Evangelicals and Mary

7/27/2019 Evangelicals and Mary

1/21

ERT (2006) 30 :2, 121-140

Evangelicals and Mary: RecentTheological Evaluations

David ParkerK E Y W O R D S : Authority, grace, symbol-ism, discipleship, Christology, narra-tive exegesis, exam ple, typology, pietyMARY IS WELL RESPECTED and honouredby evangelical and other ProtestantChristians as the mother of Jesus and afaithful woman of God. However, apartfrom strong recognition of the VirginBirth, evangelical Christians do notusually single her out for any specialattention. On the surface, this wouldseem to be in accordance with Scrip-ture. Jerry Sandidge's comment aboutPentecostals is cdso generally tme ofevangelicals: 'So, it could almost besaid that [they]... have no "view" or"theology" of Mary, unless it would bein negative terms, i.e., those thingswhich are not believed about her."

However, other branches of theChurch take a different view. Perhapsthe best known and most influentialexample would be the late Pope who

1 Jerry L. Sandidge, 'A Pentecostal Responseto Roman Catholic Teaching on Uaiy',Pneuma(Fall, 1982), p. 34.

venerated Mary highly, as can seen inhis writings^ pilgrimages and above allin his funeral service. The report of ajoint Anghcan-Roman Catholic taskforce, Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ(known also as The Seattle Statement)published in 2005 also highlights thecontinuing high-level interest in Mary.At the popular level, cathohc Chris-tianity (that is, some sections of theAnglican Church, the Orthodoxchurches and Roman Catholicism),often seem s to go to extrem es of devo-tion, although this is not necessarilyapproved by the leaders. However,even at the level of official doctrine,Mary is given an important role whichspills over into inter-church ecumeni-cal relationships, placing pressure onall to recognize M ary as 'th e m other ofall C hristians'.^

2 He decreed 1987-88 as a Marian year tocommemorate her birthday and issued theencyclical Redemptoris Mater, 25 March 1987in support.3 For a recent survey of th e CathoUc position,see Lawrence S. Cunningham, 'Mary inCatholic Doctrine and Practice', TheologyToday, 56/3 (October 1999), pp. 307-318.


2/21

122 David ParkerProtestant reaction to such trendsis often highly polemic, rejecting such

attitudes as completely unbibhcal andunhelpful to the gospel. However, evenamong those who take a more moder-ate line, it is agreed tha t there are seri-ous differences on the m atter. Accord-ingly, Marian teaching and devotioncontinues as a prominent part ofCatholic practice. Yet on the otherhand, as M ackenzie observes, 'the verynaming of Mary arouses powerful feel-ings of antipathy still amongst manyPro testants', which, together with theuse of exalted titles for her, leaves'many Prote stan ts shaking their headsand wondering if the gulf betweenCathohc and Protestant can ever bebridged'.^

This difference is no merely superfi-cial matter, for as Jiirgen Moltmannhas stated, 'The discrepancy betweenChurch teaching and the New Testa-ment is nowhere as great as in Mariol-ogy.'' Oberman has identified Mariol-ogy as 'the focus and locus where allthe heres ies of Roman Catholicism arewelded together'.' Kantzer concludes,'The difference between Protestants

and Roman Catholics over Mary isactually a microcosm of what ulti-mately separates the two faiths.' Herefers especially to the means of salva-tion and bibhcal authority.' The WEATheological Commission report there-fore stated: 'As evangelicals we con-sider the Roman Cathohc doctrinesconcerning Mciry a formidable barrierbetween ourselves and RomanCatholics.... We join the author of oldin saying: "The mother of Jesus is notthe papal Mary"'.'

Evangelicals and renewedinterest in MaryIn recent time s, some evangehcals areshowing more interest in Mary on thegrounds that there has been an unnec-essary, and even anti-biblical, over-reaction to the cathohc position. Theyargue that Mary should not be ignoredorworse still, discussion of her personand role should not be prohibited sim-ply because others may have taken upuntenable positions. Evangehcals arebeing urged to adopt a position whichis more in accord with the bibhcal te jdand the attitude of Christ himself, and

4 J.A. Ross MacKenzie, 'Maiy as an Ecu-menical Problem' in Alberic Stacpoole (edi-tor), Mary's P lace in Christian Dialogue (Mid-dlegreen. Slough: St Paul P ublications, 1982),p. 36 .5 Jurgen M oltmann, in Ha ns Kiing and JiirgenMoltmann (editors), Mary in the Churches, Con-cilium (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983), xii. cfGeorge Carey, A Tale of Two Churches: Can

7 Kenneth S. Kantzer, 'A Most Misunder-stood Woman', Christianity Today, Dec 12,1986 , 20. cf also Barth : 'M arian dogm a is nei-ther more nor less than the critical, centraldogma of the Roman Catholic Ch urch... In thedoctdne and worship of Mary there is dis-closed the one heresy of the Roman Catholic


3/21

Evangelicals and Mary: Recent Theological Evaluations 123thus resto re M ary to her rightfid placein our doctrine and spirituality. Timo-thy George' refers to the story of theScottish reformer, John Knox, whoonce hurled an image of Mary out of aship when he was heing forced torespect it; George says it is time forevangelicals to reverse this rejection ofMary.

This raises the question of whetherevangehcal theology and practice cangive any grea ter place to Mary than hasbeen traditionally accorded her. Formany evangehcals, the answer wouldbe a strong negative. With the variousCathohc Marian doctrines in mind,such as the Immaculate Conceptionand Bodily Assumption, they woulddoubt that bibhcal authority permitsany advances at all. Certainly, there isopposition to anything like the Cathohcposition, for as Oberman points out, 'anindependent Mariology cannot do jus -tice to the biblical presentation of thefigure of Mary, the mother of Jesus'.'"According to Gottfried Maron, 'In thestrict sense there cannot be a Protestant"Mariology" as an independent topic,because Maiy has no value in herself,and can only be rightly seen in relationto her Son.'"

