"Mary - Grace and Hope in Christ"
The response of an EFCW member to the ARCIC report
The Rev'd Martin Snellgrove is the Rector of Hope in the Diocese of St
Asaph and retiring Vice-Chairman of EFCW.
My attention was first drawn to this matter by a newspaper headline which claimed that, according to the Anglican - Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), there are no essential differences between the Roman Catholic and Anglican attitudes to Mary, the mother of Jesus. I immediately suspected a capitulation on the part of the Anglican representatives.
A protestant approach leads to questioning any belief based on tradition
which is not supported by Scripture. The report appears to begin by allaying
such fears by including the statement: "We remain convinced that
the holy Scriptures, as the Word of God written, bear normative witness
to God's plan of salvation …", and it includes a valuable review
of the references to Mary in the Gospels.
It is not necessary to read much of the text to encounter the first conflict
of opinion about Mary. That she remained a virgin all her life has never
been made an essential of faith yet it is held very firmly as ancient
by a large proportion of Roman Catholics. When I questioned the belief
at a recent study day between representatives of the two communions in
our northern Welsh dioceses a Catholic priest quoted a rhyme about it
as if that proved its truth.
Matthew 1:25 tells us that Joseph "had no union with her until she
gave birth to a son". Inference? - that he and Mary had a normal
marital relationship afterwards. Compare this with: "He ate no chocolate
until Easter Day". Inference? - then he did! This might appear to
be a knock-down argument but the report sets it aside lightly, together
with a reference to Article VI of the 39 Articles of Religion, which affirms
the Sufficiency of Holy Scripture for Salvation. Instead it considers
objections based on Mark 6.3: "Isn't this Mary's son and the brother
of James, Joses, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?"
The report tries to explain the words "brothers" and "sisters"
in a general sense of relatives or associates, but the point is that St
Mark is writing in the context of the immediate family and the only meaning
which these terms will bear in this context is "children of his mother
and father". The suggestion has been made that these others were
Joseph's by a former marriage but there is no hint of this in the nativity
stories.
The process used by ARCIC to over-ride certain differences of opinion
about Mary is to start from widely-held traditions and then to reconstruct
the events which must underlie them, whether these contradict Scripture
or not. This is putting the cart before the horse!
The belief that Mary remained a virgin is not limited to Roman Catholicism
or even the Orthodox churches. There is evidence that such eminent Protestants
as Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer and even John Wesley accepted it. Luther's
assertion that the church must continuously be reformed (semper reformanda)
may be interpreted as meaning that the Church never embraces the whole
truth but yet it can experience the power of God even as it holds to aspects
of the faith which are in error and need correction. It may come as a
surprise how many festivals of Mary appear in the calendar of the Book
of Common Prayer of 1662 including her conception on 8th December, her
birth on 8th September and the festival of her mother, Anne, on 26th July.
What difference does it make if we believe that Mary was ever-virgin or
not? If this is a widespread belief, why should we risk disharmony by
disputing it? One of the many characteristics of evangelicalism is reverence
for Scripture and giving its wording the closest attention in the preparation
of expository preaching. If we are to deny the plain meaning of the text
then we undermine the foundation of a powerful means of presenting the
truth of God's word and helping others to learn from it for themselves.
Some years ago I was reflecting on why a certain minister had such an
effective ministry from the pulpit and I concluded that it was because
he approached the passages which he was to preach on with a high expectation
that God would speak to him through every word.
If Mary is offered as an example of celibate holiness she cannot also
be a pattern for godliness within the full physical and emotional union
of marriage. A Roman Catholic colleague who is involved with the pastoral
application of his church's marriage law tells me that he has been trying
to make this point for years. The calendar of saints' days includes women
who are commemorated as Virgin or Virgin and Martyr, but perhaps there
should be some nominations for the calendar for women who have honoured
God and fostered their relationship with him whilst being Wife and Mother!
Reconciliation between the Anglican and Roman Catholic positions is difficult
to achieve since both churches have made statements which are not readily
set aside. For instance, Article 19 of the 39 Articles of Religion states
that "the church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and
manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith". Meanwhile the
Roman Catholic Church has declared as dogmas, and therefore required to
be held by the faithful, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption
of Mary, and these by papal decree and not by any general Council of the
Church. These dogmas are comparatively recent: the Immaculate Conception,
which holds that Mary was sinless from her earliest moments, dates back
no further than 1854; the Assumption of Mary, which maintains that she
was assumed directly into heaven without dying, was asserted in living
memory in 1950.
The ARCIC report does not claim that these dogmas are stated in Scripture
but rather that they are compatible with Scripture.
We detect a process by which commitment is to certain traditions for which
evidence will be sought in Scripture, and we can decide for ourselves
how convincing we find this. Jeremiah 1:5 is given in support of the Immaculate
Conception: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you
were born I set you apart". This calls to mind Psalm 139:1: "O
Lord, you have searched me and you know me", and verse 13: "For
you created my inmost being: you knit me together in my in my mother's
womb." However, God's knowledge of us from our earliest development
is no basis for a claim of sinlessness. Consider the vengeful thoughts
of verses 19-22 which are often omitted in public reading or printed within
brackets.
Support for the Assumption of Mary is sought by appeal to Romans 8:28-30:
"And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he
called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified".
If anyone were seeking justification for this doctrine they might find
it here, but if it hadn't occurred to them then this passage wouldn't
suggest it. The report also makes an appeal to the cases of Enoch, Elijah
and even the repentant thief, although this last would have died as soon
as his legs were broken.
What are the implications of these dogmas? If Mary could serve God only
by being sinless from conception then what hope is there for the rest
of us? Many Christians experience God's grace in that he involves them
in his work despite their failings. If Mary had to be sinless to bear
Jesus then perhaps her mother did too, and so on back to Adam and Eve,
in which case the incarnation and the atonement would have been unnecessary.
The Assumption can lead to an unhealthy attitude to Mary as having an
almost divine status such that she becomes a focus of prayer and another
level of mediation, so that Jesus' intercession has to be sought through
hers.
Mary's title of Theotokos, God-bearer, was established at the Council
of Nicaea in 325 AD, and should claim no more than that she was the mother
of God-incarnate. However from the attitude of many Catholics to her as
Queen of Heaven we would assume that she was the mother of the pre-existent
Son of God. The Quran includes a surah to the effect that: "The Christians
have three gods: God, Jesus and Mary". It is not difficult to appreciate
how Mohammed gained this impression!
The study guide which accompanies the Report assumes that any change will
be in the Anglican position. An example is a discussion question: "Have
Anglicans generally failed to give proper attention to Mary in Scripture,
and if so, why?" whilst including no balancing question such as:
"Have Roman Catholics generally failed to attend closely to the text
of Scripture out of regard for their traditions?" This confirms my
original suspicion about capitulation!
The Report advocates the concept of re-reception or of receiving again
beliefs which have become neglected by part or all of the Church. Whereas
it commends the re-reception of certain doctrines and practices concerning
Mary it might be suggested that the health of the Church would be better
promoted by its re-receiving something which the report mentions in passing
in its treatment of the Reformation, namely, the importance of close attention
to the words of Scripture.