Response
to W. Bradford Littlejohn’s “Honoring Mary as Protestants
A
meeting place for Evangelicals, Reformed & Orthodox Christians
Dear
People,
The following article was written by
Robert Akakaki, a former Protestant who discovered the Orthodox Christian Faith
through an icon of Christ that he saw at an Orthodox Christian Bible Study. He was Hawaiian and fell asleep in the Lord
this past March. His journey to the
Orthodox Christian Church is truly an amazing story. He tells us in his own words: “When l left
Hawaii in 1990 to study at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I went with the
purpose of preparing to become an evangelical seminary professor in a liberal
Church of Christ seminary. The UCC is
one of the most liberal denominations, and I wanted to help the denomination
back to its biblical roots. The last
thing I expected was that I would become an Orthodox Christian. After my first
semester, I flew back to Hawaii for the winter break. While there, I was invited to a Bible study
at Sts. Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church. At the Bible study I kept looking across the
table to the icons that were for sale.
My eyes kept going back to this one particular icon of Christ holding
the Bible in His hand. For the next
several days I could not get that icon out of my mind. I went back and bought the icon. When I
bought it I wasn’t thinking of becoming Orthodox. I bought it because I thought it was cool,
and as a little gesture of rebellion against the heavily Reformed stance at
Gordon-Conwell. However, I also felt a
spiritual power in the icon that made me more aware of Christ’s presence in my
life.”
I wonder how many cradle Orthodox
Christians today ever think of icons containing the spiritual power of the
person that they depict. In a secular
world in which we live today, I sometimes get the feeling that far too many
cradle Orthodox Christians look upon their icons as simply decorative art
rather than windows into heaven. Having
experienced a powerful encounter with the spiritual world through an icon in an
altar that I served for 45 years, I can assure you that icons are spiritual
portals that often transport us into the Kingdom of Heaven.
The author of this commentary
presents some very interesting insights into the theological divide that
separates the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic and the
Protestant Church. I had never read
anything quite like this understanding of the terms Dormition verses
Assumption. The implications of this
understanding of the Falling Asleep (Dormition of the Theotokos) are
far-reaching concerning the very Incarnation of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ. It is a wonderful read and the
late Mr. Arakaki presents some very interesting insights about the Holy Mother
dying a natural death like all human beings.
Edited
by:
+Fr.
Constantine (Charles) J. Simones, Waterford, CT, USA, August 20, 2014,
860-460-9089, cjsimones300@gmail.com
THE
DORMITION OF THE MOTHER OF GOD
“On August 15, 2011, W. Bradford
Littlejohn unloaded an interesting posting: Honoring Mary as Protestants on his
blog: The Sword & the Plowshare.
What is so striking about this blog posting is that it is by a young
Reformed scholar reflecting on his recent worship experience on the Feast of
the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.
The posting is significant because
it is evidence of a growing interest among young Reformed scholars in
rediscovering the historic roots of the Christian Faith. Littlejohn is a protégé of Peter Leithart; he
is currently doing his doctoral studies at the University of Edinburgh.
The subject of the Virgin Mary is a
huge stumbling block between Protestants and the historic Christian
Churches. The divide is not just
doctrinal but also emotional. Littlejohn
writes: ‘We Protestants certainly have a problem when it comes to Mary—so
allergic are we to any sign of Marian devotion that we flip out and run the
other way at any sign of it, including thoroughly Orthodox phrases like “Mother
of God” and “Hail Mary, full of grace.”’
West
vs. East
On the same day that Littlejohn
found himself in an Anglo-Catholic parish in Scotland celebrating the Feast of
the Assumption of Mary, I was at a Greek Orthodox parish in Hawaii celebrating
the Dormition (Falling Asleep) of the Theotokos. What Littlejohn experienced that day was
influenced by Roman Catholicism which is quite different from Eastern
Orthodoxy. I plan to discuss
Littlejohn’s blog posting from an Eastern Orthodox standpoint.