Yet, in Scripture, Maxy as themother of Jesu s ha s a pivotal role in th estory of salvation; she is singled out for

9 In Carl E. Braaten and R obert W. Jenson(ed itors), Jl/fl/y, Mother of God (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2004), pp. lOOf.

special attention by Jesus on the cross,and she is described as 'full of grace'(Luke 1:28), 'favoured by God' and'blessed' (Luke 1:42). The argument isthat if evangehcals a re to be faithful totheir principles of biblical authority,they should not give Mary any lessattention than Scriptiu^e does.

In this paper I propose to examinesome examples of recent evangehcalthinking on Maiy. But I will not paymuch attention to the Virgin Birth.This is a doctrine which has been ahallmark of evangelicals especiallysince the era of Fundamentahsm andthere is much in common among evan-gehcals on this topic. However, it is notso much about Mary herself as it is partof our Christology.

Mary does, of course, sometimesfigure strongly in the Christmaspreaching and celebrations of Protes-tants, but simply as part of history ornarrative and without any special inde-pendent theological importance.Another context in which evangehcalsare likely to focus on Mary is in associ-ation with family matters, especiallythe v irtues of motherhood and celebra-tions of Mothers' Day. While a focus onthe family is praiseworthy, there is noparticular biblical basis for Mother'sDay and, as Daniel Migliore" pointsout, associating M ary with this rathersentimental emphasis is probably theproduct of a romantic 19th century hb-erahsm rather than anything else.


4/21

124 David ParkerBiblical exegesis

There is plenty of scope for evangeli-cals to give more attention to Maiy iftypical commentaries and theologicalbooks are any guide. Evangelicalthinking about Mary, as for any othertopic, needs a bibhcal bas is and is con-fined by biblical authority. This, ofcourse, contrasts strongly with theCathohc tradition where church tradi-tion and official teaching are so evi-dent.This bibhcal orientation is one pow-erful factor limiting the extent of evan-gehcal interest in Mary because thereis so little data available. The biblicalmaterial is limited mainly to the birthnarratives in the Gospels of Matthewand Luke, and a few references to Maryand the family in the other sections.The Gospel of John has only two refer-ences^the m iracle at Cana in chapter2 and the scene at the foot of the crosswith the beloved disciple in chapter19^but does not identify her by name(only as 'the mother of Jesus')! Notonly are there relatively few referencesto Mary in the New Testament com-pared with other great heroes h sted inthe 'hall of faith', but what is said inthese references is either limited oropen to interpre tation. Evangehcal bib-Ucal scholarship as seen in commen-taries reflects this situation.

Luke 1:28ffLeaving aside the first Gospel with itsmain focus on Joseph rath er than M ary,David Wells points out that the key

gehcal commentators take this text inits straightforward historical and ht-eral sense , without seeing in it any jus-tification for an exalted view of Mary.Thus, in his popular exposition ofLuke's Gospel, David Gooding"expounds it as part of a simple histori-cal narrative with no special interestfor Marian issues. Similarly, Leon Mor-ris, in the student oriented TyndaleNew Testament Commentary,'^ com-ments, 'It is, of course, complete mis-understanding which translates thewords, "Hail Mary, full of grace",[derived from the Vulgate translationwhich has influenced Cathohc think-ing] and understands them to meanthat Mary was to be a source of graceto other people. Gabriel is saying sim-ply that God's favour rests on her.'

13 David F. Wells Revolution in Rome (Lon-don: Tyndale, 1973): 'Maryan unresolvedproblem', pp. 111-119. See also Elliott Millerand Kenneth R. Samples, The Cult of the V irgin(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 32-34;Karl B arth, CAurcADo^maft'cs 1.2.139f. wamedconcerning the Christological context of Mar-ian teaching in the NT, 'In this category is tobe put the well-known kechari tomene of Lk.1:28, which, translated gratiaplena, has givenrise to so many mariological speculations,against which it ought to have contributed aserious warning.' The NIV rendering is,'Greetings, you who are highly favoured.' TheRoman Catholic RSV translates as 'Hail, fuUof grace', while both RSV an d RC-RSV rele-gate the poorly attested 'blessed are youamong women' to the margin, although ofcourse it is found in Luke 1:42.


5/21

Evangelicals and Mary: Recent Theological Evaluations 125At a more tech nical level, John Nol-d'* documents two alternate mean-

ings for the 'quite rare Hellenistic verb 'in use, viz., either it m eans the 'intrin-sic qua lities for which a person is to becommended' or it means 'the receipt ofspecial graces or privilege by a bene-factor'; he concludes that the secondmeaning is 'undoubtedly to be pre-ferred' in this case , wh ere M ary's priv-ileged role has already been se t forth,"thus supporting the evangelical posi-tion. I.H. Marshall'^ reinforces thisconclusion by noting that 'There is nosuggestion of any particular worthi-ness on the part of Mary herself. Buthe also points out how Cathohc viewshave been influenced by the Vulgatereading, gratia plena. This, he says, isopen to misinterpretation by suggest-ing that grace is a substance withwhich one mayb e filled, and hence th atMary is a bestower of grace. He goesfurther and dissociates the initial wordchaire from the messianic hnks oftengiven to it by Cathohc commentators(e.g., Zeph. 3:13, 9:9), preferringinstead to regard it as 'the normal form

16 John Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary:Luke 1-9:20 (Dallas: Word, 1989 ), p. 50.17 BAGD, 879 offers only one meaning: 'to

of address in the NT and in Greekusage' ."R e v e l a t i o n 1 2 : 1 - 6

Likewise evangelical commentators donot give any credence to a Marian ref-erence to the vision of the woman, thedragon and the male child in Revela-tion 12:1-6. Morris, for example, doesnot even mention the idea, instead indi-cating that the 'woman clothed withthe sun' is Israel, an image whichappears several times in the OT; inRevelation 12 it is possibly set in con-tra st to the goddesses of the pagan cul-ture familiar to the first readers of thebook.'" Robert H. Mounce" takes thesame approach, hut states explicitly,'The woman is not Mary the mother ofJesus but the messianic community,the ideal Israel,' while W. Hendrick-

19 See also Mary J. Evans, Women in the Bible(Exeter: Patern oster, 1983) 5 8, who rejectsthis Hnk also. Note that the Cathohc feromeBible Commentary (London: Geoffrey Chap-man , 1968) focuses m erely upon 'th e source ofgoodness r ather than upon its effects', notingthat Mary is 'the object of God's grace andfavor' with the participle indicating that she'has been chosen for a long time pa st '. It alsopoints out M aiy's unique position because 'inher, more than in anyone else, God's mes-sianic fufillment is achieved' and that accord-ingly 'she has received more.. . than anyoneelse in the OTor NT'. Overall, the greetin g sig-nifies 'a particular office or special preroga-tive' (p. 122).


