Is There Room for Marianism in Protestant Theology?

On December 25, the Christian world will be commemorating the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.  This is the first piece of what is known as the "Christ event," the other two pieces being His death and His resurrection.  In a very strict sense, we cannot separate these one from another.

The incarnation of  Jesus ( God becoming human) has raised a number of issues, and even controversies in the Christian Church.  The controversies have focused on the issues of Jesus's relationship to God, the nature of Jesus, and the role of Mary, Jesus's mother. 

I would like to invite the readers, regardless of what branch of Christianity you are affiliated with, or what particular brand of theology you subscribe to, to think about the role of  Marianism, which is the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mother.  For the purposes of this essay, I will make a distinction between Mariolatry, which is the worship of Mary, on the one hand, and Marianism, which is venerating and holding in  high esteem, the mother of  Jesus.

There are two particular issues which I would like us to focus on this essay. They are as follows:

1.  Our Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers refer to Mary as the "Mother of God," or in more specific terms, the "God-bearer."  This concept of God-bearer is known in the Greek language as the "Theotokos."  Protestant Christianity has always had some problems with this concept because they cannot conceive of God having a mother, who for all effects and purposes would herself be God, because She gave birth to someone that did not always exist.  Furthermore, Protestants remember that in the Scriptures, the prophets denounced the pagan worship of the "Queen of Heaven," and since in Roman Catholic theology, Mary is considered the Queen of Heaven, Protestants believe that this is a continuation of pagan worship incorporated into, and syncretized with the Christian faith.

So the question before us is whether it is or isn't correct to refer to Mary as the "Mother of God?"
The Catholics and Orthodox Christians would say an absolute "yes" to it being correct. The Protestant Christians, on the other hand, would give a resounding "no" to that for the reason already mentioned above, and also, because nowhere in Scripture (according to them), is Mary referred to as the "Mother of God."  The  closest that Protestants will come to that concept is to affirm that Mary was the mother of the human part of Jesus, but not of His divine nature, because that is something that always existed, even prior to the creation of humankind.

But wait a minute.  Can we really resort to the gimmick of referring to Mary as the mother of the human part of Jesus and not the divine part?  This writer thinks that it would be incorrect to resort to this gimmick.  Why do I say that?  I say that for the simple reason that according to Scripture, God was incarnated in human form and we cannot separate the human from the divine.  The Gospel according to John, the letters of John at the end of the New Testament, and Paul's letter to Timothy all speak about God taking on a human body.  The writer of the letter to Hebrews mentioned that in this body Jesus was tempted in every point "as we are."  The writer of John's letters declared that anyone that denied that Jesus had come in the flesh was to be considered accursed and denounced.

The Christian traditions of the first four centuries depict an incarnated God, and never allowed for the separation of the two natures in Jesus.  The Council of Nicea in 325 and the Council of Chalecdon in 451 both affirmed the doctrine of the God-man and declared heretical any one who promoted a teaching that was hereto contrary. 

I, as a Protestant minister and theologian, respectfully submit, then, that it is proper on the basis of both Scripture and tradition to refer to Mary as the "Theotokos" (God-bearer).  I furthermore, respectfully submit that it is a violation of both Scripture and tradition to deny this on the ground that she gave birth only to Jesus's human part.  Mary gave birth to the God-man, who alone is to be worshipped and given honor and glory. Amen!

2.  Can we venerate Mary?  Again, our Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers will give a resounding "yes," while our Protestant  sisters and brothers will say "absolutely not!"  The major problem here is two-fold:

a.  Many Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers get so emotionally caught up in the veneration of Mary that they fall into border-line idolatry.
b.  Many Protestants do not know how to distinguish between venerating and worshiping.  They fail to acknowledge their own inconsistencies. For example, they refer to their pastors and other ministers as "Reverend," forgetting that in a strict sense, reverence belongs only to God.

The problem that we face here is that Catholic and Orthodox Christians come close to deifying Mary, i.e. making her a God.  Protestants, on the other hand, come close to debasing her, overlooking her as the mother of our Lord, when in Scripture, she herself is quoted as saying "All generations shall call me blessed."

In closing, I invite you to help us resolve this conundrum.  How would you as a follower of Jesus resolve and address this complex issue?  Help us please.

Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Small-talk Dialogue: Jesus Returns to Ferguson

Small-talk Dialogue: Jesus Returns to Ferguson: Breaking News: Jesus of Nazareth was summoned back to Ferguson, Missouri in the aftermath of a grand jury's decision not to indict polic...

Jesus Returns to Ferguson

Breaking News: Jesus of Nazareth was summoned back to Ferguson, Missouri in the aftermath of a grand jury's decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson for killing an unarmed African American man, Michael Brown.  Demonstrations and protests have been carried out in different cities of the U.S.A.  There have been reports of burned businesses, and overturned police cars. Emotions, as can be expected, are running high.

