INTRODUCTION
It is a great honor to share with my esteemed colleagues, friends, brothers and sisters in Christ from the Catholic community in Taiwan. I do not feel deserving of the honor you have given me, much less do I feel qualified to represent the Protestants of Taiwan, or any other place for that matter. I doubt if even many Protestants in Taiwan would agree to let me represent their thinking on such an important subject as this one!

How do I approach this subject as a Protestant? What do other Protestants think of this subject? In reflecting on the topic, I realized that we Protestants have strong feelings on this subject. However, when I tried to locate some books or articles on the subject, I was struck by the fact that there just are not many Protestant aricles written on this topic. I think this fact tells us at least two things about our position.

1.Protestants have always tended to strongly react negatively to any suggestion of a special role for M ary. There is little ground for conversation between many Protestants and Catholic regarding this issue. Protestant reluctance to even discuss the subject is generally due to what they perceive to be the " centrality" of Marian doctrine and devotion within Roman Catholicism and what often appears to be an excess that slips into distortion. Catholic theologian Tambasco rightly observes that Protestants fear such an emphasis on Mary can " pa ve the way for further dogmas on Mary' s co-redemption and mediation, whereby Christ will be displaced as unique mediator of salvation" . (54)

This explains why many Protestants show a great deal of uncertainty about the importance of Mary. While most are aware of an extremely exalted position Catholics have given her, few can explain the background to such a tradition. Those who have researched the subject recognize a fair amount of tradition that supports our fear. Most of us are somewhat aware of the 1950 " Munificentissmus Deus" when Pope Pius XII announced the d octrine of the bodily assumption into heaven. When Pius Xii noted that Mary is " there to reign as Queen at the right hand of her Son" , and place her as a " Mediatrix" to mediate between us and God, Protestants understandably become very, very nervous!

This nervousness is not hard to understand given some past declarations concerning Mary. The previous and vollowing Catholic affirmations all serve to underline our concern. Pope Pius IX once stated that " God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary. " (underlinings mine). Or, consider our response to Pope Pius XII' s words when he wrote in 1953 that " It is the will of God th at we should have nothing which is not passed through the " hands of Mary. " Such theology is frankly quite foreign to the experience and thinking of Protestants.

2. The second basic fact about the Protestant position on Mary is that most of us, unfortunately, simply do not think much about Mary. Once a year she shows up as a shadowy figure on Christmas cards and in Christmas plays. The rest of the year she is a victim of simple neglect. In our attempt to bend over backwards to avoid excesses of veneration, we have all but abandoned Mary.

I say “unfortunately”, because Mary deserves better treatment than most Protestants have given her. I suspect we would have done her better had we not been exposed to so much of what we viewed as excesses within the Catholic tradition.

My own preparation for this paper confirms in part what Catholic Lawrence writes: “The position of the Mother of Jesus in Catholic belief and practice is often misunderstood not only by Protestants but by many Catholics as well” (151). I was on the one hand struck by the variety of Catholic faith. On the other hand, I also came to a new appreciation of the complexity of this question and of the diversity even with your own tradition to differ on many points. This paper has helped me to better understand why Mary has played such an exalted role within your tradition. I would prefer to believe that on both sides of the theological fence, we have much to learn from one another.

I. MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTESTANTS & CATHOLICS

One could approach this subject from a variety of perspectives. Some defend the veneration of Mary because she supplies the Church with an understanding of the feminine virtues of God. Some feminists point out that in male-dominated cultures, Mary is a health corrective to male chauvinism. Sociologically, Mary provides meaning and identity for all women. Many see her as a significant model for today's women.

Theologically, Mary personifies the qualities of the Trinity fundamental to salvation, i.e., mercy, compassion, love, intercession, acceptance. Mary could be called the “human face” of the Godhead. But Protestants rightly fear that in offering such “correctives”, we are in danger of incorporating her into the Godhead in a way that could approach idolatry... no matter how we attempt to defend it theologically.

There are four basic doctrines regarding Mary that cause Protestants to stumble concerning the role of Mary. These four doctrines, and our reason for differing are, briefly:

    A. The Immaculate Conception. Theologians seem to agree that such an idea did not begin to find its way into the church until about the 7th century (Lane: 210). Protestants see no scriptural basis for the sinlessness of Mary. Some suggest that the 1854 “Ineffabilis Deus” pronouncement was a test case put forward for papal authority. It is said that in the 1854 pronouncement, Pius said, “Hail Mary, thou art immaculate,” and in 1870 Mary replied, “Hail Pius, thou are infallible” (Lane 211).

Kantzer points out another difficulty this dogma presents to Protestants. If Mary was not worthy to be the mother of sinless Jesus unless she was free of a sinful nature, then cannot the same be said about her mother, grandmother, and so on? (20). At what point do we draw a line on such logic?

    B. Perpetual virginity. Here we also have a fundamental difference since most Prostestants take Scripture at its face value. Mattew 1:24-25 says that “Joseph knew her not until she had borne a son.” Protestants mainly believe that means Mary’s virginity ended after the birth of Jesus. Passages referring to Jesus’ brothers and sisters are also seen as evidence that Jesus did in fact have other members in His family. Again, we face here a fundamental difference in understanding of the role and authority of the Word of God versus historical tradition.

The role of Mary in the New Testament and early church fathers was the subject of a major Catholic-Lutheran study. The results were published in 1978 entitled Mary in the New Testament. The study also probes New Testament and early church documents regarding this question of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Their general consensus was that this doctrine grew as a change occurred with the advance of ascetic tendencies. They agreed that early creedal statements are ambiguous on this question (Brown: 273). Catholic theologian Tambasco notes that some see this doctrine as a development that saw celibacy as a way of perfection and marriage as somehow inferior (24). Such a view reflects a poor view of sexuality that associates sexual relations with sin or with original sin.

    C. The Assumption of the Virgin Mary is closely related to her supposed sinlessness and is also a major stumbling block, especially since it became dogma in the Church only in 1950. Again the Catholic Lutheran study found that this doctrine “has left no trace in the literature of the third, much less the second century” (Brown: 266). They also noted that the actual development of this tradition is linked to the expansion of Marian devotion in later centuries.

    D. Perhaps the phrase that has been most difficult for Protestants to accept is that of Mary, the “Mother of God”. Theological problems abound with this doctrine. For example, one could ask how it is possible for a finite woman to be the mother of He who is infinite?

Well known Protestant theologian Jaroslav Pelikan points out that although the term “theotokos” was in wide use by the 4th century, such terms originally had to do with the church’s conflict with Gnosticism and served as proof for the reality of the humanity of Jesus. It was originally intended as a Christological statement. The term gained in importance in the church’s conflict with Nestorius and his theology of the indwelling Logos.

Mary was first officially recognized as “Theotokos” at the Nicea Council in Ephesus. Some Catholic feminists and theologians point out that Ephesus was also the city of Artemis, the other goddess of the Ephesians. Thus, some believe that Mary came to replace Artemis in the popular piety of these Christians (Tambasco: 79-80). Interestingly, Chilson in his contemporary book Catholic Christianity, makes only a passing reference to this important dogma. He rather notes it was a term used to protect the person of Jesus from being split into two persons, and thus “Mary is declared to be the full mother of Jesus..” (225). Only once does he use the term “Mother of God”. “Such a title”, notes Chilson, “originally referred more to Jesus than to Mary. Only as the cult of the Virgin developed did it become a focus for further reflection upon the figure of Mary” (ibid).

Rightly understood, the term is not without value. Both Luther and Calvin defended its usage. Luther incorporated it into the two Confessional Statements. In one sense, the term is faithful to the Scripture in that it affirms the full deity of His who was born of Mary. Yet, such a concept is full of potential abuse. “Mother of God”, a title intended to stress Christ’s full humanity, came to be taken quite literally. It does no good to argue that theologians understand the fine distinctions. Popular piety pays no such attention to theological details. For many, Mary simply became a female goddess, Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix. Just as female images seem to capture public fancy more than male ones, so also the masses exalted Mary as the Queen of Heaven and Dispenser of all Graces. She became the one before whom “every knee should bow, every tongue confess.” Protestants have strongly believed that such titles not only dishonor the Savior, they also violate the humble Mary herself.

