A Word or Two in Defense of Mary
9 December 2007
A Word or Two in Defense of Mary
image:
Balance is hard to achieve. Especially in religion.
Rarely are we able to correct an extreme pendulum swing by moving back to dead center. Rather, we swing too far in the other direction. I’d suggest that’s what’s happened in the case of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Clearly, the Roman Catholic Church fell in love with Mary. I mean, they
really fell in love. So much so that at times one might wonder whether
Jesus or Mary is the real Savior of the world.
Protestants derisively refer to Catholic dogma and tradition surrounding
Mary as “Maryolatry”—i.e. a form of idolatry focused on the person
and role of Mary. And Adventists are as outspoken against this imbalance as any.
In good Protestant fashion, we’ve repudiated the Catholics’
non-scriptural elevation of Christ’s mother. In fact, we’ve been so
effective that we’ve all but removed her from our Who’s Who of Biblical
Heroes. In my nearly four decades of telling stories to Adventist children,
I don’t recall any of them ever telling me that the biblical hero they
want to talk to first when they get to heaven is Mary. Not even any little
girls.
That’s really sad.
While Catholics have certainly taken their adoration of Mary to a
biblically unjustifiable extreme, they at least recognize, based on solid
biblical evidence, that Mary was a true hero, a special person.
In announcing to Mary the role she is to play in Christ’s birth, the
angel says: “’Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with
you’" (Luke 1: 28).
Granted her humble and unpresuming attitude, her response is
understandable: “Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, ‘Do not be
afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God’” (Luke 1: 29, 30).
When Mary goes to see her cousin Elizabeth, her cousin, grasping some
sense the magnitude of the role to which Mary has been called, exclaims:
"’Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!
But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to
me?’” (Luke 1: 42, 43). Elizabeth clearly considers it an honor even to
be in Mary’s presence.
In response to Elizabeth’s comments, Mary breaks forth in poetic praise
and describes her own feelings about what’s transpiring: "'My soul
glorifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has
been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all
generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things
for me—holy is his name'" (Luke 1: 46-49).
Mary, who’s but a mere girl, understands that the role to which God has
called her is indeed an awesome responsibility and an amazing privilege.
Thus she isn’t timid in declaring, “From now on all generations will
call me blessed.”
Wouldn’t it be unfortunate if in our legitimate and commendable zeal for
correcting Catholicism’s imbalance in unjustifiably elevating Mary’s
role, we as Protestants, and as Adventists, fall into the other ditch and
fail to appreciate what a blessed and heroic human being she really was?
James Coffin is senior pastor of the Markham Woods Seventh-day Adventist church.
Search
- Nic Samojluk on A Review of Des Ford's Latest Book: For the Sake of the Gospel, Throw out the Bathwater but keep the Baby
- Mike MacLennan on A Review of Des Ford's Latest Book: For the Sake of the Gospel, Throw out the Bathwater but keep the Baby
- Nic Samojluk on Revisiting Ellen White on Masturbation
- Joe Jamsa on Our Biggest North American Division Crisis Isn’t Theological
- Nic Samojluk on Why Everyone Should Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
- Don Barton on A Review of Des Ford's Latest Book: For the Sake of the Gospel, Throw out the Bathwater but keep the Baby
- Delwin Finch on Web Church Proves Popular in Florida and Beyond
- Jared Wright on Variations on a Dream
- Corey Grodack on Web Church Proves Popular in Florida and Beyond
- orthodoxymoron on A Review of Des Ford's Latest Book: For the Sake of the Gospel, Throw out the Bathwater but keep the Baby
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
"In fact, we’ve been so effective that we’ve all but removed her from our Who’s Who of Biblical Heroes."
She's hardly even mentioned in "Desire of Ages." The book's first mention of Mary is this sentence: "Angels attend Joseph and Mary as they journey from their home in Nazareth to the city of David." Nothing about the annunciation. Nothing about the visit with Elizabeth. Nothing about Joseph's fears.
And exactly how would you explain to young children that Mary had a supernatural conception?
And that none of this beautiful story was devised and told until at least one or two generations later? That none of it was even believed or taught when it occurred? And that Paul and Mark, the earliest writers never even mentioned this "miraculous event"?
Yes, Adventists have ignored Mary; but in turn they have become worshipers of "Bibliolatry" as "God"s Word," ignoring the obvious that God wrote not one single word of the Bible; only men wrote ABOUT God as they perceived him.
Not until recent years have Adventists begun to acknowledge Easter; fearing it too, was a "Catholic" holiday and overlooking that the sole raision d'etre of the Christian faith IS the Resurrection. Focusing on the Sabbath (it is immediately identifed in the name) and the impending apocalyptic judgment, the central theme throughout the NT, the Resurrection, has been shunted aside by the prophetic events deciphered from books in the Bible that have been interpretered and re-interpreted ad nauseum.
God help us to return to the central theme of the Christian faith that Paul so eloquently preached: Christ and Him crucified!
