A Most Misunderstood Woman

In the November 7 issue, CHRISTIANITY TODAY examined the beliefs and behavior of the Catholic church in America. This Christmas, CT takes a deeper look at Mary, a biblical character often obscured in the crossfire of a four-century debate between Protestants and Catholics.

Two statements encapsulate the uncertainty possessing many Protestant Christians about the true, biblical role and importance of the Virgin Mary. Pope John XXIII, perhaps surprisingly, said the Virgin Mary “is not pleased when she is put above her son.” And the staunch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck once wrote of Mary, “She has been given an honor that has not been given to any other creature. She far surpassed men and angels in the undeserved grace bestowed on her.”

Protestants largely do not think about Mary. But once a year she shows up, a shadowy figure on Christmas cards. Then the questions are jarred into mind: What does biblical, evangelical theology make of her? What is the proper balance of reserve and respect for Mary? Who, really, was this woman, and what relevance does she bear today for our faith?

An Idolatrous Piety

In Protestant eyes, the Catholic church fosters a Marian piety that can only be called idolatrous—despite disclaimers such as that made by Pope John XXIII. Consider the following explicit declarations:

• Pope Pius IX (pope from 1846 to 1878): “God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
• Pope Leo XIII, writing near the turn of the century: “As no man goes to the father but by the son, so no one goes to Christ except through his mother.”
• Cardinal Saint Alfonsus de Liguori, in The Glories of Mary, reproduced in 1931 by the Redemptorist Fathers: Mary is called “the gate of heaven because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her.” In prayer Mary is addressed: “All power is given to thee in heaven and on earth.” Hence, “at the command of Mary all obey—even God.”
• Pope Pius XII, writing in 1953: “It is the will of God that we should have nothing which is not passed through the hands of Mary.”
• Contemporary Roman Catholic scholar Edward Schillebeeckx: “… Christ is the Mediator between God, the Father, and men; and … Mary is the Mediatrix between Christ and us.”

Of course, it would not be fair to hold the Catholic church responsible for extravagant claims made for Mary by her devoted but untaught worshipers. But none of the persons cited above was untaught (three were popes). Also, as the more recent statements indicate, the official Catholic appreciation of Mary remains inappropriately high to this day.

Mythological Appendages

Some theologians have defended the veneration of the Virgin Mary on the grounds that this supplies the church with an understanding of the feminine virtues of God. Certainly they are not wrong to point out the characteristics of God that our culture often associates with women. But Mary is not God; and if we correct our view of God by what we say about Mary, we have willy-nilly incorporated her into the Godhead in an idolatrous way, no matter what theological contortions we attempt in order to deny it.

Far more serious than this improper piety, robbing God of his exclusive honor, are the mythological appendages that the Roman church has officially added to its consideration of Mary. These are taught as being revealed by God and, therefore, as doctrines necessary to Christian faith—not simply acceptable pious opinions.

The first of these mythological accretions is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This has nothing to do with the virgin birth of Christ. It means that Mary was conceived by her mother Anne with no inheritance of original corruption or sin. The Bible, of course, knows nothing of a freedom from original sin on Mary’s part, and the idea was rejected by almost all theological leaders for the first 1,200 years of the church.

It was rejected on the twofold grounds that the Scripture clearly teaches that all have sinned, and that Mary recognized her own need of redemption. However, near the beginning of the fourteenth century, Duns Scotus, a Dominican monk, suggested that Mary was redeemed by being exempted from original sin rather than by being redeemed from it. With this explanation of Mary’s purity, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception developed and was made official in 1854.

An obvious difficulty with this doctrine is that there is no end to its logic. If Mary was not worthy to be the mother of sinless Jesus unless she was free of a sinful nature, then the same can be said about her mother, grandmother, and so on. Ultimately, this process leads back to the start of the human race.

