Preaching the Whole Magnificat

For some reason this reminds me of people who questioned Nelson Mandela after becoming president of South Africa if he would seek "retribution" for everything the white minority government had done; he in response said that he was committed to "constitutional government and the rule of law." The unstated message: "They screwed up -- we're going to try to do it right."

"Mary is singing of nothing less than complete overturning of the social and economic order. She's basically a first century female Che Guevara calling for revolution."

That interpretation shows terrible hermeneutic principles. Here are the lines referring to the hungry:

He hath filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich he hath sent empty away.

Clearly, even a casual reader can see that Mary isn't calling the church or anyone to do anything. She is praising God for what he has done. And since Mary wrote poetry, we might consider taking the passage metaphorically and not literally. Another reason would be that God clearly hadn't "filled the hungry" with food; most people were still hungry. Later, Jesus would chastize the croweds for being more concerned about physical than spiritual food. Mary intended to say that those who hungered for righteousness, God filled them up, but those who were self-righteous he sent away empty.

And to even mention Che Guevara in the same article as Mary is absolutely disgusting! Guevara was a ruthless murderer!

Calling the mother of God a "female Che Guevara" is historically irresponsible and theologically reprehensible.

I know the church you're talking about there in Centennial, and it is filled with people whom I have met who have hearts for justice and for the poor. Many of them are upper middle class and most are white, but to use real people as simply a sermon illustration is grossly unfair.
To say that they "proudly" sang the Magnificat... how can you possibly know that about them, even if you grew up there? As though every congregation isn't made up of individuals with vastly different feelings and responses.
I'm glad that you like their new preacher, and I hope you can learn not to heap judgment upon 600 people.

I think if you read Nadia's blog more carefully, you might note that her attitude had changed once she realized that pride in understanding what Mary's prophecy means has no place.

Three "ponderings" of Mary:
1. The manner of the Angel's greeting (Hail thou highly favored one. The Lord is with you-)
2. The worshiping shepherd's arrival (Why would God choose these as the first hearers of the announcement?)
3. The amazement of the religious elite at the wisdom of her Son as a child.
I speculate that Mary knew precisely that God was up to a social revolution with poor, outcasts, women and children at the vanguard of His coming kingdom. In the Jewish tradition, her son Jesus would have learned his "worldview" at the knee of the first liberation theologian.

brett, I would also suggest that you read Nadia's blog more carefully. It's about how the Magnificat changed her own attitude--including how it changed toward her parents' church.

Amazing! Three people now have commented on Nadia's post--and all three of them apparently missed her self-reflective and repentant posture.

It's no wonder we have no trouble taking things out of context.

I know the church you're talking about there in Centennial, and it is filled with people whom I have met who have hearts for justice and for the poor. Many of them are upper middle class and most are white, but to use real people as simply a sermon illustration is grossly unfair.
To say that they "proudly" sang the Magnificat... how can you possibly know that about them, even if you grew up there? As though every congregation isn't made up of individuals with vastly different feelings and responses.
I'm glad that you like their new preacher, and I hope you can learn not to heap judgment upon 600 people.

The problem is that the author has taken these people out of context. They are real people, and they shouldn't be thrown around in this way. Even the postscript is patronizing.

I thought I was replying to this comment when I wrote the comment that's now appearing under your "amen" above. I don't know what Disqus is doing!

She is actually on pretty sound theological ground. Later on Jesus said that "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" (and even going so far as to say that tax collectors and prostitutes -- by definition desperate -- would recognize the Kingdom of God before the religious and social elite). In that context ideology is worthless.

And "revolutionary" is a proper word as well. Remember that 11 men who actually walked with Jesus and a top anti-Christian rabbi miraculously converted turned the world, especially in their day, upside down; when Christians do their job things change.

Givemeabreak, for goodness' sake! What does this line indicate, other than a rhetorical change of heart: "But this explanation sounds more like retribution than redemption"?

Is that "amen" to the "mother of God" part of the post or the "reprehensible" part?

But the revolution was all spiritual. People came to Christ, but nothing for the materially poor changed at all. In fact, nothing for the materially poor changed until the advent of capitalism in the 16th century. The amount of poverty in 1600 was about the same as in Abraham's day. There had been no progress in standards of living. That's according to economic historians, anyway. And then living standards grew only for a few countries in the West. Even today most countries have standards of living equal to those of Jesus' day. So where was the "revolution" for the poor?

She repented of pride, but of harshly judging the members of the church. Does she think that only the poor can be righteous?

But the revolution was all spiritual.

Nonsense -- it was meant to transform all of life, not just the afterlife or simply to exist. What happened was that, departing from the revolutionary Gospel that Christ and the Apostles preached, in Europe the church eventually became part of the status quo, even during the Protestant Reformation when each Christian sect was fighting others for cultural supremacy and the populace reacted, "A pox on all your houses!" And that's the reason that nothing changed.

"the advent of capitalism"

What ironic language for this season! The "virgin mother" of savior capitalism would then be...? The merchant worshipers of the "new born" deliverer? The heralding of the mercantilists on high? That's just too "rich". Pardon, but an idolatrous slip may be showing.

Not any more than you think that only the rich are worthy of God's blessing.

What "harsh judjement" did she level on the members of her parents' church????? Quote it, please.

She only said they were "privileged," and that she spoke her mind to the pastor about only singing the first half of the Magnificat. Where is this "harsh judgment"?

I suggest you read her more carefully before jumping to a harsh judgemental conclusion of your own.

Too rich indeed! Thanks, Pastor Jeff.

Listen, I understand the context. Really. No one is dealing with the issue I raised, though. There is so much good in this article, but it is clouded by the way the author treats the folks at her old church, which I think is wrong. Sure it's a rhetorical device, but I don't think that excuses it.
I'm glad the author is beginning to see her old church in a new light. I'm very glad that she is meeting with the new preacher, who is great. I don't want to come across as being against everything in the article.

I still don't see where she's judging the members of the church. She only says that they are well off--if that's judtgmental, she's applying it to herself and her family since she grew up in that church.

The judging she did do was the decision--whoever made it--to only sing the first half of Mary's prophecy. And she let the pastor know her concern. Where's the judging of 600 people that you allege?

It had to transform them spiritually, first, or it couldn't transform them materially. Christianity can't transform unbelievers. But my point was that the Magnificat says that God has accomplished it:

He hath filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich he hath sent empty away.

The language says that God actually did something; and he didn't fail. If God's success depended upon what believers do, then he will always fail; but the Magnificat claims that he succeeded completely in what he intended to do.