Much of the material in the previous two chapters should be helpful in correcting the common Fundamentalist misconceptions about Mary listed in the second chapter. Here we will consider some of the basic issues at stake.

First, there is interpretation. Here the choice is between one historic, consistent, and authoritative interpretation protected by the Holy Spirit and an endless succession of contradictory interpretations. These are the only two options. Since the Fundamentalist rejects the first he has no choice but to choose the second. In other words the Fundamentalist has to say that no interpretation is final or certain. The Fundamentalist might choose to say that every doctrine must be "measured against" Scripture.

 What he is really saying then is that every interpretation of Scripture must be measured against his interpretation of Scripture. But there is no standard against which his own interpretation can be measured since he rejects the possibility of "standards" (Councils, etc.). He cannot say that his interpretation is "measured" against Scripture because then he would simply be saying that his interpretation of Scripture must be measured against his (or someone else's) interpretation - which leaves him where he began. Thus Fundamentalism locks the believer in his own world with all its limitations, prejudices and misconceptions. It cuts him off from the testimony of the Apostolic community which was promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit in coming "to all truth". It is astonishing that not one of the many Fundamentalist books that attack Marian doctrine and other central teachings of historic Christianity has even mentioned the problem of interpretation.

Secondly, there is the question of faith and works which is simply a question of the nature of God and the nature of human beings. If salvation comes from grace alone and faith alone with no response of the believer involved in accepting or rejecting grace and faith, then we are simply puppets or robots. What is more, those who affirm grace and faith alone also say that God predestines the vast majority of humanity to damnation. As John Wesley said, a god who deliberately plans and wills the damnation of most of his creatures is worse than the devil. The doctrine of salvation by faith and grace alone then ultimately presupposes a savage view of God and man. Moreover it destroys the integrity of the moral order by suggesting that there is nothing good about a good choice or action. This is what led Luther to such statements as "Be a sinner, and sin boldly!" Sadly, this doctrine also makes God the author of evil. As noted earlier, it is clear that in their teaching, Jesus and the Apostles Paul and James stress the importance of works under the system of grace in salvation.

Finally, the Fundamentalist doctrine that no creature can be a mediator between God and man is contradicted by the Fundamentalists' own constant experience and by the very teaching of Christ. If he preaches the Word of God then he is mediating the grace of God, even salvation, to his fellow man - "Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." (James 5:20). If the Bible leads a sinner to salvation then the Bible is mediating God's grace. When Jesus tells the apostles to preach his Gospel and to baptize all men He is asking them to be mediators of His grace. Paul says quite unambiguously that "We are God's fellow workers" (1 Corinthians 3:9). Like the issues of interpretation and freedom, the fact of mediation is so obvious that it is hard to believe that Fundamentalists would deny it.

In our reading of any Fundamentalist critique of any Marian doctrine or any doctrine of the historic Faith we must always bring to bear the three questions of interpretation, freedom and mediation. Once we realize the importance of these questions, we realize that the bankruptcy of Fundamentalism and its critiques is inevitable and unmistakable.

In a nutshell the choice between Fundamentalism and the historic Christian Faith is a choice between one authoritative interpretation and none; between a savage view of God and man and the historic Christian vision of God as the infinitely loving Father and man as a free being who can choose to love or hate His Creator; between the unbelievable assertion that we cannot be instruments of God's grace and the obvious fact of experience that we do manifest and mediate God's grace.

With regard to some of the Fundamentalist charges catalogued in the second chapter, the previous chapters have shown that:

(a) the Biblical Mary is, if anything, far more mysterious and majestic a figure than the Mary of Mariology

(b) that Mary is not "slighted" by Christ: she is seen as a key participant in His salvific mission and also as a Mother who has to offer up her Son in sacrifice

(c) the key Marian doctrines are all clearly taught by Scripture as recognized by the earliest Christians

(d) that Marian mediation and intercession highlight our own freedom and remind us of our responsibilities in both accepting the offer of salvation and mediating it to our fellow beings.

(e) the charges of idolatry and diabolic signs and wonders are addressed in this chapter.

In many respects the specific Fundamentalist critiques of Marian doctrine are a disappointment. Even books specifically devoted to the demolition of Marian doctrine are surprisingly shallow in their arguments and scriptural analysis. The primary strategy of almost all of these authors is the following:

1. Quote random proof-texts from Scripture and repeat arbitrary Fundamentalist interpretations of these texts - without any acknowledgment that these interpretations have repeatedly been refuted even by the Protestant Reformers and are based purely on the authority of fallible men who have rejected the historic interpretations of the New Testament Church. Moreover these arbitrary interpretations tend to vary depending on who is making it and when. Although Fundamentalists claim to base their critiques of Marian doctrine on Scripture none of these critiques are directly and explicitly given in Scripture: the Fundamentalists simply interpret certain scriptural passages in ways that advance their case while ignoring both the historic interpretations of these passages as well as other passages that conflict with their interpretation.

2. Point to expressions of popular piety and some of the extravagant Marian praises of certain Catholic authors as proof that the veneration of Mary is actually the worship of Mary (again an interpretation that must be justified on stronger grounds than mere statements of opinion).

3. Recycle periodically the old charge that Marian doctrine and devotion substitute Christ with Mary and give us a doctrine of salvation through works. This charge is not supported by any serious argument but is constantly repeated with anecdotal citations. The ancient theme of the New Adam and the New Eve is entirely unknown to these critics.

4. Allege, again without serious substantiation, that the doctrines of the Divine Maternity, Immaculate Conception, Assumption and Mediation are simply the fruit of "human tradition" or inventions based on pagan ideas. Each such allegation about a particular doctrine is supported by at best a few brief comments.

5. In the case of a number of these authors the text is punctuated with vicious and petty comments that leave the distinct impression of anger and bitterness. Such meanness cannot be edifying even for anti-Marian Fundamentalists.

It is clear from many of the Fundamentalist critiques that the Fundamentalist mind has not really reflected on the implications of the events recorded in Scripture. Fundamentalists have stayed on the surface without peering into the depths upon depths that lie below. To take one instance, none of the Fundamentalist critiques of Mary have even paused for a moment on the significance of the fact that Mary was present at four of the six interventions of the Holy Spirit described in Scripture. She was "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit, Scripture tells us. What are the implications of this stupendous event? What does it mean for a human being to come into such intimate union with the Holy Spirit? Certainly no TV evangelist or polemicist has comprehended the significance. The first Christians and the Fathers, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recognized that this relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit must be considered in any description of her and her role in salvation. That is why Mary was called "Panagia" ("all holy" in Greek), the same name as that given to the Holy Spirit, "Panagion". In the light of this scripturally revealed union of the Spirit and a human person, all the doctrines of Mary appear modest and restrained. Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Divine Maternity, Mediation are all doctrines that reflect the significance of Mary's spousal union with the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will come to us only after His Ascension. In view of Mary's relationship to the Spirit in Scripture, it is reasonable to suppose that the coming of the Holy Spirit will involve His Spouse. Similarly we must consider such other factors as Mary's role as the new Eve, a role depicted in the Gospel of John and Revelation 12. The importance of Marian doctrine is thus self-evident.

Below is a brief response to Fundamentalist critiques of major Marian doctrines. The trilogy contains a detailed analysis of specific Fundamentalist critiques.

Fundamentalist criticisms of the fundamental Christian teaching that Mary is the Mother of God inevitably end up repeating the ancient heresies of Nestorianism, Adoptionism, Arianism and Monophysitism. According to Nestorianism, there are two persons in Jesus Christ, one human and the other divine. According to Adoptionism Jesus was a man by nature and later became God by adoption; because of his exemplary life he was exalted to divine sonship. Arianism essentially holds that Jesus Christ was only a man and not God. Monophysitism, also called Eutychianism, is the view that Jesus Christ had a divine but not a human nature; although He "wore" human flesh He was not truly human. ¹

All four heresies deny the basic Christian affirmation that Jesus Christ was a divine Person Who was fully God and fully man. Many Fundamentalist writers who disdain "theology" and Marian doctrine in equal measure have unwittingly fallen into the swamps of ancient heresy by their rejection of the doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God. In their view, this doctrine is false because it implies that Mary is a goddess and also contradicts Scripture. In a nutshell it must be said that the "Mother of God" doctrine specifically rejects the idea that Mary is divine or semi-divine: all it says is that the Person Jesus Who was her Son was a divine Person. She is the Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity in His humanity and not His divinity. Scripture tells us this and Elizabeth even addresses her as "the Mother of my Lord" ("Lord" = Yahweh in the Old Testament). The pre-eminent Protestant theologian of this century, Karl Barth, stated clearly that "The description of Mary as 'Mother of God' was and is sensible, permissible and necessary as an auxiliary christological proposition." ²