The term “Assumption” stems from the
Roman Catholic belief that Mary did not die but was assumed or taken up bodily
into heaven. The Eastern Orthodox term
Dormition stems from the belief that Mary fell asleep, that is, died a natural
death. This points to a major theological divide. Roman Catholicism believes that Mary was
immaculately conceived, meaning that she was completely untouched by Original
Sin even from the moment of her conception.
Orthodoxy believes that Mary was affected by Original Sin and was subject
to mortality like the rest of humanity.
Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the Catholic dogma of Mary’s Immaculate
Conception. The Orthodox Church teaches
that Mary became Immaculate at the moment that she voluntarily accepted the
invitation of the Archangel to become the Mother of Jesus. Orthodox Christians believe that Mary’s body
was miraculously taken up into heaven after her physical death. The belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception
implies a parallel humanity that is ontologically separate from
our fallen humanity. If so, then the
Roman Catholic position contains a disturbing implication that Christ does
not really share the same human nature as ours which raises serious
questions about the meaning of the Incarnation. The Eastern Orthodox
understanding is that while sharing in a human nature that was mortal and
susceptible to corruption, Mary was preserved or protected from sinning by
God’s Grace. For this reason the
Orthodox Church refers to Mary as Panagia (All Holy). How this happens to be is a mystery rooted in
God’s mercy. While quite similar to the
Catholic position, the Orthodox understanding of Mary safeguards the doctrine
of the Incarnation and also Mary’s free will.
Mary had the option to say no to the Archangel Gabriel.
VIRGIN
VS THEOTOKOS
Both terms, Virgin and Theotokos,
are accepted by Eastern Orthodoxy.
However, it becomes clear after listening to the Divine Liturgy that the
Orthodox Church prefers to address Mary as Theotokos (God Bearer). It is significant that whereas in the West
Mary is primarily the Virgin, a being almost totally different from us in her
absolute and celestial purity and freedom from all carnal pollution, in the East
she is always referred to and glorified as Theotokos, the Mother of God, and
virtually all icons depict her with the Christ Child in her arms.
Thus, the different titles ascribed
to Mary in the Anglo-Catholic service attended by Littlejohn and the Greek
Orthodox service I attended is far more than interesting trivia. They point to the quite different approach
Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have taken in the way they view Mary. I hope that in his quest to discover the
ancient roots of the Christian Faith Littlejohn will look into the Eastern
Orthodox Tradition.
THE
ECUMENICAL COUNCILS ON MARY
Littlejohn was mistaken when he said
that the term Theotokos was coined to refute the heresy of Nestorius. Actually, the controversy began when
Nestorius rejected the term Theotokos which was already in use at the
time. What the Third Ecumenical Council
did was to formally endorse the title Theotokos. I appreciate Littlejohn’s openness about his
lack of familiarity with the early Ecumenical Councils, but still I am
disconnected by this gap in historical theology. If someone with his educational background
happened to be confused about the Nestorian controversy, to what extent have
others in the Reformed tradition forgotten the historical roots of their
Christology and belief in the Trinity?
Mary played no small role in the findings of the Ecumenical
Councils. This is because the
Incarnation is key to Christology.
Mary’s role in the economy of salvation is touched upon in three
councils” 1) Nicaea 325, 2) Ephesus, 431, and 3) Chalcedon 451. The First Council promulgated the Nicene
Creed which is recited at every Divine Liturgy in the Eastern Orthodox
Church. The Nicene Creed states: ‘For us
and for our salvation He came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy
Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.’
In this pivotal sentence our
salvation is directly linked to the Incarnation. The Incarnation could not have happened apart
from Mary’s free consent. By this act of
faith and obedience Mary became the New Eve who helped reverse the Fall of Adam
and Eve. At the Third Ecumenical
Council, the Council of Ephesus, the Church affirmed the application of the
title Theotokos to Mary and condemned those who refused to call Mary the
Theotokos. The Chalcedonian formula
explicated the two natures of Christ stating that Christ received His full
humanity from Mary the Theotokos.
Reformed Christians who affirm the Ecumenical Councils need to be aware
of the high view of Mary articulated by the Fathers who attended the
Councils. The Council states: “If anyone
shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all
eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last
days, come down from Heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary,
Mother of God and always Virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.
….begotten of His Father before all ages according to His Godhead, but in these
last days for us men and for our salvation made man of the Holy Spirit and of
the Virgin Mary, strictly and properly the Mother of God according to the
flesh.”
Most Protestants would have no
problem accepting the theological rationale behind giving Mary the title
Theotokos or Mother of God in their intellect but would gag at the thought of
saying that title out loud in a worship service. Despite their claim to have accepted the
Ecumenical Councils most Reformed Christians profess to accept the first Four
Councils—their reluctance to honor Mary as Theotokos or Mother of God raises
the possibility of their being de facto Nestorians.
Lex
Orans, Lex Credens
The ancient principle: lex orans,
lex credens (the rule of prayer is the rule of faith) teaches that the way we
worship shapes what we believe and vice versa.
This means that by observing how a congregation addresses Mary in its
liturgical services tells us much about what they believe about her. Littlejohn recounts how at the end of the
service the congregation rose to face the statue of the Virgin Mary and began
reciting Ave Maria: “Hail May, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are
you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us
sinners, now and at the hour of our death.”
In Orthodox services Mary is honored through the veneration of the icon
showing her holding the Christ Child in her arms. Where Roman Catholics recite the Ave Maria,
Eastern Orthodox Christians sing the hymn “Άξιον εστίν ώς άληθώς... (It is truly right): It is truly right to bless you, the Theotokos,
ever blessed and most pure and Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond
compare more glorious than the Seraphim, incorruptibly you gave birth to God
the Word. We magnify you, the true
Theotokos.”’
A thoughtful Protestant will readily
recognize that both prayers are grounded in Scripture. But even given the biblical basis for these
prayers, many Protestants will struggle to say them out loud in a worship
service. Littlejohn observes: “For to
honor Mary theologically in the way I described might seem like one thing; to
honor her liturgically is quite another.”
Much of the difficulty here rests
with the way Protestants have understood the nature of worship. Kimberly Hahn, wife of Scott Hahn, a former
Presbyterian minister who converted to Roman Catholicism, made an illuminating
observation. “Protestants defined
worship as songs, prayers, and a sermon.
So when Catholics sang songs to Mary, petitioned Mary in prayer and
preached about her, Protestants concluded she was being worshiped. But Catholics defined worship as the
sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus, and Catholics would never have
offered a sacrifice of Mary nor to Mary on the altar.” This astute observation is one that an
Eastern Orthodox Christian could also endorse.
Hahn’s observation underscores how much Protestantism had drifted away
from a Eucharistic-centered understanding of Christian worship to a sermon
focused understanding of worship.
DIAGNOSING
THE PROTESTANT ALLERGIC REACTION
The difficulty Protestants have in honoring
Mary is more than an emotional hang-up.
Underlying the visceral allergic reaction Protestants feel when they
contemplate praying to her there are a number of theological and world view
issues. To put it simply and bluntly:
Protestantism is a modern, secular religion.
It contains assumptions and beliefs that depart from the historic
Christian Faith. What are the
assumptions that prevent Protestants from honoring Mary?
One,
there is this unspoken belief that physical matter is spiritually neutral. Littlejohn writes: “We claim to have a high
doctrine of creation, but many Protestants—at least Reformed Presbyterians,
don’t like creation to play much of a role in worship, purging our Churches of
any kind of imagery. While of course
part of this might be a legitimate avoidance of idolatry, more of it seems to
be part of the same old Puritan fear that to honor God through His creation is
to dishonor him.”
While Protestants reject Gnosticism’s
heretical view that physical matter is evil, they also reject the historic
Christian view that physical matter can become a channel for Divine Grace,
i.e., become a sacrament. They believe
that physical objects can become signs and symbols that stimulate faith in our
hearts and remind us of God’s Grace in Christ.