Elaine,
Quite some points there. Of course, Christ's body may have been stolen, or he may have died from natural causes. Furthermore, there is no evidence aside from testimony from some crazy people that his resurrection was anything more than a hallucination. As far as real world evidence goes - it's Christ and Him crucified - the rest is probably made up.
Weren't Matthew and Luke the two Gospels that spun the virginal conception and embellished the OT prophecies to concoct this story? According to the first Gospel, Mark, he begins the story of Jesus at his baptism. Which of the writers should we believe: Paul and Mark, or the much later ones? Or, were those two early writers not forcing a story with an agenda to convince doubters? The believability was already ensconced in people's mind with the similar stories of gods and goddesses and vigin births. In order to equate this new religion and give it equal history, is that why the supernatural events surrounding Jesus' birth were written?
Contradictions abound: was there a flight into Egypt or did the family return to Nazareth? Is it possible for both to be true? Did Herod order the slaughter of first borns? No historical evidence whatsoever for that. Were the singing angels completely overlooked by contemporaries? Why no historical mention of such phenomena except by two Gospels?
It's a lovely myth. To claim its literality is entirely different.
James, I find it truly sad that your post, which raises some good questions and seeks to cause us to look again at the Biblical narrative, and what it says about Mary, should only provoke responses which seek to render all of the Gospel account of Mary and Jesus a mere myth.
Bill,
Isn't this the "baby" of the liberal theological emphasis of scriptural "higher" criticism? It ultimately violates not only this text but scripture as a whole? Isn't all of scripture but a myth never to be taken literally but to be sorted out by our own reasoning?
Pat,
The historical critical method spends a lot of time trying to reconstruct hypothetical oral traditions or hypothetical written sources, and operates under the assumption that the Bible is simply a human document. It rarely deals with the text as we have it, its place within the canon, and its role within the believing community (hence the emergence of such things as "canonical criticism"). Such a scripture can have no authority. How can you preach it without a million qualifications?
I've certainly had my share of it over the years, and it leaves one empty. It ignores the fact that we are not talking about multiple generations between the events of the Gospels and the time they were written down. Even the most liberal scholars agree the NT was complete by about 100 -- that's 65 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus, or about as much time as between Pearl Harbor and today. How many people remember that "day of infamy" vividly? Quite a few. So let's get rid of this myth once and for all that the Gospel accounts were written ages after the events.
Bill
Seems good to me Bill!
I'm struggling to see exactly what the article is arguing against. Frankly I don't think being against Mary as intercessor is a criticism which should be opposed.
Question. This word or two against Mary- who are we defending her against? Protestants? I know that you couldn't possibly be suggesting we elevate Mary. But that question suggests we've put her down. I'm struggling to see how you think we've put her down.
I don't think our rejection of Roman Catholic attempts to place her as intercessor are derogatory. Where is the insult?
Elaine said: "Did Herod order the slaughter of first borns? No historical evidence whatsoever for that."
Elaine, what makes a historical account? In your definition, what "historical" account discredits the Bible to this effect? To me, you are sounding that the Bible is not a historical account. However, since you weren't there, it's impossible to accept your word without the same standard necessary to receive Bible as history: faith.
The most well preserved while most fiercely hated, destroyed, proscribed document by avowed pagans and Christians should be replaced with an alternative historical document according to your opinion. I'm interested in looking for that document, specifically in any local or far away library.
Bill
Mary is mentioned in the chapter on the Wedding Feast and also at the Cross when Jesus recommends her to John.
My personal view-- the Book Desire of Ages is an easy read compared to the books E.G.White borrowed. Obviously the hero is Jesus and not His mother. I don't know how significant that is doctrinally.
Her role was critically important and she played it well.
Never-the-less, I direct my prayers to the Father in the name of the Son. I do respect the Apostle's Creed as a valid summary of the Gospel. Not to infer that Pilate was an instrument through which our redemption came. Tom
"Historical" would mean that there are other confirming reports substantiating such an important order. The Bible is NOT written as an historical document but THEOLOGICAL. Herod's order should have had an enormous impact on Judea, but neither Josephus or Philo, two contemporary writers, mention it.
Would you contend that everything recorded in the Bible absolutely occurred as written therein?
History and faith are NOT synonomous terms; in fact, they are antithetical. One can believe many things by faith, depending on his religious beliefs. But would you argue that Mormon history or Islamic history is the one true record? You have not given a logical reason why events in the Bible should be accepted as true history. The Bible should be accepted on faith; not logic (See Heb. 11:1).
Elaine,
If a person A asks me what I did today, I may tell them I took my wife out. If person B asks me what I did today, I may say I took my wife out and I started a new project. They may both be true. If Mark or "the much later" writers (source?) say more or less than another doesn't amount to a mistake, or lies.
Mathematically speaking, one plus one equals two. No offense, but Matthew and Luke would amount to confirming reports on the virgin birth according to your definition of historical accounts.
However, when two people report on something, they both can be lying . . . so a different standard must be applied to define accurate historicity than the one you supplied.
Thank you for the reminder to "call her blessed," Pastor Coffin. There's something soul-nourishing in that I think. It just feels good.
Maggie
Sunnydale '64
Post new comment