Interestingly some Fundamentalist and Evangelical writers admit that the title Mother of God cannot be avoided - although they try to downplay the significance of the title by claiming that the title is theologically valid but must be avoided or ignored because it leads to excesses of Marian devotion. But the obvious reply to this line of reasoning is that the question of whether devotion is excessive is a matter of arbitrary interpretation. In the first place, Christians honored her as Queen of Heaven before she was defined as Mother of God; Marian mediation was accepted long before the definition as well. Secondly, it is simply incredible to claim that the definition, while authentic, should lead us to focus on the humanity of Jesus rather than to "elevate Mary as Mother of God". This is like saying that the definition simply tells us that Mary provided Jesus with a human body - but that there was no other relationship between Jesus and the one who provided Him with a body. On the contrary, the definition pointed, on the one hand, to the fact that Jesus was a real human being because He had a human mother and, on the other, to the fact that Mary was the Mother of a Person Who was divine. Finally, it is not only legitimate but obligatory for Christians to give Mary a higher degree of honor once they realize that she is Mother of God. Once the Councils defined the divinity of Jesus, Christians received a fresh impetus to worship Him - and it was clearly right that they should respond to the definition by worship and adoration. Similarly, once the Councils defined Mary as the Mother of God, the Christian community received an additional impetus for their pre-existing Marian veneration (which is different from the worship reserved only for God) - and it was clearly right for them to respond with a higher level of devotion. The definition (which even many Fundamentalists admit was legitimate), did not, of course, take place in a vacuum. It reflected the faith and devotion of the Christian faithful and their veneration for Mary that went back to biblical times.

One of the "fundamentals" defended by the Fundamentalists was the Virgin Birth of Christ, an event clearly chronicled in Scripture but largely rejected as mythical by Liberals. Although the Virgin Birth is an article of faith for the Fundamentalists, they reject the Perpetual Virginity of Mary with equal intensity. It is their contention that the references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus in the Gospels imply that Mary had other children.

The entire issue, as usual, is one of interpretation. The Gospels never explicitly state that Mary had other children. It is admitted by almost everybody that the same term "adelphos" is used for both blood brothers and close relatives such as cousins - as shown in several examples in Old and New Testaments. Whether or not the reference to the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" concerns blood brothers or cousins we cannot determine purely from the text although several incidents indicate that it is unlikely Jesus had siblings. For instance, there was no mention of siblings when Jesu was in the Temple at the age of twelve. Again, some of those who are called the brothers of Jesus turn out to have another mother (Mary of Cleophas). And, it is surely important that on the cross Jesus entrusts His mother to John's care. This would be unthinkable in Hebrew culture if He had blood brothers. Since interpretation is the issue here we would do well to look at the interpretation historically accepted by Christians. We find here that for 19 centuries all Christians, including the Reformers, accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary without question. Equally important, the same Council that defined Mary to be the Mother of God also implicitly defined her perpetual virginity. In addition, the Perpetual Virginity was specifically defined by the Third Council of Constantinople. In Eastern Orthodoxy renowned for its allegiance to the ancient doctrines of the Church, the terms "Holy Virgin" and "Ever Virgin" are synonymous with all biblical references to Mary. In Mary's statement "I know not man" many Christian thinkers have traditionally seen a vow of virginity.

Arguments over proof-texts today are simply re-runs of arguments advanced by heretics in the early centuries and rejected by the historic Faith. From a study of the texts in Scripture, the author of a critique of Mariology in Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us admits that "Brothers of our Lord are mentioned (Matthew 13:55), but it cannot be determined that they were sons of Mary. Luther, with Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and others, affirmed the perpetual virginity."³

Although the Fundamentalists have resisted the anti-supernaturalism of the modern age, to some extent, by upholding the Virgin Birth, they have not had the theological resources to hold on to the entire mystery of Mary's virginity taught throughout Christian history. To the extent they have sacrificed this great truth, to that extent they have also blinded themselves to the great mystery of the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit and the coming of Immanuel.

It is well known that Fundamentalists reject the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption on the grounds that these are pagan ideas imported into Christianity so as to elevate Mary to divinity. Unfortunately most of the Fundamentalist arguments are simply misunderstandings of the historic teaching. Nevertheless, once these misunderstandings are clarified, there are still clear disagreements on the doctrine.