But they are quite reluctant to believe that a physical object can
acquire a sanctity that sets it apart from ordinary use and is reserved
exclusively for God. They have abandoned
an ontological understanding of holiness for a functional understanding of
holiness. In the Protestant world view
holiness resides in the intended purpose, not in the object itself. This is evident in the way they handle the
leftovers from a communion service like leftovers from an ordinary meal. This is evident in the practice of allowing
the Church sanctuary to be used for secular functions after hours.
The problem with the Protestant
understanding of physical matter as spiritually neutral is that this is
essentially a secular world view.
Missing in the secular world view is the notion of approaching creation
with respect, gratitude, and restraint.
The secular world view opens the door for modern science’s manipulation
of the physical universe to test scientific hypotheses, including thermonuclear
explosions, genetic modifications, and the creation of exotic toxic
chemicals. It also opens the door for
modern capitalism’s exploitation of the natural environment and the creation of
a consumerist culture. This in turn has
spurred the desacrilizing of creation through quasi-religious belief systems
like veganism and Rastafariansim.
This secular approach seems to underlie
modern Protestant disregard for Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary having other children besides Jesus is
the closest thing to a dogma among Protestants. Practically all Protestants today hold this
view, despite the fact that both Luther and Calvin both affirmed Mary’s
perpetual virginity. It goes hand in
hand with Protestantism’s rejection of celibacy and the monastic
lifestyle. Protestantism seems to want
to anchor Mary solely within the present age and overlook her role as an
historical-eschatological figure that links the present age with the age to
come. The secular world view has led to
the rejection of marriage as a sacrament.
This has led to marriage viewed as a civil right, sex as a recreational
activity, and the family as a social unit bounded by social conventions.
Two, the Protestant world view assumes
that those who have died are completely out of the picture. This is not a formal teaching of Protestant
Churches but a widely held and unquestioned assumption. Littlejohn states: “there is not necessarily
any idolatry or heresy in the notion that we could call upon some deceased Saint
and ask him to pray for us, though we Protestants might well doubt whether
there was any way they could hear us.”
The
severance of ties with the afterlife results in a strong this worldly orientation. This is at odds with the biblical world view
which views the faithful here on earth being surrounded by a great cloud of
witnesses (Hebrews 12:1). In Revelation
we are told that the deceased stand before the throne of God in Heaven engaged
in worship day and night (Rev. 7:9-15).
Revelation 6:10 tells how those recently martyred plead with God for
justice. A similar perspective can be
seen in the Transfiguration narrative that appears in all three Synoptic
Gospels in which Moses and Elijah enter into conversation with Jesus. For the Orthodox the dead in Christ are very
much alive in Christ. In contrast, the
Protestant view of the afterlife reduces Mary and the heroic martyrs to
abstract historical figures.
Three,
in reducing Mary to a distant historical figure or a piece of theological
datum, Protestant theology has taken on an abstract and impersonal
quality. This is at odds with the line
in the Apostles Creed which professes faith in the communion of Saints. This line has been understood to mean
Christians enjoying fellowship with the living and the dead. The Orthodox
veneration of Mary is based upon the doctrine of the communion of Saints. It goes beyond thinking of Mary as a distant
historical figure to a real personal presence.
Jim Forest in Praying with Icons recounts a conversation between a Dutch
theology professor and an elderly Russian woman during the Cold War. She began to cross-examine him. “And you also are a believer?” “Yes, in fact
I teach theology at the university.” “And
people in Holland, they go to Church on Sunday?” “Yes, most people go to Church. We have Churches in every town and
village.” “And they believe in the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?” She
crossed herself as she said the words.
“Oh, yes,” Hannes assured her, but the doubt in her face increased—why
had he not crossed himself? Then she looked at the icon and asked, “And do you
love the Mother of God?” Now Hannes was
at a loss and stood for a moment in silence.
Good Calvinist that he was, he could hardly say yes. Then he said, “I have great respect for
her.” “Such a pity,” she replied in a
pained voice, “but I will pray for you.”