II. MARY AS A MICROCOSM OF PROTESTANT-CATHOLIC DIFFERENCES

The Protestant-Catholic differences over the question of Mary could perhaps be viewed as a microcosm of the issues that have separated us since the Reformation. I am encouraged however at the progress both camps have made since Vatican II to close these gaps. What are some these basic issues?

    A. The nature of salvation. Lawrence rightly points out that the crucial issue raised by Martin Luther was the problem of Grace (11). The essential question concerns the very problem of salvation: Who saves me and how? “Salvation by grace through faith” was the central theme of the Reformation. Luther and most later Protestant leaders all strongly emphasized that grace was a gift totally unmerited and yet freely bestowed. Theology from Trent on countered by stressing humanity’s responsibility and requirements for receiving the gift of grace. This led to what Protestants saw as an over emphasis on meriting grace rather than responding to it as a gift. Theologians built on this an extensive theology with Mary functioning as the “treasurer” of these merits. “Such a theology led to a Marian devotion that saw petition for Mary’s intercessory powers as an easy and abundant source of grace” (Tambasco, 6). Lawrence called this a “Green Stamp” mentality – the more spiritual green stamps we earn, the greater the prizes” (121).

“What must we do to be saved?” The question was first asked by the Pentecost audience. Protestants rarely vary from the response of Peter: “Repent – and be baptized” (Acts 2:37-38). Only by the grace of God and through personal faith in Jesus Christ does one find salvation. His grace is totally sufficient for all our needs. This has been the traditional Protestant answer.

For Catholics, Mary appears to move into a role that we believe belongs to Jesus Christ alone. Although Christotypical Mariology maintains that Mary’s subordination to Christ, we still see it running the risk of placing Mary between God and humanity. And for Protestants, any mediation that detracts from Christ’s mediation is unacceptable.

Soteriology is, of course, related to anthropology – our understanding of the nature of man. Protestants generally view human nature as totally corrupted by sin. As a result, the initiative and work of salvation is entirely the work of a merciful and loving God. How man responds to God’s grace is, of course, still a very debatable Protestant issue. But whether Calvinist or Armenian (represented by Wesley), Protestants jealously seek to protect the sovereign initiative and power of God in the act of salvation.

    B. The issue of Authority – Tradition versus the Word. How do we know what we are to believe and do in order to please God? What is the basis of our knowledge and authority? For most Protestants, the final, indeed only authority is the Word of God alone. “Sola Scriptura” was a Reformation theme! “Unless I can be convinced from the Word of God I will not recant” was the famous defense statement of Martin Luther. He still speaks for Protestants today. Ancient church fathers and traditions are held in high regard. We do not disregard the valuable experience and wisdom of 2,000 years of church history. We can learn much from those who went before us. However, the wisdom of the Church can only interpret truths already found with the Word of God. Never can its teachings speak with the same force as the Word itself.

Much of what seems to have grown up surrounding Mary seems to find its deepest roots in the works of popular piety. What we have are two different paths toward determining truth. Here we face a difficult chasm. In arguing for the legitimacy of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Rahner suggests that “a truth of faith can be brought home to the understanding in various ways.. (201). Rahner suggests that by tracing the historical course we can observe the influence of such a doctrins and thereby grasp the fuller revelation of God’s truth.

Protestants believe, with Luther, that Popes, Councils and Traditions can all err. The growth and development of any truth, unless firmly rooted in the Word, can go astray. Tradition rooted in popular piety can easily become mythology devoid of Scriptural foundation. The Old Testament is a clear illustration of how easily God’s people could slip into error and syncretism. Even Protestants must constantly recognize the tendency for spiritual deviation within our own traditions. For Protestants, all traditions must always be checked against the truth of Scripture. There is simply no higher authority.

Thus, the 1978 Catholic-Lutheran study concluded that the New Testament and early church’s records of Mary are few indeed. “She appears only at the frings of more central Christological discussion, and an independent interest in her person and role cannot be documented before the latter part of the 2nd century” (242).

Protestants always fear that which would claim equal authority with the Word. Their fears are confirmed by the dangers noted by some Catholic theologians. Tambasco points out that “Theology after Trent put more and more emphasis on tradition as a separate source of revelation and moved farther and farther from an adequate use of the biblical sources” (95) (underlining mine).

