We're talking more today in our RUaHeretic discussion at church about faith, orthodoxy, and heresy. How are we to understand that Jesus of Nazareth is both divine and human? Is that why Mary had to be a virgin mom? What about the doctrine of Immaculate Conception? Does Mary have to be born to a virgin mother (Anne) in order to become a virigin mom? Can you still be a follower of Jesus if you struggle with the whole concept of the Virign birth? What's it all mean? How is it all related? Can we pick and choose what we believe, or is that merely syncretism disguised as personal authenticity or scientific political-correctedness?
Donatism was a heresy in the ancient church. They (named for the Berber Christian Donatus Magnus) were followers of a belief considered a schism by the broader churches of the Catholic tradition, and most particularly within the context of the religious milieu of the provinces of Roman North Africa in Late Antiquity. They lived in the Roman province of Africa and flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries.The primary disagreement between Donatists and the rest of the early Christian church was over the treatment of those who renounced their faith during the persecution of Roman emperor Diocletian (303–305), a disagreement that had implications both for the Church's understanding of the Sacrament of Penance and of the other sacraments in general.
The rest of the Church was far more forgiving of these people than the Donatists were. The Donatists refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of the priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the persecution.
Here's another fun online "Are you a heretic?" quiz from Quizfarm.com [Quiz] It has to do with Donatism. In our discussion today then we're comparing Donatism and belief - or the increasingly lack there of in the Virgin Birth in our modern culture/society.
The Question then for us today in terms of the Virgin Birth and our study of Heresy:
1. Is a Follower of Jesus who doesn’t uphold the virgin birth still a Christian?
2. If a pastor/priest/bishop who doesn’t believe in the Virgin Birth baptizes you, do you need to be rebaptized by one that does?
3. If a pastor/priest/bishop who doesn’t believe in the Virgin Birth serve you communion, is it communion – or just bread and juice?
If you're up for it, post your quiz score, and any perspective on these questions on the blog and continue the coversation in the Comments section below.
5 comments:
I think that whether Mary was a virgin or not at the time of her first child's birth is irrelevant. That she remained a virgin throughout life is ridiculous. What possible purpose would that serve God? I see how it serves the church to help keep women under control, but her being denied the fullness of a physically loving marriage seems contrary to God's loving nature. That she was young and innocent, a child, makes sense. Since Jesus says we should become like a child to truly understand the kingdom of God. It lists his siblings in Mark 6:3 The same people who say they take the Bible literally would say that's not true? Whether or not Mary or Jesus had sex in their lives has zero influence on my choice to live with him (them) as my example in striving for loving relationships and healing the world.
Deborah,
That's what in majority we said in our RUaHeretic discussion on Wednesday: that it doesn't matter for most folks. The reason we follow Jesus in our life doesn't have to do with the sexual history of his mother or his own life.
We agreed that what it's about is trying to grasp and grapple with the mystery of how Jesus is divine and human; how the God "stuff" got into the equation.
You were missed!
Just curious...was there any discussion about the translations, language, or nuanced 21st century definitions of "virgin"?
One of the most fascinating talks I heard was a pastor that addressed nuanced language and culture all throughout the Bible. It's amazing how language can take on such importance and value especially in dealing with such an old document, passed down through generations and generations of people. I feel like whenever this thread of discussion comes up in church circles, we all accept either believing it or not--this is not to say that we shouldn't be figuring out the limits and expanses of our beliefs are--however, I would add that perhaps our modern day definition of a virgin may not be the same as that of translators or even those that wrote the Bible. Could the "virgin" title or tag of Mary be speaking to her innocence as a child (like Deborah said)? her purity of mind and spirit? ...not necessarily just her sexual past?
elena,
interesting points. i'd say from my readings and studies (which is just my story) that the word for virgin in greek (used in the nt) is παρθενος or "parthenos". Like most words it has several meanings: virgin (in the not having-had-sex yet sense), "mature young woman." So the challenge is what does it mean in the Bible text? Is it about her sexual virginity?; her status as not yet married? (is that the same thing)?; the fact that she was a young woman?; that she was transitioning from girlhood to womanhood? Hard to say. I think it's almost too many hairs to split - at least for my limited intelligence.
What many scholars point to is that both Luke and Matthew - in telling their stories of the conception and birth of Jesus - refer back to the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, in particular Isaiah 7:14. So a challenge is in the translating back and forth did the original meaning of "parthenos" go to the Hebrew word "yalemah" which means "an unmarried woman" or to "betoulim" which often means "girl." So you're right on the money when you talk about nuance in language - the living one we speak and express ourselves with and the ancient ones that the Biblical text is written in. That's why in our Presbyterian Tradition we require our pastors to learn those languages - or at least to learn a little bit of them - in order to lift up the nuance aspects.
I think we have a different cultural understanding of the word for us in the 21st century. For most of history young women were considered 'virgin' until they were married. We have a different expression of sexuality in relationship (or at least more diverse main-stream - for lack of a better word - expression of that) today. So we would most likely never refer to a group of young girls as 'virgins.' For us we'd say "girls," while in ancient Israel it most likely would have been the same word.
So nuance does play a part in the history of translation, how that effected Matthew and Luke in their composition process, and also in how we hear God's voice in the story today.
Often we get lost in the nuance and the historical-linguistic interpretations and explanations. We never get to the question of how does the text touch my life today? How is God speaking to me (us) inviting me (us) to change and/or action today? For me that's the crucial part...of course we don't check our brains at the door when we begin the journey of relection and communal discernement....
The other interesting thing about the ancient texts is that they had no punctuation, which, even if you knew the correct implications of the words used, might change the meaning. The classic example being:
woman, without her man, is nothing
woman, without her, man is nothing
Given that, taking the Bible literally is impossible.
Post a Comment