Fundamentalists argue that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception implies that Mary has no need of a Savior and is therefore divine and also that the doctrine runs contrary to Scripture. It should be noted that no orthodox presentation of the doctrine suggests that Mary does not need a Savior or that she is divine: on the contrary the doctrine explicitly states that Mary was saved from her sins by her Son's redemptive death but that these graces were applied to her at the moment of her conception. The idea that graces can be applied backward in time is not improbable because God is outside time and Scripture explicitly refers to "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world." Ironically, as noted before, Calvinism teaches just this: that grace is applied backward in time.

We see in the Old Testament that many of the prophets were prepared for their mission beforehand by God and also that some of them were sanctified by God at birth (Jeremiah, John the Baptist). To be immaculately conceived, i.e., free of Original Sin, clearly is not the same as being divine or semi-divine. Both Adam and Eve were immaculately conceived.

Our fundamental basis for the doctrine that Mary was immaculately conceived is Scripture. In our discussions of the Angel Gabriel's proclamation to Mary, "kecharitomene," we pointed out that this description of Mary means "that Mary was entirely transformed by the grace of God" and this "then means that God has preserved her from sin, 'purified' her, and sanctified her". The only explanation for the fact that this "transformation by grace" took place even before the birth of Jesus, as Scripture teaches so clearly, is Mary's immaculate conception through application of the merits of her Son's death. Precise doctrinal formulations of the exact manner in which Mary was conceived and born free of sin were understood only after centuries of reflection just as the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated only over a period of five centuries. Nevertheless, the doctrine that Mary was all-holy and free of all sin was accepted by all Christians for 19 centuries. The Orthodox call her Panagia or "all-holy." Luther had his own version of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Thomas Aquinas accepted Mary's freedom from sin although he did not fully comprehend the way in which she was preserved from Original Sin. The Immaculate Conception fits in with the dignity of Mary in Scripture and with her portrayal as the new Eve in the struggle against the Devil.

The Fundamentalists' critiques of the doctrine are again based on their novel interpretations of certain proof-texts, interpretations which contradict the historic consensus. Remarkably, none of the critiques of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception seems to show any familiarity with the true scriptural basis of this doctrine, the greeting of kecharitomene with which the Angel addresses Mary. Whether this greeting is translated "Rejoice, highly favored" or "Hail, full of grace," its underlying meaning is "transformed by grace." The significance of "transformed by grace" has been mentioned. Other scriptural verses relating to the Immaculate Conception must be understood in the light of this key passage. To develop an earlier theme, we begin by saying that only those Fundamentalists who have not committed the sin of "harmonizing" allegedly contradictory passages in Scripture should pick up the stone of Marian-doctrine-contradicts-Scripture. It is unreasonable to deny particular Christian doctrines by throwing stray proof-texts against them and without viewing Scripture and doctrine as a whole. For instance, the doctrine of the immaculate conception does not deny the teaching of Scripture on the universal effect of Original Sin: "As a child of Adam and Eve, Mary shares our fallen condition de jure. But de facto she was rescued from it at her conception. All was grace, but in her grace was preventive medicine. For us it is therapeutic, healing the actual damage of sin."⁴

It is the Fundamentalists themselves who protest that we must "study Scripture as a whole and harmonize apparently conflicting passages" when their attention is drawn to biblical texts that seem to contradict each other. This is, of course, the right response and if it is applicable in that context it is certainly applicable when studying the relation between Marian doctrine and Scripture.

Most critiques of it claim that the doctrine of the Assumption has no grounding in either Scripture or tradition. But, as we have seen, the Assumption is not a doctrine invented by the Catholic Church with its definition of a dogma in 1950. The Assumption has been accepted without question by Christians of the East and the West from the third century and arguably from the second. We have seen that the key to understanding the historic doctrine of the Assumption is understanding the Christian community's most ancient insight about Mary: the scriptural affirmation that she is the New Eve. It is this affirmation - along with such other scriptural teachings as Mary's fullness of grace, her union with the Holy Spirit and her Divine Maternity - that propelled Christians to all the other Marian doctrines. The doctrine of the Assumption is simply packaged in the idea of the New Eve and the teachings of the eschatological fulfillment. Certainly the Assumption of Mary was common knowledge in Christendom for at least 1600 years before the 20th century and her Assumption was celebrated by the Eastern Orthodox at the time of the first Councils with their great definitions.