6/21

126 David Parkersen^^ speaks specifically of the womanas the church, emphasizing, as Mouncedoes, that 'the Church in both dispen-sations is one'. Similar positions areadopted hy other commentators suchas MichaeiWilcock", PhUip EdgciunbeHu ghes", and G.E. Ladd"

John 19: 26,27However, the passage in John 19 deal-ingwith Jesus' wo rds from the cross toand about Mary is the most difficultMarian text. This is because it is partof a hook which is recognized to bereplete with deliberately intended dou-ble meanings, and so it may have sym-bohc meaning itself. But evangelicalcommentators axe generally agreedth at such a possibility does not exist inthis case. In the words of Mary J.Evans, 'there is no particular indica-tion in the text that the incident ismeant to be seen as symbolic and nohint of such a concept can be foundelsewhere in the New Testament'.^'

Donald A. Carson offers a detailedexplanation of the reasons for rejecting

22 William Hendricksen, More Than Con-querors (London: Tyndale Pre ss, 1940), p. 135.23 Michael Wilcock, / Saw Heaven OpenedBST (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975), p.118.24 Philip E. Hughes, The Book of Revela-tion a Comm entary (Leicester: Inter-VarsityPress, 1990), p. 135.25 G.E. Ladd,A Commentary on the Revelationof fohn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), p.

the kind of symbolic meaning that isproposed by Raymond E. Bro wn ." Notonly does Carson consider such a view'anachron istic', but he argues tha t it iscontrary to the plain historical mean-ing and 'without adequate contextualcontrol;' if it were to be symbohc, heargues, the interpretation could not bearbitraiy but should be 'in line with thehistorical reading' (emphasis original)and th us controlled by Johanniae (andpossibly Synoptic) themes; but thereare none that a re relevant. G. BeasleyMurray does consider the possibility ofsymbohsm in this passage but limits itto the idea of Maiy receiving what shehad sought earher at the wedding inCana through the agency of the beloveddisciple.^*

The W itness o f the G ospelsOverall, therefore, the literalhermeneutic prevails. Together withthe Synoptic texts that relate to Maryand he r family (Matt. 2:23; Luke 2:41-52; Mark 6:3 pars), the evangelical tra-dition is left w ith an adequate founda-tion for the commonly held views aboutMary. She fulfilled a unique fimction insalvation history through the miracu-lous conception by the Holy Spirit, buthaving given birth to Jesus in a non-miraculous manner, lived a normal

2 7 D.A. Carson, The Gospel According tofohn(Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991), pp.


7/21

Evangelicals and Mary: Recent Theological Evaluations 127hum an and family life.^'So, as Mary J. Evans has it, neither'by implication or hy definite ass ertion 'does the NT build on the narrativesabout Mary in a doctrinal sense , which'means wem ustb e very wary of assert-ing that Mary has any further signifi-cance, other than as a witness and anexample'.^" It should also be noted t ha tany tendency to exalt Mary for her rolein the incarnation on the basis ofLukan texts is emphatically qualifiedhy the account in Matthew, whereMary plays no part a t all in the Annun-ciation.Furthermore, the other element inthese theological conclusions, Mary'sexemplary role, is reinforced by twoother New Testament passages (Luke8:19-21; 11:27-28) which emphasizethe virtue of obedient faith on tiie partof disciples. Maiy is included in thisgroup of disciples, which rules out thepossibility of any special sta tus in con-sequence of Mary's physical relation-ship with Jesus. Even so, as Wrightpoints out,^' Maiy's insight into the

29 See Joel B. Green (editor). Dictionary offesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove/Leices-ter: InterVarsity, 1992) pp. 70-72, 884f., an dISBE 3:269f for typical critical treatmentsalong these lines. Note tha t there is nothing inthe NT data to suggest Mary remained a vir-gin, so evangelicals generally reject theCathohc heUef in the p erpe tual virginity.3 0 MaryJ. Evans, Women in the Bible, p. 58.3 1 David F. W right (editor). Chosen by God:Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Mar-

role and ministiy of her son was notalways so exemplary as Catholic pietymight wish because it is evident fromsome gospel texts (Luke 2:50; Mark3:21; Mark 6:4) that there was adegree of tension between Jesus andhis family. Wright can even suggestthat 'Mary was herself "the hatedmother," perhaps for most of Jesus'three-year ministry'. The scene at thecross (John 19:25-27) represents a def-inite turning point in this respect,which is confirmed by the fact thatMaiy joined with the other disciples inthe Upper Room awaiting the blessingof Pentecost. (Acts 1:14).

Therefore, although Marian devo-tion did arise early in the h istory of thechurch, from an evangehcal perspec-tive, there is no exegetical or theologi-cal basis for it to have grown sostrongly. What Donald G. Dawe pointsout for classical Reformed theology isalso true for evangehcahsm in general,'Mary's function was historically com-plete in the virginal conception andbearing of the Savioiu-. She had noongoing function in the ordo salutiswhich is the work of the Holy Spiritalone.' ^ Thus, as a lready noted, therecan be no independent Pro testan t Mcir-

bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p.99, who notes that 'all four Gospels to onedegree or another indicate both that Jesus'mother failed at some point to completelyunderstand or honour her Son. . . and thatJesus distanced Himself from her in the


