Category Image Views on the Theotokos



Recently, Timothy George published a piece over at "First Things" which discusses the need for Evangelicals to recover a "biblical appreciation" of the Virgin Mary. This is not the first time, as he notes, that he has done so (he is a bit erroneous in stating that he wrote the previous article in 2004, it was actually 2003 ). This article provides a motivation to compare Catholic and Orthodox views on Mary (more so than the Protestant view), but it also provides an interesting opportunity to look at what may be an interesting change in the use of typology, and the Fathers, within Evangelical circles.

It is quite heartening to see an increasing interest within Evangelical circles in a proper view of Mary. Over the past decade or so, there had developed an interest in looking to the Church Fathers, as well, and this has largely been positive. Unfortunately, there has largely been a tendency to use the Fathers the wrong way - reading them through the lens of Scripture - as opposed to reading Scripture through the lens of the Fathers. What I mean by this is that the approach seems to be - interpret the Scripture, then look for passages in the Fathers that agree with this interpretation. Where there is agreement, fine, where there isn't, then ignore that particular Father's teaching (on the point in question). This tendency has led to yet another impasse in conversations between some groups of Protestants and (mostly) Catholics. As always, it is dangerous to generalize about what is a "Protestant" belief, as Protestantism is not monolithic. If the increasing interest in Mariology results in something similar, then there will be limited benefit. However, every step towards Orthodoxy is a good step, so I should be pleased.

Now that I've pointed out what I feel to be errors in the handling of the Church Fathers, I see an intriguing change reflected in this article. Ever since the time of the Reformation, there has been a hesitance to take a typological approach to Scripture similar to what is seen in the Fathers. There is an interesting book on early Anglican Divines that looks at the variety of takes on Patristic Typology. In general, as I recall, it was not looked upon favorably. The tendency was to deal with the "plain" meaning of Scripture and not engage in what was considered a more fanciful interpretive technique that leads, as would be argued, to error. This reflects the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Not in the sense that the doctrine says "read only the Scripture, and read it this way," but rather it is an outgrowth of the doctrine. Follow me, for a moment. If all doctrine is to be derived from Scripture, then this requires that Scripture be perspicuous. This has become a formal doctrine, I believe, in some Protestant circles, and is at least an informal doctrine in most. If Scripture is not perfectly clear, then you are in a situation where you need something else to interpret Scripture. Although many Protestant denominations accept that there are those specifically called to be teachers, there is, even then, a hesitancy to declare Scripture to be unclear. If Scripture is perfectly clear - at least doctrinally - then you would become suspicious of any efforts to see hidden meanings in Scripture, and particularly if these meanings start pointing to matters of doctrine. This is what I suspect drove the move away from looking at Scripture the way the Fathers did.

So, Mr. George seems to be extolling the virtue of returning to the typological evaluation of Scripture, which I heartily applaud. It requires, I think, a desire to be less dependent on personal interpretation of Scripture, but more dependent on the interpretation of the Church. Here, there is a departure from the Roman Catholic view of what it means for the Church to interpret things. With Rome, that is a matter of Papal decree - either supportive of a conciliar finding, or independently. Within Orthodoxy, we view the interpretation of the Church as being that which was passed down from the Apostles, and is reflected in the teaching of the Fathers (including modern day Fathers, such as St. Theophan the Recluse).

So, how does the Roman view of Mary compare to the Orthodox view of Mary? From the outside, to be honest, I don't think much difference would be noticeable. Both hold extremely high views of Mary. Both view her as the Theotokos, or Mother of God(which I'm told is more accurate than Godbearer). The mere act of being the Ark of the New Covenant would require her to be particularly holy. In fact, within Orthodoxy, she is known as the Panagia , or All-Holy. Churches which came out of the Reformation should take note of this, as this high view of Mary, being shared among both Orthodox and Roman Catholics, is clearly very ancient.

So, where is the difference. Well, one could dwell on recent (within the last century) additions to the ancient doctrines about the Theotokos, and pick them apart one by one, but I think there is something that each of these more recent doctrines have in common, that points to something farther back, which is the distinctive difference between Rome and the East. That difference is one of context, which is reflected in the differences in the iconographic traditions of East and West.

Most people who live in the West are familiar with various statues and depictions of Mary within Roman Catholicism. A frequently missing element is the absence of Christ in these depictions. Although not absolute, Orthodox are extremely hesitant to depict Mary without Christ present. This, in turn, is reflected in Orthodox doctrine. The last doctrine formally declared by a council about Mary was that of her being the Theotokos, or God bearer. This declaration was made to deal with the Nestorian heresy, as noted by George. In other words, the doctrine was formally declared in order to deal with a heresy about Christ. At that, this was merely a declaration of what was held before. As with other beliefs, such as that about her sinless life, her time living in the Temple, etc., all reflect traditions which were passed down from the early days of the Church. The one exception to the principle of Christocentric traditions may be that of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin. However, this was never declared by any council, and merely reflected ancient belief. Rome has since modified this doctrine by declaring that Mary never actually died, but was rather assumed into heaven while still alive. All other modern Catholic doctrines about Mary, like their art, seem to have been developed without any necessary connection with Christology. Why was Mary immaculately conceived, why was she Assumed without dying, why is she the Co-Redemptrix? These beliefs do not reflect the ancient view of the Church, and each one largely fails to take into account Christ. None of them reflect an effort on the part of the Church to clarify a belief about Christ.

There is much that the East and the West hold in common about Mary. However, within the last century or so, Rome has started to add things to the deposit of faith about Mary that reflect a longer tendency toward focusing on Mary independently of Christ. This failure to keep things in a Christocentric context opens Rome up to the frequent charges of having elevated Mary up to the level of a deity.

BTW, the icon is a 6th century icon of the Theotokos from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai.


Posted: Saturday - March 17, 2007 at 07:50 PM          

©