Abraham or Abram, was the first person in the Sacred Scripture/Holy Bible to be called a Hebrew. "A survivor came to tell Abram the Hebrew, who was living at the Oak of the Amorite Mamre" - Gen. 14:13 - Thereafter, Abraham descendants through Isaac and Jacob were known as Hebrews. "I was kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews in the first place, and even here I have done nothing to warrant imprisonment." - Gen. 40:15, 43:32, 39:14, 39:17 -

The origin of the term Hebrew is a mystery to scholars, and to many of us, as later use of the words Israelite and Jew add to the confusion. Some believe the word came from a prominent person of the ancient Middle East known as Eber. He was a descendant of Noah the Ark through Shem and an ancestor of Abraham. Eber, literally meaning 'on the other side' may allude to Abraham's departure from Ur, a region east of the Euphrates River.

This possibility harmonizes with the statement made by God to the Hebrew people in Joshua's time. - Joshua 24:3-4 - Of Eber's descendants, Abraham, Nahor and Lot stand out. The genealogical list in Genesis chapter 10 and other passages indicate that Abraham was the ancestor of the Hebrews; Nahor was the ancestor of the Arameans; and Lot was the ancestor of the Moabites and the Ammonites. - Gen, 10:21, 24, 11:14-27 -

There is considerable evidence in the Old Testament that the Hebrews regarded themselves as a composite race. - Deut. 26:5 - In their wandering tribal days and during their early years in Canaan, the Hebrews experienced a mixture of bloods through marriage with surrounding peoples. When Abraham sought a suitable wife for Isaac, he sent to Padan Aram, near Haran, for Rebekah, daughter of the Syrian Bethuel. Jacob found Rachel in the same location. - Gen. 24:10, 25:20, chapter 28 to 29 -

Strains of Egyptian blood also appeared in the family of Joseph through Asenath's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. - Gen. 41:50-52 - Moses had a Midianite wife, Zipporah and an unnamed Ethiopian (Cushite) wife. - Ex. 18:1-7; Num. 12:1 - Although several unanswered questions about the origin of the Hebrews remain, no culture has equaled their contribution to mankind. In a pagan world with many gods, the Hebrews worshiped one supreme, holy God who demanded righteousness in His people. From the Hebrews also sprang Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest, who gave His life to set us free from the curse of sin.

Epistle/Letter to the Hebrews, the 19th book in the New Testament, is a letter/epistle written by an unknown Christian to tell and show how the Lord Jesus Christ had replaced Judaism as God's perfect revelation of Himself. Hebrews begins with a marvelous tribute to the person of Christ Jesus. The greatness of  the incarnate Son of God.

At various times in the past and in various different ways, God spoke to our ancestors through prophets; but in our own time, the last days, he has spoken to us through his Son, the Son that he has appointed to inherit everything and through whom he made everything there is. He is the radiant light of God's glory and the perfect copy of his nature, sustaining the universe by his powerful command; and now that he has destroyed the defilement of sin, he has gone to take his place in heaven at the right hand of divine Majesty. So he is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is higher than their own name. - Heb. 1:1-4 -

Throughout the letter/epistle the author weaves warning with doctrine to encourage his faithful and readers to hold fast to the Lord Jesus Christ as the great High Priest of God. The author makes extensive use of the Old Testament quotations and images to tell and show that the Lord Jesus Christ is the supreme revelation of God. Because of its literary style and the careful way it develops its disagreement or argued that the Letter/Epistle to the Hebrews reads more as an essay than a personal letter/epistle.

The question of who wrote this letter/epistle to the Jewish Christians has, unlike the disputes authorship of the pastoral letters, been a subject of debate from the earliest times. Not that its canonical status was often questioned, but up to the end of 4th century the Western Church denied that apostle Paul had written it, and the Eastern Church only affirmed it with many reservations about its literary composition. (Clement of Alexandria; Origen) Its vocabulary and style have a simplicity and a distinction quite uncharacteristic of apostle Paul; the way in which it quotes and uses the Old Testament.

Other than 1 John, the Letter/Epistle to the Hebrews is the only letter/epistle in the New Testament with no greetings or identification of its author. Although the king James Version entitles the books, 'The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.' This title stems from later manuscripts which came to include it. It is doubtful, that apostle Paul wrote Hebrews. However, there has been no shortage of suggestions concerning who the author may have been. The list includes apostle Luke, apostle Priscilla, apostle Aquila, apostle Clement of Rome, apostle Silvanus, and apostle Philip. Perhaps, the two most likely candidates are apostle Apollo and apostle Barnabas. Apostle Apollo because he was an eloquent Alexandrain Jew who knew Sacred Scriptures well - Acts 18:24 - and apostle Barnabas because he was a Levite. - Acts 4:36 - As with the others, however, this suggestions is only a possibility. The author or writer of the epistle/letter remains anonymous.

The repeated use of the Old Testament quotations and images in Hebrews suggests that the people who received this book had a Jewish background. The repeated warnings against spiritual unbelief and disbelief reveal that the readers and the faithful of this epistle/letter were on the verge of renouncing the Christian faith and returning to their former Jewish ways. Negligence in good deeds and sloppy attendance at worship services were evidence of a cooling, in their faith of the Lord Jesus Christ. In an effort to rekindle them of the commitment to Christ Jesus, the author/writer urges the faithfuls and readers not to retreat from persecution, but hasten to the front lines. He calls for a 'new exodus' and tells them not to 'draw back' but to go forth to Him.

In a spirit similar to apostle Stephen's [first Christian martyr] defense before the Jewish Sanhedrin - Acts chapter 7] Hebrews sets out to show that Christianity is superior to Judaism because of the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, the Great High Priest, and the author of salvation. The Lord Jesus Christ stands as a peak of revelation, superior to angels and Moses. He is the Son of God, the reflection of God's own glory and, indeed, the very character and essence of God. Whatever revelations appeared before the Lord Jesus Christ were but shadows or outlines of what was to appear in Him.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Great High Priest, whereas earthly or worldly priests inherited their office, Jesus Christ was appointed by the direct call of God. The earthly or worldly priests followed the lineage of Aaron, Jesus Christ, who has no successors, is a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchizedek. Whereas earthly or worldly priests ministered within temples made with human hands, Jesus Christ ministers within the true sanctuary - the eternal house of God. Whereas earthly or worldly priests offered animal sacrifices for their sins as well as for those of the people, Jesus Christ offered the one perfect sacrifice which never need be offered again - His sinless self.

As the unique Son of God who made the supreme sacrifice of Himself to God, Jesus Christ is described by the author/writer of the book of Hebrews as the "author of their salvation" and the "great Shepherd of the sheep." The Lord Jesus Christ saves His people from sin and death. In Hebrews salvation is called the "rest" of God " - 4:1 - eternal inheritance" - 9:15 - the "Most Holy Place/Holy Sanctuary" - 9:12 - The three emphases - Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Great High Priest, the Savior of the world - are drawn together in one key passage.

Though He was the Son of God, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered, and having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, called by God as the Great High Priest, according to the order of Melchizedek. In light of Christ's preeminence, the author/writer urges his readers to hold fast to the true confession and endure whatever suffering or reproach is necessary on its behalf.

