Posted by Helen on: 12.13.2006 /
As planned, I went to this Monday evening. I enjoyed it very much: the discussion was interesting and I got to meet and be with some neat people.
I was aware that this was the monthly meeting of up/rooted, an emergent-friendly local group. In view of that, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I didn’t know if there would be other up/rooted meeting activities as well as the book discussion.
I got there a few minutes after it was scheduled to begin. People were standing in small groups chatting and there were snacks and drinks out.
Mike Clawson greeted me and introduced me to Julie, his wife, who I was pleased to meet. I’d met Mike at the Revolution Conference but Julie couldn’t come. Mike is pastor of Via Christus and is one of the leaders of up/rooted. He organized this meeting.
I was pleased to see Benjamin Ady there when I walked in. It was a nice surprise to hear earlier in the day that he happened to be in town on business and might be able to come!
Mike told me that the turnout was about twice as big as usual for an up/rooted meeting. I’m guessing some people came especially to hear Scot McKnight. The location was helpful for me too — this particular meeting was closer to me than usual.
Fred, one of the co-pastors of the host church, made me coffee on the church expresso machine. Fred and his wife (who unfortunately wasn’t there because she was sick) became pastors there about six years ago and the church was not doing well. Their denomination gave them a free mandate to change things and money to do it with and they took the church in a new direction. It has about three times as many members as when they came. One neat thing they do is a “pulpit exchange’ with a local Catholic priest. He sometimes preaches at their church and vice-versa.
I met a neat lady, Nanette, who founded and pastors an emergent church in Chicago. That was the first time I’d met a female pastor who pastors by herself rather than being in a husband and wife co-pastor situation. Her church meets in an art gallery — that was interesting too; that’s the third time recently I’ve come across an emergent church with strong art connections.
I met Scot McKnight and John Armstrong, who were talking to each other and Scot’s wife Kris. I’ve e-mailed John Armstrong occasionally and he’s been very kind to me. I found out recently that Mike Clawson knows him. I’m very impressed that John evidently doesn’t let theological differences get in the way of listening to other Christians and taking what they say seriously.
I’m guessing that John was the most conservative Christian there and I was the least (as it were - the closest I come these days to calling myself a ‘Christian’ is ‘very non-traditional follower of Jesus’). I assume most people there would self-identify as emergent Christians. A number of them at least were pastors or in seminary or full-time Christian ministry — I’m not sure how many other “lay’ people were there besides me and Benjamin.
After a while Mike asked people to go into the sanctuary so we could begin the meeting. There were small tables set up at the back where we sat, rather than using the front of the sanctuary and the pews. I sat next to Benjamin. Scot McKnight sat on a stool at the front.
Mike went straight into introducing Scot. Scot spoke for a few minutes then took several questions. I wasn’t sure if “discussion’ really meant “lecture’ so I was glad the meeting was structured with lots of time for questions.
The book discussion was about Scot’s book The Real Mary. The purpose of the book is to encourage protestants to consider what they can learn from Mary. Scot feels she has been inappropriately underemphasized by Protestants, which is probably because they don’t want to overemphasize her as they believe Catholics do.
I thought Scot’s section in the book about what Catholics believe about Mary was very carefully and sensitively written — more so than any other protestant comments I’ve read about their Marian theology, in fact. Someone asked Scot how Catholics have reacted to the book and he said they’ve said it’s very fair about their theology. I was glad to hear that they’ve appreciated the efforts he’s made not to misrepresent them.
The discussion kept returning to Mary’s song, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55):
46And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
50His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
51He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
52He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
53He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
54He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
55to Abraham and his descendants forever,
even as he said to our fathers.”
Scot pointed out how subversive and dangerous some of the ideas in this song are. It was dangerous to talk about God bringing down rulers when Herod was king. Scot is amazed how little emphasis the Magnificat has been given throughout church history when people have considered what Mary was like. The Magnificat shows us, he said, that Mary was a woman “with fire in her eyes”. Evidently she was not the emotionless icon shown in so much Christian art.
I learned that Mary wears two robes of particular colors in the Christian art of the Orthodox Church and only the inner robe in Roman Catholic Christian art. Now where else would I have learned that? ;-)
I asked Scot, what happens to a woman with fire in her eyes in an evangelical church today? He didn’t exactly go there but he did talk about how he is about to teach about women in ministry. He said he’s going to assign his students to see what women actually did in the Bible. He said his students will find out that there’s virtually nothing they didn’t do. He clearly does not uphold traditional limits on women in ministry.
Scot pointed out that Protestant leaders such as Calvin, Luther and Wesley actually agreed with some of the Roman Catholic doctrine about Mary which isn’t explicitly spelled out in the Bible. Someone asked when protestants started to separate themselves more decisively from Catholic Marian theology. He wasn’t sure except that it was relatively recent — not more than 150 years ago.
Mike Clawson said it’s interesting to compare Mary’s journey with his. Mary was confronted with the truth of who Jesus was when he grew up, which meant adjusting her own ideas about him. Mike said that parallels his own journey with Jesus.
There was some discussion of the Catholic doctrine that Mary chose to be a virgin and how this could be reconciled with passages mentioning Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Scot pointed out that celibacy gave women power over their lives and so that belief actually made Mary a more powerful woman. Some Catholics have argued that the “brothers and sisters’ are actually Jesus’ cousins and some people have thought maybe Joseph had children already when he married Mary (because he was a widower rather than a man who had never been married).