8/21

128 David Parkeriology, or Marian cult, but at most'petitionless praise of the Virgin'."

Insights from the Narrativeapproach to ScriptureAgainst this traditional approach, it isinteresting to examine a sample of thenew narrative approach to Scripture,as presented by Joel B. Green." Thevalue of the narrative technique for thereaders is that it is potentially moreengaging than the traditional gram-matical-historical approach which typ-ically yields only factual and doctrinaldata. That is, 'As narrative, Luke-Actsbv ite s its readers into its discourse asparticipants, ready to be prodded, andencoiu-aged, challenged and formed.'Thus instead of the interpreter tryingto 'make sen se' of the text. Green sug-gests the value of the text lies in theway it presents Mary as an 'accessibleexemplar'. The text opens to us 'a newway of seeing the world' and it 'invitesus to join Mary in tha t work to which[Luke] repeatedly draws attentionnamely the sort of pondering thatallows for previously unimaginableinterpretations of the events and worldaround us ' (Luke 2:19, 51 ).' '

Green commences with Luke 11:27-28where an unnamed womanfrom hecrowd addressed Jesus, and praised his

3 3 George H. Tavard, The Thousand Faces ofthe Virgin Mary (Collegeville, M inn: The Litur-gical Pres s, 19 96), p. 127.34 Joel B. Green, 'Bless ed is she wh o

mother Mary by saying, 'Blessed is thewomb that bore you'. Je su s' reply, how-ever, deflects attention away fromMary and any virtue she might pos-sess, and also from her physical andfamily links to him. He says, 'Blessedrather are those who hear the word ofGod and keep it!' (v 28). Here Jesusasserts that blessedness is found inobedient faith, no t in rehgious or socialsta tus or family connection.This radical reinterpretation of tra-ditional virtues iswh at Green argues isat the heart of Luke's portrayal ofMary: 'Mary's appearance in theLukan narrative a ssau lts the theologi-cal imagination of its re ade rs, subvert-ing conventional w isdom ....' a s is illus-trated by her lowly social status andthe theme of Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), which reflect a radical 'inversionof social realities'. Mary, who 'seemsto measiu'e low on any status scale...tu m s out to be the one favored by God,the one who finds her status and iden-tity ultimately in her em brace of God'sblessing to her'.^' Thus 'the characterof the people of God is reevaluated hithe hght of the newly found under-standing of God's purposes in the goodnew s'." Thus, it is evident th at insteadof providing any information th at mightlead to an exalted view of Maiy alongthe lines of Cathohc piety. Green's exe-gesis shows Mary as an 'exemplar ofone who life is in sjmc with God's sav-higplan ' .

This approach is therefore a moreengaging version of the common evan-gehcal approach to Mary as an ideal


9/21


10/21

130 David Parker

In the case of Reformed theology,Donald G. Dawe points out that therewas a dechne of interest in Mary fol-lowing the first generation of Reform-ers, resulting in only 'the most scat-tered and peripheral mention of Matyin formal theology' un til the end of the19th century and later; at this time, thecritical issue becam e the defence of thevirgin birth over against liberaldenials." This trend can be seen inwo rks by Charles Hodge'^ L. Berkhof*'and J.O. BuswelP. Arminian theolo-gians are in general agreement withtheir Reformed counterparts on Maryand the Virgin Birth.*'

As might be expected, the views of

44 Dawe, 'From Dysfunction to Disbelief inStacpoole, Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue,146. In this connection, see the classic work son the subject by James Orr and J. GreshamMachen.45 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology 3 vols(Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1981reprint).46 L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Edin-burgh: Banner of Truth T rust, 1958), pp. 334-6.47 James 0. Buswell, A Systematic Theologyof the Christian Religion (2 vols in 1) (GrandRapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962,1963) Vol 2, pp . 40, 44f..48 Charles W. Carter, Ed., A ContemporaryWesleyan Theology (2 vols) (Grand Rapids:Francis Asbuiy Press/Zondervan PublishingHouse, 1983); Benjamin Field, The Student'sHandbook of Christian Theology (London: Hod-der and Stou ghton, 1883); John Miley, System-atic Theology (2 vols) (Peabody, Mass.: Hen-

Pentecostals are similar to those ofevangehcals as a whole. Jerry San-didge's conclusion has been notedabove.'" As a participant in the Pente-costal-Roman Cathohc dialogue, hefound httle positive material on Maryfrom a Pentecostal perspective, con-cluding that the re w as only a 'negative'(ie, a polemical) theology, focusing onthe rejection of perpetual virginity,immaculate conception, bodilyassumption and veneration. In theensuing dialogue, agreement emergedon the behef in the virgin birth (at leastas understood as virginal conception),the validity of the term theotokos. andMary's holiness and her role as anexample of piety. But in terms of dia-logue, this was as far as the Pente-costals could go in the direction of apositive theology of Mary.A similar situation e xists in the caseof the systematic theology of thecharismatic Presbyterian, J. RodmanWilliams. He strongly rejects theRoman Catholic dogmas in a series ofcomprehensive footnotes. At the sametime he em phasizes in the m ain tex t ofhis work the personal piety of M aiy a sseen in her 'humble and receptivefaith',*" and her unique historical rolein the incarnation as the mother ofJesus.

Amongst the recent B aptist theolo-

4 9 Jerry L. Sandidge, 'A P ente cos talResponse to Roman Catholic Teaching onMaxy',Pneuma (Fall, 1982 ), pp. 33-4 2.


11/21

Evangelicals and M ary: Recent Th eolo gical Evaluations 131gians, James Leo Garrett' ' stre sse s theVirginal Conception, hut has httle tosay on Mary herself. The late StanleyGrenz is sim ilar." Millard J. Erickson'spopular text book follows the samehne, hut in the process of explainingthe doctrine of the virgin birth, it doesrefer to the role and significance ofMary herself, even if this is somewhatnegative." He says, cdthough 'Marymanifested quahties which God coulduse, such as fcdth and dedication', shehad no unique qualities of her own th atwould mark her out from other yoimgwomen of her day as th e one who wouldgive birth to the Saviour; furthermore,she wa s unable to conceive without theaid of the Holy Spirit.

In other par ts of his work, Ericksonalso makes brief reference to Christo-logical heresies and their implicationsfor the role of Mary, and the relation-ship between the virgin birth and thegeneral acceptance of the miraculousand the supernatural." Surprisinglyhowever, in his full scale Christology,The World Become Flesh, he places lessemphasis on the Virgin B irth and Mary

51 James Leo Garrett, Systema tic Theology(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) (vol 1), pp.584-597.52 Theology for the Community of God.(Carlisle: P aternos ter, 1994 ), pp. 409-42 3; seealso his Revisioning Evangelical Theology(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993)and Created for Com m unity: Connecting Christ-ian Belief with Christian Living (Wheaton:Bridgepoint, 1996).

than in his earher book, despite thefact that he had pointed out how sometheologies have seriously neglectedthe topic.W ayne Grudem approaches the Vir-gin Birth from a biblical rather than atheological point of view, assertingtha t it is the m echanism of Jes us' sin-lessness; this means that for him,behef in the Virgin Birth is a test offaith 'in the God of the Bible'.'' It isonly in a footnote expressing his strongrejection of the immaculate conceptionthat Grudem alludes to any possibilityof a positive appreciation of Mary her-self. In a defensive mode, he concedesthat 'the New Testament does highlyhonor Mary' (by calhng her 'blessed'and 'favored' by God), but points outtha t such honour is not in term s of spe-cial grace or sinlessness; however, heoffers no discussion of what might bean appropriate form of honour in strictNT terms.It is left to Gordon Lewis and BruceDemarest amongst the Baptists (andindeed most other evangelicals) to pro-pose a positive theology of Maty. Intheir innovative 'Integrative Theol-ogy','* they devote a whole sectionwithin a lengthy treatm en t of the incar-nation to the topic because of concernabout over-reaction by evangehcals to

5 5 W ayne Gmdem, Systematic Theology(Grand R apids: Zondervan Publishing House,1994), p. 53 2.5 6 Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. D emarest,


12/21

132 David ParkerRoman Cathohc abuses. They arguethat 'An effective Protestant correctiveto an unbibhcal Roman theology ofMary is not lack of thought about her.The antidote is a biblically founded the-ology of Mary!' They propose that thevirgin birth is 'optional evangelisti-cally' (i.e., not necessary for salvation)and agree that 'Mary may be honoredas the m ost favored w oman in history '.However, theyfirmlyreject any furtherdevelopment on biblical grounds: 'Thebibhcal teaching indicates that themoral miracle a t his conception by theHoly Spirit freed Jesus, not Mary, froma sinful na ture. The child, not Mary, is"the holy one"' (Luke 1:35). Thus M arywas 'not the bestower of divine gracebut the recipient' and therefore cannotbe 'worshiped as sinless or divine'.

Again on biblical grounds, theyreject the popular or hteralistic use ofthe title, 'Mother of God' since 'God,being etemal and self-existent, canhave no mother'. However, in hne w iththe qualified, technical use of the termtheotokos, they do concede, 'Maiy wasthe mother of Jesus' humanness,begotten sup ematurallyfi-om he HolySpirit', which accounts for the 'hon-orific' use of the ascription, 'Mother ofmy Lord' in Luke 1:43.

But, in con trast to m any other evan-gelical theologians, they make anattempt at articulating a theology ofMary. They itemise th is theology undera series of points, including the classi-cal evangelical emphasis on the 'God-given dignity of women', the virtue ofher devout piety and faith and the

fies God's strategy of using humanagents and women in particular in theaccomphshm ent of his holy and lovingpurp oses'. In short, they focus on a fea-ture of intere st to feminist theo logians:'a Prote stan t theology of Mary empha-sizes God's great esteem for a devoutwoman in bringing to pass the greatestevent in historythe inccimation ofGod's etem al W ord'.

While several features of thisapproach are purely traditional andconventional, the final synthesis doesrepresent a positive recognition of theunique role of Mary without concedingany of the points with which polemicevangehcal theology is concemed. Yetit still remains as a factual statementwhich does not imply any further con-sequences of a theological or p racticalnature about Maiy. That is , there is anacceptcince of the imique historical roleof Mary and a recognition of her pietyand example, but no potential beyondthis for the growth of a developedProtestant Marianism.

Historical DevelopmentEvangehcals are not influenced by twokey points in history which have pro-vided impetus for the development ofCathohc devotion to Mary. The firstwas the patristic idea of a symbohcconnection between Mary and Eve.Thus Justin Martyr in his work. Dia-logue with Trypho, states, 'Christbecame a man by a virgin to overcomethe disobedience caused by the ser-pent... in the same way it had origi-


13/21

Evangelicals and Mary: Recent Theological Evaluations 133who brought disobedience and deathand the virgin who conceived the onewho is Life. Maiy therefore becomes aNew or Second Eve. Thus Irenaeuswrote, 'The knot of Eve's disobediencewas loosened by Mary's obedience.The bonds fastened by the virgin Evethrough disbehef were untied by thevirgin Maiy through faith' [Adv. haere-ses, 3:22).Despite firm adherence to theAdam/Christ typology (expounded inRom ans 5 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22), evan-gehcals reject this Eve/Maiy symbol-ism as an invalid transference of thetypology away from Jesus and Adam,contradicting and going beyond Scrip-ture. Thus, whatever v irtues Mary mayhave possessed as a woman of faithand whatever position she may haveheld by God's grace in salvation his-tory, there is nojustification for elevat-ing her in the way the Eve/Mary sym-bohsm do es.

The second instance is more com-plexthe use of the title 'Theotokos'to refer to Maiy. In the historical con-text of the 5th century when the titlewas affirmed by the 3rd council of Eph-esus, it was entirely reasonable. Froma Christological point of view, it wasnecessary to affirm that Mary was thebearer of the one who was not onlyfully human, but also fully divine, thuscountering the Nestorian heresy. Butin popular use, the translation ofTheotokos as 'Mother of God' carriedwith it the imphcation that May wascoe tem al with God (or even more) andexisted before Jesus and even God him-

superstitions.'"Evangehcals therefore typicallyacknowledge the tru th of the titie a s aprecise, highly nuanced Christologicalstatement (she bore the one who isdivine), but reject its popular usage,'mother of God', vnshing that someother simple translation could be used.They regard it as a summary Christo-logical confession, 'an auxihary Chris-tological proposition','* if one isneeded, from the perspective of Mary.They certainly reject the CathoHc viewthat this is the beginning point for anindependent Marian theology andpiety, as stated for example in a popu-lar Cathohc book of behef in this fash-ion:Pro testan ts do indeed regard her asthe Mother of God [i.e., the Mother

of Jesus who is divine], but that isas far as they go, and that is thepoint at which the Cathohc Churchcommences. Her dignity as Motherof God is the starting point for avery special devotion, and for allthe prerogatives with which theChurch endows her.*'

The 'cascading piety' ofMarian theology anddevotionThe steady development of Marian

5 7 Quoted in 'The Bless ed Evangelical Maiyin Evang elical Pers pec tive', in Carl E. Braatenand Rob ert W. Jenso n (editors), Mar;/, Motherof God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), p.


