7th ECT Statement - "Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life"

[Ryan]

Evangelicals and Catholics Together released their seventh statement this week. This time the focus is on the Virgin Mary as an example of God’s saving grace, the divinely chosen mother of our Lord and a model of discipleship.

I'm curious what those here think of the statement. In it, both Catholics and Evangelicals speak to common points agreement and of disagreement (Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, The Bodily Assumption, and Invocation of Mary).

I'll offer a few questions to get us started:
1) What were you most encouraged to see included?
2) What did you learn about Catholic/Evangelical Mariology?
3) What else should Catholics/Evangelicals know about Evangelical/Catholic Mariology?
4) Within your faith community, what is most misunderstood about Catholic or Evangelical Mariology?
5) Has any bit of your Mariology changed as a result of reading this statement?

If possible, in the spirit of the purpose of the statement, I'd like the discussion to lean more toward what we can learn from the most foreign position rather than just how "unorthodox" the foreign position is.

Please consider actually reading the short statement before posting a comment.

[John Roberts]

Mary is Jesus' mother because she gave birth to him. That's what a mother is, the one who has given birth to a child. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Mary, as the mother of Jesus, means anything more then that. Certainly she was blessed, she gave birth to our Lord Jesus. Just as we may be blessed to be called his brethren.

Where in Scripture does it say Mary is the Mother of God? Can God have a Mother?

If Jesus existed as God before he was "incarnated" as "God in the flesh", then doesn't that mean that God came in the form of man, that He just took the form of a man and therefore it cannot be rightly said that God was born from a woman. Doesn't anyone see the contradiction here?

How can God, who is eternal, have a Mother, or Father for that matter? Doesn't the very meaning of the word mother say that she is the one who gives birth and therefore brings the child into the world? Isn't that what we understand a mother to be? That my mother is the one who has given birth to me. So, to say that Mary is the Mother of God would mean that she is the one who gave birth to God, which is a contradiction because God cannot have a Mother, He was never born nor ever could be.

These people are trying to confuse the very meaning of words as we understand them. I don't care if you say mater or mother or peanut butter, if you are referring to the one who has given birth to a child then it will always mean she is the childs mother. So, the mater or mother who has given birth to God is the one who has brought him into the world whereas before he was not in the world, which is the very meaning of the term to give birth. And unless you can prove to me from Scripture any different, then what you are submitting is just theories and philosophies of men.

I have a question. Who gave anyone the right to twist the very meaning of simple language around so that words as we understand them are not as we understand them? These people are tossing parables and similtudes at us without actually doing it. They are not changing words to represent something else, they are actually changing the very meaning of the words themselves.

If God had meant that Mary was anything more then the blessed one who gave birth to the Lord, thus the mother of Jesus, then I don't believe we have the right to change the meaning of the word mother as we understand it, since the Bible has not, anywhere.

[Marv]

"Mother of God" is a very misleading translation for Theotokos. I'm not sure why, though, the evangelicals in the statement agreed it is "necessary" to describe her as such. Still, in the miracle of the incarnation, she was most intimately involved. I couldn't begin to guess how the DNA works in this situation, but she certain was a genuine ancestor of Jesus. God prepared the world and His chosen nation over centuries to inject the Son of God into the world, and that nation whittled down to Mary. She is quite unique in this respect. She is the one, the woman chosen to bear the Son into the world. As I understand it this is what theotokos means. Still the term makes me nervous because of its frequent "mother of God" translation.

Still I suppose a term's being misunderstood is not an invalidation of it. The "immaculate conception" is almost totally misunderstood outside of Catholicism (I have no idea about within it). It has perhaps the odd characteristic of being a phrase many evangelicals would mistakenly give assent to (believing it to mean "virgin birth") though they should reject it as non-Scriptural.

I was surprised in the statement as well to read that Calvin and Luther etc. believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is important to remember that these individuals were Roman Catholics in their youth. Though by God's grace they recovered important doctrines of soteriology, they did not necessarily receive the gift of recovering apostolic truth in all areas of doctrine, and simply retained Roman views in some areas--albeit with some reformation flavoring. (Frankly, I think this is the reason for paedobaptism and amillennialism in these circles, but that is another subject...Semper Reformanda).

[Ryan]

Thanks John. I'd encourage you to read the statement. Also, "if possible, in the spirit of the purpose of the statement, I'd like the discussion to lean more toward what we can learn from the most foreign position rather than just how "unorthodox" the foreign position is."

Thanks.

The following was part of the section where Evangelicals and Catholics agree:

We are agreed that it is appropriate, and indeed necessary, to call Mary Theotokos—the God-Bearer. Theotokos means “the one who gave birth to the One who is God,” and the title, based on the clear witness of Scripture, was emphasized in the early Church to counter the heresy of Nestorius, who divided the human and divine natures of Christ. Here and elsewhere, what must be said about Mary is inseparably connected with what must be said about Christ. Because Jesus is both true man and true God, and because his human nature and divine nature are inseparable, it is right to call Mary, who is the mother of Jesus, the Mother of God or the God-Bearer. Such language is intended first to exalt Jesus Christ and only then to honor Mary. Indeed, in the Magnificat, Mary glorified not herself but God alone.

Mary is always and ever a creature among creatures and no less in need of redemption than any other human being, Jesus only excepted. Mary is always and ever in the role of subordinate and servant. As she said to the angel, “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord” (Luke 1:38). Her message, first spoken to the servants at the wedding of Cana, and also to us, is simply this: “Do whatever he tells you” (John 2:5).

John Roberts said:

Mary is Jesus' mother because she gave birth to him...