I’m sure I’ve forgotten some of the interesting comments and remarks made during the discussion. Maybe someone else will mention them on their blog.
When it was time to end the meeting Mike closed it by asking everyone to say the Lord’s prayer together. I didn’t say it since I don’t pray. I suppose it’s selfish of me to feel this way but I was glad that was the only prayer or worship in the meeting because it made it more comfortable for me.
After the meeting I got in line behind someone asking Scot to sign their book. He got out a very pretty fountain pen to do it with, which I commented on — and was surprised to see he mentioned that on his blog yesterday!
I talked to Fred a bit before I left about not going to church. He was friendly but it was not an easy conversation for me because I didn’t know how to explain how much church services really really don’t work for me. I still feel very uncomfortable saying just how far away I am from Christian belief at this point in my life to Christians. I feel awkward about being direct because I’m afraid I’ll sound arrogant and be misconstrued. So then I fail to explain why I am so averse to trying an emergent-friendly church like Fred’s. Oh well. Maybe one day I’ll figure out how to explain myself and come across as I’d like to. Or maybe it’s just too personal a topic for that ever to be easy.
Anyway, there’s much more in The Real Mary than I’ve mentioned here. I recommend it if you’re interested in exploring who Mary was and what Christians (and maybe other people too) can learn from her example.
Edited to add: comments on other blogs about the meeting:
Comment by: NCxian
1What a timely discussion for the up/rooted group to be having at Advent! I wish I had thought to suggest to my reading group the McKnight book for December.
We tend to focus on Jesus’ father, because we make such an all-encompassing deal of his divinity (which we either believe or not). But the gospels show us Mary at Jesus’ birth and his crucifixion. Not an absentee mother, a present one. What kind of mother would it take to raise a kid who turns out to be the kind of man Jesus is protrayed to be?
Did she teach him the things we see in the Magnificat? Or are the things she anticipated he would do a mistaken understanding of the Messiah? Did he do all those things?
Comment by: Helen
2NCxian wrote:
NCxian, I recommend reading the book because it addresses these issues.
The Magnificat expresses the Messianic hope of Jews at the time. It was correct in its extent but not in that it assumed a military/violent overthrow of the current regime.
Yes, Scot thinks Mary’s beliefs as expressed in the Magnificat probably did influence Jesus growing up.
But from his dedication onwards Mary had to begin adjusting to the idea that suffering was in his and her future and that the means by which Jesus would bring down rulers wasn’t going to be what she and other Jews had expected.
To some extent all the people who knew Jesus seemed to have to adjust to him not being the kind of Messiah they were expecting.
Mary had to too, but she also had the personal dimension that it was her own son she was supposed to think of as Lord and her own son who suffered and died on the cross.
Comment by: Love is the most excellent way · Book discussion
3 12/13/06 8:46 AM | Comment Link |[...] My extended write-up of the book discussion is now on CatE. [...]
Comment by: joe
4I’m glad it was a generally positive experience, Helen.
I’m just going to follow a few of those links now…
Comment by: Helen
5Thanks, Joe.
Scot McKnight has now posted his comments about the meeting. I added the link up above.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
6at first i thought you meant an online book group, but when you mentioned snacks i figured it out.
i be an edukated woman and intelijent too.
:-)
glad it was a positive time for you helen. (sigh) again i wish we lived closer and then we could lead our own monthly bookgroup together. wouldnt’ that be a hoot?
Comment by: Helen
7Pam, yes, that would be so much fun!
I’m waiting for someone to invent online snacks. Or maybe not - since that would make it too easy to eat too many!
Comment by: benjamin ady
8…does anyone else think the idea that Joseph and Mary never had sex completely … off the map nutso? What does McKnight say in the book about that?
Comment by: Helen
9Benjamin, I think Scot says in his book that he thinks the verse saying something like “Mary and Joseph had no sexual relations until Jesus was born” implies they did afterwards.
I don’t see any Bible-based reason not to think Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage relationship after Jesus was born i.e. one that included sex.
On the other hand, and with all due respect to Christians, I find it rather arbitrary where the line on what is believed is drawn. If one is to believe a man came alive again from the dead and a woman who’d never been near a man conceived a baby, then why not believe a husband and wife chose to never have sex because her womb was ’sacred’?
Comment by: Mike C
10I don’t think it’s likely that Mary and Joseph never had sex, but I don’t see the point of fighting over it. If the Catholics want to believe that, it’s fine by me. I don’t see why it needs to be such a big deal.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
11ditto, mike, for me too
Comment by: Helen
12I just added a link to Mike Clawson’s comments at the bottom of the blog entry.
Comment by: Paul
13Thanks Helen, what wonderful thoughts, i thoroughly agree that my protestant history pretty much airbrushed Mary out of the picture and I am loving ushering her back in :)
As an aside I need a reflection on advent at church last week on faith - one of the points in it was to suggest that maybe Jesus inerited his faith from his mother… now I wish i could have added in something about the fire/passion in his eyes too :)
Comment by: Helen
14Paul, I like the symbolism of Advent although I’ve never been in Christian circles where that was really explored. I like your ‘wait’ road crossing sign photo :)
Yes, I think Jesus inherited the fire in his eyes from his Mom. Well, both parents I suppose ;-)
Comment by: Lusidvicel
15Hello, i love http://www.jesuscreed.org! Let me in, please :)