14/21

134 David Parker

devotion referred to here shows howmnch 'Mariology helongs to tradition,not to scriptin-e'.*' It developed first inthe East a s a m atter of hving piety, hutthen in the West as a m atter of dogma.A great number of factors have beenidentified as contributing to this phe-nomenon which contrasts so stronglywith the evangelical approach, con-trolled a s it is by the auth ority of Scrip-tinre. One important factor contributingto this 'cascading piety' *' is the use ofScripture not as 'source, but resource,not authoritative evidence but eluci-dating example''^ and the correspond-ing ideas of development of doctrineand the teaching authority of theChurch. Closely related to this is theway popular practice becomes 'anauthority for faith instead of its activa-tion'" which is well illustrated by thefact tha t popular M arian devotion ulti-

60 G.W. Bromiley, 'Mary the mother ofJesus ' , ISBE, 3:272; see also 3:271 where henotes Mariology involves a 'refusal plainly toface up to the biblical data'.61 John Reumann, 'Mary', in M. Eliade (edi-tor) Encyclopaedia of Religion (New York:Macmillan, 1987), 9:251.62 Oberman, The Virgin Mary in E vangelicalPerspective, pp. 5-8; contrast the historicalexegesis of Reformed theology in which com-munion sanctorum is the context, and traditionis the reso urce (6).63 Oberman, The Virgin Mary in EvangelicalPerspective, p. 2; cf also E. Ann M atter, 'Mar-ian Devotion ' in Gordon S. W akefield (editor),A Dictionary of Christian Spirituality (London:SCM, 1983 ), p. 25 9: 'The histo iy of devotion to

mately led to the papal definitions ofthe immaculate conception and thebodily assumption, contrary to anyexphcit biblical teaching. It is hnpor-tant also to note that a significantimpetus for the development of Mariandevotion derived from here tical groupsin the early centuries, while its docu-mentiiry sources were mostly non-canonical. In the modem period, one ofthe major factors has been the contentof apparitions of M ary."This strong tendency to elevateMary beyond the historical roleascribed to her hi the New Testamenthidicates that in the absence of therestraints imposed by bibhcal author-ity, there were other powerful factorsthat drove the development of Mariandevotion. There was, for example, thegrowing attrac tion of asceticism, espe-cicdly the virtues of virginity, and theattraction of the m aternal characteris-tics of the feminine deities of other reh-gion s" which involved 'a pre-disposedyearning for a mother-queen goddessfigure' .** Another important factor was

6 4 See Miller and Samp les, The Cult of the Vir-gin, pp. 79-135.65 D.G. Bloesch, fesus Christ: Saviour andLord (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997), p.110 quotes S. Benko to show a link betweenthe worship of the goddess Artemis at Eph-esus and the later decision of the 3rd Ecu-menc ial Council in the sam e city to affirm thetitle Theotokos.6 6 Miller and Samples, The Cult of the Virgin,p. 65; 'The phenomenon of modem mariandevotion shows that the need for a female,specifically maternal, figure in Christian spir-


15/21

Evangelicals and Mary: Recent Theological Evaluations 135a growing emphasis upon divine tran-scendence which led to a need to pro-vide a softer, more approachable imageof the godhead and additional ways ofmediation.According to G.W. Bromiley, a moreimportant and decisive factor is theissue of anthropocentricity, tha t is , the'constant urge and need to fashion ourown religion, to achieve our own salva-tion, to be our own god'." This, heargues, explains why Marian devotioncould absorb the non-Christian andheretical features mentioned aboveand why it developed so strongly at atime when evangelical doctrines wereneglected. Other commentators dis-cuss this issue in terms ofthe doctrineof grace . As T.N. Finger puts it, 'mostMariological excesses... spring fromoverestimating the human role inredemption. This ancient theologicalissue may be the most fundamental onesurrounding Mariology.'^

As already noted, Mary is seen inevangelical theology as strictly theobedient recipient of grace. But it isregularly observed tha t Catholic teach-ing adopts a semi-Pelagian position, inwhich M ary's virtue or m erit is that shecooperates with God in an act of con-gruous merit on behalf of all people asthe new Eve in giving consent to theincarnation.*' According to this view.

her cooperation can also be seenthrougho ut her life a s m other of Jesu s,especially at the cross when 'sheunited herself w ith a maternal he art toHis sacrifice, and lovingly consented tothe immolation of this Victim whichshe herself had brought forth'. AsWeston observes, 'Mary cooperates inthe work of redemption, and so epito-mises the view that human abilityenables man to have some part in hisown salvation.'"It should be noted further thatM aiy's cooperation in redemption nec-essarily involves, as Barth points out,'a relative rivalry with Christ'"notonly in devotion but also in the statusreflected in the titles which seem toparallel the attributes of Christ him-self. Accordingly, evangelical theol-ogy, with its Christocentricism andadherence to the principle of sola gra-tia, rejects any role Mary may be givenas source (co-redemptrix) or channel(mediatrix) of grace.

