Growing up in the American Evangelical tradition, the Roman church and especially its theology on Mary has been a “scary” separating point.
Over the past several years, I have been exploring the early history of the church and its various early divisions. Although the Reformation started an explosion of splits among the church, there were significant major splits early in church history. The reasons for these splits helps understand some of the differences among the Roman, Eastern, Coptic and Orthodox expressions. Understanding the similarities across the various expressions helps us get back to the core features of the early church before the splits. Surprising to me in my research was to see how a very high regard for Mary is common among all of the early split expressions and is a major point of contention between the 20th and 21st century Protestant expressions and the Roman, Eastern, Coptic and Orthodox expressions. I decided to read the book, The Real Mary: Why Evangelical Christians Can Embrace Mother of Jesus, by Scot McKnight to explore this concept further. This book is not the only Evangelical exploration of Mary in recent years. What I liked about this book was its full exploration of the Bible on Mary and its brief exploration of the development of the theology of Mary throughout church history.
The outline of the book is:
- The Real Mary of the Gospels
- Woman of Faith
- Woman of Justice
- Woman of Danger
- Woman of Witness
- Woman of Sorrow
- Woman of Wonder
- Woman of Surrender
- Woman of Ambivalence
- Woman of Faithfulness
- The Ongoing Life of Mary in the Church
- Woman of Influence
- Woman of Controversary
I, as a Protestant, do not need to be afraid to hold Mary in honor and high regard.
Here are some theological points of which I do not agree with my brothers and sisters of other expressions, but I now understand better how these came to be and how some early church leaders, highly respected by most Protestants, believed.
Mary is the woman in Revelation 12
Scot says that most Protestants believe the woman in Revelation 12 to be the “People of God”, not Mary, mostly for two reasons. First, the interpretation that it is Mary first appears as late as the sixth century. Second, the context does not fit anything we recognize as happening to Mary except the child being Jesus. Ben Witherington III, a notable evangelical scholar, wonders if the allusion might include Mary and the “People of God.”
Mary was sinless
The Roman church believes Mary was sinless, was tempted, had the capability to sin and was not divine. This teaching is in communion with the teaching of original sin and its being passed down through generations. In order to safeguard Jesus from acquiring the sin nature, it is thought that Mary was initially safeguarded in a different way. St. Augustine (354-450 AD) who famously argued for the utter sinfulness of everyone excluded Mary from sinfulness. Martin Luther (1483-1546 AD) followed St. Augustine in this belief. Meanwhile, Athanasius(?-373 AD) and Ignatius (100 AD) believed Mary did sin. Irenaeus (100 AD) may have believed Mary did sin because he espoused Mary as the Second Eve.
Mary is the Mother of God
This term, “Mother of God,” is often misunderstood. If Jesus is God and Mary was Jesus’ mother, then this term, “Mother of God,” seems as innocent as another term, “God-bearer.” The Roman church does not hold that somehow Mary existed before Jesus and gave birth to the pre-existent God. By fighting against this term being used, Protestants risk falling into Nestorius’ belief. Nestorius viewed the humanity and divinity of Jesus as being like water and oil. Jesus is part human and part divine. So Nestorius held that Mary only gave birth to the human part of Jesus and not the divine part. All expressions of the church has settled that the humanity and divinity of Jesus is like water and wine. Jesus is fully human and fully divine.
Mary was perpetually virgin
The Roman and Orthodox church believe that Mary bore no other children and Mary and Joseph had no sexual relations. Mary’s womb was considered sanctified. Origen (185 AD) and Jerome (380 AD) believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Mary was immaculately conceived by her mother
This later development (1800 AD) understanding is an outgrowth to the sinlessness of Mary. It helps to preserve her sinlessness back to the moment of her conception. The term, “Immaculate Conception,” is not about Jesus’ conception, but about Mary’s conception.
Mary did not die but was assumed gloriously to heaven
This later development (1900 AD) is another outgrowth of Mary’s sinlessness. If she did not sin, her body did not have the normal decaying and so she was assumed into the presence of God similar to Enoch and Elijah.
Mary is a mediatrix between humans and Jesus
This is probably more about confusion of terms from later developments. The term, “mediatrix,” really comes from an outgrowth of praying to the saints. It is not about any divine attribute of Mary or level of separation between us and Jesus. If we as a Christian community pray for one another and the communion of the Christian community extends to the “great cloud of witnesses,” would it be inappropriate for us to ask anyone in the “great cloud of witnesses” to pray for us, especially Mary?
Devotion to Mary
This is probably more about the confusion of terms from the later developments. Most should agree that Mary deserves “honor,” but not “adoration.” The official Roman doctrine seems to emphasize that difference. But, the practice of the laity and even some Popes can appear to be closer to “adoration” than “honor.” Here is where we really need to hear the heart of the person and sometimes may need to explore deeper with a person outside of the immediate context. It reminds me of what I hear in the the Protestant church where many believe that when we die, we become angels. This is not held by Protestants, Roman, Eastern, Coptic or Orthodox expressions. I hear this so often during times of immediate grief.
Leave a Reply