[Michael Ballai]

I'm less impressed with whether earlier church folks gave any special reverence to Mary and perhaps less in their skill to rightly divide and apply the Word in such matters. We accord people due credit as to their role in participating with God's plans. Godly behavior is both noteworthy and praiseworthy as it shows us examples of obedience. Wouldn't go any farther than that.

[Damian]

To answer Ryan's questions

1.) I find most ECT statements encouraging (many here would not, I know). If nothing else is accomplished, at least we can have clear lines of agreement and disagreement to work with. Rather than the older models where each side mis-represented the others positions.

2.) I didn't learn anything "new" as I've been on both sides of the issue and have reflected and read a lot about it in the past (that sounded sort of arrogant... didn't mean it to.)

3.) One thing that evangelicals should know is how very sensitive this issue is to many average Roman Catholics. My opinion, but many evangelicals beat the average catholic over the head with the Marion dogmas and that, in my experience, is one of the fastest ways to end all discussions. You wanna dialog with a Roman Catholic, take it easy on the Virgin. -

On the other side, the Roman Catholic need to keep in mind that Protestants have serious theological reservation that are not helped by creating "dogmas" out of issues that are highly debatable. I think Rome has some EXCELLENT points to make and things to teach Protestants... but I can't get past this tendency towards over-definition of debatable theological issues.

4.) Misunderstood in my faith community??? Hmmm??? Well I would suspect the idea of Mary as Theotokos (sp?) (from a Chalcedonian view, being a Christological statement not a Marion statement. I find most people, outside of those with theological training (catholic and protestant) don't get that.

5.) No. But I like that statement a lot. See my answer to question one.

Thanks for posting that Ryan. These are the types of ecumenical dialogs (those between orthodox Christian communities) that have meaning.

Damian

[John Roberts]

"We are agreed that it is appropriate, and indeed necessary, to call Mary Theotokos—the God-Bearer. Theotokos means “the one who gave birth to the One who is God,” and the title, based on the clear witness of Scripture, was emphasized in the early Church to counter the heresy of Nestorius, who divided the human and divine natures of Christ. Here and elsewhere, what must be said about Mary is inseparably connected with what must be said about Christ. Because Jesus is both true man and true God, and because his human nature and divine nature are inseparable, it is right to call Mary, who is the mother of Jesus, the Mother of God or the God-Bearer. Such language is intended first to exalt Jesus Christ and only then to honor Mary. Indeed, in the Magnificat, Mary glorified not herself but God alone."

"the God-Bearer. Theotokos means “the one who gave birth to the One who is God,”

That's why I said it doesn't matter how you say it, mater, mother, or peanut butter. They want to use different words because they know God can not have a Mother so they twist the words as to only fool themselves and others.

"Such language is intended first to exalt Jesus Christ"

Oh, they are going to exalt Jesus? well they are too late God already did.

[Damian]

Can we talk in terms of God "dying"? Apparently we can since Christ is fully God and fully man... and he died on the cross of Calvary.

Can we talk of Christ, from the moment of conception, being fully God and fully man? Apparently we can. So what was in the womb of Mary contained full deity. So from a very early time, the vast majority of the church said we can talk of Mary as the "God bearer" and not simply the "Man bearer" (but Marv knows far better about the Greek than I do so I defer to his knowledge here). During the early Christological controversies, to state otherwise, would have put someone in danger of Apollionarians or Neostorianism.

I think it's an important distinction to make. However, I can certainly see how someone could be uncomfortable with such terms, especially if they're not familiar with the early Christological issues.

Damian

[Joshua Allen]

Really good; thanks for sharing! I was particularly struck by how each side sought to sternly point out where the other was in error, without really pointing out much of substance. It seems the differences are, indeed as the Machen quote suggests, very small.

[Ryan]

No problem Joshua. I haven't read any of the ECT statements since the first one so this has inspired me to read them all now.

[Ratatösk]

Marv, the phrase was upheld because Nestorius objected to it.

As Damian pointed out, it was meant to say something hugely important about Christ- that he can not be separated into conjoined halves: human and divine. Mary wasn't the mother of some human element; she bore and raised the eternal second person of the Godhead, incarnate.

She was the mother (as scripture repeatedly says) of Jesus, and Jesus was... that's the point. Who was Jesus?

Christology demands an accompanying Mariology. They go together. Mary is significant only because of her Son, but you can't talk about her Son without bringing her into it at some point- as the church's objection to Nestorianism makes clear.

[Ratatösk]

Richard Hooker summarized Orthodox Christology with the four phrases: Truly God; Perfectly man; Indivisibly one person; Distinctly two natures.

Nestorianism is the denial of the 'Indivisibly one person' part.

[Marv]

η μητηρ του κυριου μου

Though I'm not sure the reason for the question. Certainly Mary bore into the world the One who is God. What does this mean? In her womb the conception took place miraculously. A mother contributes half the genetic material (plus all the mitochondrial, apparently). Everything she personally contributed was human, right? the rest is beyond speculation, I would think. Yet starting with a single cell, Jesus was fully divine and fully human.

The drawback of the phrase "mother of God" is that it requires careful explanation. I used to chat religion with a Moslem fellow I worked with. He was a doctor from elsewhere, and the first place he landed in the US was Utah. Now if I understand correctly, the Moslems already would consider us polytheistic (???). And this guy went among actual polytheists, whom he doubtless took to be Christians. If I understand correctly they have a mama god as well, mother of Jesus, spiritually at least.

Anyway, I'd venture to at least 99.9% of ears "Mother of God" would be interpreted as the lady that YHWH would send flowers to on mother's day...

love4theword said:

Marv, what is the greek when Elizabeth rejoices because she has seen the mother of our lord?

Marv said:

She is the one, the woman chosen to bear the Son into the world. As I understand it this is what theotokos means. Still the term makes me nervous because of its frequent "mother of God" translation.