Immediately she crossed herself, kissed the icon, and stood before it in
prayer. This anecdote vividly
illustrates the differences in attitude the Reformed and Orthodox Christians
have towards Mary and the communion of Saints.
Four Its independent stance to Mary gives
Protestant spirituality a rugged individualism.
Having abandoned the notion of the communion of Saints, Protestants,
especially Reformed Christians, have become detached from Mary and the Saints
in their prayer life. It has given rise
to the erroneous impression that asking the Saints for their prayers is a form
of necromancy. This ludicrous notion shows
how far they have departed from the historic faith.
The
communion of Saints provides the basis for the corporate approach to
prayer. For the Orthodox Church the
corporate approach to prayer extends beyond the Sunday Liturgy to the daily
Morning and Evening Prayers. In the morning prayers we say: “Having risen from
sleep, we fall before you, O good One, and sing to you, mighty One, the angelic
hymn: Holy, Holy, Holy are, O God. Through the prayers of the Theotokos have
mercy on us.” Here we have the individual Orthodox Christians praying in unison
with Mary. Likewise, praying with Mary
leads us to praying with the other departed Saints in Heaven. We say before sleep: “Intercede for us, Holy
Apostles, and all you Saints, so that we may be saved from danger and
sorrow. We have received you as fervent
defenders before the Savior.”
This
approach to prayer takes us beyond the individual and the local congregation
into the vast corporate worship in Heaven described in Hebrews 12 and
Revelation 5:7. This is the way
Christians understood worship until the Protestant Reformation and especially
the Puritan movement stripped away a rich spiritual heritage.
Protestants’
acute allergic reaction is rooted in the assumption in the Protestant world
view. Having broken with historic
Christian Faith Protestantism has evolved into a modern, secular religion. Protestants who witness the honoring of Mary
in the historic Churches—Anglo-Catholic, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox—find
their theology and their world view challenged on the deepest levels. To overcome this emotional hang-up Reformed
Christians will need to critically scrutinize the foundational premises of
their belief system and their relation to the historic Christian Faith.
Reforming Reformed Worship?
Littlejohn
objects to the language used to honor the Virgin Mary deeming it genuinely
idolatrous language. Yet he also
recognizes that Protestantism has suffered an impoverishment of their faith in
their reaction to the extremes of Roman Catholicism. He writes: “On the other
hand, it certainly seems that Protestants have impoverished their faith by
completely excising from it any real consideration of Mary, and the disregard
this shows for the faith of the early Church does not boost our credibility when
we claim to be recovering that faith.
Finding the appropriate balance is sure to prove a difficult task, but
continuing to neglect that task is not a responsible option.
Much
of the imbalance in the Protestant understanding of Mary can be traced to a
reaction to Roman Catholicism and the Puritans’ desire to carry out the
Reformation further than the original Reformers had intended. It will be impossible to recover this balance
unless there is a historical benchmark for doing theology and ordering worship. I would urge W. Bradford Littlejohn and other
like minded Reformed Christians to do three things: 1. Examine what the early
Church Fathers have to say about Mary, 2. Examine what the Orthodox Church has
to say about Mary in its liturgical prayers, and 3. Reread Scriptures from the
standpoint of the early Church.
Littlejohn
closes his posting suggesting the need to recover a balance to counter the long
standing neglect of Mary in Reformed worship.
I think he is overly optimistic in his belief that this balance can be
brought to Reformed worship. It would be
fair warning to Littlejohn and others that the quest to recover a balanced view
of Mary can lead to some disturbing questions about the basic premises of their
Reformed theology. However, realigning
one’s faith and worship with the historic Christian Faith will bring the
blessings of receiving “the faith that was once for all delivered to the
Saints.”
THE
THEOTOKOS AND THE CHRIST CHILD
ΥΠΕΡΑΓΙΑ ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕ ΣΩΣΟΝ ΗΜΑΣ
HOLY
MARY, MOTHER OF GOD, SAVE US
