December 8--Immaculate Conception

I acclaim the greatness of the Lord,
I delight in God my Savior,
who regarded my humble state.
Truly from this day on
all ages will call me blest.

For God, wonderful in power,
has used that strength for me.
Holy the name of the Lord!
whose mercy embraces the faithful,
one generation to the next.

The mighty arm of God
scatters the proud in their conceit,
pulls tyrants from their thrones,
and raises up the humble.
The Lord fills the starving
and lets the rich go hungry.

God rescues lowly Israel,
recalling the promise of mercy,
the promises made to our ancestors,
to Abraham's heirs for ever.


The first of Luke's four songs, the "Magnificat" sets the tone and theme for the rest of Luke's gospel. Zechariah's "Benedictus" looks forward to the fulfillment of the promise to Israel that it be a light to the nations; the angels "Gloria" is a doxology which unites heaven and earth for a moment of celebration, and Simeon's "Nunc Dimmitus" is the song of thankful retirement that passes the torch from one generation to a generation that will see the change promised by Mary, Zechariah, and the angels. The entire Gospel of Luke could be read as the thematic development of each of these four songs, but only Mary's carries the theme from beginning to end: the reversal of the order of things has begun. The reign of God has begun.

"Immaculate conception," by the way, refers to Mary, not the birth of Jesus. His is the "miraculous conception." We non-Catholics tend not to know that. But it does move the whole question of "Christian mythology" to another sphere. The Roman Catholic church (and, probably the Orthodox traditions) have worked out elaborate doctrines around what we might consider "mythological" questions; but this is not as true for most Protestant traditions. Indeed, there is a great reluctance to dwell too long or delve too deeply into the "meaning" of the virgin birth or the intervention of the Holy Spirit in the birth of Jesus, among many Protestants. Not surprising, on the surface, when Protestants split early (and for almost 500 years) on the question of the Presence (or absence of the Presence) in the Eucharist, a split that is still not fully healed (or understood by the laity, or appreciated at all in many quarters).

On that latter point, of course, the same can be said among Roman Catholic congregants, too. But Protestants, even after several centuries, seemingly have no real interest in such matters, preferring to deal with them abruptly at either end of the analytical scale: either as "mythology" or as "literal truth." Neither position takes seriously the implications of considering what the Scriptures mean in themselves, and why.

Would the Roman Catholic position (or that of the Orthodox traditions) be the only answers, if this were undertaken? It's entirely possible they would be, seeing as Western culture is still, in Whitehead's famous phrase, largely a footnote to Plato.

Sorry to be so inconclusive; but it might be an interesting question to ruminate on; especially if we deconstruct the prevailing "narratives" in the process.