All this relates to our discussion about Mary. Few reputable Catholic scholars today would argue that such doctrines as the immaculate conception of Mary or her bodily assumption are clearly taught in Scripture. The Catholic-Lutheran study pointed out that there is not even an early history or tradition setting forth these doctrines.

In this light, we believe the theme “Sola Scriptura” was a healthy corrective to a Church that had failed to stress the full importance of the centrality of the Word in the formulation of theological truths. What we see as an over emphasis on the role of Mary in salvation is a reminder of the fallibility of the Church and all traditions. For the evangelical Protestant, Jesus Christ alone is Lord and Savior. “There is no other name under heaven whereby we may be saved” (Acts 4:12). We view the growth of Mariology in the church as a reflection of popular piety that has failed to totally understand the core of the gospel – “Justification by grace, through faith.”

Again referring to the Catholic-Lutheran study, they were unable to find a “High Mariology” in the New Testament. And, since Mary is mentioned only once in Acts (1:14), it seems that even Luke was not concerned with exalting her role in the post-Easter community (Brown: 283-84).

III. MARY AS A COMMON MODEL FOR CHRISTIAN CHARACTER AND FAITH

In Mary in the New Testament, the Catholic and Protestant scholars jointly confess however, that neither Catholic nor Protestant tradition and practice have done Mary justice. Here, hopefully, both sides would agree. Catholics have tended to idolize her and Protestants have ignored her. Neither brings glory to Our Lord. Lawrence reminds us that in popular religion, there is always the danger of extremes (160). Perhaps both sides have something of value to share with each other. I believe this is why it is easier to get some Catholic-Protestant theologians to agree than the average lay Christian. Theologians can perhaps hear more clearly what someone else is saying.

That Mary is a model for faith we do not dispute. That she is the mother of our Lord we do not deny. That she is considered the “perfect Christian” would be debatable. That she deserves the title of Mother of the Church, we would object to.

But, there is much we can agree to. Although Protestants find other biblical examples of men and women with unusual faith, we would most surely agree to the following lessons to be learned from Mary:

    A. Mary is one who is uniquely blessed. Protestants cannot forget the inspired words of Mary when she said that “Henceforth all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). We agree with Rahner that in Mary we find a woman whose free response to the announcement of the angel was an act of faith through which she literally received God’s Word into her womb. In this act of faith, she ensured for herself a unique place among all the great men and women of salvation history. Her faith response was an act of salvation history with implications for all humankind.

A beautiful, sensitive article Yes to Shame and Glory by Luci Shaw is a powerful statement that reminds us that the unique blessing of Mary was a blessing that brought with it shame and humiliation. “Being blessed” meant that God favored and trusted her enough to burden her with one of life’s most difficult roles. “She was the mother of a paradox – a son who was God enfleshed in a man’s body, yet considered a failure, and ultimately, a criminal” (22).

Mary is a woman of unsual, beautiful character. She is indeed an example of faith in God. Like her own son, she mirrors He who “did not count the cost”. Her blessedness is not the tranquil state of a saint removed from the pain of life. Rather, the nature of blessedness and the depth of her faith is seen in Luke 1 where she accepts a responsibility filled with shame, dishonor and pain.

    B. Mary is a symbol reminding us of the true humanity of Our Lord. One of the few references to Mary outside the gospels is in Galatians 4:4 where the text merely says that Christ “was born of a woman”. The statement reminds us of the true humanity of our Lord who chose to come to us through very human, earth-bound creatures. To assign to Mary additional virtues is to detract from the humanness of our Lord. Mary serves to remind us of the truth fought for in the Council of Nicea where she was nothing more than a Christological affirmation of the humanity of Christ. To this day we would not disagree with this truth.

    C. Mary is a model of unswerving faith. Historical parallels have been drawn between Sarah, Elizabeth and Mary, but only Mary is a model of one totally in submission to the will stood by her own dear Son, such incidents never drove her away from Him. She was quietly found at the foot of the cross when all Jesus’ disciples had fled. She was there in the Upper Room at Pentecost.

