In the Book of Alternative Services the liturgy for the Fourth
Sunday in Advent concentrates on the Virgin Mary, as she awaits,
in the spirit of Advent, the birth of her son. The
difference in the way in which Catholics and Protestants view
Mary is sometimes said to be that Protestants are governed
by the witness of scripture, whereas the Roman Catholic Church
(and the Orthodox Church) are open to influences from popular
piety, which are sometimes rooted in pre-Christian religious
practices.
But if
the churches today are not in agreement as to how they evaluate
Mary, it is also because they give different emphases to the
varied elements in the New Testament itself. In the writings
of Paul, for example, Mary is never mentioned, except obliquely,
when the Son of God is said to have been "born of a woman"
(Galatians 4:4).
Turning
to the gospels, we note a striking difference between Mark
and Luke. In Mark Mary appears only once, in the episode of
Jesus’ True Kindred. This passage is introduced as follows:
"Then Jesus went home, and the crowd came together again,
so that they could not even eat. And when his relatives heard
it, they went out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is
beside himself’" (Mark 3:20-21).
A few
verses later, the vague expression "his relatives"
is specified as "Jesus’ mother and brothers"
(v.31). It is hard to avoid the implication that Mark included
Mary in the relatives’ unbelief.
In the
Lucan version of this episode (8:19-21) the verses containing
the unfavorable judgment on Jesus by his relatives are omitted.
This is in keeping with Luke’s representation of Jesus’
mother and brothers as members of the post-resurrection community
in Jerusalem (Acts 1:14), and with the annunciation scene,
where Mary responds to Gabriel’s announcement of the
future greatness of her son with the words: "Behold,
I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to
your word" (Luke 1:37). Even though Luke’s portrayal
of Mary is consistent with a certain incomprehension on her
part (Luke 2:48), Mark’s implication of crass unbelief
is quite impossible in Luke’s gospel.
Clearly
the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions are the prolongation
of a Lucan mariology, whereas Mark’s attitude towards
the mother is Jesus is reflected in the reserved stance of
the Reformed Churches. The Catholic tradition of associating
a woman so closely with God’s saving plan answers a very
deep religious and psychological need. In his Answer to Job
Carl Jung has written that the papal definition of the Assumption
of Mary was the most important religious event since the Reformation.
We may
ask whether either Judaism or Christianity has gone far enough
in acknowledging that all our human archetypes must be found
in God, who is the author of our whole being. It is the mystics
who have been boldest in using feminine as well as masculine
language for God.
If mariology
has developed and flourished despite the relatively small
place that Mary occupies in the New Testament, it is clearly
because it meets a deep human need. We must therefore listen
with equal attentiveness both to the sure religious instinct
that lies behind the development of mariology and to the New
Testament witness, where, if any positive role is assigned
the mother of Jesus, it is that of a servant.
December
23, 2001