The author/writer warns that if a person willingly turns away from the Lord Jesus Christ, he and she can no longer be forgiven. The intent of these is to cause Christians to remember the great cost of God's grace and to take their profession of faith reverently and seriously. Two passages in Hebrews often trouble Christians:

As for those people who were once brought into the light, and tasted the gift from heaven, and received a share of the Holy Spirit, and appreciated the good message of God and the powers of the world to come and yet in spite of this have fallen away - it is impossible for them to be renewed a second time. They cannot be repentant if they have willfully crucified the Son of God and openly mocked him. A field that has been well watered by frequent rain, and gives the crops that are wanted by the owners who grew them, is given God's blessing; but one that grows brambles and thistles is abandoned, and practically cursed. It will end by being burnt. - Heb. 6:1-8 -

If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them. There will be left only dreadful prospect of judgment and of the raging fire that is to burn rebels. - Heb. 10:26-27 -

The backbone of this letter/epistle is the finality of the Lord Jesus Christ, for salvation. This wonderful truth is no less urgent for us today than it was for the original readers and faithfuls of Hebrews. The rise of cults, enmities of God, with their deceptive claims of security, is but one example of the many things that appeal for our ultimate loyalty. The Letter/Epistle to the Hebrews reminds us that the "Lord Jesus Christ" is the same yesterday, today, and for ever.

Remember your leaders, who preached the word of God to you, and as you reflect on the outcome of their lives, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same today as he was yesterday and as he will be for ever. Do not let yourselves be led astray by all sorts of strange doctrines; it is better to rely on grace for inner strength than on dietary laws which have done no good to those who kept them. We have our own altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. The bodies of the animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for the atonement of sin are burnt outside the camp, and so Jesus too suffered outside the gate to sanctify the people with his own blood. Let us go to him, then, outside the camp, and share his degradation. For there is no eternal city for us in this life but we look for one in the life to come. Through him, let us offer God an unending sacrifice of praise, a verbal sacrifice that is offered every time we acknowledge his name. Keep doing good works and sharing your resources, for these are sacrifices that please God. - Heb. 13:7-16 -

                                                                        Page 1
Faith . Hope . Love - Welcome donation. Thank You. God bless.

By bank transfer/cheque deposit:
Name: Alex Chan Kok Wah
Bank: Public Bank Berhad account no: 4076577113
Country: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

I have through years of reading, pondering, reflecting and contemplating, the 3 things that last; FAITH . HOPE . LOVE and I would like to made available my sharing from the many thinkers, authors, scholars and theologians whose ideas and thoughts I have borrowed. God be with them always. Amen!

I STILL HAVE MANY THINGS TO SAY TO YOU BUT THEY WOULD BE TOO MUCH FOR YOU NOW. BUT WHEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH COMES, HE WILL LEAD YOU TO THE COMPLETE TRUTH, SINCE HE WILL NOT BE SPEAKING AS FROM HIMSELF, BUT WILL SAY ONLY WHAT HE HAS LEARNT; AND HE WILL TELL YOU OF THE THINGS TO COME.

HE WILL GLORIFY ME, SINCE ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. EVERYTHING THE FATHER HAS IS MINE; THAT IS WHY I SAID: ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. - JOHN 16:12-15 -

From this, and from the Methodist emphasis upon all divinity as 'practical divinity' concerned primarily with the active living of the Christian life of devotion and discipline, flows a common Catholic and Methodist emphasis upon Mary as model disciple, an emphasis which, of course, also coheres with Catholic teaching at and since Vatican II. The final section of the report, entitled 'Mary and Christians Today' ends on this practical note, starting with the assertion that 'Methodists and Catholics confess together the Communion of Saints as a practical fellowship of mutual aid and care' a point also made from the Catholic side in the US Lutheran-Catholic dialogue.

This emphasis, which should especially appeal to Methodists, who are accustomed to thinking of the saints as 'our friends above' as fellow travellers on the way, is a placed on Mary as 'our sister in the Church, a fellow disciple.' It is balanced with an emphasis upon Mary as mother, which has always been central to Catholic piety but which is not incompatible with Methodism, which in the nineteenth century revered many of its own female saints and spiritual leaders as true 'mother of Israel.' (Ibid., paras 35-6)

The report dealt in considerable detail with Catholic belief concerning Mary. (Ibid., paras 23-6 - the Immaculate Conception and 31-4 - the Assumption) Methodists of all generations from the Wesley onward have frequently been apt to dismiss Marian devotion, often very inaccurately understood, as superstitious, even idolatrous, but they have perhaps ignored far more than they have rejected.

In these circumstances, Catholics needed to expound Marian teaching in a way most likely to make sense to and appeal to Methodists. They were also in a position to make a challenge to Methodism: Do Methodists respond positively enough to the Scriptural call for all generations to cal Mary blessed? Has this scripture based Church been blind to scriptural teaching? A prominent Methodist member of the dialogue (Dr. David Butler) has more than once reminded Methodists that Scripture says more about Mary than it does about the Eucharist, yet Methodists have never doubted the importance of the latter.

The Methodist members of the dialogue accepted that there was a case to be answered and that exploration of Marian devotion was part of their ecumenical duty, integral to 'walking together on the pilgrim journey.' (Mary, para. 1) the practical flavor of the dialogue, in contrast to the more purely theological tone of the other dialogues, is seen in the provision of practical questions designed for the faithful to explore together as part of a reception process. Discussion of the Marian dogmas of 1854 and 1950 was not, however, omitted.

Unsurprisingly, the two churches were unable to reach agreement on these. Methodists do not accept them, arguing that they lack any clear basis in Scripture. On the other hand, the Methodists were prepared to concede that they accepted the truths to which they point, that is to say, in the case of the Immaculate Conception, the availability of a special grace for a unique vocation, and in the case of the Assumption, the anticipation of our eschatological destiny in heaven. It is said in the report that Methodists 'safeguard in other ways the faith which they seek to express and symbolise.' (Mary, para. 4) The question of the literal truth of the dogmas was left vague. Paragraph 3 pointed to the quest of the historical Mary as being subject to the same problems as the quest of the historical Jesus and for the distinction between Mary, the historical figure, and Mary, the 'figure' or type, to be maintained. It seems to the present writer that, if such distinctions are indeed valid, then the Marian dogmas need no longer be church-dividing as between Methodists and Catholics.

Similarly, the belief in Mary as 'ever virgin' accepted by none less than Wesley himself, need create no problem if the emphasis is laid upon the purity and single mindedness of Mary in her vocation as opposed to a particular historical interpretation of the controverted critical question of the nature of the 'brothers and sisters' of the Lord. (Ibid., para. 30, Wallwork's pamphlet, 2005)

The practical call of the report is clear. It challenges both churches. Catholics are challenged to present their Marian faith as part of the total understanding of the workings of divine grace and human but divinely evoked and enabled response. The Catholic Church is also challenged to purify its devotional practice so as to remove any fear that devotion to Mary might obscure her truly creature and redeemed status. Catholics are also challenged to ensure that Marian piety does 'justice to a truly Christian image of womanhood.' To Methodism, there is a challenge to develop an authentically Methodist devotion to Mary as elder sister in the faith and model disciple, as pattern of obedience, contemplation, wisdom and faithfulness. The Methodist response will be a true of Methodism's ecumenical credibility and receptiveness. (Mary, paras 2-4)

Shortly after publication of Mary, two significant assessments of it were written by Methodist scholars. The first, by John Newton, was basically very affirmative, recognizing the traditional Methodist neglect of Mary and asserting, in respect of the dogmas of the perpetual virginity, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, that:

I take it to be an ecumenical principle that what is a vital matter of faith to my Christian brother and sister of another Christian tradition cannot be a matter of indifference to me. I must listen, explore, try to understand. (Methodist-Roman Catholic Joint Statement, in McLoughlin and Pinnock 1997:171-80)

Newton felt that the report should have said more about the motherhood of Mary from the standpoint of the influence that she must have had in forming the growing Christ.

