Mary's role in contemporary Protestant liturgical theology and practice

Protestant Devotion to the Virgin Mary

One of the most controversial topics in religion today is how one should answer the question: does Mary play a significant role in modern Protestant religion? The answer to this question begets several ancillary questions, the most important one being: if Mary does not play a significant role in modern Protestant religion, is this an error? In short, is there a need for a more significant place for Mary in present Protestant liturgical traditions? Some experts believe that giving Mary a more prominent role in the practice of Protestantism would endanger the very nature of Protestantism by introducing an intermediary between God and worshippers. Others disagree vehemently with such statements and suggest that embracing Marian devotion may be the very thing necessary in order to save Protestantism from implosion. Therefore, it is clear that these questions simply cannot be answered by simple resort to the experts. On the contrary, in order to answer this question, the author will investigate contemporary Mariology.

The purpose of the investigation will be to answer two key questions: (1) is there currently an identifiable Protestant liturgical theology of Mary; and (2) what are the most significant contemporary developments in Protestant Mariology? To determine the answers to these questions, this investigation will look into modern Mariology and its impact on modern Protestantism. However, unlike more traditional religious studies, because this investigation seeks to uncover how everyday Protestants view Mary's role in their religions, the study will not be limited to investigating scholarly approaches to Mariology. On the contrary, while scholarly resources will be used, the most important source of information may be mass media resources like magazines, and less traditional media sources, such as websites. These untraditional sources should provide insight into how modern lay Protestants view Mary, if they honor her, if they believe she should be honored, how they view the church's official approach to Mary, and if they desire pro-Marian changes in Protestantism. Hopefully, information from a broad variety of practitioners will yield a suggestion about the modern state of Mary in the Protestant church and whether her role should change. Whatever the answer, it is certain that some will find it controversial, because, for a religion that has traditionally downplayed the importance of Mary in the religion, it is clear that whatever a Protestant believes about Mary's purported role is an essential and basic element of their faith.

Introduction

Traditionally, at least in recent history, the Virgin Mary has not played a very large role in the various Protestant faiths. In fact, many modern Protestants only recall celebrating Mary during Christmas, and those celebrations were strictly limited to Mary's role in the birth of Christ rather than celebrating Mary's prophecies prior to Jesus' birth or the role that she played as Jesus' day-to-day parent. The Protestant attitude towards Mary contrasts starkly with Catholic and Orthodox attitudes, which celebrate Mary in several different ways. To Catholics, Mary was chosen to be the mother of God's son because she was an example of a devout and loving Jew, so that her spiritual greatness actually preceded the events that are traditionally associated with her. However, to Protestants, prior to the visit from the angel Gabriel, Mary led an unremarkable life, and her sole claim to significance in Christianity is the fact that she was chosen, more or less arbitrarily, by God to be the mother of his son. Furthermore, many Protestants not only refused to share in the Catholic and Orthodox reverence for the Virgin, but have actually reacted vehemently against it, associating respect and reverence for Mary with the some type of idolatry. In fact, some prominent Protestant scholars, such as Timothy George of Beeson Divinity School feel that the Protestant backlash against Mary is due to Protestant "concern about the level of reverence that many Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians give to her." (Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, 2004). This backlash against Marian devotion has led some Christians to the conclusion that Protestants cannot embrace both Mary and a Protestant faith. This is an unfortunate attitude, which does not embrace the reverence that the Reformers had for Mary, but actually seems to reflect Protestant bias against Catholicism, rather than any innate Protestant bias against Mary or Marian devotion. It is possible that the anti-Marian trends in Protestantism have not been motivated by anti-Catholic sentiment, but actually demonstrate that the literal interpretation of the Bible that is demanded by practicing Protestants leaves little room for devotion to Mary. Whatever the motivation for the backlash against Marian devotion, it has resulted in Mary playing a less significant role in Protestant liturgy than she currently plays in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and, more importantly, a less significant role than she played in minds of the Reformers and in the original Protestant religions that were formed at the time of the Reformation.

As one might imagine, the modern practice of Protestantism, with its de-emphasis of Mary's role in the founding of Christianity, does not reflect the attitudes held by the original Reformers. On the contrary, any viewpoint that somehow seeks to pit any type of reverence for Mary against Protestantism boldly ignores the historical view of Mary in the various Protestant faiths. For example, Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheranism and a critical leader of the reform movement in Christianity, "had a very high view of Mary and a loving devotion to Mary, in a way. He refers to her as the place where God did his handiwork on earth." (Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, 2004). While this attitude towards Mary does not demonstrate the same level of reverence and worship that one might find in modern Catholic or Orthodox churches, it was similar to the attitude that Catholics had towards Mary at the time of the Reformation. More importantly, such an attitude also reveals a much greater level of respect than is formally or officially shown to Mary by most modern Protestant denominations and individual churches. Such a dichotomy suggests that there is a divide between how individuals view Mary and the official positions that their churches take on the issue. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that many individual Protestants may be more pro-Marian than the official liturgy would suggest. It also suggests that there is nothing anti-Protestant about holding Mary in high esteem, and that many modern Protestants may do exactly that. Therefore, one can be led to the conclusion that the Reformation was not, in whole or in part, caused by any type of discontent with the reverence then being shown for Mary in the Catholic Church. In fact, the Reformers seemed to assume that Protestants would continue to show at least limited reverence for Mary. Once one has that knowledge, one can easily come to the conclusion that even if such reverence is not formally recognized by their churches, many modern Protestants continue to demonstrate reverence for Mary and to feel heightened levels of Marian devotion, without elevating Mary to the level of a deity.

Literature Review

In order to understand the Protestant view of Mary, one must first have a firm understanding of the basics of the Protestant approach to Christianity. Therefore, it is essential to understand whether the majority of Protestants primarily self-identify as individuals or as members of specific churches or denominations. It is also important to understand whether modern Protestants identify more with the historic or modern representations of Mary, and the differences between those representations. To do so, it is necessary to look at the different ways that Mary has been portrayed in the various Protestant religious, and whether she has been more consistently portrayed as an actual historic figure or as a symbolic representation of Christianity and the church. Furthermore, if the Protestant view of Mary has indeed changed over time, one must next ask: do those changes signal a departure from Protestant liturgy, or is there enough room for change in the various Protestant denominations to permit Mary to play an increasing role in religion? In short, the issue to be resolved is whether one can have Marian devotion and still be Protestant, or whether Marian devotion is entirely inconsistent with the idea of Protestantism. If Marian devotion is determined to be consistent with Protestantism, the next question for consideration is whether Mary is a useable symbol for woman-church and Protestant feminism, or whether it is too difficult to cast her in that light? Resolution of these issues is necessary before one can determine what role, if any, Mary should play in the modern Protestant church.

