by Margaret Rodgers
In the New Testament, Mary the mother of Jesus is a feisty lady of obedience and faith. She is not the meek, self-effacing soul who has been used to keep women quiet and subservient for centuries by some sections of the Church.
Note the triumphant ring to her words, "My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold henceforth all generations will call me blessed." (Luke 1: 46-48.)
Devotion to the mother of Jesus and the dogmas and practices that have arisen to support such piety have been the cause of division in the Church for centuries, especially between Catholics and Protestants.
As a result Protestants have turned their attention away from the New Testament Mary to avoid charges of incipient Catholicism or Mariolatry.
Some weeks ago a new agreed ecumenical statement on Mary, in preparation for some years by Roman Catholic and Anglican representatives was released.
Ecumenical discussions proceed slowly. The participants, usually theological heavyweights, arrive at a consensus, but they then offer their consensus to the Church/es they represent, for their outcomes have to be owned by the wider church. This is hard to achieve.
These international conversations (ARCIC) between representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion have been in place for decades. Previous discussions on the Eucharist, ministry and authority have resulted in a number of publications.
While church doctrine specialists and ecumenical enthusiasts have noted and talked about these reports, I think it is fair to say that in the pews, they have barely noticed them.
So I'm sceptical about the adoption by grass roots Anglicans of the recently released ARCIC statement "Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ' (also called the Seattle Statement).
Evangelicals, with other Protestants, have ignored the Mary of the Scripture, though we do agree that she is properly called the "theotokos', an ancient term meaning she is the one who gave birth to God in human flesh.
However, I do not think this ARCIC statement with its discussion of the concepts behind the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (that is, she was born sinless); the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (she was a virgin before and after the birth of Jesus); and the Bodily Assumption of Mary (she was taken up into heaven "in the fullness of her person') will persuade any evangelical Anglican that such beliefs are "consonant with Scripture'.
Nor do I think evangelical Anglicans will seek for Mary's prayers on their behalf. There are, of course, many Anglicans in the worldwide Communion who pray to Mary, in spite of the teaching of Article 22 of the 39 Articles.
Fortunately, the statement does affirm the unique mediatorial role of Jesus Christ, the great high priest who intercedes on our behalf with the Father.
ARCIC once again brings before us the question that should be faced squarely in any ecumenical discussion, and let's face it, even discussions within our own Anglican church " that question is "Can we agree about how to read and understand the teaching of Scripture?'.
My point is highlighted by these comments:
At the US release in Seattle of the statement, Archbishop Peter Carnley, Anglican co-chairman of ARCIC is reported to have said "for Anglicans, that old complaint that these dogmas were not provable by Scripture will disappear."
Dr Charles Sherlock from Melbourne, an ARCIC member, explained to the ABC's Religion Report "the document doesn't say the dogmas [e.g. Immaculate Conception] are consonant with Scripture. What we've [ARCIC] done is reformulated what we understand to be the intention of those dogmas, and then our understanding we're saying is consonant with Scripture."
One Christianity Today article, titled "Anglicans "Fudge' on Mary', says that "if the [ARCIC] dialogue had been a baseball game, the Vatican would have won in a shutout.'
What we urgently require is an evangelical scriptural work on Mary. This ARCIC document doesn't appear to be what's needed.
Comment on this article for the next issue of Southern Cross