The second assessment, by Edward ball, was more critical, evincing a much more robustly Protestant critique of ideas of cooperation and responsible grace. Ball cited Barth's view that Mary's response in her fiat was 'the acceptance of a miracle of grace, not the acceptance of a cooperative role.' (In Epworth Review, Oct. 1997, vol. 24, no, 4; 25-41. Ball, a lecturer in Old Testament at the University of Nottingham, is a Methodist local preacher and is now also a member of the British Roman Catholic-Methodist Committee, though he was not on it at the time that Fr. Evans compiled the report) He argued that the commission had at various points uncritically accepted debatable Catholic interpretations of Scripture, for example, in deriving Mary's spiritual motherhood of believers from Christ's commitment of the beloved disciple to her care. He also felt that they had failed to give full weight to the Markan's 'coolness' towards Mary recorded in Mark 3:5-31.

He felt that an emphasis upon the Assumption as an anticipation of our eschatological destiny had displaced the Ascension as an entirely sufficient pledge in itself. He felt that if Mary was to be commended as a model, she should be seen as one of her weakness and failure as well as in her obedience. Ball undoubtedly expressed reservations that would be shared by some Methodists; equally, some other members of the commission felt that he had failed to do justice to the divergence between the Methodist understanding of responsible grace and the views held within the other Reformed traditions, while Newton felt that confession of the perfect humanity of Christ necessarily implied something about the mother from whom he derived that humanity.

The Groupe des Dombes is bolder in its conclusion that the other dialogues so far considered. In line with its earlier practice, it was concerned  to challenge both Protestants and Catholics to a very specific degree of real convergence. (Marie, paras 289-338) It aimed to set controversies over grace and response in an agreed context. It repudiated the language of co-redemption as used in certain circles in the Catholic Church, noting its intentional abandonment at Vatican II. It recorded its distrust of any language of mediation used of Mary in anyway that was not strictly instrumental and subordinate to Christ as sole mediator. (Ibid., para. 210)

It affirmed that there need be no necessary incompatibility between the traditional Catholic language of cooperation and the term 'grateful response to a perfect gift' as used by the French Reformed theologian Jean Bosc. (Ibid., para. 209) It cited Luther's affirmation of Mary's free works of love and his conclusion, 'after we have been justified by faith, we must do everything for others, freely and gladly.' (Ibid., para. 216)

An attempt to balance the Protestant emphasis on the sovereignty of God and the Catholic emphasis on the nature of 'grace response' can be discerned in the following sentences: 'Passivity before grace, the "letting go" of faith in its presence, is the source of a new activity. Availability translates into obedience.' (Ibid., para. 219)

The challenge to Roman Catholics is to take seriously and act upon legitimate Protestant concerns about the extent to which Marian doctrine and devotion have come dangerously close to losing moorings in the fundamental truths of grace and Christology. Catholics are warned about the danger of invoking the senus fidelium in defence of new cults or proposed dogmas, since the alleged senus fidelium can rest upon 'religious sentiment rather than Christian faith.' Mariology should be seen as an aspect of Christology, not an independent theological discipline. (Ibid., para. 219-4)

The Groupe des Dombes argues that its consensus in Mary's cooperation should suffice for unity in faith, thereby, incidentally, asserting a resolution to the problem left unresolved in the British Catholic - Methodist dialogue. It argues that submission to the dogmas of 1854 and 1950 should not be required of non-Catholics, nor simply because of their definition in separation and without consultation with the other churches, but also because of the repeated requests by popes prior to 1854 that those holding contrary opinions in these matters should not anathematize each other. Protestants should simply be asked to affirm that they 'respect' the content of the dogmas, not judging them as contrary to the faith, but accepting them as 'free and legitimate consequences of the reflection of the Catholic consciousness on the coherence of the faith.'

Reference is made to the recent progress in Christological dialogue between Rome and the Oriental Orthodox churches, in which it has been agreed that these churches need not be bound to the Christological these of Chalcedon from which they dissented in 451. (Ibid., paras 295-9) Finally, stress is placed on Paul VI's teaching that Marian doctrine and devotion should be biblical, liturgical, ecumenically sensitive and anthropological related, the key emphasis being upon Mary as active in faith and love. (Ibid., para. 306)

Protestants are challenged as to whether their silence concerning Mary prejudices their relationship with Christ and does justice to the Reformers and, even more significantly, to Scripture. (Ibid., paras 315-17) They are challenged to acknowledge the symbolic value of the Marian dogmas and to affirm that they are not contrary to the basic doctrine of justification. They should recover the celebration of those Marian feasts that have a clear scriptural basis, such as the Annunciation and the Presentation. (Ibid., paras 326, 331) There is relatively little emphasis upon Mary as model disciple, in contrast to the Catholic-Methodist dialogue, but that is perhaps to be explained by the very different context of French classical Protestantism from that of British Methodism.

The recent Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission II (ARCIC) report, Mary, Grace and Hope in Christ, represents the highest degree of convergence yet achieved between the Roman Catholic Church and any of its Western ecumenical dialogue partners. The report is quite clear in affirming that 'the teaching about Mary in the two definitions of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, understood within the biblical pattern of the economy of hope and grace, can be said to be consonant with the teaching of the Scriptures and the ancient common traditions' and that 'Mary has a continuing ministry which serves the ministry of Christ, our unique mediator.' (ARCIC, an agreed statement, London, 2005, see para. 78)

It will be apparent that the assertion that the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are 'consonant with Scripture' (and can only be understood in a total scriptural context) goes beyond the more tentative statement of the British Catholic-Methodist dialogue that Methodists could accept many of the truths that the dogmas were meant to under grid, while still not being able to accept them as scriptural. The report is also bold in stating that it is 'impossible to be faithful to Scripture without giving due attention to the person of Mary.' It argues that:

Affirming together unambiguously Christ's unique mediation which bears fruit in the life of the Church, we do not consider that the practice of asking Mary and the saints to pray for us in communion dividing... we believe there is no continuing theological reason for ecclesial division on these matters. (Ibid., para. 75)

It accepts, however, that there are still general questions of authority relating to dogmatic definition and reception that need to be settled. It accepts that a recognition by Anglicans of the controverted dogmas as 'revealed by God.' In an important footnote, it points to 'instances in ecumenical agreement in which what one partner has defined as de fide can be expressed by another partner in a different way' citing the examples of accords with the Lutherans and the Assyrian Church of the East. (Ibid: 63, n.13)

The report is set out in three main sections. The first, in the spirit of the original ARCIC commitment to seek consensus through a return to the commonly accepted sources of Scripture and early tradition, represents a common re-reading of the scriptural evidence relating tot he role of Mary. Paragraph 30 sums up the conclusions of the commission on the role of Mary as attested in Scripture.

