by Hannah Goucher
Church history offers two specific viewpoints on Mary, the mother of Jesus. Since the medieval period, the Roman Catholic Church has praised her with highest regard, esteeming her at the same level as Jesus. In contrast, modern evangelicals have seemingly done all they can to remove her from prominence, effectively resulting in the removal of a biblical example of faithfulness. When looking at the views of the Protestant reformers, however, we see a view that lies between the Roman Catholic and contemporary evangelical understanding. By observing the Marian perspective of both churches and examining the views held by specific Protestant reformers, we can better understand the role of Mary in the Christian’s life, in turn providing application for the modern-day church.
Roman Catholic Perspective
The modern Roman Catholic understanding of Mary has developed over many centuries. Both the Roman Catholic and evangelical perspective hold that Mary was chosen by God to deliver His Son into the world. The Catholic position expands this idea, however, elevating Mary’s spiritual esteem. Through this esteem, specific beliefs arose regarding Mary. Four of these specific beliefs are (a) the Immaculate Conception, (b) Mary as Co-redemptrix, (c) her assumption, and (d) perpetual virginity.
In Catholicism, the Immaculate Conception applies to both Jesus and Mary, because Catholics believe that Mary was born of a virgin and without a sinful nature. Following the belief of the Immaculate Conception, Catholics hold that Mary plays an active role in salvation, being named the “Co-redemptrix” of humanity. The origins of this understanding relate to Genesis 3:15. Commenting on this passage, St. Maximilian Kolbe wrote, “From that moment God promised a Redeemer and Co-redemptrix saying: ‘I will place enmities between thee and the Woman.’”[1] Mary’s activity in the redemptive work is not held to be as important as Christ’s, but rather she serves as a “second mediator” devoted to bringing about Christ’s work.[2]
The assumption of Mary into heaven is also an important teaching for Catholics. Because the day and location of her death is unknown, the Catholic church holds that her body was miraculously taken up into heaven.[3] In 1950, Pope Pius XII canonized this doctrine by publishing it in the Apostolic Constitution.
Regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “The deepening of the faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.’”[4] Regarding the passages in the Bible that refer to Mary’s other children, the catechism explains that these children were not of Mary the mother of Jesus but rather of a different Mary.[5]
Modern Evangelical Perspective
When describing the modern evangelical perspective, Max Thurian said, “What Protestant does not tremble on hearing the phrase ‘the blessed Virgin Mary’?”[6] The third century marked the beginning of Marian veneration in the church. This emphasis changed, however, as Martin Luther’s understanding of the role of Mary in the church and in Christianity as a whole changed.[7] This perspective on Mary has led to the current evangelical understanding.
In terms of the Immaculate Conception, Thurian writes, “She [Mary] had need to be purified like every woman here on earth and, although blessed among them, she does not distinguish herself from their full humanity. She is a sinner like the others.”[8] The evangelical perspective of Mary seeks to recognize that she was not born immaculate, never once struggling with sin, but would have suffered and felt the implications of her sin and the fallenness of the world around her.
When discussing the idea of Mary as Co-redemptrix, modern evangelicals argue that this belief cannot be found in Scripture.[9] The Catholic belief that Mary offered Jesus “as a meritorious gift” provides her with a choice that was ultimately not her decision.[10] Concerning this perspective, G. C. Berkouwer said, “The Reformers did not object to the exalted position of Mary, her unique motherhood as the blessed one among women, but they looked upon the idea of ‘cooperation’ that played such an important part in the Roman view as the obfuscation of salvation and a devaluation of the divine grace of Jesus Christ.”[11]
The evangelical church also has a differing view regarding the assumption of Mary. The evangelical perspective, specifically from S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., points to evidence that, during this time period, martyrs and saints were not venerated, thus resulting in people not knowing or remembering particular details about Mary’s death.[12]
Concerning Mary’s virginity, the evangelical church agrees with the Catholic church that Mary was a virgin both before and during her pregnancy. However, the evangelical church does not believe she was a virgin until her death. Though there is biblical evidence for Mary being a virgin before and during her pregnancy, there is no definitive verse that speaks of Mary and Joseph’s relationship after the birth of Jesus. In reference to Matthew 1:25, Johnson says, “The tense of the verb ‘had no union’ (lit., was not knowing her) takes the reader to the moment of the ‘until she gave birth.’”[13]
Protestant Reformers’ Perspectives
As to the Protestant Reformers’ perspectives, Martin Luther had a more moderate view in which he sought to understand Mary as both an important figure in Christianity and also as a normal woman devoted to following God. Beth Kreitzer argues that Luther’s “reform of doctrine and piety was not intended to push Mary aside, but rather to reorient the understanding of Mary and her role, namely, as a necessary but subordinate figure to Christ.”[14] Rather than having honor placed upon the saints and Mary, Luther sought to place Christ in the center, seeking to bring glory to Him alone.[15]
This interpretation does not mean, however, that Luther did not seek to understand Mary from a biblical perspective. This point is seen in his description of how Mary should be addressed. “O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, you were nothing and all despised; yet God in His grace regarded you and worked such great things in you. You were worthy of none of them, but the rich and abundant grace of God was upon you, far above any merit of yours. Hail to you!”[16] Luther understood that her faithfulness and humility were in devotion to God.