To understand the role of Mary in the Protestant church, it is essential that one first have a basic understanding of Protestantism. Coming to a basic understanding of Protestantism can be difficult, because there are so many different denominations of Protestantism, and their approaches to the Bible range from ultra-conservative to liberal. Furthermore, even within denominations there is tremendous variation in the Protestant faith, as symbolized by the recent withdrawal from the Episcopalian church and move to the Anglican Church by several relatively large American churches. These events make it clear that there is no one single definition of Protestant faith and ideals. Therefore, in order to understand what Protestantism is, it is very important to understand what Protestantism is not.

At its basic level, Protestantism is not Catholicism or Orthodoxy. While such a definition appears simplistic, understanding the difference between Protestantism and the older church denominations may be the key to understanding the modern Protestant approach to Mary. In 1950, the Catholic Church published a papal bull which declared that Mary was the Queen of Heaven. The bull went on to explain that Mary was assumed, both body and soul, into heaven, where she assumed a role that was equal to the members of the Holy Trinity. (Pelikan, 1996). In contrast, Protestantism is much more strictly monotheistic than Catholicism. While Protestants recognize a three-fold representation of the one God, who has manifested himself as God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost; Catholics have deified Mary, placing her on an equal level with God in Heaven, at least after her death.

In addition, while the different Protestant denominations all have their own approaches to Christianity, the main difference between Protestantism and Catholicism or Orthodoxy is that Protestants place a much greater emphasis on scripture. While Orthodox Christians and Catholics have developed a tremendous body of written and procedural guidelines to help shape their understanding and experience of Christianity, Protestants constantly refer back to Scripture to resolve issues or questions in their experience of Christianity. Part of the Protestant emphasis on scripture is reminiscent of Old Testament Judaism, because it connects good behavior with heavenly rewards. In fact, the split between modern Catholicism and modern Protestantism is often described as a difference between grace and works. Therefore, Protestantism has become inextricably linked to good works rather then grace, and Protestant salvation is oftentimes linked to behavior on earth.

There has been a recent trend in some Protestant denominations to move away from literal Biblical interpretations. This has both prompted and also helped further the ecumenical movement, which has basically been an attempt to reconcile the theological and liturgical differences between the different branches of Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy, though those efforts have concentrated on the differences in western expressions of Christianity rather than examining the differences between western and eastern expressions of Christianity. According to Jaroslov Pelikan, author of Mary through the Centuries:

One of the most important religious events of the twentieth century has been, and continues to be, the rise of the ecumenical movement. It began largely as a Protestant phenomenon with the heirs of the Reformation reexamining the issues that had begun to drive them apart almost from the beginning. At that stage, the question of Mary did not play a prominent role, except for the disputes between liberalism and fundamentalism over the historical accuracy of the Virgin Birth. But with the participation of Eastern Orthodox and then of Roman Catholic partners in the conversation, the question became unavoidable, and eventually it came to be seen in significant ways as epitomizing many general issues that divide the churches: What is the legitimate role of postbiblical tradition in Christian teaching? What is the role of the saints, and above all of this saint, in Christian worship and devotion? And who has the authority to decide matters of Christian teaching? (Pelikan, 1996).

Despite the advances made in the ecumenical movement, and the changes that it has inspired both in Protestantism in general and in the different Protestant denominations, it might be fair to say that much of Protestantism remains plagued by Biblical literalism. Though many denominations assert that they are different from Fundamentalists, the body of Protestant theology and liturgical approach suggests otherwise. According to Bishop John Shelby Spong, the sermons in many churches reveal:

still-vibrant neoliteralism even in those mainline churches that would be embarrassed if someone suggested they were fundamentalistic. Likewise, the official documents, studies, and pastoral letters issued by ecclesiastical bodies or groups of bishops are often buttressed by straightforward appeals to the literalism of Scripture. (Spong, 1992).

Furthermore, Spong makes it clear that he believes that Biblical literalism is not something that aids Protestantism, but suggests that literal interpretation has created a tremendous burden on Christianity. To support his assertion, Spong cites some of the more hateful things that have been excused by or based upon Biblical literalism, such as anti-Semitism, slavery, homophobia, and sexism, which have all been explained away by the use or misuse of Scripture (Spong, 1992). Regardless of whether Spong's opinion about the evils of literal interpretation are correction, one would have a difficult time arguing with his opinion that Protestantism is characterized by resorting to literal Biblical interpretation, because that is exactly what the Protestant Reformers sought to change when they initiated the original split from the Roman Catholic Church.

Therefore, to understand the traditional Protestant approach to Mary, regardless of denomination, one first needs to understand what the Bible says about her. Of course, this is, in and of itself, a difficult determination to make, because there is some disagreement among Protestant denominations regarding what books and writings should be considered part of the Bible. In addition, like many aspects of Protestant theology, it does not appear that Protestant Biblical experts are in agreement about Mary's role in the Gospels. Although they use the same few passages to support their claims, Protestant clergy and scholars have come to a wide variety of different conclusions regarding Mary's actual role in Christ's life, whether she assisted in the development of the church, her role in that church once it was established, whether she was one of Jesus' disciples, and even whether she and Jesus had a warm and loving parent-child relationship. This is to be expected, given Protestantism's emphasis on literal biblical interpretation, which virtually guarantees that individual Protestants and individual churches will interpret biblical passages in different ways from each other, because individuals are shaped by their own personal, regional, social, and cultural experiences as well as their religious backgrounds.

For example, in his web log addressing whether there is a pro-Marian trend in Protestantism, David Roberts discusses the Biblical treatment of Mary and determines that there is no current pro-Marian trend, despite the fact that others scholars are suggesting that Protestantism is indeed becoming more and more pro-Mary. Roberts explains that he has come to this conclusion because he has not witnessed any change in Mary's role. On the contrary, Roberts believes that Mary's role in the Bible, which dictates Mary's role in Christianity, continues to be a supporting role for Jesus, rather than an early Christian leader in her own right. To support that contention, Roberts states that:

Christians see Mary in three Old Testament passages. Two are obvious prophecies. The first is a little more obscure. After the man and woman sin in Genesis 3, God promised that the "seed" of the woman will "strike the head" of the serpent. If the seed is Christ, then the woman is, in a sense, Mary. Isaiah 7:14 refers to a virgin or young woman (same Hebrew word) who bears a child named Immanuel. Micah 5:2-5 refers to a woman who gives birth to a messianic ruler. (Roberts, 2005).

To illustrate his point, Roberts break's down Mary's appearances in Scripture into several categories: the Birth Mother of the Messiah, the Virgin, the Blessed One, the Faithful Servant of God, and the Mother of Jesus, and demonstrates that these roles have not changed significantly since the inception of the church. (Roberts, 2005). Explaining Mary's role as the Birth Mother of the Messiah, Roberts states:

Mary's greatest significance in Scripture is as the one who gives birth to Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God. Thus it makes sense that she appears most of all in the gospel stories of the nativity. Moreover, it is as the birth mother of the Son of God that Mary derives her timeless value. The virgin birth alone wouldn't have made her all that special if she had simply given birth to some ordinary human being. But she gave birth to one who was not merely human. In the terms of later theology, the baby in her womb was "fully God and fully human." Thus by the fifth-century a.D. Mary was recognized as "the mother of God" (theotokos). (Roberts, 2005).