Equally ungrounded on any biblical text is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This doctrine clearly rose along with monkish ideas that sex is dirty and continence holy. Accordingly, Mary was believed to be not only a virgin before Christ’s birth (which Scripture explicitly states and all conservative Protestants accept), but a virgin throughout her life. This doctrine was endorsed by the Council of Trent (1545–63).

The Roman church requires the faithful to accept this doctrine in spite of Matthew 1:24–25: Joseph “took his wife but knew her not until she had borne a son.” The Greek word here translated “until” indicates the end of a period of time; it anticipates an end to Mary’s virginity. In addition, Jesus is called the “first-born” son of Mary (Luke 2:7).

And several passages (Mark 3:31–35; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–21; John 7:1–5; 1 Cor. 9:5; and Gal. 1:19) refer explicitly to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Of course, in a certain context brothers and sisters could mean spiritual brothers and sisters. Very rarely, the word “brothers” might refer to close relatives, such as cousins. Yet its primary meaning is the literal meaning of being children of the same parents, and the context of Mark 3:35 rules out any such relationship as cousin. “Whoever does the will of God is my cousin” does not really make sense.

Another mythological doctrine, the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary, is closely related to her purported sinlessness. This dogma, made official by a papal bull in 1950, expressly affirms that Mary’s body was exempted from the universal law of decay and corruption upon death.

Some Roman Catholic scholars, such as Avery Dulles, have argued that it is possible to interpret the bodily assumption of Mary as meaning only that she in her full personality is now in the immediate presence of God. Her physical body actually decayed as do those of other humans. Yet the papal decree clearly states that she was “assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”

Mary: Mother Of God?

These dogmas about Mary are rife with mythology and poorly based on God’s scriptural revelation. But what of the various honorary titles used for Mary?

Biblically based Protestants cannot accept the Marian titles of Coredemptrix (meaning that she shares in Christ’s work of redemption) or Mediatrix (meaning she shares in the distribution of the benefits secured by our redemption). But another title deserves more serious consideration.

The phrase “Mother of God” has proved especially objectionable to many Protestants. How, it is thought, can a finite woman be mother of him who is infinite? Moreover, the modern usage of this term to glorify Mary is quite alien to its original use in the ancient church. As church historian Jaroslav Pelikan points out, early references to Mary as the Mother of God were intended only to glorify Christ.

The early church employed the term theotokos (God-bearer) against early denials of the doctrine that Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, was one person, fully God and fully man. It approved the phrase on the ground that Mary was the mother of him who is truly God. While she was not a source of his divine nature, she was the mother of the person who possessed that divine nature.

At the time of the Reformation, both Luther and Calvin defended the legitimacy of the term. (The phrase was incorporated into two Lutheran confessions, the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord.)

While the phrase may be awkward, Protestants generally have agreed that it is faithful to the real sense of Scripture, and that to deny it is to suggest that we really do not believe in the full deity of him who was born of Mary.

Mary As Microcosm

The difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics over Mary is actually a microcosm of what ultimately separates the two faiths. The Protestant and Catholic attitudes toward Mary illustrate two fundamental premises over which they have divided since Reformation times.

The first principle answers the question, How can I be saved from my sin? The Protestant answers: Only by the grace of God and only through personal faith in Jesus Christ, the divine Lord and Savior.

For Roman Catholics, by contrast, Mary moves into the role that belongs only to Jesus Christ. True, for some Catholics she is only a highly visible and important supporting actress. With others, she has usurped Christ at the center of the stage. But characteristically Mary shines, dimly or brightly, in the glory that belongs only to Jesus our Savior. That marks the fatal cleavage that separates Roman Catholic and Protestant evangelical faith.

Scripture itself clearly spells out the unique saviorship of Jesus Christ. In John 14:6, our Lord declares: “No man comes to the Father except through me.” Acts 4:12 reads: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” And 1 Corinthians 3:11 adds: “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

The second principle separating Roman Catholics and Protestants is the issue of authority. It answers the question: How do we know what we are to believe and do in order to please God and lead useful Christian lives?

