In his fitting article on Marian devotion, John Haldane wrote:
Her unique elevation has been criticized from two opposing quarters: On the one hand by Biblical Protestants who view it as superstitious, idolatrous and entirely without scriptural foundation; and on the other by radical feminists who regard it is as part of the confinement of women, casting them in maternal and submissive roles.
Haldane is, of course, correct that criticism of Mary from such quarters has been steady. But perhaps it is further proof of the soundness of Haldane’s reasoning that there have been fortunate shifts on both those fronts.
Firstly, it’s no secret that Protestants are recovering Mary. A sampling of recent books on the subject would include Blessed One: Protestant Perspectives on Mary, or Tim Perry’s book Mary for Evangelicals. Perry’s substantial article on Karl Barth’s surprisingly high view of Mary also recently appeared in Pro Ecclesia, entitled “What is Little Mary Here For?” Barth, Mary, and Election.”
Among my favorite pieces are the contributions in Mary: Mother of God, edited by two Lutherans, Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson. There’s also Scott McNight’s The Real Mary: Why Evangelicals Can Embrace the Mother of Jesus. These aren’t just academic expressions either, having, if I recall correctly, graced the cover of Christianity Today in a moving article by Sarah Hinlicky Wilson.
Some third-wave feminists have been turning to Mary as well. Back in the seventies, Marina Warner concluded her study of Mary, Alone of All Her Sex, predicting that while the Virgin’s legend may endure, “it will be emptied of moral significance, and thus lose its present real power to heal and to harm.” Feminists, Warner implied, should give up on Mary. Thirty years later we have not silence, but The Feminist Companion to Mariology, which is but a sampling of the extensive recent literature, some of the best of which I’ve referenced before.
In short, I guess there’s something to “all generations shall call me blessed” after all.
January 7th, 2011 | 9:45 am
You rightly note there are Protestants who have been writing about Mary and her unique place in redemptive history. Those Protestants however who disagree with devotional practices and prayers directed towards Mary, and dogmatic declarations the Roman Catholic Church has made concerning her status, are not criticizing her, as your opening words infer, but the practices and dogmas themselves. It is in fact a critique of the Church rather than Mary.
There is a vast difference between criticizing Mary and criticizing views of her with which one disagrees. One can be pro-Mary, defending her from the abuse of feminists (for instance) without embracing practices and/or dogmas which large sections of Christendom find novel, superstitious, or even idolatrous. Certainly the faithful Roman Catholic will find the Protestant or Orthodox refusal to embrace as dogma the modern Catholic pronouncements concerning Mary to be dishonoring of her, but this only highlights the larger question of authority which remains the crucial and defining difference among us.
January 7th, 2011 | 11:06 am
I am not sure the feminist embrace of Mary should be regarded as a good thing by those who honor her, since their reconstruction of her and the use they make of her is in contrast to our faith and hers. If there is a portion of a generation calling her blessed in their own words but those words have an accursed meaning, is that really the same thing?
January 7th, 2011 | 1:08 pm
“There is a vast difference between criticizing Mary and criticizing views of her with which one disagrees.”
Indeed David, one can easily imaging Mary shunning adoration as did the angel in Revelation 19:10, “At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! ”
P.S. Nitpick: No offense intended, but Lutherans aren’t Protestants (as the term is usually used today), they’re catholics in protest. I like to call Lutheranism, “An unusually stubborn effort to be catholic.”
January 7th, 2011 | 1:13 pm
I appreciate Matt’s post, but I think it is too optimistic, for reasons I gave in my Sharing the Real Mary, written for the Inside Catholic website. This is what David Cassidy is saying from the other side of the question. The “recovery” has severe limits, in accordance, quite rightly, with fundamental Protestant commitments.
On another matter, I wouldn’t invoke the Orthodox on the Protestant side in this. Their differences with the Catholic Church are over the nature of the dogmas and whether they should be dogmas at all, but they assert as strongly as the Catholic Church the sinlessness of Mary and her being taken into Heaven at her death. The committed Protestant will find himself on this matter no closer to the Orthodox than to the Catholic.
January 7th, 2011 | 1:29 pm
I didn’t know of that article David, and I’m glad to see you go well past Protestant straw men and engage the best arguments. Your comments sound very similar to William Abraham’s intriguing introduction to Tim Perry’s book Mary for Evangelicals:
“It will be interesting to see whether or not Perry can avoid the move to adopt some vision of papal infallibility, once he fully internalizes the robust vision of Mary adopted here.”
On the other hand, as David Cassidy was perhaps suggesting, it is possible to agree with some Catholic teaching on Mary, while disagreeing with Pius IX’s decision to elevate such teachings, in very particular manifestations, to essential matters of faith. Another word for that position, of course, is Orthodoxy.
January 7th, 2011 | 4:09 pm
Abraham’s faith and obedience make him the vector for the beginning of God’s redemptive work in the OT. Mary serves this purpose in the NT. She is blessed because “she believed that what the Lord said to her would be accomplished,” and she submitted humbly to His will. If we similarly respond to God, we also will have His Son come to dwell in us and be formed in us, and we, too, will manifest Him to the world.
January 12th, 2011 | 3:18 pm
On a personal note, as a Protestant, I did not understand the veneration of Mary. However, there is a painting that changed my mind. It is the Lady of Czestochowa in Poland, also known as the Black Madonna. This painting originated in the 2nd century and is said to have been painted by Luke. Could be true or not. What grabs me about this painting is that Mary looks like a woman from the Holy Land in 2nd century. She is dark, she is thin, and her eyes pierce through you. She looks as though she has suffered great sadness. This is Mary. Not the idealized renderings from the Renaissance. This portrait changed my thoughts of Mary.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact