Hi Waterboy....

that was an interesting response, which included:

<The resurrection experience, whatever that was, represents the beginning of Christological reflection which took 400 yrs to mature into the sophisticated formula that we know today. As for Paul's Damascus Road experience, it, or something like it, was necessary to establish his 'apostolic' credentials. Given the tension that existed between him and James it perhaps isnt wise to make too much of that 'event'.>

Are you suggesting that Paul simply invented his encounter? (1 Cor 15 is very strongly against such a view I feel)

Tension with James? I don't find that in Acts 15... the only tension was between Paul and Peter for a while, but that seems to have been reconciled.

Much has been made of the 'Paul' camp and "Jerusalem/James/Peter" camp thing... and I think farrrrr too much.
I never detected such a problem when I read the N.T. and when I read the theory my jaw dropped as I couldn't see what it was based on.

When I finally did see.. I found the case so flimsy as to be scornfully weak.

But let's keep with Paul for a moment. There is not just his 'Apostolic Credentials'.. any explanation must also account for his former life and adamant opposition to the Church....

You seem to be suggesting:

1/ Paul was a major and zealous persecutor of the Church, thinking nothing of dragging off men, women and children to prison and execution.

2/ For some reason.. Paul 'saw the error of his ways' and then..

3/ Invented an 'encounter' story to give him credibility with the object of his hatred.....the Church...

Hmmmmmmmmmmm :) or.. "ah huh" (picture an African American person saying that.. I'm sure you know the tone)

Dear Polycarp,
>>Mate... sounds like you are conflating eastern mysticism with Christianity there..but that aside.. why not take the obvious and reasonable and logical approach and limit our view of Mary to that which the Scriptures give us. <<

The yin-yang complementarity is part of Chinese philosophy, not mysticism, and it has become a universal way of seeing things. Like Aristotelian or mathematical logic, most of the concepts of modern science etc., all being of western provenance are accepted as universally valid conceptualisations of the reality humans face, all philosophy not mysticism. Also, thank you for advising me on what is and what is not logical, but I already received enough advice along these lines from Pericles.

Of course, you are entitles to your dislike of Catholic theologians' interpretations of the bible, so please accept my preference for the alternative, so succinctly expressed in the above reply to you by Sells. Let me repeat, I am just a mathematician not a theologian - Catholic or not - so you will have to find somebody who is, if you want to argue your points about how to interpret “infallibly” the bible. Certainly waterboy is better qualified for these things than I.

waterboy,
>> I cannot embrace the main body of Catholic Mariology<<.

I respect this, especially because I highly value your writings that broaden my perspective of a theological dilettante. Though I do not know much about Catholic Mariology, it is true that I grew up surrounded by Marian devotion which, as a young man, I also used to attribute to the old ladies’ way of being religious. Life taught me otherwise, especially when I came to suspect that the yin-yang balance was missing in some Protestant approaches to the Unfathomable Mystery, as a former Buddhist monk, converted to Catholicism who then went to study theology in Rome, was explaining to me.

Maybe this is also the reason why I have difficulties to understand why the contribution of women to our society, even its religious, mostly symbolic, dimension, has to be reduced to just mimicking the male role often at the expense of their natural yin inclination, symbolised by poets in the “eternal feminine” (Goethe’s “Das Ewig Weibliche”), and by traditional Catholics in Marian devotion. But maybe, I am just too old.

V.V. Raman, a Hindu physicist, interested in the relation of science and religion, says: "since God is viewed differently in different religions, religious mystics tend to obtain knowledge, not of God in the abstract, but of God as envisioned in their particular tradition. ...Thus, in the Christian tradition it may be Christ or the Virgin Mary that the mystic experiences." (Variety in Mysticism and Parallels with Science, Theology and Science, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2008)

Again a yin-yang balance on the psychological (of course, not theological) level. May I add that it is perhaps the neglect of the gentler, yin, part in the “modern” Catholic understanding of religion that accounts for the increased number of Marian “apparitions” in our times, mirrored by the flight to other forms of emotional religiosity in the Protestant context.

George

Im not very familiar with the Yin-Yang ‘model’. I think it pertains to the way opposing forces interact with each other to form wholeness. Yin is not female but femininity is associated with Yin while masculinity is associated with Yang. Furthermore Yin and Yang may describe opposing forces within an individual as well as they might describe the ‘opposites’ in men and women which interact within the wholeness of humanity. Although yin may be characterized as feminine yet a particular woman might tend towards the yang end of the scale. Likewise a particular situation for a priest might require special awareness of and sensitivity to the yin.