For conservative Protestants the final authority is the canonical Scripture—the Bible. By it we become personally acquainted with God through Christ, and the Spirit of God guides us through its teaching. We hold the ancient fathers and the traditions of the church in high honor. We value the church that brings to us the message of salvation and in which we fellowship today. Yet only Christ is Lord, and he speaks to us by his Spirit through the infallible words of Holy Scripture.

For Roman Catholics, too, Holy Scripture is the infallible Word of God. Yet to its Old Testament they add the apocryphal books—books not a part of the Jewish canon accepted by our Lord and his apostles. Further, Roman Catholics accept tradition as possessing authority on a par with the written Scripture. Therein opens the greatest chasm between the Roman and Protestant views of authority: the role of the church.

In sharp contrast to Protestant views, the Roman church has held that the Spirit guides it to recognize and interpret infallibly the divine revelation given by the apostles (both the written Scripture and the oral tradition handed down in the church).

All of this relates directly to Catholic doctrine about Mary. No reputable Roman Catholic scholar today argues that the doctrines of the immaculate conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily assumption into heaven are clearly taught in Scripture. No scholar even maintains that there is an early history of any oral tradition setting forth these doctrines. The scholars do believe that in some cases these doctrines are logically implied in Scripture.

But of course Scripture does not even say that Mary was absolutely sinless. It only says that she needed a redeemer and was a very good woman. There is likewise no believable record in the early church of her immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, or bodily assumption. The faith of the Roman church clearly rests upon the belief that Jesus Christ promised infallibility to his church, to Peter and all his successors at Rome.

It is the divinely guided sense of the church (as Catholics believe) that these doctrines were revealed or are logically necessary to what was revealed. There may be no clear evidence from revelation or historical data available for us. We must simply trust the church because it has been guaranteed infallibility by God himself.

For the evangelical Protestant, the mythological teachings about Mary represent one of the best proofs that the Roman church is not infallibly guided by God after all. They represent, in fact, the piety of a church that has misunderstood the very core of the gospel. For the evangelical, Jesus Christ alone is Lord. He guides his church by the Spirit through the teachings of the infallible Scripture.

A Woman Of Character

What, then, is the proper understanding about our relation to the Virgin Mary? When we restrict ourselves to what is clearly taught in Scripture, we find in Mary a woman of beautiful character, uniquely blessed of God. She is an example of faith in God and a model for the church.

Mary appears first as a young maiden who is engaged and soon to be married to Joseph. The angel announces to her that she will bear a child. The depth of her faith in God is displayed in her immediate acceptance of the angelic message.

It is difficult in a sexually casual age to realize what depth of trust Mary displayed. For Mary, this was a threat to everything she held dear on earth—her honor and respect in the community, and her betrothed husband. She knew what righteous Joseph’s attitude might well be. At best, it was the end of her prospective marriage. But there was no hesitation. After the first shock at the news, she quietly accepted what God had done: “May it be to me as you have said” (Luke 1:38).

Later, at Cana of Galilee, Mary could have taken umbrage. Jesus responded to her inquiry about a shortage of wine with a repudiation of any special, motherly right for her to put demands on him. Even more potent were the interchanges between Jesus and Mary, with his brothers and sisters. He almost seems to distinguish Mary and his siblings from those who do God’s will. At the very least, he makes abundantly clear that physical relationships of mother and family are quite secondary to his mission and work. To Protestants, this is clear warning against any veneration of Mary based upon her physical motherhood of Jesus.

Yet it remains important to note that these puzzling incidents never drove Mary away from her faith in Christ. John 19:25–27 informs us that she was present at the cross when Jesus committed her into the hands of the beloved disciple. Later, as recorded in Acts 1:14, Mary took her place within the community of believers.

Thus Mary stands in the Gospels as a sign of the true humanity of Jesus Christ and as a model of the Christian. Her faith held firm in spite of the extraordinary demands laid upon her. Unswerving faith in God, and the servant role she models for the whole church represent the essence of the biblical and evangelical view of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.