From a scriptural standpoint, once the Book of Revelation was accepted as a part of the canon (we have shown it was initially excluded and only accepted in the fourth century), the vision of the Woman Clothed with the Sun was recognized to be the Mary who is now in Heaven - and interceding for her children on earth.

If there was any "lateness" in finding a scriptural basis for the doctrine of the Assumption, the cause was simply the "lateness" in recognizing the Book of Revelation to be a part of the canon (partially as a result, earlier Church Fathers did not have the benefit of the texts in Revelation to explore the Assumption). Loraine Boettner's allegation, "Not one shred of evidence can Roman Catholics find in the Bible about Mary's death, burial, location of her grave, or when or how she ascended to heaven," evades the actual issue. The historic Faith makes no claim that the Bible contains any information on these matters. The Bible, however, tells us the only important truth: Mary is now assumed and intercedes for her "seed" as they are pursued by the Serpent. And it is not just Catholics who believe this but Orthodox and Protestants of almost every denomination.

The most bitter controversies over Marian doctrine concern Mary's mediation and intercession. As with all the other Marian doctrines, most of the objections to Mary's mediation are based on misconceptions. But when the misconceptions are eliminated we are still left with some fundamental disagreements that are theological rather than scriptural. Although all the other Marian doctrines have been held by all Christians up to the last century, the doctrine of Mary's mediation was denied by a certain segment of Christians in the 16th century as a result of the Reformation. The denial was motivated by the fundamental theology of the Reformers rather than by a study of Mary in Scripture. Since the Reformers had no place for human freedom and cooperation, the idea that Mary could have played any role in the scheme of salvation was unthinkable.

As we have seen, this theological presupposition flies in the face of the most obvious passages of Scripture as well as the faith of the earliest Christians. The first Fathers, in their reading of Scripture, starting with Genesis, saw Mary as the new Eve and this insight was the seedbed of all future doctrines. To see Mary as the new Eve is essentially to see her as Coredemptrix. The term "co-redemptrix" is misleading in English: it is derived from the Latin "cum" which simply means "with" and does not suggest any form of equality; to say Mary is coredemptrix is simply to say that she participated in her Son's redemptive mission. (Even in popular usage, we know "co" does not denote equality, e.g., in the terms "co-pilot" and "co-star"). Scripture shows us that Mary's "Yes" set in process the whole Incarnation. Scripture also shows us Mary at Cana requesting the first sign that brought faith to the disciples, Mary given as the Mother of all believers by Jesus on the Cross, Mary as the Woman of Revelation 12 whose seed are all those who follow the teaching of Christ, Mary as the mother of whom Simeon prophesied, "a sword shall pierce your own soul also" (the significance of this last passage cannot be underscored enough because it links Mary's suffering to Christ's Passion). On the basis of all this overwhelming scriptural data the Fathers and all Christians for 16 centuries and the vast majority of Christians to this day recognized Mary's unique role in the redemptive mission of her Son. All of Mary's merits are derived from Christ. But her "yes" and her actions were free actions, free decisions in favor of God made by her as a free being thereby making her the supreme example of a human person cooperating fully with the will of God. She is truly the new Eve prophesied in Genesis.

The Reformers' doctrine of faith without works was the basis on which they reject every doctrine of Mary's participation in the scheme of salvation and her mediation. Sadly this rejection denies the testimony of Scripture and also logically forces Christians to think of human beings as puppets with no freewill and of a god "who is worse than the devil" (to use John Wesley's term) who pre-programs most of the human race for damnation. The only effective way in which this grave error can be corrected is to return to the historic Faith that sees Mary as the new Eve. Anglican John MacQuarrie's notes that "the doctrine of sola gratia [can become] ... a threat to a genuinely personal and biblical view of the human being as made in the image of God and destined for God, a being still capable of responding to God and of serving God in the work of building up the creation." Such views treat "human beings like sheep or cattle or even marionettes, not as the unique beings that they are, spiritual beings made in the image of God and entrusted with a measure of freedom and responsibility." The scriptural teaching on our God-given ability to freely respond to God's grace, with its more hopeful view of the human race, is "personified and enshrined in Mary." "The glimpses of Mary that we have in the gospels," writes Macquarrie, "... symbolize that perfect harmony between the divine will and the human response, so that it is she who gives meaning to the expression Corredemptrix."⁵