The scriptural witness summons all believers in every generation to call Mary blessed, this Jewish woman of humble status, this daughter of Israel living in hope of justice for the poor, whom God has graced and chosen to become the virgin mother of his Son, through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. We are to bless her as the 'handmaid of the Lord' who gave her unqualified assent to the fulfillment of God's saving plan, as the mother who pondered all things in her heart, as the refuge seeking asylum in a foreign land, as the mother pierced by the innocent suffering of her own child, and as the woman to whom Jesus entrusted his friends. We are not with her and the apostles as they prayed for the outpouring of the Spirit on the nascent Church, the eschatological family of Christ. And we may even glimpse in her the final destiny of God's people to share in her son's victory over the powers of evil and death. (Rev. 12; ibid., paras 28-9)

The second section looks at Mary within Christians tradition, noting delicately the developing shifts of emphasis within Marian theology and devotion, especially the medieval one from seeing Mary primarily as type of the Church to associating her ever more closely with Christ's work of redemption. 'The centre of attention of believers shifted from Mary as representing the faithful Church, and so also redeemed humanity, to Mary as dispensing Christ's graces to the faithful. (Ibid., para. 42) Attention is then given to the reaction of the Reformers against abuses in the contemporary cult of the saints and to the resultant reactions on both sides of the Reformation divide, with Roman Catholics increasingly seeing Marian devotion as a badge of their Catholicism, while Protestants reacted in a negative direction. (Ibid., paras 44, 47)

Emphasis is laid upon the facts that the Anglican Reformers showed reticence in ascribing any sort of sin to Mary. (Ibid., para. 45) Five feasts of Mary were preserved in the Book of Common Prayer and individual Anglicans preserved a strong devotion to her before as well as after the beginning of the Oxford Movement in 1833. (Ibid., para. 46) Finally, stress is laid upon the reception of Mary's essentially Christological and ecclesiological role in the teaching of Vatican II, and on a 'new prominence' for Mary in Anglican worship 'through the liturgical renewals of the twentieth century.' 'Growing ecumenical exchange has contributed to the process of re-reception in both communion.' (Ibid., paras 45-50)

The last section seeks to locate Mary and her role in the history of salvation within the framework of a 'theology of grace and hope.' It adduces Romans 8:30, where Saint Paul sets out a pattern of grace and hope as paradigmatic of God's intended relationship with the human race. 'Those whom God predestined, he also called; those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.' It sees God anticipating in Mary his work in other faithful Christians.

The sense of God's calling others from the womb, such as prophet Jeremiah, helps to give credence to the commission's statement that 'we can affirm together that Christ's redeeming work reached "back" in Mary to the very depths of her being, and to her earliest beginnings.' (Ibid., para. 59) Likewise, the universal hope within the Church of ultimate glorification helps to sustain the affirmation of the teaching that 'God has taken the Blessed Virgin Mary in the fullness of her person into glory as consonant with Scripture.' (Ibid., para. 58) Nicholas Sagovsky, an Anglican member of ARCIC II, has since testified to the fruitfulness of the Pauline text in assisting the members of the commission towards a fresh understanding of the role of Mary in Christian faith. (Tablet, 21 May 2005:8)

It is too early to say exactly how the report will be received. It is likely to meet with some scepticism from the more Protestant wing of the Church of England. (Anglican) On the BBC's Sunday programme, David Hilborne, an Anglican priest who is also an official of the Evangelical Alliance, ironically stated that a distinction had to be made between the ability to argue that the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were consonant  with Scripture and their being held actually to be 'warranted by Scripture,' thus allowing Evangelicals, Anglicans and the others to accept that they lacked the plain scriptural authority to justify their being enforced as doctrine. Rather less ironically, Rod Thomas of Reform accuses ARCIC of trying to 'shoehorn' the dogmas into Scripture. (Tablet, 21 May 2005: 30)

One suspects that some Protestant biblical scholars nay be unhappy with the interpretation of Mark 3:5-31 and parallels, with the endorsement of the view that the term 'brothers' in relation to Christ is not to be taken literally and with the special pleading that Romans 3:23 with its stark statement that 'all have sinned' is to be taken in a particular contextual meaning rather than a face value. (Mary, Grace and Hope, paras 19-20, para. 59, no. 12) There will be certainly be reservations over the concept of Mary's continuing ministry and over the degree of cautious affirmation of the spiritual value of private revelations. (Ibid., para. 73)

From the Roman Catholic side, Sarah Boss has commented that the report gives little attention to the identification of Mary as a type of the Church which is so strong in the early Fathers. (Tablet, 21 May 2005: 7) She points to the very real difficulties that the report will pose for those Evangelical Anglicans who can accept that Mary was used as an instrument of the divine will, but who are also very unwilling to accept the language of 'cooperation' with God which the report takes for granted. (Ibid)

It is also significant that, though Mary's 'pondering' is recorded, there is no discussion of its significance for the creative development of tradition within the Church. The commission can, of course, reply that the context of Anglican-Roman Catholic relationships has determined the thrust of the report with its emphasis on showing the consonance of Marian doctrine with Scripture, just as, for the Catholic-Methodist dialogue, the context was, in part, the Wesleyan concept of responsible discipleship.

These reservations apart, many Anglicans, Roman Catholics and others will find the report lucid, stimulating and even devotional.

It will be apparent from the above summaries of four key ecumenical dialogue reports that very considerable progress has been made with what was once commonly seen as an intractable issue. It is worth stressing that, even apart from the achievements of the set-piece dialogues, the progress of the dialogue has influenced the way in which Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants theologians have tried to commend their positions in terms that will make sense and appeal to their partners. Particularly notable work in this respect by individual theologians has been done by Bishop Kallistos Ware, in taking an irenic stance vis-a-vis Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception, and by Fr. Ted Yarnold, who has commended the same doctrine to Protestants as a particularly important instance of grace alone. (Stacpoole (ed.) 1982: 169-81, 125-30)

There seems to be a consensus on the following points. First, that Marian doctrine and devotion must be integrated within an understanding of the primacy of the grace and saving mission of the triune God. In calling Mary the Abraham of the new covenant, the Groupe des Dombes locates her clearly within the context of the Pilgrim Church and identifies her as a pilgrim in faith, a theological approach which will resonate with Protestant emphases while retaining the Roman Catholic emphasis upon her pivotal importance. (Sesboue 1990: 384-5) It can certainly be agreed that Mary, like every faithful Christian, stood constantly in need of grace and, indeed, received all the graces needed for her special and unique vocation. Catholics and Methodists could faithfully deepen their Marian dialogue by discussing the question of Mary's reception of grace in the light of Wesley's theologoumenon that those who have attained to perfect love stand even more in need of sustaining grace than those who have not yet attained to this perfection.

Finally, there is the common emphasis upon Mary as model disciple, sister as well as mother, always within the fellowship, never above it or detached from it, Mother of the Church, as Paul VI taught, but as also fellow disciple who travels with us, having gone through her own doubts and periods of darkness, and who teaches through her own profound reflection. If there is one aspect of the scriptural record that might have been thoroughly examined in the dialogues (and not just by ARCIC as specifically recorded above) it is the significance of the sentence recorded twice by Luke, 'and Mary kept all these things in her heart and pondered on them.' - Luke 2:19, 51)

A possible cloud on the ecumenical Marian horizon came with the request, backed by 40 Cardinals and 500 Bishops, that the Pope consider the solemn definition of the dogmas of Maria co-redemptrix and Maria mediatrix of all graces. (Tablet by E.J. Yarnold, R. Greenarce, R. Laurentin and E. Storkey on 17, 24, 31 January and 7 February 1998 respectively) This was virgorously opposed at a Marian congress, at which Anglican and Orthodox observers were present, as likely to create almost insuperable problems. It will be seen that such a definition would certainly go against the spirit of the understanding of Christ as sole mediator and of grace expressed in the dialogues, most particularly that adopted by the Groupe des Dombes.

What the future of such Marian maximalism will be within the Catholic Church is difficult to predict. Even more important is the question of the reception of the dialogues already detailed. It is quite clear that this remains the most urgent question for the next generation: how to communicate the agreed insights within the churches, especially the Roman Catholic, Anglican-Church of England, Lutheran and Methodist churches that have taken the lead.

BY  DAVID  CARTER
                                                                      Page 3
 If you wish to donate. Thank You. God bless.

By bank transfer/cheque deposit:
Name: Alex Chan Kok Wah
Bank: Public Bank Berhad account no: 4076577113
Country: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

I have through years of reading, pondering, reflecting and contemplating, the 3 things that last; FAITH . HOPE . LOVE and I would like to made available my sharing from the many thinkers, authors, scholars and theologians whose ideas and thoughts I have borrowed. God be with them always. Amen!

I STILL HAVE MANY THINGS TO SAY TO YOU BUT THEY WOULD BE TOO MUCH FOR YOU NOW. BUT WHEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH COMES, HE WILL LEAD YOU TO THE COMPLETE TRUTH, SINCE HE WILL NOT BE SPEAKING AS FROM HIMSELF, BUT WILL SAY ONLY WHAT HE HAS LEARNT; AND HE WILL TELL YOU OF THE THINGS TO COME.

HE WILL GLORIFY ME, SINCE ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. EVERYTHING THE FATHER HAS IS MINE; THAT IS WHY I SAID: ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. - JOHN 16:12-15 -

It was only as a result of the Second Vatican Council [ Vatican II ] (1962-1965) that the Roman Catholic Church could enter into, and indeed, impart a new elan to the Ecumenical Movement. For the future of Marian dialogue as such, the key development was the treatment of Mary in the schema on the Church, thus affirming that her role has to be seen within the Church and the rest of the communion of saints. (Lumen Gentium) Within that framework, the emphasis upon her as first and model disciple would prove especially helpful, since Protestants could accept that the emphasis upon her obedience was entirely biblical and could look upon her as an elder sister in faith in a manner that was consistent with Protestant ecclesiology, especially that of the free churches with their emphasis upon church as a mutual fellowship in learning and discipleship. ('Mary, Servant of the Word.' in McLoughlin and Pinnock (eds.) 1997)

There was now a good point from which dialogue could then progress to examine issues more difficult for the Protestant mindset. The new situation was recognized by McAfee Brown, who wrote (cited in ibid: 11)

"Catholic have gone a first mile in trying to re-establish theological rapport on this issue. Protestants have an obligation to go a second mile in opening themselves to an examination of what the New Testament says about the place of Mary in the Christian faith.'

Nevertheless, the feeling in general in the dialogues between Catholics and Reformation and post-Reformation traditions that emerged from the late 1960s was that it was better to start with other issues. One prophetic figure, Martin Gillett, a Catholic layman and former Anglican deacon, disputed this and argued that far from being a cause of disunity, common dialogue concerning Mary might actually help to promote unity. To this end, he formed the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary (ESBVM) in 1967 in England. (see Stacpoole (ed.) 1982)

Gillett was a tireless activist and soon succeeded in convincing some senior Anglican, Roman Catholic and Methodist leaders of the value of such a society. The society grew to a membership of well over 1,000 with branches in Ireland and the USA as well as several in England. It sponsored both local meetings and national and international conferences. The latter, in particular, attracted the services of many theologians and over the years the society has published many pamphlets on Marian and ecumenical matters, as well as four books of essays, mainly representing conference papers. (Stacpoole (ed.) 1982, Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue; 1987, Mary and the Churches; McLoughlin and Pinnock (eds) 1997, Mary is for Everyone; 2002, Mary for Earth and Heaven)

It role in bringing Marian themes to the fore in ecumenical discussion has been widely affirmed. The success of the society has, however, been limited to the extent that most of its members are Roman Catholic and most of the remaining members come from the wings of the Church of England (Anglican) and the Methodist Church most favorable to the Catholics and Sacramental traditions. There are only a few members from the other free churches. Nevertheless, the society has been very open to the expression of Marian opinions decidedly contrary to those of the bulk of the membership and it has given the floor to speakers who express very traditional Protestant reservations, such as William Bridcut, a minister of the Church of Ireland, whose work has already been quoted.

Several individual pioneering theologians (often though not always in connection with the ESBVM or dialogue groups) have made and continue to make important contributions to the development of an irenic ecumenical understanding of Mary.

Outstanding examples are the Taize brother Max Thurian, in his Mother of the Lord, Figure of the Church, the Methodist Neville Ward with his Five for Sorrow, Ten for Joy, a book that first brought the spirituality of the rosary to the attention of considerable numbers of British Methodists, the Methodist Pauline Warner whose essay 'Mary, A two edged sword to pierce your heart' was an attempt to commend to Methodists the concept of the Immaculate Conception in terms of preparation for a unique vocation, and the French Jesuit Bernard Sesboue. (Thurian 1963; Ward 1971; Warner's article, Sesboue 1990) Recently, important work has been produced in America by scholars from the reformation traditions, particularly, but not exclusively, the Lutheran tradition.

Orthodox (including here Oriental Orthodox) Christians do not have the same difficulties with Catholic piety and doctrine as Protestants, though they do have some difficulties with the Marian dogmatic definitions of 1854 and 1950. In general, Marian devotion is central to the Orthodox; indeed, the Mother of God is more frequently mentioned in the official liturgical books of the Orthodox Church than in those of the Catholic Church. The doctrine of her perpetual virginity is affirmed. She is stated to be 'all holy.' (panagia)

Orthodox difficulties with the criticism of the Roman Catholic teaching of 1854 and 1950 stem partly from differing views on the necessity of dogmatic definition and partly from a different understanding of teaching authority in the Church. Many Orthodox state that they accept the truths under girding the two definitions, but they do not believe that it was necessary to define them dogmatically. They argue that faith in the assumption, in Mary's bodily presence in heaven, has always been part of the hope of the Church, but never part of its public preaching, for which reason dogmatic definition was unnecessary. They also argue that solemn dogmas can only be defined by a council of all bishops; even then, they are still subject to reception by all the faithful, who, according to the teaching of the Orthodox, are the final guardians of the faith. Certainly, they do not regard the Roman Catholic Church, on its own, as competent to add to the faith.

Orthodox are also critical on two other points. They do not accept the Augustinian teaching on original sin which under girds the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, even though they have no difficulty in believing that Mary never, at any stage of her life, sinned. They also argue that their dogmatic and devotional development stems directly from contemplation of the union of the two natures in Christ and has never become detached from this to the degree that was true of some Marian maximalism before Vatican II.

The fear of the 'detached' Mary, exalted for her own sake and considered almost independently both of her Son and of the Holy Spirit that over shadowed her both at her Annunciation and again, in union with the apostles, at Pentecost, is a fear in the minds of some Orthodox. Elizabeth Behr-Sigel emphasizes that certain Fathers of the Church were aware of the risk of 'attributing' too great a role to nature and to human will at the expense of divine grace' and that they 'insisted on the human weakness of Mary' while seeing her as the 'spirit bearer, pneumatophoros par excellence.' (Behr-Sigel 1991) Behr-Sigel also expresses reservation over Paul VI's title 'Mother of the Church' on the grounds that this might seem to put our adoption by Mary on the same level as our adoption in Christ by the Father. (Ibid: 204)

A helpful development since Vatican II has been the increasing recognition by many Catholic scholars that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches accept essentially the same faith. Many Catholics now accept that the ancient division over the filioque clause in the creed need no longer divide. Cardinal Ratzinger even delivered himself of the view that, in the case of reunion, the Orthodox would not be expected to accept all the dogmatic formulae developed solely in the West. It thus seems that, at least from the Roman Catholic side, differing ways of expressing an essentially common faith and devotion to Mary need no longer be church dividing. (Christological between the Roman Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East)

So far there have been three official inter-confessional dialogues, all involving the Roman Catholic Church, and one unofficial, but extremely influential dialogue in France, this last having been, to date, the most thorough. A few other dialogues have touched upon Marian themes, including the Orthodox - Old Catholic dialogue and the Catholic-Pentecostal one. (Kilian McDonald: 'Mary in recent ecumenical documents' in Stacpoole (ed.) 1987)

ARCIC I, in section 30 of the Final Report (1981) touched on several themes, all of which have been taken up, to varying degrees, in the other dialogues. The first fuller-scale dialogue was that of the American Lutherans and Roman Catholics. In the mid 1990 came the British Roman Catholic-Methodist dialogue, resulting in the pamphlet Mary, Mother of the Lord, Sign of Grace, Faith and Holiness, written by Michael Evans. (Epworth Press and Catholic Truth Society) At the end of the 1990s representing the culmination of a long series of consultations, came the report of the Groupe des Dombes, an unofficial but extremely influential group of French Roman Catholics and Protestants. (An initiative of the French ecumenical pioneer Abbe Paul Couturier in 1937; consisting of equal teams of French Catholic and Protestant (Lutheran and Reformed) theologians) Finally, delayed because of complications in Anglican-Catholic relationships, came the report of ARCIC II in May 2005.

The ARCIC I statement of 1981 set the tone for much which was to be discussed in greater detail in the later dialogues, as well as pointing to some of the continuing issues. Section 30 contains these statements:

Anglicans and Roman Catholics can agree in much of the truth that these two dogmas (that is, those of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) are designed to affirm. We agree that there can be but one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ and reject any interpretation of the role of Mary that obscures this affirmation. We agree in recognising that Christian understanding of Mary is inseparably linked with the doctrines of Christ and the Church. We agree in recognising the grace and unique vocation of Mary, Mother of God Incarnate, in observing her festivals, and in according her honour in the communion of saints. We agree that she was prepared by divine grace to be the mother of the Redeemer, by whom she herself was redeemed and received into glory. We further agree in recognising in Mary a model of holiness, obedience and faith for all Christians... Nevertheless, the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption raise a special problem for those Anglicans who do not consider that the precise definitions given by these dogmas are sufficiently supported by Scripture.

All the dialogues share certain common emphases. Primary is the stress that Mary's 'co-operation' with God, her fiat, is not an act of independent of divine grace, but rather one made possible by it. As Rev. Fr. Sesboue, the French Jesuit who has long played, a distinguished role in the Groupe des Dombes, puts it, 'her fiat is the purest fruit of grace.' (Sesboue 1990) Sesboue points to the way in which Mary had to walk by faith and not by sight, an emphasis that reassures Protestants that Mary is not being divorced or set totally apart from the experience and struggle of other believers. (Ibid: 383) The dialogues all emphasize the sheer gratuitousness of God's regard for Mary. Sesboue prefers the translation comblee de grace to the traditional pleine de Grace as a more accurate rendering of the Greek kecharitomene, his favoured translation being perhaps best rendered in English as 'overwhelmed with grace.'

Only Christ can be said to be full of grace, but Mary can be said to be overflowing with the gifts of grace. (Ibid: 378) Sesboue resemble the Presbyterian theologian John Oman in his emphasis upon grace as relational. 'In this term are included amiability, kindness, free friendship, pleasure, even good pleasure.' ( Ibid: 379) This last expression resonates with Methodists, accustomed to singing at their Covenant services,

And if thou are well pleased to hear,
Come down and meet us now. (Peterborough, 1983)

From their side, Roman Catholic have been eager to acknowledge that Mary needed redemption as much as any other human being, the difference being in the Catholic teaching that this was effected in a unique way in view of her unique vocation and in anticipation of the merits of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Despite the considerable overlap in their conclusions, each dialogue was differently shaped by its particular context. The first, the American Lutheran-Catholic dialogue, was particularly concerned with its relationship to a prior agreement on justification by faith, that doctrine for Lutherans being the articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae, the touchstone of all other Christian teaching. The Lutherans were anxious to see that Catholic teaching and practice and any possible reception of them among Lutherans did not contradict the basic principles of their previous agreement on justification. (The One Mediator, the Saints and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, VII, 1983-1990)

The dialogue was thus particularly concerned to explore the present and past practice of both churches with regard to Marian devotion and the cult of the saints in general. It started from a common concern to safeguard the uniqueness of Christ and his justifying grace. Both churches were anxious to disabuse themselves of any misconceptions; thus Lutherans came to accept that Catholics practices in regard to the saints are not idolatrous, while Catholics recorded their appreciation of the very real honour in which Luther and many Lutherans held Mary. (Ibid: 375-84, 438-51, 456)

Both churches expounded their convictions in detail, giving weight to contextual factors. The Lutherans explained that their utter trust in the sole sufficiency of the merits of Christ and their beliefs in the literal immediacy of his self-giving to the faithful believer made it difficult for them to see why it should be useful or necessary to place trust also in the saints, including Mary. Luther had objected to the cult of the saints on the grounds that it detracted from trust in Christ alone. They did not deny that the saints in heaven prayed for the Church on earth, but they did not see them as playing any essential role in the salvation of others. (Ibid: 386)

The Roman Catholics responded by emphasizing that, though Christ is the sole autonomous mediator, he nevertheless empowers his faithful saints to cooperate with him. Though Catholics freely accept that God is free to save whom he will and certainly cannot be bound by the prayers of the saints, they nevertheless have confidence in the communion and mutual aid of the saints as something that continues on either side of death. (Ibid: 395)

For Lutherans, by contrast, the key importance of the saints lies in the example of obedience on earth, for which thereafter they are certainly to be honoured and imitated. Mary is in this especially pre-eminent as 'God-bearer and most praiseworthy of the saints.' 'In this sense, Mary is, to Lutherans, a prototype of the Church, obedient to the Spirit, humble in her great calling, and the embodiment of the unmerited grace of God.' Roman Catholics gave Lutherans an assurance that nowhere was invocation of the saints and Mary defined as an obligatory practice. (Ibid: 388-9, 462)

In their study, the Lutherans and Catholics identified 19 'church-uniting convergences' beginning with the basic affirmation that 'our entire hope of justification rests on Christ Jesus... we do not place our ultimate trust in anything other than God's promise and saving work in Christ.' 'Christians honour saints in at least three ways, by thanking God for them; by having faith strengthened as a result of the saints' response to God's grace; and by imitating in various situations, their faith and their virtues.' Christians are neither forbidden nor commanded to ask the departed saints to pray for them. Devotion to Mary and to the other saints should be practiced in ways that do not detract from the ultimate trust to be placed in Christ alone as mediator. (Ibid: 405-7)