Martin Luther saw three miracles in Christ’s nativity: God became human, a virgin conceived and Mary believed. For Luther, the greatest was the last. Luke saw in Mary an important role model for all of us. She is not a female goddess but a genuine example of faith. She is the model of an ideal disciple. She represents the essence of the evangelical Christian’s response to God – unconditional surrender and trust. In this all Protestants would agree.

FINAL COMMENTS

In summing up new directions for the theology of Mary, Tambasco comments on the new role of the Holy Spirit within the Catholic church. He suggests that a fresh, new undestanding of the Spirit’s work, traditionally neglected for too long in Protestant and Catholic churches alike, would show us the relationship between the work of the Spirit and that originally ascribed to Mary (73-6).

Perhaps with new insight on the work of the Holy Spirit, we shall find a corrective to an over-emphasis on the work of Mary. A fresh theology of the Spirit will reveal that it is the indwelling Spirit and not Mary who makes Christ present. Notes Tambasco, “Contemporary theologians...point out that Mariology developed during that time between Trent and Vatican II in which little...attention was being given to the theology of the Spirit. Roman Catholics tended to assign to Mary roles that could also be assigned to the Spirit..such as, Mary forms Christ in us: Mary is the “Mother of Good Counsel, the Source of grace, the Comforter’.” (ibid). A more developed theology of the Holy Spirit can indeed discover that these are also precisely the roles assigned the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. Herein perhaps we may find a key. The Holy Spirit is already a member of the Godhead, the Holy Trinity. His work requires no apologetic or defense. And even here the Spirit can serve as a model for how to relate to Mary. The Spirit was never to seek His own exaltation. The Spirit always works most effectively when He is least noticed. “He will glorify Me”, said Jesus (John 16:14). The only legitimate work of the Holy Spirit is to point sinners to their Savior.

Mary remains a powerful symbol for the Church today. Mary was uniquely blessed, but in the blessing she carried unique pain and sorrow. Mary did not escape the trials that befall all humanity. She bore more than most. She bowed to God’s purpose for her without complaint. She sought no special position for herself. Quietly, she is found in the Upper Room at Pentecost. Her Son has been crucified and buried. Now He has risen and ascended. He is with them no more. At the end, we find her waiting, with all the other 120, for that final promise from her Son and Savior – the outpouring of the Spirit. After the endless pain came the blessing, the filling with the breath of God at Pentecost, the tongues of fire, the joy of the Spirit’s indwelling.

And then she quietly slipped from view. She would have it no other way. She was the model mother, disciple and saint. I believe she would have been most faithful to her role to affirm as John the Baptist, “I must now decrease and He must increase.” To have sought a position of leadership would have been contrary to the teachings of her own Son. We can do her no greater service than to admire her, model our lives after her, and then turn, as she did to her Son. Mary would never have desired to turn people to anyone other than her Son.

SOURCES USED

Brown, Raymond:       Donfried, Fitzmyer, Rumann, (ed)
1978                            Mary in the New Testament, Philadephia, New York/ Fortress Press; Paulist Press
Chilson, Richard
1987                            Catholic Christianity, New York, Paulist Press
Cunningham, Lawrence
1986                            “Urgency and Security in the Coming Marian Year” in Christian Century, April 12, pg. 334-335
Kantzer, Kenneth S.
1986                       A Most Misunderstood Woman, in Christianity Today, December 12, p. 19-21
Lane, Tony
1984                       Harper's Concise Book of Christian Faith. New York, Harper & Row
Lawrence, Emeric, O. S. B.
1975                       Understanding Our Neighbor’s Faith. Collegeville, Mn.: The Liturgical Press
Pelikan, Jaroslav
1971                       The Christian Tradition, Vol. 1, Univ. of Chicago Press
Rahner, Karl
1961                       Theological Investigations, Baltimore, Helicon Press
Rohrig, Byron
1986                       “Mary as Role Model”, in Christian Century, Nov. 26, pg. 1062-63
Shaw, Luci
1986                       “Yes to Shame and Glory”, in Christianity today, Dec. 12, pg. 22-26
Tambasco, Anthony
1984                       What Are They Saying About Mary?, New York: Paulist Press