When the Homily is about Immunology

Mother's day

"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
- St. Elizabeth according an uncomfortable amount of honor to her much younger relative whom we call Theotokos.

Mark Driscoll from the hip mega-church "Mars Hill" give us Orthodox (and Roman Catholics) and our "improper emphasis of" Mary a good blogging.

First I'll note that I am surprised how "solo-scriptura" Mr. Driscoll's approach is. I was always under the impression that Mars Hill was in the pomo movement and thus had at least "re-examined" the reformer's foundation upon which later theologians would build a variety of mutually conflicitng biblical views on pretty much everything you can imagine.

There's little point in arguing point by point when you do not agree with the very basic assumption that Mr. Driscoll has with regard to authority:

The key to undoing all of the false teaching surrounding Mary is, of course, to simply look at what Scripture does say about her and add nothing to that.

Of course! Keeping this notion in mind and recollecting back to the controversies surrounding the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and of course the doctrine of the Trinity, this ought to sound familiar (it's the same argument made by those who denied these doctrines). And I will direct you to the words of Jaroslav Pelikan I noted a couple of posts ago:

For those who believe that you don't need tradition because you have the Bible the Christian Tradition has sought to say, 'You are not entitled to the beliefs you cherish about such things as the Holy Trinity without a sense of what you owe to those who worked this out for you.' To circumvent Saint Athanasius on the assumption that if you put me alone in a room with the New Testament, I will come up with the doctrine of the Trinity, is niave.

St. Athanasius, OF COURSE, cleared up our notions of the Holy Trinity over 100 years after St. Irenaios called Mary the "second Eve", which Mr. Driscoll calls the "foundation" of an "unbiblical view of mary." He would do well to recall that what he says of St. Irenaios with regard to Mary, is also said by some of St. Athanasios with regard to the Holy Trinity. And dare we note the issue of the Holy Spirit's divinity (the role of St. Basil) that would not be "hashed out" until the NEXT Ecumenical Council in 381AD?

Mr. Driscoll pays tribute to one of the councils:
In the fifth century, the Council of Ephesus declared Mary the “mother of God,” which further encouraged devotion to Mary.

The implication he makes is that the declaration came first and devotion second. How does he know? This is "Da Vinci Code" logic.

Saint Athanasios did not invent the divinity of Jesus in the early fourth century. Saint Basil did not invent the divinity of the Holy Spirit in the mid-late fourth century. And St. Irenaios did not invent the notion that Mary plays an amazingly important role in our salvation in the second century. These things were a part of what we Orthodox still know to this day as Holy Tradition. The councils were not there to invent doctrine, but to clarify it. "That which is believed everywhere and by everyone" as St. Vincent of Lerins put in in the 5th century. Sometimes they had to invent words to describe what had been handed down ("Paradosis") and this caused a controversy in and of itself, not unlike the argument that Mr. Driscoll made. After all, the word "Consubstantial" describing Jesus' relationship with the Father is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. But it meshed perfectly well with Holy Tradition AND the Holy Scriptures (as they should since they are a part of Holy Tradition.)

There's little point is going through all of Mr. Driscoll's arguments, if for no other reason than that much of it is centered on Roman Catholic beliefs and teachings which differ somewhat than ours. At one point Mr. Driscoll claims to note our understanding that "she [Mary] participated in saving people along with Jesus" without any further argument - he simply assumes that we can all see that this is not true. Really? It is astounding to me how you can say it is NOT true. All of history and the people therein have participated in God's plan of salvation. Whether it be Moses taking the commandments or Isaiah prophesying about the "suffering servant", they all participate. And Mary, our Mother, gave flesh to God. Her DNA was in that body on the cross and in the tomb. Her obedience opened the doors...her willing participation united heaven and earth!

Mr. Driscoll claims his authority: Having been raised as a Catholic, I did pray to Mary as a young boy. Once I met Jesus at the age of nineteen, though, I was convicted that I had sinned against God by praying to anyone but Him.

To which I would simply reply: Having been a sola scriptura believing evangelical, I did believe that devotion to Mary was the source of many a catholic going straight to hell. Once I met Jesus and His Church, though, I was convinced that I had sinned in my judgmentalism and my belief that I could figure it all out on my own by simply reading the Bible.

In the end, our adoration of the Theotokos is no different that that offered by St. Elizabeth who likely would have offended most evangelicals via her greeting of Mary, in which she called her the "Mother of my Lord." (And really, how different is this from "Theotokos" which - I might add - says more about Jesus than Mary?) Keep in mind, St. Elizabeth was Mary's elder...seems like awfully honorifc wording here! Some evangelicals say they feel uncomfortable in Orthodox worship services because of the honor accorded to Mary, maybe they ought to try and insert themselves a bit more into the context of Luke 1.

Mr. Driscoll finishes up with this:
Therefore, the Mary of Scripture greatly differs from the Mary of myth, legend, and folklore. The real Mary is a wonderful example for young women to love God and retain their virginity until marriage as a demonstration of their love for God. The real Mary is a wonderful example for mothers of a godly woman who is best known for the sons she raised, whom God used to change the world, thereby elevating the ministry of Christian motherhood. The real Mary is a wonderful example for all women of what it truly means to trust God in all things, obey God even when His call is difficult, worship God in faith that He is good for His promises, fellowship with God’s people in the church, and love God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Assuming that he means to imply that we Orthodox believers' understanding of Mary is based on "myth, legend, and folklore", I am going to go ahead and say that I fail to see how, based on what he writes here, his "Mary of Scripture greatly differs" from the Theotokos. Mr. Drisoll's Mary is the same Mary we call "blessed" - as the Scripture commands for "all generations", but lacking the fullness of paradosis, Mr. Driscoll is left to simply pour over data points, without looking to the Lab that generated them.