That being the case isn’t it an oversimplification to ‘equate’ yin with female gender and yang with male. In fact wouldn’t it be a mistake to ‘construct’ any one-sided context as that would, perforce, be ‘out of balance’ and lack ‘wholeness’. Should the priesthood be exclusively yang? Is that even possible?

I have a problem with women being excluded from any role in the church simply on the basis of gender. Sometimes it might make perfectly good sense for a woman to function as a priest so why absolutely preclude it. Surely the priestly function has its own internal yin and yang dimensions as does every individual. Maybe a balance of yin and yang within the priesthood would be better achieved with a blend of women and men in the role. Having seen women working as priests I am totally convinced that they contribute to the wholeness of the ministry. I guess my nature and experience make me a natural protestant.

I am interested in the imbalance your Buddhist/Catholic theologian found in Protestantism. I feel it sometimes and his analysis may be informative. (In fact I feel it most strongly when worship is led by men.

Waterboy,
The Eastern 'yin' and 'yang' add a neglected (in the West?) aspect to an integration of opposites. With regard to human sexuality, masculinity and femininity in their 'truest' form are generally not well understood. Social practitioners say a "masculine" style of behaviour tends toward the assertive and task-based, while a "feminine" style is more relationship oriented and "democratic." The religious symbolism, as contained in Mary, and pointed out by Sells, shows far deeper portrayal - i.e. the 'charis' and 'grace' of womanhood. In our modernity we seem to have lost track of a traditional joy and thanksgiving so richly embedded within much of our religious symbolism - so closely associated with femininity.

One of the detractions of radical feminism is that it has deprived us of masculine leadership. This, however, is not totally ‘bad’. Traditional masculinity certainly appears to be suffering from a crisis of confidence, and some are saying it is not before time. Many of the world's most serious problems and illnesses, however, can surely be traced back to an exaggerated or distorted masculinity. The brutish spirit of "progress" that rides roughshod over nature, women, and indigenous peoples is largely a product of an heroic and conquistadorial masculine style - a hegemonic masculinity. The protestant approach, though its ignoring (or ignorance of) the importance of Mary from fear of idolatrous behaviour, has in part led to a society with a damaging 'industrialised' nature and exaggerated form of masculinity.

Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that the majority of men are still asleep. They are in deep, restful, undisturbed sleep, dreaming their patriarchal dreams, secure in their established cocoons, and not wanting to be woken up - anyone who dares to disturb their slumber is immediately demonised as a tyrant or social terrorist.

Religious symbolism, however difficult and unpopular, nevertheless speaks to us about a deeper and more profound wisdom. Mary is a case in point. The Crucifixion also can never be popular, but will remain something that only a very few can directly observe and endure, because it cuts across the life-instinct in all of us

Relda

Thank you for an interesting post.

Im not entirely sure what you mean by 'traditional masculinity' but I agree that men have yet to come to terms with the new competition they are facing from women proving themselves to be competent in all fields and at all levels. There are certainly still many men who would prefer not to have to deal with women as their supervisors/managers in the workplace for example. Likewise in marriage it is more difficult to deal with an equal partner than with a submissive inferior. Perhaps these are the sorts of things you mean by your 'crisis of confidence' in 'traditional masculine' leadership.

The notion that progress is to be associated with protestantism might be challenged by our catholic friends but the historical association is strong and you have made the point well that progress has a distinctly yang flavor in the 'traditionally masculine' mode. There is, of course, a lot to be said in favour of progress which suggests that good things can come out of imbalanced situations. Perhaps George's justification for maintaining an exclusively male priesthood can draw some justification from an argument along similar lines to this. I dont really understand why the priestly functions should belong to the 'male' domain though.

I find it interesting that the Gospel portrayals of Jesus have a very strong yin flavour. There is some historical evidence emerging suggesting that the earliest Christianity was a more overtly subversive and aggressively revolutionary movement than the Gospel accounts represent. It will be interesting to see if this historical work is able to attract academic interest and support as it is predicated on identifying the earliest Christians with the Essenes. That would indeed be a challenge to the traditional churches and to traditional dogma! It certainly makes for a much more historically satisfying explanation of Jesus' execution. The image of Pilate kowtowing to the Jews has never really rung true historically and we are yet to fully understand why the Jerusalem apostles denounced Paul as a liar.