However, Roberts recognizes that Mary has always played a significant role in Christianity. Furthermore, Roberts recognizes that Mary's virginity plays a major role in the Bible. He states that:

The second most important thing about Mary's motherhood is that it didn't begin in the ordinary way. Though she had not had sexual intercourse with a man, she conceived a child through the miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:33-38). The Bible itself doesn't explain the physiological process or even the theological significance of the virginal conception. That was left to theologians, who are still arguing about it today. Matthew explains that Mary did not have sexual relations with Joseph while she was pregnant with Jesus (Matt 1:25). The text seems to imply that after his birth she engaged in normal sexual intimacy with Joseph, though Catholic and Eastern Orthodox interpreters dispute this, of course. Moreover, the gospels attest to Jesus having brothers, with the implication that Mary was their mother (Matt 13:55). Other interpreters hold that these brothers were actually half-brothers, the children of Joseph and a first wife. There is no biblical support for this view. So, apart from post-biblical church tradition, there is no biblical evidence for Mary's remaining a virgin. In fact the obvious (but not only) reading of the text points in the other direction. (Roberts, 2005).

By denying any lifelong claims of virginity, Roberts does not downplay Mary's significance. On the contrary, he simply downplays the significance of Mary's sexual status after the birth of Christ.

Furthermore, Roberts acknowledges that Mary was chosen by God to play an extremely important role. Roberts provides Scriptural support for his assertion, explaining that:

The angel who came to announce to Mary that she was going to give birth to a son addressed her as "the favored one" (Luke 1:28; Greek, kecharitomene, "graced one") adding later that she has "found favor" (Luke 1:30; Greek, charis, "grace") with God. She is also referred to by her relative Elizabeth as "blessed among women" (Luke 1:42; eulogemene). There is no question that Mary has been singled out by God for a uniquely great honor, the honor of bearing the Son of God. Scripture doesn't explain why she received this blessing, though from the text of Luke we learn that she has exemplary faith, that she has outstanding biblical theology (from the Magnificat, Luke 1:46-55), and that she has prophetic gifts (from the Magnificat). (Roberts, 2005).

In fact, Roberts even goes so far as to imply that Mary's status as God's chosen one should come as no surprise, when one considers the Biblical descriptions of Mary's faithfulness to God. For example:

When told that she would conceive by the Holy Spirit and bear a son, Mary responded with exemplary faith: "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). Later she is referred to as one who believed "that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord" (Luke 1:45). Thus she exemplifies full submission to God and, as Protestants are happy to emphasize, genuine faith. (Roberts, 2005).

Despite the fact that he agrees that Mary is faithful and God's chosen one, Roberts does not necessarily agree with modern interpretations of Mary as the ultimate mother. Instead, Roberts addresses the Bible's treatment of Mary as the mother of Jesus, and how Mary's participation in Jesus' life helped shape Jesus as a man. Roberts makes it clear that one must differentiate this role from Mary's role as the birth mother, because it involves Mary's actual maternal interactions with Jesus and Mary's free will, rather than merely reflecting something that happened to Mary, like the virgin conception. Roberts begins by pointing out that the gospels do not actually contain a lot of information about Mary as a mother. However, he goes on to describe how the gospels describe Mary's mothering, and Roberts believes that these events do not support an expansive view of Mary's influence on Jesus' life or on the new church. For example, according to Roberts:

Mary is perplexed and anxious when Jesus disappears on the family's trip from Jerusalem to Nazareth. Then she doesn't understand Jesus's explanation of his behavior (Luke 2:41-51). M ary motivates Jesus to turn water into wine, his first miracle in John. But his response to her seems curious, even disrespectful, though he does the miracle (John 2:1-11). Mary comes, along with her other children, to speak with Jesus during his ministry. But he appears to diminish her significance as his natural mother by referring to all who do God's will as his "brother and sister and mother" (Mark 3:31-35 and pars). Of course in Luke 1 Mary is a paradigm for one who does God's will. Mary is with Jesus at the cross, though we learn nothing about her experience other than as the recipient of Jesus's making her the "mother" of the beloved disciple (John 19:25-27). Some theologians have read a great deal into this text, but seeing Mary as the mother of the church is adding more than the text itself provides. (Roberts, 2005).

In addition, Roberts even takes issue with traditional depictions of Mary's suffering at the foot of the cross. For many Protestants, Mary at the cross has helped highlight Jesus' humanity, by revealing that he had an actual human mother who watched her child die, knowing that his death was necessary for the redemption of humanity. Roberts explains:

Since John places Mary at the cross of Jesus, it's safe to assume that her suffering was unbelievably horrible. But the New Testament doesn't supply any description of her pain or behavior. There was a telling prophecy of Simeon, however, when Jesus was a baby. He predicted of Mary that "a sword will pierce your own soul too" (Luke 2:35). (Roberts, 2005).

With his statement, Roberts seems to imply that the lack of New Testament descriptions of Mary's pain at the foot of the cross, combined with the fact that she knew her son was destined to die, means that Mary did not suffer tremendous pain watching her child die. However, such an implication reveals the basic problem with literal Biblical interpretation; it can lead to absurd conclusions. To believe that Mary could watch her son die in any way, much less in a horrifyingly painful manner like crucifixion, and not feel an immense and heart-wrenching pain, because depictions of that pain were not included in the New Testament reveals an ignorance of maternal devotion.

Roberts even appears to question Mary's role as one of Jesus' disciples, although he acknowledges that Mary followed Jesus, remained with him until the end, was present with the disciples after the resurrection, and was probably present for the Pentecost. (Roberts, 2005). Roberts is certainly not the only biblical scholar to refuse to acknowledge Mary's role as a disciple. For many Protestants, it is inconceivable that Jesus had any female disciples, even including his mother. Ironically enough, this belief flies in the face of literal Biblical interpretation. Several passages in the New Testament specifically states that Jesus traveled in the company of several women, who were not known to be wives of his disciples. Given the strict rules governing propriety in male-female relationships during Jesus' life, there were only a few explanations for a group of women following a group of single men in their travels. The first alternative was if those women were actually the wives of some of the single men, the second alternative was if the women were prostitutes, and the third, and possibly the most challenging alternative, was if these women were flouting Jewish social mores and followed Jesus because they believed in his message.

However, even though Protestantism is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, it would be absolutely erroneous to assume that all modern Protestants believe in a fundamentalist approach to the Bible. In fact, the majority of Protestants resists the label "fundamentalist," and views their churches and themselves as progressives. This self-identification is important and has had a tremendous influence on how the Protestant churches approach Christianity. In fact, one of the more prominent modern trends is for Protestant clergy and laity to question the traditional literal interpretation of the Bible. Therefore, when examining Mary's role in modern Protestantism, it may very well be that, "biblical materials dealing with her have an essentially retrospective function," and should only considered when determining what the Bible has contributed to the modern-day vision of Mary. (Pelikan, 1996). This is partially due to the fact that literal biblical interpretation reveals very little about Mary, because there is simply not a substantial amount written about Mary in the Bible:

The account of Mary in the New Testament is tantalizingly brief, and anyone who comes to consider the biblical references to Mary from the study of later development of devotion to her and of doctrine about her, as this book is doing, must be surprised or even shocked to discover how sparse they are. (Pelikan, 1996).

The very scarcity of the material about Mary, even when compared against the relative short-shrift that Mary receives in Protestantism, make it clear that Mariology developed its own structure outside of the text of the New Testament. It also makes it clear that the writers of the Gospel probably expected a reader to fill in gaps in material, using Jewish social, cultural, and religious mores to fill in missing information about Mary as a mother and her relationship with Jesus.

Given that some parts of the Bible simply cannot be interpreted without resorting to historical interpretation of the scripture, it should come as no surprise that a growing number of extremely devout Protestants resist attempts to literally interpret the Bible. Instead, many of these experts suggest that the books of the Bible were not written as histories and biographies, but as mythologies and allegories explaining the beginning of the Christian church. One of the most vocal of the scholars arguing against literal interpretation of the Bible is John Shelby Spong, an Episcopal bishop. Although Spong believes that the Bible is a tremendous resource for Christians, he disagrees with those who insist on literally interpreting it. He believes that, "Fundamentalist Christians distort the Bible by taking it literally. Liberal Christians distort the Bible by not taking it seriously." (Spong, 1992). Furthermore, Spong does not only have a problem with fundamentalists and evangelists, but also asserts that he is "amazed that given the knowledge revolution of the last six hundred years anyone can still regard the Bible as the dictated words of God, inerrant and eternal." (Spong, 1992).

Though Spong's words may seem heretical to some, they might actually capture the attitude of the average Protestant more than Protestantism's official literal approach to scripture. Furthermore, these certainly appear to reflect at least the modern Protestant approach to Mary, which is to suggest that believers step outside of scripture and look at other historical and cultural resources to fully understand Mary's role in the foundation of the Christian church. In relatively modern history, Protestants have approached Mary as an actual human being, rather than as a symbol of the church. The rise of feminist religious theory heralded some changes in the Protestant approach to Mary, because feminism created opportunities for females, most notably the Virgin Mary, to play more important roles in Christianity. This represented a rather significant change from traditional Protestantism, which de-emphasized the role of females in the church and in society. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Mary's role in Protestantism has been increasing beyond her simply being the womb or vessel for bringing Christ into the world. In fact, Mary's importance to Protestants may actually be because of her cultural importance on a secular level, where she has served as an example of femininity and womanhood. According to Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary:

has provided the content of the definition of the feminine in a way that he [Jesus] has not done for the masculine...Even in the absence of reliable statistical data, however, it is probably safe to estimate that for nearly two thousand years "Mary" has been the name most frequently given to girls at Baptism...The Virgin Mary has been more of an inspiration to more people than any other woman who ever lived. (Pelikan, 2006).

In fact, even extremely traditional and fundamentalist Protestants like Roberts recognize that Mary has always played an important role in Christianity. However, this has not necessarily contributed to an increased view of Mary's importance, but, instead, of God's ability. As Roberts explains:

Here is an astounding truth: Mary carried in her womb the divine Son of God. She was the physical source of his human nature. This is truly amazing. What happened within Mary is one of, perhaps even the greatest mysteries of all time and history: the Word of God became flesh. (the death of the Son of God for us sinners is a mystery equal, maybe even greater than his Incarnation.) Thus Mary has been given a leading role in the drama of human history. As she said in the Magnificat, indeed "all generations will call me blessed." There is strong biblical support for singling out Mary as profoundly blessed, even the most blessed of all people. Nevertheless, in saying this we must remember that "blessed" speaks of God's gracious action more than the worthiness of the individual. (Roberts, 2005).

Basing his opinion on the Bible's portrayal of Mary, Roberts concludes that "Mary was an extraordinary person, a woman of incredible faith and theological understanding." (Roberts, 2005). Furthermore, while hesitant to label her a prophet, Roberts acknowledges that Mary's Magnificat certainly "places her squarely in the prophetic tradition." (Roberts, 2005). However, Roberts reiterates traditional Protestant views of Mary by stating that people "should remember that the emphasis of the New Testament is not upon Mary's worthiness to be the mother of Jesus, but rather upon God's grace in choosing her." (Roberts, 2005). In this way, Roberts' view actually seems to be more Catholic than Protestant, because his emphasis on grace denies the idea that Mary's good works and faithfulness as a Jew had any impact on God's decision to choose her to carry his son.

Whether an emphasis on Mary in the early church was due to the fact that she was God's chosen, or despite the fact that she was God's chosen, the early Protestant movement and the earliest Protestant churches were in no way anti-Mary. On the contrary, as explained by Biblical scholar Jason Byassee, who states that "church historians of all stripes have long granted that Marian teaching and devotion dates from the earliest days of the church. And they grant that devotion to Mary was not discarded even by the leading Reformation figures Luther, Calvin and Zwingli." (Byassee, 2005). Furthermore, Byassee makes this bold statement after explaining that "much of what being Protestant has historically meant has involved a protest against the Catholic devotion to Mary." (Byassee, 2005). One might be inclined to question how Byassee can defend his two statements, when they appear to be so diametrically opposed to each other. However, what the two statements reveal is that there has been a historical emphasis among Protestants on Marian devotion as a symbol of Catholic idolatry, which is inconsistent with the feelings and sentiments of Reformation leaders, and perhaps even inconsistent with the true spirit of Protestantism.

Of course, the Reformers were not the first to question the Catholic approach to Christianity; they were simply the first to do so in a successful manner. Since the very inception of the church, there were some who questioned the way that the church developed its theological and liturgical practices. Therefore, it is of some interest to note that even prior to the Reformation, there "were few who offered protests against Mary or Marian devotion." (Butler, 1998). This lack of protest indicates that Marian devotion was not a motivating factor for those who initiated Reforms and began the Protestant movement. David Butler suggests that there were four reasons for the fact this lack of protest against Marian devotion. The first reason suggested by Butler is that the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 defined Mary as the Mother of God, and that challenging this role would challenge the incarnation. (Butler, 1998). The second reason suggested by Butler is that Mary was seen as the exemplar of faith and as such an example of faith was not subject to criticism, and Christians would not have been criticized for admiring Mary's faith. (Butler, 1998). The third reason suggested by Butler is that Christmas became the prime Christian festival, even more important than Easter, and Mary played a very important role in the story of the Nativity. (Butler, 1998). The fourth and final reason suggested by Butler is that Mary's Magnificat "kept the thought of Mary as the one who saw God overturn the presuppositions of humanity in her life of faith." (Butler, 1998). It is important to understand that there were few protests against Marian devotion prior to the Reformation, because that fact makes it much easier to understand why it is simply historically inaccurate to characterize any of the original Reformers as anti-Marian. On the contrary, devotion to Mary was simply not one of the Catholic excesses that the Reformers sought to purify with their religious reformations, but was, instead, something that many of the Reformers believed would be incorporated into any later version of Christianity.

In fact, if modern Protestants "study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith." (Mariology, 2006). Such a historical study seems to fly in the face of the modern Protestant-Catholic disagreements, which focuses heavily on their different approaches to Mary and might lead one to believe that the Reformers had problems with Mary's role in the church. The opposite actually seems to have been the case. For example, throughout his life Martin Luther "maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God." (Mariology, 2006). Not only did Luther believe that Mary was the Mother of God, but he also held a lifetime belief in Mary's perpetual virginity and the Immaculate Conception. "Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity, and Immaculate Conception." (Mariology, 2006). Furthermore, Luther indicated a belief that Mary was somehow in heaven, even if he did not go so far as to endorse the doctrine of Assumption. (Mariology, 2006). Even Luther's failure to endorse the doctrine of Assumption does not necessarily reflect any anti-Marian sentiment, because it was centuries before the Catholic Church adopted its current attitude regarding the doctrine of Assumption.

Luther was not the only Reformer to celebrate Mary's role in Christianity. Like Luther, John Calvin had a more Catholic-seeming attitude towards Mary than is exhibited in the modern Protestant church. For example, Calvin believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. (Mariology, 2006). However, it would be inaccurate to link Calvin's attitude with the modern Catholic approach to Mary; on the contrary, Calvin wanted "all doctrines about Mary to be compatible with justification by faith." (Tavard, 1996). In addition, he "tried harder than the other Reformers to eradicate the papist expressions of Marian piety." (Tavard, 1996). Therefore, while Calvin still respected Mary's role in Christianity, he went further than Luther in distancing the emerging Protestant movement from traditional Catholic reverence for Mary, by making it clear that though Mary was to be respected, she was not to be worshipped or praised as any type of deity.

Like Luther and Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, though his general opinion of Mary's appropriate role in the church was closer to Calvin's than to Luther's. (Mariology, 2006). Looking at the attitudes of the three major Reformers, one must come to the conclusion that the Reformers rejected Marian mediation, but also keep in mind that this rejection cannot be equated with a rejection of Mary. On the contrary, the Reformers rejected all human mediation, regardless of who was being asked to mediate on behalf of a Christian. (Mariology, 2006). One of the main goals of the Reformation was to establish that Christians should have personal relationships with God and should not be required to go through any other entity, whether on Earth or in Heaven, to establish that relationship. Therefore, there was nothing specifically anti-Marian about the Protestant Reformers desire that Christians not asking Mary to intercede on their behalves. On the contrary, at the time of the Reformation, it could be said that Marian piety was very strong, and that "Marian doctrine as taught in the pre-Reformation era drew its inspiration from the witness of Scripture and was rooted in Christology." (Mariology, 2006). Therefore, it is both inaccurate and misleading to cite the Reformation and the beginning of Protestantism as a cause for the end of Marian devotion.

Despite the fact that ending Marian devotion was not a goal of the Reformation, it does appear that "the degradation of the Reformer's Mariology, among their followers was already in germ in the confessions of faith that were adopted by the Reformed Churches before the end of the sixteenth century." (Tavard, 1996). It is not clear if the Reformation itself was responsible for this degradation. What is clear is that the Reformation marked a decline of the feminine in Christianity. Naturally, one would expect a decline in the feminine to be accompanied by a minimilization of Mary's roles in Christianity, both as Jesus' parent and as one of the founders of the early Christian church. However, what cannot be determined is whether Mary's role in the emerging Protestant church declined as a result in the decline of the feminine in Christianity, or whether the decline of the feminine in Christianity that occurred after the Reformation was the result of newly formed Protestant attitudes regarding Mary and her role in the church. What is clear is that after the Reformation, women in general and Mary in particular began to play much less significant roles in the church than they had prior to the Reformation.

In addition to marking a decline of the feminine in Christianity, the Reformation had several other dramatic impacts on the face of Christianity. While basic Christian theology did not change dramatically at the Reformation, the Reformation did result in several successful changes in Christian liturgical practice. For example, in the Catholic Church, the relationship between God and the individual was a mediated relationship. On Earth a hierarchy of priests, which concluded with the Pope, mediated between the individual and God. This earthly mediation meant that the Pope was the ultimate interpreter of God's will and law. As a result, the Pope (and continues to be) considered infallible, and his word was given the weight of God's law. Furthermore, this mediation was not limited to people on Earth; a Catholic could also call upon the saints in heaven to mediate with God on their behalf. The Reformation sought to change the hierarchal relationship with God, by giving individual Christians the ultimate responsibility to interpret Scripture and establish their own personal relationships with God. In fact, according to Charlene Spretnak, the Reformation's:

focus on the individual- that is, the sacrosanct, unmediated relationship between the individual and God (to the exclusion of the community of saints, nuns, priests, and bishops) - eventually became central to the emergent modern worldview, albeit as a secularized version. The Reformation sought to rationalize "Christianity" by disavowing most of the sacraments (that is, ritual honoring of mystical transformative events such as baptism, confirmation, matrimony, and the approach of death) and focusing on the text alone. (Spretnak, 2004).

However, Spretnak's view of the Reformers approach to Mary seems more critical than the view held by many other contemporary scholars, who continue to believe that the Reformation was not motivated by any anti-Marian sentiment. Unlike these moderate scholars, Spretnak not only believes that the Reformation focused on secular humanism, but that the Reformers intentionally downplayed Mary's role in Christianity. In fact, she goes so far as to suggest that the Reformers "insisted that Mary was nothing but a Nazarene housewife, not to be glorified in any way but merely honored for her piety and obedience to God's will." (Spretnak, 2004). While it is certain that the early Protestant church emphasized Mary's obedience and piety, rather than concentrating on Marian grace like the Catholic Church, it is not fair to state that the Reformers denigrated Mary. Regardless of denomination, the Reformers acknowledged that Jesus' claims to the throne came through Mary's line of the family, which made Mary the descendent of David, the greatest of the non-divine Jewish kings. In addition, even immediately post-Reformation, the Protestant churches celebrated Mary's significance by celebrating the Magnificat.

If the Reformation was not responsible for the Protestant abandonment of Marian piety, one might wonder what was. Some hypothesize that it was actually a social movement, rather than a religious movement, that caused Protestants to turn from veneration of the Virgin. According to the website Mariology:

The real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the iconoclastic passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles. Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith. (Mariology, 2006).

