Guest Blogger Alert!

Because of blogger trouble (quelle suprise!), we haven't been able to post squat at the joint blog, which will be officially closed as of this weekend, and replaced with something that might work on occasion.

Anyway.

My nearest and dearest had a couple of thoughts germinating for which she seeks feedback. Without further ado, here they are:

I still haven't read the Da Vinci Code book, but I've given the plot some thought.

I've got some questions for anyone that thinks it could really be true. In no particular order:
1. When did Jesus and Magdalene get married? Before or after he began his ministry? If after, why isn't it covered in the Gospels? If before, how could she have been the woman he cured of the seven demons? Or the adulteress he saved from stoning?

2. Let's assume that they met during his three year ministry. If they met on his way back from the desert where he went after his baptism, realistically, how many kids could they have had? There would have to be a period of courtship--say just for the sake of argument six months. 30 months to go, give or take, before crucifixion.
Say she got pregnant on their hypothetical wedding night. Nine months down, 21 to go. She would have nursed the child, which I for one can vouch delays the return of fertility. The earliest I've heard of fertility returning in a nursing mom is four months (honest--all three times for her). And they sure wouldn't have been able to afford a wet nurse with him preaching instead of woodworking, not that they would have been rich anyway.
So, just to give the silliness some air of credibility, say she got pregnant again at four months postpartum. Four postpartum and nine pregnancy, thirteen. Thirteen from 21 is... eight.
Repeat procedure, the most they could have had is three kids, and probably not that many.
I'm still not won over.

3. If, after the crucifixion, Magdalene was running around as a Peter, uh, without the, um, peter: where were these children? Did she take them with her? Were they with their grandmother? John certainly would have had something to say about that, and since he lived longer than the other apostles and had her with him, he probably would have mentioned it somewhere along the way. He would have had the opportunity to amend anything removed by Peter, that's for sure.

Those are my thoughts on the silliness of the idea. I think the whole book cheapens motherhood in a subtle and sly way, besides. It's like our society: lots of lip service to motherhood, but when it comes down for it very little actual support. "'Working Mother' Is Redundant" bumper stickers, but no recognition in ways that matter.
Brown's proponents say, "Magdalene's real job was as head of the church. She was the one Jesus wanted in charge, not Peter. Jesus wanted the 'sacred feminine'. Oh yeah, and by the way, she was the mother of Jesus' child(ren)." Like it was a side job for her. Talk about adding insult to injury...

What they don't consider is the Church already has a wonderful, beautiful, marvelous example of the sacred feminine: Mother Mary. Women have proven over and over again that we can do anything men can do, both good and bad. We can be lawyers, doctors, architects, teachers...just like the men. But--we can be murderers, thieves, liars, and sociopaths...just like the men.

What makes women special? What is the sacred thing women can do that men cannot? It's not preaching, writing, or ministry. It is to create another human being within our body. And even that, God wisely decided, would require a man's help to start.