Ulrich Zwingli also held Mary in very high regard. While he believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin and born without sin, Zwingli did not affirm the idea that Mary should receive prayers. He also fought ardently against the use of images in the church, both of Mary and of the saints.[17] While Zwingli held Mary in high esteem, he did not follow the Catholic doctrine completely.
Like Zwingli, John Calvin believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Rather than seeing the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament as his actual brothers, Calvin believed that the author was making reference to his relatives or cousins.[18] He also sought to have a balanced understanding of Mary, not seeing her as a subject for veneration, but as someone from whom a believer could learn.[19] Sarah White mentions this, saying, “In his gospel commentaries, John Calvin loves to call Mary the ‘teacher’ of the faithful, and indeed this is a wonderful title for her.”[20]
The Modern Church
The modern church can use knowledge of both perspectives, synthesized with the Reformers, to have a proper understanding of Mary. One such way the church can apply this knowledge is by recognizing the role of women, not only in the church, but also in God’s overall plan. He has used women throughout history to bring about that which He wills and to make His name known.
A second point the church can recognize from Mary is the importance of humility. Luke records Mary’s response to the annunciation in his gospel, writing, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant” (Lk. 1:47–48, ESV). Too often one sees the church seeking to bring glory to those who carried out kingdom work, forgetting this ability is a gift from God. First Corinthians 10:31 says, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” Mary’s approach to this unfathomable gift and responsibility given to her should be a witness to how the church should look, not seeking to glorify themselves, but ultimately to glorify God.
The church can also learn from understanding her faithfulness and dedication to God. White argues that Mary “teaches us what it means to hope in God. [Her] rejoicing was grounded in a prior faith in God’s covenant promises.”[21] Mary’s prayer makes reference of this very faith, pointing to the Old Testament and how it will be fulfilled. “He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and his offspring forever” (Lk. 1:54–55). Mary’s ultimate trust in her heavenly Father can be a learning point for the church to trust in God and His goodness.
This corrected perspective also sheds light on the role of celibacy in the church. When addressing the Corinthian church, Paul said, “Now as a concession, not as a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry” (1 Cor. 7:6–9).
Current Christian culture intimates that one must marry in order to glorify God. The church must understand that celibacy is a gift that is given by God in order to glorify Him. Whether or not Mary was a perpetual celibate after the birth of Jesus, the church should not assume that everyone within its congregation must be married. Rather, it should seek to honor and use the gifts of celibacy in the church, just as it seeks to honor and use the other gifts given by the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps owing to developments in the Catholic church, many in the evangelical church have deemphasized Mary such that she does not receive the recognition she should, maybe in fear of people within the congregation turning to the Catholic faith. This approach is unnecessary. By not recognizing Mary, the church takes away a biblical example of humility and devotion to God, forgetting the important role she played in bringing the Savior into the world.
The evangelical church should not be fearful but rather should do its best in seeking to learn from Mary and her dedication to the Lord. By seeking to understand Mary through a synthesis of both the evangelical and Catholic perspectives, such as the Reformers did, one can better seek to see her as God did, as a faithful servant devoted to serving her Lord. The church should not venerate her, nor should it fear her. It should strive to see her as a witness to God’s promise.
About the author: Hannah Goucher currently lives in Hernando, Mississippi. She graduated from Welch College in 2021 with a degree in Intercultural Studies and now works as a program assistant at a private Christian school in Olive Branch, Mississippi. She enjoys learning about missions, church history, art history, and philology.
[1] Michael L. J. Haynes, Mary, The Motherly Co-Redemptrix (United Kingdom: Michael Haynes, 2019), 9.
[2] S. Lewis Johnson, “Mary, the Saints, and Sacerdotalism,” in Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us, ed. John Armstrong (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 125.
[3] Frederick Holwick, “The Feast of the Assumption,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2 (New York: Robert Appleton, 1907). https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm.
[4] James R. White, Mary–Another Redeemer? (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998), 29
[5] Ibid., 30.
[6] Max Thurian; in Paul F. Palmer, S.J., “Mary in Protestant Theology and Worship,” in Theological Studies, vol. 15, Issue 4 (1954): 519.
[7] Palmer, 524–25.
[8] Ibid., 537.
[9] Johnson, 125.
[10] Ibid., 126.
[11] G. C. Berkouwer; in Johnson,“Mary, the Saints, and Sacerdotalism,”126.
[12] Johnson, 124.
[13] Ibid., 122.
[14] Beth Kreitzer, “Luther Regarding the Virgin Mary,” in Lutheran Quarterly, vol. XVII (2003): 249.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid., 254.
[17] Ibid., 129.
[18] Rev. Fr. Francis Li, “The Protestant Reformers on Mary,” Tridentine Liturgy Community, May 9, 2013. http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/mary.htm (accessed November 22, 2020).
[19] Sarah White, “The Virgin Mary,” Modern Reformation, August 19, 2019. https://modernreformation.org/resource-library/web-exclusive-articles/the-mod-the-virgin-mary/ (accessed November 22, 2020).
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
Recent Comments