Mark D. Roberts has a series of articles responding to Time Magazine's cover story regarding alleged Protestant rediscovery of Mary. The Time article, by David Van Biema, according to Roberts, suffers a bit from the Oliver Stone method of journalism, claiming that there has been a long Protestant "conspiracy" to keep Mary out of Protestant Christianity.
I won't rethink Mark Roberts' well done evaluation and reflections. But I would recommend others give it a look. And I would suggest this discussion should go even further, in the spirit of "mere" Christian dialogue.
To try to be fair and accurate, Protestants do not object to Mary, but to perceived excesses of devotion to her. There has been a fair amount of confusion and miscommunication between Protestants and Catholics over Marian dogmas and polemicists on both sides seem to talk past each other. But the bottom line for Protestants is simply fear that devotion to Mary approaches and at times drifts into Mariolatry, so that less informed Catholics, particularly in developing countries where ancestor worship is practiced, fall into idolatry.
Information can't hurt. Marian dogma has developed over many centuries. What Protestants should attempt to understand is that original doctrines regarding Mary had more to do with Christology than Mariology. One of the first questions related to Mary had to do with the nature of Christ - was he fully man and fully God? If he was fully God from conception then Mary carried in her womb a being who was not only man, but also God. Hence the term Theotokos or "God-Bearer" was applied to Mary. It was necessary to call her the "Mother of God", not to overly exalt her, but to preserve Christ's full divinity. Informed Protestants who know the reasons behind the term, generally do not object to the term "Mother of God". Less informed Protestants do, but primarily because they do not understand the reasoning behind the term.
The virgin birth is an essential part of Christology as well, hence her virginity at the time of Christ's conception is a non-negotiable element of faith, for Christ could have no human father.
It is not surprising nor objectionable that Mary's humility, devotion, her willingness to accept this totally unique role, and to be the only one who has ever held this role, led many in church history to see Mary as an extraordinary character, one to be admired. In fact scripture demands exactly this, that all the nations of the earth would call Mary blessed. I agree with Mark D. Roberts that there is no real "conspiracy" against Mary. She is respected and loved in Protestant circles and always has been, but within limits.
What Protestants object to, however is simply that subsequent devotion to Mary seems to have created new dogmas which are difficult to support in scripture. Some of those dogmas have support in church tradition, but scriptural evidence is weak. The notion that Mary was "ever virgin", seems to be contradicted by statements in scripture referring to the "brothers" of Jesus. The belief that Mary's body was "assumed" into Heaven at the end of her life has no clear warrant in the Bible, though it is a "traditional" belief. Neither of these beliefs is necessarily objectionable, but seem to have insufficient support to be insisted on as dogma, hence Protestants avoid them.
Then there is the issue of Mary's own moral state. Once again, owing to a perhaps overblown systematic Christology, some forwarded the idea that in order for Christ to be born without original sin, he had to be born of a pure mother. The theory is that God looked forward to Christ's work on the cross and extended the Grace of Christ's sacrifice to Mary so that, through Christ, she was preserved from sin. It is important to note that this is, again a Christological concern, attempting to explain how Christ could be fully human and free from original sin. But Protestants will still object that it is perhaps unnecessary - are there not other possible explanations for Christ's sinlessness? And once again, this view has virtually no direct support in scripture so why has it become essential dogma? Still, Protestants need to be fair and recognize that even this teaching does not assert that Mary was sinless because of her own merit, but was preserved, in theory, by the Grace of Christ.
As a result of some of these less biblical Marian beliefs, terms like "co-redemptress", "mediatrix" and "Queen of Heaven" have been applied to Mary. Since she willingly cooperated with God's plan of salvation, it is asserted that she played a role in the salvation of the human race in a way no other could have. Catholics need to understand that it is Christology that leads Protestants to reject these terms, the same concern for Christology that led to the original Marian dogmas and the term "Theotokos", "Mother of God". To preserve the essential view of Christ, Protestants strongly reject any notion that "redeemer" or "mediator" can be applied to anyone but Christ.
It is unfortunate that the Roman church has issued various anathemas toward those who do not accept all of the Marian dogmas it has instituted. Having said that, there is room for agreement in some areas, and some of the other disagreements may fall into the category of "non-essentials" on which Augustine suggested we all might exercise charity.
In keeping with what I understand to be St. Vincent's prescription for determining essential Christian truth, I do ask what has been believed "always, everywhere and by all". I also find Paul's warning in 1 Corinthians 4:6 "Do not go beyond what is written" to be a rather significant warning. And I recall as will the warning from Cyril of Jerusalem, "For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."
It is interesting the the Catholic Encyclopedia states that "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma (of Immaculate Conception) can be brought forward from Scripture" and even notes that "In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter." Many quotations from the fathers are offered regarding her sinless purity. But scripture itself offers no conclusive support.
Protestants do not have a conspiracy against Mary. We just don't want Marian devotion to go beyond the limits of what is clear in scripture. Hence, I wonder if any Christian body should insist on the perpetual virginity of Mary, or the assumption. Maybe we should all take a step back and ask what is really essential and only insist on those things. And we can all agree, Christ was born of the virgin, and that all nations can and do call her Blessed.
No comments:
Post a Comment