Fundamentalists also object to mediation on the grounds that we have only one Mediator who is Jesus. This objection fails to distinguish between the primary Mediatorship of Jesus (which is unique in the same way in which God is uniquely Father) and the participation in this mediation of all servants of God. As mentioned before, the exegete Manuel Miguens has shown that this passage is not talking of exclusivity of mediation but of its universality. It should be translated to read "There is one and the same God [for all], there is also one and the same mediator [for all]." The passage is not intended to rule out other mediators - because its author in other epistles talks about three kinds of mediators. Miguens' conclusion is that Mary mediated God's salvation through her motherly ministry just as "Moses, Gideon, Jeremiah, the prophets in general, and the Servant in the Second Isaiah were 'servants of the Lord' because they truly mediated God's salvation."⁶

All Christians are given the opportunity to mediate God's message of salvation - that's why Fundamentalists have preachers and missionaries and pastors. We bring people to salvation by preaching the Gospel to them: we are therefore mediators of salvation, the salvation that comes only from Jesus. Of all human persons Mary was the greatest mediator of salvation because it was her obedience to God that led to the Incarnation.

We cannot forget either the significance of the great Scriptural revelation of Mary's spousal union with the Holy Spirit. The greatest grace received by all of humanity was the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and this grace came from the Holy Spirit through His Spousal sanctification of the Virgin Mary. In the very act of bearing the Son of God, Mary became the mediatrix of the greatest of all graces. The disciples first received the grace of faith through her petition at Cana and in offering up her Son (as Simeon had said), she became the mediatrix of His redemptive death. In Revelation 12, she is shown as the mother of all believers.

Perhaps the greatest stumbling block to Marian doctrine for Fundamentalists is Marian veneration and devotion which presuppose Mary's intercession. The objections to Marian devotion are based on the same reasons advanced for rejecting Marian mediation. In addition critics claim that Marian devotees "worship" Mary and pray to idols.

The idea of intercession, we have said, is not by any means anti-scriptural. Abraham and Moses interceded for the people of God. The picture of Mary in Scripture is that of an intercessor as well - as seen most clearly in Cana and as mirrored in Genesis 3 and Revelation 12. This is the Woman whose seed are those who follow the teachings of Jesus - and it has never seemed incongruous for her seed to show affection to their God-given Mother. The earliest prayer to Mary dates back to the second and third centuries and asks for her intercession on behalf of her children in this world.

It must be remembered that intercessory prayer to Mary is different in certain respects from our requests to other Christians to pray for us but the fundamental principle is the same and this is what we should focus on. If it is possible for one Christian to achieve something for another by praying for him - and Scripture says that this is possible - then the efficacy of intercessory prayer is evident. Christians who take Christ's promises seriously do not consider death to be an ultimate wall of separation - only sin. Mary's death only meant a passage from this world to the next: if anything, her activity on our behalf in Heaven will be magnified. Even in this world, the power of her intercession was shown clearly in the miracle at Cana. Scripture shows angels playing an active role in the affairs of this world. So the principle of interaction between the supernatural world and the natural one is clearly laid down there. If angels can do what they are seen to do in Scripture, why should we not expect the Mother of God whom even the Angel Gabriel honored help us with our needs efficaciously?

Moreover, Scripture itself shows the saints in Heaven interceding for their fellow Christians. In the Book of Revelation we see that the holy ones of God continue to pray to God and intercede with Him concerning earthly events. "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" (6:9-10).

That the saints in Heaven pray to God is clear in Scripture: "And there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand." Revelation 8:3-4.

The veneration of Mary is qualitatively different from the adoration that we give only to God. Adoration is the worship that is due only to the infinite Creator. Veneration is the honor due to a created person. Veneration of holy people is found in the Old Testament and so it is simply wrong to say that the idea of veneration is unscriptural. In Luke 2 we see Elizabeth exclaiming, "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" and Mary predicting that "all generations shall call me blessed." Veneration of the reflection of God in His creatures magnifies the adoration and worship that we give only to God Who is the fullness of all perfection.