More generally there ha s been wha tOberman, refers to as the 'Anselmieinrule', according to which one shouldascribe to the Virgin Mary 'so muchpurity that more than that one cannot

67 Bromiley, ISBE, 3:272f; Encyclopaedia ofReligion, 9:251.6 8 EDTh, p. 686.6 9 Catechism ofthe Catholic Church # 494 quot-

7 0 Lumen Gentium # 58.7 1 Keith W eston, 'Ma iy: an evangelical view-point' in Stacpoole (editor), Mary's Place inChristian Dialogue, p. 164.72 Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1.2.145 'For it is


16/21

136 David Parker

possibly imagine except for God'."Closely related to this is the principletha t 'one can never say too much aboutMa iy ' [de Maria tiunquatn satis) whichas Maron states, 'was a stimulus toingenious intellectual speculations'.'^Another powerful factor in the devel-opment of Marian teach ing, especiallyregarding such extra-biblical notionsas the immaculate conception and thebodily assumption, is the principleexpressed in the words: potuit. decuit,fecit: God could do a thing, it was fittingtha t God should, therefore God did it. "The operation of these principles inthe historical development of Mariol-ogy helps to explain why there hasbeen a 'predisposed ambition' to add tothe biblical record concerning Mary, aprocess which has puzzled evangeli-ca ls ." These principles also offer someexplanation for the pervasive feelingexpressed in the sayings attributed toBernard of Clairvaux, 'Let him whofears the Son seek refuge in Mary' and'Everything through Maiy', which areso much at odds with evangelical

73 Obennan, The Virgin Mary in EvangelicalPerspective, p. 7.7 4 Gottfried Maron, 'Maiy in Pr ote sta nt The-ology', Concilium. Mary in the Churches pp. 40,46; illustrations of this principle at work maybe seen in John de Satge, 'The evangelicalMaiy', in Stacpoole (editor), Mary's Place inChristian Dialogue, p. 28, and also in P. Toon,'Appreciating Mary today' in Wright (editor).Chosen by God, p . 224f., who both express aneed to say m ore about Mary than th e biblical

Christology and spiritua lity."Thus a t the Reformation, it was notsurprising that biblical authority wasbrought to bear, severely curtailingMarian devotion and calling in ques-tion the underlying theology, althoughthe Reformers themselves wereimeven in their individual attitud es.In the period since, the polemic sit-uation h as been ag gravated, leading tothe point now where Evangelicalism

has som etimes been defined bywhat itrejects about Mary in particular (aswell as other matters) rather thanwhat it believes in an affirmativesense. However, there is some justifi-cation for a negative position, given thedevelopments in Catholicism since theReformation at both popular and offi-cial levels (especially with the officialpapal definitions of the doctrines ofImmaculate Conception in 1854, theBodily Assumption 1950, and M ary as'Mother of the Church' 1964). Theoverall influence of prominentCatholics, especially the previous andpresent popes, has made it harder forProtestants to take an even-handedview despite the efforts of those whowant to overcome this significant ecu-menical barrier. But even so, someevangelicals have tried to do so. Overtime, there have been several a ttem pts


17/21

Evangelicals and iVIary: Recent Th eo log ica l Evaluations 137to revisit Mary'^ but let us examinesome quite recent exam ples."

Recent ContributionsTimothy George

One of the most articulate is the pro-lific Tim othy George of Beeson D ivinitySchool, a Reformation theologian, whohas written on the 'Blessed Evangeli-cal Mary'.*' Apart from acceptance ofthe Virgin Birth and of the titleTheotokos, which is typical of evangel-icals generally, George refers first toMary in her place in the line of piouswomen and mothers in the Old Testa-ment. She appears at the intersectionof the old and the new covenants as a'culminating' figure (p. 104). He alsogoes further and sees her as 'thekairotic representative of the eschato-logical and redeemed people of God:Israe l itself (p. 105). He think s evan-

7 8 See, for examp le, David F. W right, Chosenby God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (Lon-don: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1989), andA.T. Robertson, The Mother offesus: Her Prob-lems and Her Glory (London: Hodder andStonghton, 1925).79 Ano ther fruitful examp le could have beenD.G. Bloesch, fesus Christ: Saviour and Lord(Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997), pp. 107-120, who devotes an special appendix to hischapter on the Virgin Birth to "The role ofMaiy".8 0 'The Blessed Evan gelical Mary in Evan-gelical Perspective', in Carl E Braaten and

gelicals 'have m uch to learn from read-ing Mary against the background ofOld Testament foreshadowings' espe-cially due to a Marcionite over-empha-sis on the New Testament.But as we have seen, there is littleexegetical justification for such a view,and, as he concedes, this kind of rea-soning has been used by Catholicism todevelop the Eve/Mary typology. Yet healso concedes a 'note of dissonance'exists (p. 106), because the re is also inthe Old Testament the idea of theunfaithful bride. This is welcome,because, as we have noted above, theNT shows that Maiy herself and herfamily do not always accept wh at Jesusstood for in his ministry.

This picture of Mary in relation tothe Old Testam ent, therefore, does nottake evangelicals much farther, butGeorge's attempt to reinstate Maryfurther by referring to her as 'themother of the Church' is even less suc-cessful. Using the scene of Mary at thefoot of the cross Qohn 19) as a lonelybut faithful believer, he focuses onMary as the 'archetype of the rem nantchurch' (p. 119). The figure ofthe per-secuted mother of Revelation 12allows him to speak of Mary's witnessto 'the pilgrim church ' (p. 120). He alsocalls again upon Mary as a 'bridgingfigure' between the old and newcovenants, and between the m inistry ofJesus and new age ofthe church, sinceshe was portrayed as among the last atthe cross and the first in the upperroom at Pentecost (p. 119).However, George's references in


18/21

138 David Parkerence to the w ill of the Father and who,as the risen Lord, bestows the Spirit onhis disciples. The New Testamentassigns no role to Mary in salvationhistory or the church apart from hercall to be the mother of Jesus. There isno justification to link her with thechurch, apart from be ing one of the dis-ciples. George draws support for hisperspective from the decision of theSecond Vatican Council not to producea separate trea tise on Mary but to treather in the context of the church. How-ever, this is of dubious value in itself,since if Vatican 2 was to effect properreform in this area , it would have beennecessary to restore discussion toMary fully and exclusively to the Chris-tological context, as was done in the5th century adoption of the title,Theotokos.George has more success from anevangelical perspective in interpretingMary as the 'handmaiden of the Lord'(Luke 1:38) in terms of the Reforma-tion principles of sola gratia and solafide. He explains that she is the objectof divine grace in her call to be themother of Jesus, and she responds tothis call in exemplary humble faith.George concludes that she shouldtherefore be 'highly extolled in evan-gelical theology and worship'. Heblames the fact that she is not on 'thepruning effect of the Scripture princi-ple' (p. 116)that is, tha t there is noexplicit exhortation to extol her and todo so would likely detract from theplace of Christ. Secondly, he claimsthat the polemic situation in the post-

so there is no necessity to give hermore attention than any of the otherheroes of faith listed in Scripture.This contribution to the thinkingabout 'the blessed evangelical Mary'appears to be strained. Part of theproblem is th at it is not a spontaneousexpression of evangelical piety, suchas the drive for evangelism, th e piu-suitof holiness or exalting the lordship ofChrist. Instead, it is mainly an attemptto find something positive to say inresponse to an invitation to address aconference on the theme.