Once again we are faced with a situation where a Caucasian police officer is cleared in the shooting and killing of a black person.  It is reminiscent of the Rodney King situation in Los Angeles some years ago.  The police officers who beat the living hell out of King, were cleared and exonerated of any wrong doing, because they "were doing their job."  That is exactly what officer Darren Wilson claims, i.e. "I was doing my job."  In the case of King, it took a Presidential act in order to get the officers who brutalized him back to court to get not only indicted, but also convicted, and sentenced.

The questions for us might be the following:

1.  Will the decision of the grand jury not to indicted Officer Wilson stand or will another Presidential act generate him coming back to court?

2.  Will the African American and Latino community continue to demonstrate and protest until this is done or will they "cool down" after a while?

3.  Will people continue to believe Officer Wilson's narrative about self-defense and Brown's refusal to comply with the orders given to him?

There are no simple answers to these questions.  Like with similar situations, the matter is very complex.  It is said that Michael Brown was no angel, and that just prior to getting killed, he was involved in an act of criminal behavior.  Other narratives have Officer Wilson not being angelic either, and that he had a history of contemptuous relations with the African American community.

But now that Jesus is back in Ferguson, what can we expect him to do?  Will he side with law enforcement or will he side with the community?  Will he refuse to make that dichotomy between law enforcement and community?  Will he console the family of Michael Brown while applauding the decision of the grand jury not to indict Darren Wilson?

While only time will tell as to what Jesus will do relative to these issues, I am convinced of this:

1.  Jesus will condemn the fact the so-called "law enforcement" was not established for the safety and well-being of the African American and other socially oppressed communities.  The well-being and safety of socially oppressed groups is a secondary consideration, subordinate to the protection of the interests of the white power structure in the U.S.A., if a consideration at all. One would have to be either outright naïve or outright dishonest to deny this.

2.  Jesus will continue to exercise pastoral care to the family of Michael Brown as well to other families who have lost loved ones tragically.

3.  Jesus will continue to address issues of the dual-headed monster of individual and institutional racism. 

4.  Jesus will continue to mobilize the community around issues of oppression such as racism, classism, and sexism.

5.  Jesus will continue to promote the fight for justice, not the American way, but in a global manner.

Please feel free to comment on the points in this essay. Your contribution will be enlightening and helpful. 

Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Small-talk Dialogue: Thanksgiving: How Genuine are We?

Small-talk Dialogue: Thanksgiving: How Genuine are We?: Next Thursday we will be celebrating "Thanksgiving Day."  I wonder how many of us know or even care to know about the historical o...

Thanksgiving: How Genuine are We?

Next Thursday we will be celebrating "Thanksgiving Day."  I wonder how many of us know or even care to know about the historical origins of this celebration.  Like with many other cultural, religious, and social holidays, many, if not most of us, tend to do things in a very mechanical and robotic manner, i.e. not even thinking about why we do things.  We take things for granted.  In many cases, we have the attitude of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  In this case, we feel or think that if things have been done a certain way for ages, why bother changing them?  We act and think as if age-long traditions establish the truth of what we do.

In a historical perspective, Thanksgiving Day, dating back to the seventeenth century, was an act of thanking God for the harvest.  In later centuries, and in our times. Thanksgiving has become a secular tradition in which we gather with family and friends to eat and socialize. I would be the last person to say that this tradition should be discontinued.  However, when we put it against the backdrop of history, can we really in all good conscience give thanks for the "blessings" that we have received, knowing full-well that these "blessings" are nothing more than that which we as a nation have usurped from the original inhabitants of this land?  As an Afro-Puerto Rican, I can affirm that my ancestors had absolutely nothing to do with Plymouth Rock.  When I think of how my ancestors were brought here from Africa in animalistic conditions, and how my indigenous ancestors from the Caribbean were treated so inhumanely, can I have the audacity to refer to what was received through their hard work and labor as "blessings?"    Where is God in all of this?

Did God bless the Pilgrims and Puritans by having them take the land away from its original inhabitants?  Did God bless our national ancestors by having them enslave others and colonizing their lands?  These are questions that are disturbing in that most of us don't want to deal with or be reminded of the past.  We feel we had absolutely nothing to do with what happened back then.  I respectfully submit that while we are not doing anything to reverse the course of that historical moment, that we are just as guilty as our national ancestors of maintaining certain groups within and sectors of society in subjugation, and marginalization.  We have continued the "sins of our fathers."  When President Obama makes his decision regarding undocumented migrants tomorrow, and we remember the origins of Thanksgiving, dare we celebrate it with a bold face?  May God have mercy on us as we celebrate in the midst of misery, poverty, and suffering.

Feel free to comment on this essay.  Your comments will enable us to have more serious reflections.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona