Some concluding thoughts

Perhaps I so dislike the "eye witness" retellings and historical approaches to Mary because I do not want a real girl – a flawed, dirty, teenage girl – to be the Mother of my God; from some place of self-loathing I do not want my Mary (yes, my Mary) to be "just like me." I do not want to imagine her stinky, sweaty, crabby, annoying. Yet, theologically I know that this is a vital piece of the liberating qualities a devotion to Mary can yield. Being just like us she is nevertheless exalted and filled with a magnitude of grace. This too is possible for us. And so in focusing on Mary, full of grace, I see the goal and the possibility of being, not the starting point, for I see that every time I look in the mirror. This need to focus less on the reality and more on the symbol also reveals a weakness in my Christology. I do not want all of God housed entirely in a man. I want, deeply, for my body to house the Divine as well. As a woman my body (literally and metaphorically) has been exploited, used, abused, restrained, controlled, owned, possessed, undermined, undervalued, held as Other to a male norm. I want something, some One, to exalt and free to the fullness of being the female half of humanity. Christ, theoretically, embodies all of humanity, yet that is not the effect that God's incarnation has had throughout the centuries. This is a selfish theology; I realize that.

During the course of my thesis I have to come to see that not only are other feminist theologians, and all theologians, seeking Mary and the Divine in shapes and terms that hold meaning for them, I too am seeking a God that has meaning for me. I sit squarely within the company of these authors, falling prey to the same pitfalls, but adding one more voice to the Christian feminist voices that now take ownership in crafting the symbols that shape our lives.

(It's a little rough, but on its way....)