Spretnak agrees with the statement that secular humanism and the Enlightenment contributed to the anti-Marian sentiment in the emerging Protestant church. In explanation of her hypothesis, Spretnak states:

the intensified secular humanism of the Enlightenment targeted Marian images and devotions as problems far worse than various corrupt religious practices such as selling indulgences. Marian spirituality epitomized for the Enlightenment zealots the preposterously wrong turn taken by the medieval era in the West's grand march from classical Greek rationalism to the "tough-minded" neoclassical thought of their time, which was infused with the mechanistic view of the scientific revolution. (Spretnak, 2004).

While it may be accurate to state that Mary's role has been downplayed in Protestantism, which does not necessarily mean that post-Reformation Protestant churches have been actively attempting to deny Mary her rightful role in Christianity or that they have been otherwise engaged in any type of intentional anti-Marian activity. On the contrary, Presbyterian pastor Mark D. Roberts disagrees with those who assert that Protestant churches have somehow intentionally shunned Mary, and even goes so far as to suggest that Mary has not truly been ignored by modern Protestants. In fact, Roberts sites his own experiences with three very distinct branches of Protestantism, Presbyterian, Mennonite, and Assemblies of God, to support his contention that:

Mary has been a minor yet welcome part of church life. Yes, she may have received less attention than she deserved. But I'd hardly characterize this as a conspiracy of silence, sullen neglect, and estrangement. Benign neglect would be more like it, or perhaps innocent ignorance. (Roberts, 2005).

In fact, Roberts believes that even if Mary has played a minor role in some modern Protestant faiths, this has not lessoned her importance in modern Protestantism. To support this, Roberts contends that:

On the contrary, I'd say that Mary has played a central and joyful role in my experience of Christmas, as a boy, as a worshiper, and as a pastor. Moreover, I have heard sermons and teachings involving Mary ever since my youth. I remember a marvelous sermon I heard several years ago in which Mary's reception of God's Word was used as an example of how we should receive God's word in our own lives. (Roberts, 2005).

Roberts goes on to cite examples where he has used Mary in his own preaching, and states that his congregation was always receptive to those sermons. (Roberts, 2005). At least in his opinion, there is no Protestant backlash against Mary, which certainly suggests that the Protestant clergy is not involved in some type of anti-Marian conspiracy. While Robert's personal experience is almost certainly not representative of the experience of all Protestants, or even of all Protestant clergy, it does demonstrate that Mary has not been intentionally neglected by all Protestants. Furthermore, it suggests, at the very least, that Protestants are receptive to the idea of limited Marian devotion.

However, not all Protestants share Robert's optimistic view of Mary's role in the modern Protestant church. Many believe that Mary's role in Christianity has been significantly minimized, and that this minimization has contributed to a decline in the general health of Christianity. In fact, Byassee's experience with Mary in the Protestant church differed markedly from Roberts' experience. Byassee and Roberts engaged in similar examinations of Mary's presence in the gospels, but came to two very different conclusions regarding Mary's role in modern Protestantism. While Roberts found Mary's presence in the gospels to be rather minimal, Byassee reflected that Mary's place in the scriptures was more prominent than he had "thought on the basis of her place in the churches that reared" him. (Byassee, 2005). While Byassee does not go so far as to suggest that the Protestant churches of his childhood intentionally neglected Mary, he does state that they downplayed her role in the gospels and that this led him to believe that Mary played a much less significant role in Jesus' life and in the development of the early church.

Whether churches have intentionally or unintentionally minimalized Mary's role in the gospels, there does seem to be some truth in the assumption that Protestants have not treated Mary with the same reverence that she is shown by Catholics. However, the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been marked by a convergence of the various Christian denominations, and a strong effort to reconcile the divisive differences that have plagued Christianity. This convergence began in Edinburgh in 1910, with the International Missionary Council. (Hurley, 2002). The greater Protestant acceptance of Mary started in the 1960s, when Catholics joined the ecumenical movement. (Hurley, 2002). What may be the most surprising element of the current pro-Mary trend in Protestantism, and, indeed, one of the most surprising results of the ecumenical movement in general, is that some modern Protestants are placing a greater emphasis on Mary than she receives in the Catholic Church. In the spring of 2004, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission issued a joint statement on doctrinal matters related to the Virgin Mary, which seemed to address some of the basic disagreements that Protestants and Catholics had about Mary's appropriate role in the church. This commission determined that:

it is perfectly reasonable theologically for Anglicans to accept the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the doctrine of asking Mary to pray for us.

Since all three of these aspects of Catholicism are considered by many Catholic progressives" today to be embarrassing holdovers from pre-Vatican II days before the church's teachings on Mary were modernized and "uncluttered," the Seattle Statement squarely challenges prevalent assumptions about the Catholic role in ecumenical dialogues. (Spretnak, 2005).

This transformation is considered significant because:

In ecumenical conferences and commissions, the Virgin Mary has usually been considered the deal-breaker, the big problem blocking rapprochement. Because the council fathers at Vatican II declared that ecumenism was suddenly the top priority for the Catholic Church, it followed that the church's Marian doctrines had to be streamlined and drastically reduced so as to be more agreeable to our "separated brethren." In this decision, they reflected the growing influence of the "biblical movement" among several Catholic theologians in the late 1950s. Though only a scant 2% majority of the council fathers held this view when the major vote on Marian doctrine and practice was taken at Vatican II on October 29, 1963, that narrow victory sent the church on a new and far more Protestant trajectory regarding Mary. (Spretnak, 2005).

If Mary's role in the church has been one of the major issues dividing Catholics and Protestants, any movement bringing the two positions closer to one another signifies a great advance towards uniting Christendom.

From the evidence presented, it certainly appears that the overwhelming trend in all of Christianity, for almost half a century, has been to minimize the role that Mary played in the Bible and the beginning of Christianity. In fact, some scholars have even gone far as to suggest that Mary's conception of Jesus was not a miracle, but accomplished by God through natural means such as rape. There is nothing new in this belief; even in Christ's time there was rampant speculation that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. However, the Seattle Statement signaled a tremendous departure from the modern trend of Marian minimization. In fact:

Rather than emphasizing that Mary is merely a model "helper" and member of the embryonic church, the commission builds a scriptural case throughout the first half of the document for the entirely "distinctive" and "unique" (a word that appears 10 times) existence and role of Mary in the Incarnation and the Redemption. Far from being merely the first Christian, merely our sister and a plucky social-change activist who declared the Magnificat, Mary's utterly unique and extraordinary being, decisions and actions are seen as good reason for her to be given special veneration and a unique status among saints. That is, the Vatican II statement on Mary sought to contain her, while the International Commission's statement, working from the very same scriptural base, brings to bear a theological sensibility marked by openness, a tender rather than hard-edged mode of reflection and an appreciation of spiritual beauty -- all rather rare in committee writing. (Spretnak, 2005).

Even more significant is the fact that Mary's role in the modern church does not seem to be dependent upon her virgin status or other vestiges of the doctrine of grace, but actually seems to be linked to Mary's merit as an individual.