In their final reflections, both Catholics and Lutherans accepted that five centuries of separation had led to the development of 'different ways of living out the Gospel.' (Ibid: 451) The Catholics accepted that within 'popular' tradition many Catholics had tended to invoke the saints for temporal favours rather than as exemplars of holiness, a practice that had been deplored more recently by the magisterium. They accepted, possibly with modern feminist as well as Protestant critiques in mind, that Mary had too frequently been portrayed as a submissive rather than responsible woman disciple. Mary needed, rather, to be presented as both responsible disciple and model of the Church. (Ibid: 453) The Lutherans reflected that, through the dialogue, they had come to a deeper appreciation of the doxological dimension of the Church and to a greater appreciation of the legitimate diversity of forms of spirituality; nevertheless, they felt obliged to reiterate the centrality of the doctrine of justification. (Ibid: 457-64)

The British Catholic - Methodists dialogue was far less concerned with the problem of justification. The common Catholic and Methodist emphases on sanctification and responsible grace made for a different style of convergence. Methodists are agreed with the other classical Protestants in emphasizing the utter gratuitousness of grace and in rejecting any concept of salvation by works. (see Wesley 1984, vol.1:129) However, they are closer to Tridentine Catholicism than to the classical teaching of the Reformation on the question of the potential for actual sanctification. (Lindstrom 1946, see Hymn and Psalms, op. cit. no.788) the term 'faith that sweetly works by love' in the hymnody of Charles Wesley is close to the fides caritate formata of Trent. The Wesleyan reconciliation of the Reformation doctrine of justification with a strong doctrine of sanctification receives doxological expression in these two lines of Wesley:

Joyful from my own works to cease,
Glad to fulfil all righteousness. (Hymns and Psalms, no.788)

Methodists theology precludes any idea that the redeemed sinner must inevitably always remain simul iustus et peccator, while accepting realistically that most of us, perhaps the vast majority, do so. On principle, it sets no limits to the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit and encourages all believers to 'press on to full salvation.' Granted that Catholics and Methodists are able to concur in such sentiments, the dialogue was able to make the statement that 'Methodists and Catholics recognize the need for human beings to co-operate in the mystery of salvation' subject to the necessary caveat that it is divine grace alone that enables our free response to God and any resultant growth in holiness. From this, it is possible for Catholics and Methodists to share the position that 'Mary "sum up" in herself, the relationship between God's sovereign grace and our free cooperation as individual believers and as the Church of Christ. (Mary, paras 5, 17)

                                                                         Page 2
If you wish to donate. Thank You. God bless.

By bank transfer/cheque deposit:
Name: Alex Chan Kok Wah
Bank: Public Bank Berhad account no: 4076577113
Country: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

I have through years of reading, pondering, reflecting and contemplating, the 3 things that last; FAITH . HOPE . LOVE and I would like to made available my sharing from the many thinkers, authors, scholars and theologians whose ideas and thoughts I have borrowed. God be with them always. Amen!

I STILL HAVE MANY THINGS TO SAY TO YOU BUT THEY WOULD BE TOO MUCH FOR YOU NOW. BUT WHEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH COMES, HE WILL LEAD YOU TO THE COMPLETE TRUTH, SINCE HE WILL NOT BE SPEAKING AS FROM HIMSELF, BUT WILL SAY ONLY WHAT HE HAS LEARNT; AND HE WILL TELL YOU OF THE THINGS TO COME.

HE WILL GLORIFY ME, SINCE ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. EVERYTHING THE FATHER HAS IS MINE; THAT IS WHY I SAID: ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. - JOHN 16:12-15 -

--   BLESSED VIRGIN MARY IN ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE AND EXCHANGE   --

Both formal dialogue between Christian communions and informal exchange between individual faithful/members of the varying confessions concerning the role of Mary and devotion to her were slow to develop in the early years of the Ecumenical Movement. In part, this was due to the relatively late official entry of the Roman Catholic Church into the movement. It was due to a widespread belief among Protestants and Catholics that it would prove an emotive and almost intractable problem. The American Protestant ecumenical pioneer Robert McAffee Brown believed that no subject, other than perhaps the role of the papacy, would prove so difficult.

The Orthodox churches with their strong Marian piety were involved in the Ecumenical Movement much earlier; nevertheless, an attempt by an Orthodox at the first World Faith and Order Conference at Lausanne in 1927 to raise the question of the role of Mary within the economy of salvation was ruled out of order.

There is no doubt that for the vast majority of Roman Catholics and Protestants in the first half of the twentieth century, the understanding of the role of Mary and the consequent rightness or otherwise of devotion, particularly public devotions, to her was a neuralgic issue. many Protestants, even learned leaders as far back as John Wesley, misunderstood the distinction between the latreia, or worship, due alone to Almighty God and the dulia, or reverence, paid to Mary and, indeed, other saints. [ see Butler 1995 ] They accused Roman Catholics of 'gross superstition' even idolatry, and demonstrations by extreme Protestants at the shrine of Walsingham have been a recurrent feature even in recent years. For both Catholics and Protestants, attitudes to Mary were a touchstone of their negative self-definition against each other.

At a time when Roman Catholics were fond of saying 'numquam satis de Maria' - 'one cannot say too much about Mary' - Protestants tended to ignore her, giving her only (as a recent Methodist writer has out it) a walk-on part in the Sunday school Nativity play. [ see his article 'Mary and Ecumenical Today' in McLoughlin and Pinnock (eds) 2002: 185-208 ]

Such attitudes were in contrast to those of several of the first generation of Protestant Reformers who retained a considerable devotion to the Virgin Mary even while decrying aspects of her cult and that of other saints and, in particularly, questioning the rightness of the concepts of merit and intercession involved in the late medieval pre-Reformation cults. [ see the essay 'Mary and 16th century Protestants' by Diarmid MacCulloch, in Swanson (ed.) 2004: 191-217 ] protestants antagonism to any veneration of Mary combined with an almost total ignoring even to Scripture's statements about her grew from the second generation of the Reformers onward. The advent of 'Liberal Protestantism' in the 19th century did not make for a markedly more irenic approach, since many liberal Protestants regarded the whole cult of the saints as a relic of medieval superstition not worthy of the rational and simplified form of faith in the fatherhood of God and brotherhood of humanity for which they stood.

Isolated exceptions to the general ignoring of Mary within their own tradition and antagonism to her role within the Roman Catholic one can be found among later Protestants. The famous Congregationalist pastor John Angell James wrote a glowing testimony to the courage and dignity of Mary at the foot of the cross, calling her a 'wondrous woman.' [ see his sermon 'Woman's Mission' (1852) reproduced in Wolffe (ed.) 1996 ] A key feature of the last decades of the previous century and first decade of this has been an increasing degree of interest taken by a minority of Protestant theologians and spiritual writers in Mary; how far their work, some of which will be described later, will be more generally 'received' within their churches remains to be seen. [ Gaventa and Rigby (eds) 2002; and Braaten and Jenson (eds) 2004 ]

Differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants concerning Mary are related to a whole range of theological factors. The most important ones relate to the authority of Scripture, the legitimacy of varying modes of interpretation of it, interpretation of particular passages within it, the authority of tradition and of the Magisterium or teaching office of the Church, the doctrines of grace and the incarnation.

