the blessed virgin mary.

it is one of my favourite days of the year. because one of my favourite sentences in the gospel according to luke is "mary treasured all of these things, and pondered them in her heart." (2:19) (perhaps it's where her son got the idea that "wherever your treasure is, there you will find your heart." (matthew 6:20)) for me the day was a time of treasuring my friends, of sharing coffee and lunch, letters and postcards.

butsurrounding this feast of the blessdd virgin are as complicated a group of thoughts, feelings, and beliefs as one can find about any person (or about any idea, as some think of her not so much as a person as a principle or a concept. i was struck by this way of thinking last week when a good friend asked me what i thought of the concept of wisdom. i don't think of wisdom as a concept, but as a person). at one extreme are my pagan friends who claim that the church has somehow "stolen" the great mother, pointing for instance to ancient depictions of isis and osiris as some sort of proof of the theft. and there are other, rather evangelical sorts, who find any marian devotions to be pagan idolatry.

this complication, this controversy, is a way, i think, that we can begin to understand some of the complications of thoughts and feelings and beliefs that the church tried to resolve at nicea. this is important because nicea is controversial all over again following the hooplay around the da vinci code .

how can a woman give birth to the messiah, whom we have come to experience as the holy one, as god? also at stake is the historicity of the birth of the messiah, by which i mean that in contrast to what is usually taken for granted by the historical jesus scholars so popular these days, the actual second person of the trinity, god the son, eternally begotten of the father, was indeed born from a virgin woman, mary of galilee, without sexual intercourse. those who find this impossible to accept, like the jesus seminar folks, simply discount it. those who do accept it find it difficult to accept that mary was not herself somehow unique not only in her actions but in her ontology. this difficulty finds expression in the roman catholic church's dogma of the immaculate conception.

it seems helpful to consider what is gained, what ideas are guarded, in both views. if mary is primarily queen of heaven, if she is ontologically different from other women, then she likely gives birth to a jesus whose feet never quite touch the ground. this idea was proposed by the docetists. if she is the earth momma, then she and jesus are completely human. mary, as an ordinary woman, flesh as are we all, gives space for the holy spirit to take on flesh as we all do.