In addition, there is some suggestion that Protestants have been developing more favorable towards Mary in the past century, especially in the last fifty years. According to George Henri Tavard:

Protestant theology in the twentieth century has been marked by the ecumenical movement and the ensuing encounter with the Mariology of Orthodoxy and, to a lesser extent, of Roman Catholicism. It has also been affected by the liturgical movement and its revalorization of sacramental and quasi-sacramental symbols, in which category it is not unusual to place the language of devotion and faith and its enhancement of the image of Mary. Finally, the return to the sources, both biblical and patristic, that has been one of the graces of the twentieth century, could not but restore a higher degree of appreciation for the place of Mary in relation to the Person and the mission of her son Jesus. (Tavard, 1996).

In short, the pendulum has swung back towards a higher level of Marian devotion, even if it has not yet reached the level of pre-Reformation Marian piety.

The pendulum swing is not surprising when one considers the fact that Mary's role in Protestantism was not always so circumscribed. To understand the historical approach to Mary, one must keep in mind that Protestantism itself is a relatively new movement. Historically, Mary was "associated with the fulfillment of the Word of God and thus with Scripture." (Jeffrey, 2004). Not surprisingly, Renaissance depictions of Mary often show her as a devout student of the Word of God. (Jeffrey, 2004). Symbolically, "this attentiveness to God's written Word was not only a sign of her obedience, pious artists thought, but also a preparation for her coming role as the receptacle for his Word made flesh in Jesus." (Jeffrey, 2004). To understand how significant Mary's role in the fulfillment of God's promise was, one must look beyond the rise of Protestantism, beyond the rise of the Church, back into the times of the Old Testament. Jesus is not merely significant because he is the Son of God; instead, Jesus' tremendous significance derives from the fact that he is the promised Messiah, the salvation of the Jews, God's chosen people. From this perspective, Mary's virginity becomes an even more dramatic part of Christ's story:

Christians seeking links between Jesus' birth and Old Testament prophecies focused early and often on Mary's unprecedented virgin conception (www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NLT&passage=Luke+1%3A34cf. Luke 1:34). In this, they followed the New Testament sources. Matthew, in his telling of Jesus' birth (), brings the promise in Isaiah to bear on Jesus-"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (). The virginity of Mary became one of the crucial tokens for early believers that Jesus was "the Christ" long expected. (Jeffrey, 2004).

What is significant about the modern pro-Marian attitude in the church is that the above statements were not made by modern scholars merely discussing the historical church, but by modern scholars using the historical approach to Mary to explain why Mary should play a greater role in the modern Protestant church.

While Mary's role in modern Protestantism has been downplayed, Mary has continuously played an important symbolic role among Protestants, and that role is related to Mary's Magnificat. "The Magnificat really is an example of biblical prophecy. Mary takes on a very strong role there of declaring God's favor upon the poor and oppressed, and God's warning about the downfall of the mighty and the powerful and wealthy." (Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, 2004). However, the Magnificat is not merely an example of biblical prophecy. In addition to revealing Mary's prophetic skills; "the Magnificat reveals Mary as, like Miriam and Hannah before her, a divinely inspired poet." (Jeffrey, 2004). Mary's poetry is significant because it highlights Jesus' relationship to David. David was not only Jesus ancestor, but also an essential part of Messianic prophecies, which stated that a Davidian king would come to the salvation of the Jews. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Magnificat became a prominent part of the liturgy of the church, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, even if the different Christian denominations place different levels of emphasis on the significance of the Magnificat.

Another area where Protestants have traditionally emphasized Mary's role in the story of Christ is in the story of the virgin birth. However, this emphasis on the virgin birth has not helped the development of modern Christianity. On the contrary, Mary's virginity has been a polarizing element among Christians, rather than a unifying element. While there is a modern movement away from literal interpretation of the virgin birth, the fact is that this polarization has not been caused by disagreement over Mary's sexual status at the time of Christ's conception; almost all Christians, of any denomination, continue to agree that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, and that Jesus' conception was the result of Mary being entered by the Holy Ghost. However, a central part of Catholic veneration of the Virgin Mary is that she remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. The majority of Protestants disagrees with this position, and believes that Mary's marriage to Joseph was consummated and that they had children together after Jesus' birth. This controversy has fueled debate from the two sides for centuries. However, Byassee cautions that concentrating on the virgin issue means that people are missing the point. According to Byassee, "this question...treats Mary herself as a side issue, a mere conduit for the one she bore." The problem with Byassee's assertion is that he might be missing the very point that some Protestants have been trying to make, which is that Mary is and should be a side issue, and that she was merely a conduit for the one she bore. Certainly, it does not appear that concentrating on Mary's virginity at the time of Jesus' conception will do much to move the Protestant churches towards Marian devotion, although such concentration is equally unlikely to keep those churches from more openly embracing Mary. Although much has been made of Mary's virgin status, it simply seems unlikely that the issue of her virginity will resolve any deeper questions about her appropriate role in the church.

In fact, embracing the virginity elements of the nativity may actually be taking a step away from Christianity, because the concept of a virgin birth is not in any manner unique to Christianity. On the contrary:

In many other religious traditions of the world, the concept of a virgin birth to explain the divine origin of heroic figures was commonplace. Gautama Buddha, the ninth Avatar of India, was said to have been born of the virgin Maya about 600 B.C.E. The Holy Ghost was also portrayed as descending upon her. Horus, a god of Egypt, was born of the virgin Isis, it was said around 1550 B.C.E...Attis was born of a virgin mother named Nama in Phrygia, before 200 B.C.E. Quirrnus, a Roman savior, was born of a virgin in the sixth century B.C.E...Indra was born of a virgin in Tibet in the eighth century B.C.E...Adonis, a Babylonian deity, was said to have been born of a virgin mother named Ishtar, who was later to be hailed as queen of heaven. Mithra, a Persian deity, was also said to have been born to a virgin around 600 B.C.E. Zoroaster likewise made his earthly appearance courtesy of a virgin mother. Krishna, the eighth Avatar of the Hindu pantheon, was born of the virgin Devaki around 1200 B.C.E. In popular Greek and Roman mythology Perseus and Romulus were divinely fathered. (Spong, 1992).

By concentrating on the virginity element in Mary's story, Protestants have not done anything to highlight Mary's unique position in Christianity or even in Christ's life. Instead, by making virginity the key issue about Mary, Protestants have actually concentrated on the one element that links Mary, and, through her, Jesus, to the pagan religions that predated Christianity. Linking these elements deprives Mary and Jesus of their sacred elements, which would appear to be counter to the desires and wishes of most Christians and even counter to the most basic goals of Christianity.