Protestants, including Anglicans according to the authority of Article 6 of the Church Of England, believed in the perspicuity of Scripture, that is to say its clarity on all essential points, and in its sole sufficiency in matters immediately related to salvation. They do not believe that Christians should compelled to accept as binding in conscience and faith any doctrine that cannot be clearly evidenced from Scripture. Traditional and evangelical Protestants thus have no difficulty with the doctrine of the Virgin birth, since it is clearly taught in Scripture, but they do have difficulty with the doctrines of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which many of them would allege on a literal reading is directly contradicted by Scripture, and with those of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Many of them would say the former is contradicted by Paul's teaching that 'all have sinned' - Rom. 3:12, 5:12 - and the latter just cannot be proved since Scripture tells us nothing about Mary's life after her presence in the upper room awaiting Pentecost.

Following their insistence of the perspicuity of Scripture, Protestants are usually suspicious of allegorical interpretations of Scripture and thus contest attempts by Roman Catholics to show a biblical foundation for the disputed doctrines from such interpretations - for example, the assumption from the vision of the 'woman clothed with the sun' in Revelation 12 or the perpetual virginity from such a passage as Ezekiel 44:2.

They also contest the authority of later tradition except where (as, for example, in their opinion, in Trinitarian theology) it can be held to make explicit something already implicit in the whole general tenor of Scripture. Thus, the argument that later tradition clearly came to establish that the brothers and sisters of Jesus referred to in Scripture were either cousins of Jesus or children of Joseph by an earlier marriage carries no compelling weight for Protestant exegetes, even though some of them are prepared to accept that the term 'brothers' could have referred to more distant relatives. - Mark 3:5-31 - Roman Catholics believe that Scripture must be read in the light of the tradition of the Church, whereas Protestants believe that Scripture is judge over all later tradition. There has been some softening and nuancing of this opposition in more recent ecumenical dialogue, but by and large the principles remain as stated.

One can easily demonstrate how differently Catholic and Protestant exegetes have approached individual texts. In the case of the famous episode of the marriage feast at Cana, some Protestants have constructed Christ's addressing of his mother as 'woman' as a form of distancing himself from her, of showing that he was not going to let his ministry be determined by anyone, even his mother. [ see W. Bridcut, 'Our Lord's relation with his mother' in Stacpoole (ed.) 1987:13-107; John 2 ] Catholics by contrast, have seen it as a sign of her intercessory power that Christ responded to her concern and request; they have also seen it as a sign of her wisdom and her ability to point people to him - 'do whatever he tells you.' - John 2:5 -

Likewise, the episode of Christ being sought out, in the middle of his ministry, has been constructed differently. Again, Protestant scholars have regarded his 'Whoever does the will of my Father is my mother, my sister and my brother' as being a sitting light on the part of Christ to all earthly relationships, including that with his mother, whereas, Catholics have argued that Mary was nevertheless commended since she was his mother both physically and through the doing of the Father's will, already proved by her obedience at the incarnation.

Some Protestants have argued that the Church should make relatively little of Mary because Scripture has little, cumulatively, to say about her. However, a prominent Methodist ecumenist, David Butler, has pointed out that Scripture says more about Mary than it does about the Eucharist and that has not prevented Protestants from insisting on the importance of the sacrament. [ D. Butler calculates that 129 verses in the N.T. relate to Mary, but only 29 to the Eucharist ] It can be argued that the biblical texts referring to Mary, though few, occur at particularly significant points of the gospel story; even those Protestants who insist most strongly on the extent to which Mark 3:5-31 and parallels seem to distance Jesus from his earthly family accept that the Luke birth narrative both emphasizes Mary's obedience and attests her statement as to the future memory throughout history of her 'blessedness.'

Perhaps the biggest difference lies in the understanding of grace and the possibility of creature cooperation with grace. Both Catholics and Protestants agree that salvation is the gift of God and that human beings cannot be saved by their own unaided efforts. For the classical Protestantism of the Reformation, both Lutheran and 'Reformed' salvation was the totally unmerited gift of God. the latter Protestant hymn couplet sums up Protestant conviction about the atoning death of Christ: Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to Thy Cross i cling. [ Methodist Hymn Book (1933) 498,v.3 ]

The Protestant motto is soli Deo gloria. All human beings are simply 'unprofitable' servants and there is a reluctance to honor anyone but God. By contrast, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions emphasize that though salvation is entirely dependent upon the divine initiative, it also involves a necessary human response. God respects human freedom and will not save us against our will.

Within this framework of understanding, Mary is seen as the one who, supremely, obeyed God. The contrast between classical Reformed Protestantism and the Catholic tradition is well put in an article by Edward Ball, a Methodist, citing the glosses of Karl Barth and von Balthasar on Mary's fiat. In this context, Barth talks of faith as 'not an act of reciprocity, but the act of renouncing all reciprocity, the act of acknowledging the one Mediator beside whom there is no other.' Ball comments, 'Mary's response then is the acceptance of the miracle of grace, not the acceptance of a cooperative role.' His quotation of von Balthasar shows a diametrically opposed understanding. 'In Christ human nature is given the chance to cooperate and to serve.

It should also be noted that, within Protestant world, the Wesleyan theological tradition also affirms this understanding of responsible grace and, in its doctrine of holiness, stands nearer to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions than to some other Protestant traditions. [ Maddox 1997 ] This point was strongly affirmed in the British Roman Catholic-Methodist dialogue on Mary.

Finally, we should mention that, though Catholics and Protestants both affirm the Christ as the Mediator - 1 Tim. 2:5 - Catholics also stress the work of co-mediators in the transmission of grace, even while stressing that their mediation is subordinate to and dependent upon that of Christ. Protestant theology and spirituality stress the immediate relationship of the soul with God in Christ and there is a tendency to be suspicious of any priesthood or mediator being seen as an essential 'go-between' in the relationship with Christ. this deeply rooted experience of a direct relationship with the Father through Christ explains the fact that while most Protestants will revere and learn from the example of the saints, many find direct invocation of them problematic and, in a very real sense, redundant in terms of their own spirituality.

                                                                     Page 1
If you wish to donate. Thank You. God bless.

By bank transfer/cheque deposit:
Name: Alex Chan Kok Wah
Bank: Public Bank Berhad account no: 4076577113
Country: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

I have through years of reading, pondering, reflecting and contemplating, the 3 things that last; FAITH . HOPE . LOVE and I would like to made available my sharing from the many thinkers, authors, scholars and theologians whose ideas and thoughts I have borrowed. God be with them always. Amen!

I STILL HAVE MANY THINGS TO SAY TO YOU BUT THEY WOULD BE TOO MUCH FOR YOU NOW. BUT WHEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH COMES, HE WILL LEAD YOU TO THE COMPLETE TRUTH, SINCE HE WILL NOT BE SPEAKING AS FROM HIMSELF, BUT WILL SAY ONLY WHAT HE HAS LEARNT; AND HE WILL TELL YOU OF THE THINGS TO COME.

HE WILL GLORIFY ME, SINCE ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. EVERYTHING THE FATHER HAS IS MINE; THAT IS WHY I SAID: ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. - JOHN 16:12-15 -