The use of images and statues in drawing our mind to Mary is an ancient practice that has again been a stumbling-block to Fundamentalists. The human mind needs tangible, concrete objects to visualize the invisible realities of faith revealed to us in the Bible. But these objects should not be worshipped or adored and that is why God tells the Israelites in Exodus 20: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." (Exodus 20:3-5). A few chapters down in Exodus 25, God commands them to build statues of angels: "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat ... And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another ... And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims." (Exodus 25:18,20,22). The thrust here is that images and statues are acceptable as symbolic representations but can never be treated as idols, i.e. objects of worship. Again Scripture shows us that the temple in which the Ark of the Covenant was kept was full of statues of angels: "And within the oracle he (Solomon) made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high ... And he set the cherubims within the inner house ... And he overlaid the cherubims with gold. And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without." (1 Kings 6:23, 27-9). "And on the borders that were between the ledges were lions, oxen and cherubims." (1 Kings 7:29). So there is no scriptural prohibition against statues simply used for symbolic purposes - in fact there are scriptural injunctions calling for the construction of such statues.

Christians have used images and statues to remind them of the supernatural realities they accepted on faith. The earliest Christian symbol (sported by many Fundamentalists today) was a fish. The crucifix also came to symbolize the cross of Christ.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicea, in stating the historic Faith, taught that holy images are both legitimate and required for

the Christian:

We ... define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. ... For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented....⁷

Martin Luther's statements on images are relevant here:

"One cannot grasp spiritual things unless images are made of them."⁸

"Nothing else can be drawn from the words: 'Thou shalt have no strange gods before me' except what relates to idolatry. But where pictures or sculptures are made without idolatry, the making of such things is not forbidden."⁹

"If I have a painted picture on the wall and I look upon it without idolatry, that is not forbidden to me and should not be taken away from me."¹⁰

The other major Fundamentalist charge is that devotion to Mary obscures Christ. We must realize that Christianity is not to be seen simply from the standpoint of the psychological intricacies of devotion but as a revelation of what reality is like. It tells us about the Trinity and God's plan of salvation in history, about our ultimate destination in eternity and life on earth as a journey to that destination. Mary's role is seen in relation to the plan of salvation, just as we see the roles of Moses and Abraham, John the Baptist and Paul in relation to the divine plan. Just as the Old Testament Jews saw Moses as a mediator and intercessor the early Christians saw Mary as mediatrix and intercessor. Moses did not obscure Yahweh: he made Yahweh known. Similarly devotion to Mary simply helps us to know Christ better.

Along with the critiques of Marian devotion and intercession, Fundamentalists criticize the claims of appearances or apparitions of Mary. Fundamentalists do not always deny the claims of miracles that are said to take place at Marian shrines such as Lourdes or Fatima. They interpret these miracles as coming from the Devil - or reject them as hallucinations.

Again such standard denunciations prove nothing one way or another. Each claim of a Marian appearance must be assessed on its own merits and the credibility of the witnesses. If the claim looks reasonably sound, if the message is a Christian message and if the fruits are good, the Fundamentalist has no reason to dismiss the appearance as coming from the Devil. Mary is portrayed as the mother of all those who follow Jesus, particularly in John 19 and Revelation 12 and as one who leads people to faith in Christ at Cana. The great Marian appearances in history show Mary as an Evangelist who leads people to her Son, who is the cause of millions of conversions and changed lives. These are the fruits by which claims of Marian appearances should be evaluated.

The appearance of Elijah and Moses with Christ shows us that the appearance of holy ones from ages past is scriptural. The Fundamentalist is free to give any negative interpretation to these claims but he is merely giving an arbitrary judgment. For that matter, Fundamentalists often accuse fellow Fundamentalists of being instruments of the Devil because of differing doctrine. Interpretation as ever is the key. The danger of private interpretation becomes apparent yet again.

Claims of appearances of Mary go back to the New Testament Church. The messages received in these appearances have generally conformed with the Marian doctrine of Church Councils. Fundamentalists reject claims of such appearances because they reject Marian doctrine and not because the claims lacks evidence or merit.

The critiques above do not really add to the critiques of atheists and anti-supernaturalists and these critiques have been adequately addressed by numerous authors (e.g. Rene Laurentin).

The last resort argument for Fundamentalists is the argument from diabolic deception. Marian devotion and Marian appearances are alleged to be Satanically inspired: 2 Corinthians 11:14 is regularly thrown at the Marian devotee: "Satan masquerades as an angel of light": the Mary of popular devotion is simply Lucifer in disguise according to this train of thought. This argument epitomizes a basic fallacy of Fundamentalism: the unbiblical doctrine-destroying dogma of private interpretation. The lack of an authoritative source of interpretation leaves Fundamentalists helpless not only in Scriptural exegesis but also in the application of Scripture in interpreting various events, individuals and phenomena. This latter kind of interpretation is just as limited in authority as Fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture. The only authority behind both kinds of interpretation is the individual making the interpretation: not the Apostolic Community or the Holy Spirit. Multiple private interpretations of Scripture have given us 25,000 denominations. Multiple private interpretations of the application of Scripture to events and individuals have given us thousands of divergent and often outrageous perspectives from Protestant Fundamentalists. The most stunning examples concern the ease with which the epithets "satanic" and "diabolic" are thrown around with no requirements of substantiation or serious evidence.