Daniel MiglioreIn the second example, Daniel Miglioreof Princeton Theological Seminary, isalso responding to a them e, but does sofrom a more positive and principledbasis." He has the conviction that'Reformed theology should make itsown distinctive contribution to con-temporary rethinking of the signifi-cance of Mary for Christian faith andtheology' (p. 118). By this he meansthe principles of grace, biblical author-ity, the gospel and its transformingpower (p. 122).In developing this approach,Migliore joins with Timothy Georgeand other evangelicals in referring tothe Annunciation as a demonstrationof 'Mary's pilgrimage of faith', showingher as an 'exem plaryw itness' (p. 123).The focus is not on Mary herseif who is


19/21

Evangelicals and Mary: Recent Theological Evaluations 1 3 9simply 'favored and chosen by God'.Instead, we praise the 'surprising,unmerited, electing grace of God.'Thus, he argues, we should pay moreattention than we have to the mode ofelection in regard to M ary's role in sal-vation history. Here again, Mary isseen as an example of faith and disci-pleshipshe is not a unique case, andcertainly not one who by some specialdivine action can dispense grace in anyway.

Migliore also sees significance inMary's song, ihe Magnificat, of Luke 2,as an indication of solidarity with thepoor and the 'passion ate cry for justiceand a transformed world' (p. 125),which is so typical of the biblical wit-ness. Similarly, there is the note of fal-libility in M ary's story, a reminder th atdiscipleship includes the necessity ofcontinual reformation, semper refor-manda. Thus Mary is good example ofbiblical piety and faith.In his final points, Migliore makesmuch better use of two other themesthan the traditional Catholic view, sooften toyed with by Protestants whoare sympathetic to increasing the hon-our given to Mary. First, the scene atthe cross where the beloved discipleand Mary are given into each other'scare Qohn 19:26-27), portrays forMigliore a call to ministry 'w ith and forothers' (p. 128) within the family ofGod: 'Mary's vocation is not exhau stedin her giving birth to the Son of God.She is given the finlher dignity of min-istry in the name of the Son that shebore' (p. 127).

greater significance than the exegesiscan possible justify. In stead, he sees itsimply as an expression of her devoutspirituality, especially notable in thecontext of this passage with the eventsof Pentecost.Yet even these two passages pro-vide only minimal foundation for anyelaboration of a position on Mary. Theycontribute little to our understandingof Christian ministry and spirituality incomparison with the great amount ofmaterial on these topics found in otherparts of the Scriptiure, such as, forexample, the gospels and epistles onthe natu re of Christian ministry, or themuch more detailed biographies ofheroes of faith such as Abrahim,Moses, Paul or even Peter. Moreimportantly, for a theology and prac-tice of spirituality, the material onMary is minimal indeed com pared withthe Psalms or the prayers and teachingof Paul and other passages. Further-more, from a general perspective, Maryplays no great part in the apostolicexposition of the Christian life and sal-vation history as recorded for examplein the narra tive of Acts or in key epis-tles such as Romans, Galatians orCorinthians. This is not to deny, ofcourse, that the narratives of Mary doprovide valuable 'testimonies to thegrace of God in Jesus Christ by thepower of the Holy Spirit' (p. 129), asMigliore and others so helpfully pointout.

Conclusion


20/21

1 4 0 David Parkerthem, such as the imperative for evan-gelism and mission, holiness, even thesecond coming and biblical authority.However, imlike the Catholic position,there is no driving force within theirtheological cind spiritual system torequire them to say anything specialabout Mary in isolation. She is to beseen and interpreted within the largercontext other doctrines of grace, eccle-siology and prayer, but especially interms of Christ himself whomwe mustcontinue to magnify in his xmique posi-tion as the incarnate Son, and our Sav-iour and Lord.

However, by the same principle ofScriptiu-e we need to rectify the rela-tive neglect and distortions in our viewof Mary which have resulted frompolemic reaction and readily acknowl-edge her as one 'favoured' by God andas a 'handmaiden of the Lord'. We cansee in her a sign of grace and faith, per-haps in some special measure but notuniquely or exclusively compared withothers in the hall of faith. In fact, toavoid tendencies towards the kind ofinvalid doctrinal and devotionalembellishment tha t have taken place inthe Catholic tradition, she is bes t seen.

as Donald G. Bloesch*^ urges, in thecontext of the whole company of faith.Thus we see her as a fellow believerwith undoubted personal qualitieswhich perhaps set her apart from oth-ers; yet we may warmly acknowledgeher privileged role as the mother ofJesus and marvel at God's surprisinggrace in choosing a lowly, humble per-son for such a role. This m ust surely bea highly important lesson for Christ-ian 's in today's w orld!Truly, we can affirm the words ofMary in her song:My soiU magnifies the Lord, and myspirit rejoices in God my Savior, forhe has regarded the low estate ofhis handm aiden. For behold, hence-forth all generations will call meblessed; for he who is mighty hasdone great things for me, and holyis his nam e.... he has scattered theproud in the imagination of theirhearts, he has put down the m ightyfrom their thrones, and exaltedthose of low degree; he has filledthe hungry with good things, andthe rich he has sent empty away

82 Bloesch, fesus Christ, p. 118. He pushesthe boundaries of this concept to include dis-cussion of Maiy's role with the saints inheaven, thus addressing firmly the con-

tentious issue of Mary and prayer. For similarideas from another evangelical sources. Seealso Rodney A. AVhitacre, fohn (DownersGrove: InterVarsity Press, 1999) (IVP NewTestament Commentary Series), p. 461.


21/21

Documents

Evangelicals and Mary