This habit of diabolic attribution is not reserved just for Marian phenomena: Fundamentalists often throw these epithets at each other - a classic instance being Fundamentalist Bob Jones's comment that Billy Graham "has done more harm to the cause of Christ than any other living man." Dispensationalists say Charismatics are deceived by the Devil and Charismatics say the same of Dispensationalists (this is not to say that all Dispensationalists or all Charismatics make such charges but allegations and accusations are a "free for all" in Fundamentalism). To say of something that it is "Satan masquerading as an angel of light" is to make an interpretation that requires at least minimal substantiation. To say of a devotion to Mary or of a well-documented appearance of Mary that it comes from Satan is to make a serious charge. We are speaking here of the Mother of Jesus about whom Genesis said: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed." Where Mary is active, we are warned in Genesis and Revelation, Satan too will be active and we should examine Fundamentalist critiques of Mariology in this light.

Scripture tells us that the primary marks of Satan are division, confusion and rebellion. By his fruits you shall know him. If the historic Christian Faith is the interpretation of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed by Christ, then any attempt to undermine it serves only the Enemy. In point of fact all such attempts to undermine it have begun in rebellion and ended in confusion and division. The enemies of Jesus tried to discredit him by accusing him of being an instrument of Satan. We should not be surprised then that the enemies of His mother will try the same strategy. Fundamentalists who indulge in this line of argument, however, are playing a dangerous game. They should not forget the warning of Jesus to the Pharisees who pursued the principle of private interpretation to extreme lengths: "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven." (Luke 12: 10). It is the Holy Spirit Who honors Mary in Luke 1-2.

The two favorite verses of critics of Marian appearances, "Test everything. Hold on to the good" (1 Thess. 5:21) and "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1), actually tell us that we should expect supernatural messages sent by God. The verses do not tell us "do not believe any spirit." We are told to evaluate for ourselves whether a spirit is "from God." We are told also to "test everything" and to "hold on to the good." Thus we are instructed that we will have messages from spirits who are from God and that we should see if these messages conform with the historic teaching before we accept them. Fundamentalists, however, deny the possibility of any messages coming from any spirit - which is in clear violation of these verses. Moreover they cannot "test everything" because they have no standard against which to test a spirit. They cannot use the Bible as a standard because the Bible has to be interpreted and they have rejected both the authoritative interpretation of the historic Faith and the very possibility of an authoritative interpretation.

It must be remembered that reports of Marian appearances do not begin with medieval times or the 19th century - as a Marian critic said in an address to the ESBVM. They go back to at least the second century and were reported in such non-Christian countries as Mexico. Once we understand scriptural Marian doctrine, the idea that Mary would come to the aid of her children through evangelistic appearances falls into place. She is the Woman whose seed are the followers of Jesus. Reports of Marian appearances are in some respects a confirmation of the claims of Marian doctrines. For this reason, it is not surprising that opponents of Marian doctrine are automatically opponents of Marian appearances. In most cases, the opponents do not bother to study the evidence: their minds are already made up. If it is truly Mary who is appearing then their whole anti-Marian theology stands threatened. In addition they do not seem to realize that the individuals in the New Testament are real persons who are alive and active today in the spiritual world.

NOTES

¹ Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984).

² Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I,2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), 138.

³ S. Lewis Johnson, "Mary, the Saints and Sacerdotalism" in Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyse What Divides and Unites Us, op. cit., 122.

⁴ Mateo, Refuting the Attack on Mary: A Defense of Marian

Doctrines, 7.

⁵ John MacQuarrie, Mary for all Christians (London: Collins, 1990, 112-3.

⁶ Manuel Miguens, Mary "The Servant of the Lord": An Ecumenical Proposal (Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1978), 168-70.

⁷ John H. Leith, ed., Creeds of the Churches (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1963), 53.

⁸ Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 46, 308.

⁹ Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 18, 69.

¹⁰ Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 28, p.677.