However, Byassee does suggest that those who want to take a more open-minded and modern approach to Mary might want to look at Mary's role in the Incarnation. (Byassee, 2005). It is certainly true that, from the Protestant perspective, Mary's symbolic importance has been downplayed in the Incarnation. This is despite the fact that "Mary plays a special role in the Incarnation, the Christian teaching that in Jesus, God took on human flesh." (Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, 2004). Not only does she play a special role in the Incarnation; Mary plays the central role in the Incarnation. Though it could have happened in other ways, Mary is the way that God chose to turn the word into flesh. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that Byassee contends that:

The most important contribution of these recent reflections is to give fresh attention to the incarnation. The Council of Ephesus insisted that what Christians hold true about God is that God is not unwilling to get involved in the flesh and blood of human life. The Christian God is enwombed. To say otherwise is to introduce some sort of split in the Son himself, to suggest that the man Jesus is born of Mary and the divinity is not (perhaps the divinity is added later or not at all). To call Mary theotokos is to safeguard the fleshiness of God, and so the entire saving work of God in Christ. (Byassee, 2005).

Mary's participation in Jesus' life did not end with his birth. Looking through the Gospels, it is clear that, whether their relationship reflected normal mother-child devotion or not, Mary played a tremendously important role in Jesus' life, certainly a more central role than any of the Apostles. For example, Mary was not only present at the wedding of Cana, where Jesus performed the first miracle recorded in the Gospels; it was Mary who told "the workers to do whatever Jesus tells them." (Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, 2004). Even more significant, "at the Crucifixion, when others have fled, Mary is still at the foot of the cross." (Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, 2004). Furthermore, it is not only Mary's presence at the cross that is significant. As Jesus' mother, it is not surprising or even necessarily significant to find Mary at her son's side, waiting with him as he died. What is significant is the interaction between Christ and Mary while he is being crucified:

Mary's interaction with her son on the cross is striking, since one of his final acts is devoted to naming John as her new son, and her as John's mother. In this and other scenes she is depicted as an image of the church, the mother of believers, and one to whose care Jesus is devoted to his dying breath. Scripture presents a vision of Mary as one whose importance is not limited to the Annunciation and to Christmas, but extends into the life of the church. (Byassee, 2005).

While some, like Roberts, have downplayed Mary's appearance in Scripture, others have found her presence, while limited, to demonstrate exactly how important Mary was in the fledgling church, and not merely because of her role as Jesus' mother. At first this distinction may appear difficult to grasp, because religiously, secularly, and culturally, largely due to the impact of Protestantism, Mary is overwhelmingly identified with her maternity. However, this vision of Mary is incredibly simplistic and ignores the reality that parents have a tremendous impact on the development of their children. If God had desired a scenario where Jesus was not linked to humanity, he could have arranged for Jesus' appearance to be completely unattached to a pregnancy and birth. However, God's point in creating Jesus was to have someone divine and human. Therefore, it seems likely that God would have desired that Jesus feel the same impact from how his earthly parents raised him as any other human child would have felt. Understanding this, the conclusion is inescapable: Mary was more than a womb; she also participated in each of the stages of Jesus' life. This participation may not always have been pleasant, which should not be surprising, given that few parent-child relationships exist without conflict, however Mary was a consistent presence in Jesus' life. Mary was not only the one who carried Jesus in her womb, but the one who raised him. Byassee points out how notable Mary's interactions in Jesus' life were:

It is striking that Mary is in the upper room at Pentecost -- the only woman present there who is named -- to receive the outpouring of God's Spirit at the birth of the church (Acts 1:14). When Paul makes his one oblique mention of Jesus' mother it is to point to her as a sign that he was indeed born, and so was genuinely human (Gal. 4:4). To cite a more contested passage, her image in Revelation 12:17 as a woman clothed with the sun with a crown of stars in the agony of giving birth to a son who will rule the nations is, at the very least, impressive. Mary's appearances in scripture are indeed limited, but they are tied to crucial moments in salvation history, without which there would be no church. (Byassee, 2005).

Furthermore, Byassee hypothesizes that Mary may have been a significant Jewish and early Christian leader, even if she had not given birth to the Messiah. Regardless of denomination, Christians understand that Mary was a devout follower of God, and that she readily took on the responsibility of having Jesus, regardless of the impact it would have upon her life. This was an incredible burden for Mary. Not only would she have a child out of wedlock and be subject to scandal because of it, but she would raise this child knowing that his eventual death was essential to the salvation of her people.

This required an incredible amount of strength on her part, and is not something that just any average woman would have been able to do. Byassee supports these ideas by pointing out that:

Scripture presents Mary as an important agent in her own right, not just as the mother of her son. If her Magnificat is any indication, she is an extraordinary reader of the Bible, lyrically weaving together Jewish scripture into a new song that is perhaps the most frequently sung canticle in church history. We are twice told that she "treasures" the words entrusted to her by angels and shepherds and that she "ponders these things" in her heart (Luke 2:19, 51). Aged Simeon promises her that her child's destiny to be for the "falling and rising of many in Israel" will cause a "sword to pierce" her own soul too -- suggesting that Mary's importance continues in the saga of salvation long after her child's birth. (Luke 2:34-35). (Byassee, 2005).

Despite these points, Mary has not always been afforded respect as an important Jewish and early Christian leader in her own right. In fact, there has been remarkably little concentration on the importance of Mary's presence at the crucifixion. On the one hand, one would expect Jesus' mother to be present upon his deathbed, but she was not only present at the crucifixion. Instead, it was there that Jesus established the beginnings of the new church, instructing Mary to act as a mother to the fledgling church.

However, it is not only Protestants who have downplayed Mary's role at the Crucifixion; even Catholics and Orthodox Christians have sometimes placed greater importance on Mary's participation in Christ's birth than in his death. This emphasis may reflect a gendered bias in Christianity, which has tried to limit female participation in the Church to traditionally gendered roles, like childbirth and motherhood. Death was not traditionally considered within the female realm. Even more importantly, it was considered inconceivable by many that Jesus would have entrusted the beginning church to his mother.

Despite this bias, the image of Mary at the foot of the cross has been an inspiration to countless Christians and has played a tremendous role in Christian hymnody, although this role has been greater in the East than in the West. Perhaps this influence is because maternal devotion is something that has been traditionally considered within the realm of the feminine, and has often been considered synonymous with the definitions of womanhood and femininity. Biblical scholar Patrick Henry Reardon believes that the image of Mary at the cross has inspired generations of Christians because it speaks to the heart of Christianity:

The emotional impulse to dwell on the sorrow of Jesus' mother at the foot of the Cross had its root in the very love symbolized by the Cross. Simply put, Jesus died because he loved us. And such sacrificial love elicited a responding love from the believing heart. Christian emotional response to the sufferings of Jesus, then, has traditionally been deep and abiding. (Reardon, 2005).

In addition, some scholars have gone so far as to link Mary's presence at the crucifixion with her physically giving birth to Christ, by demonstrating that both were painful to her. Reardon is one of the scholars who have linked Mary's suffering at the cross and her participation in childbirth in a very interesting manner:

In John's Gospel the word "woman," gyne, seems especially significant. Besides at Cana and at the Cross, the Lord elsewhere uses this same word "woman" to portray the coming "hour" of His own passion: "When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world" (www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NLT&passage=John+16%3A21John 16:21 ESV). This sorrow of the childbearing "woman" is likened to the sorrow experienced by the disciples of Jesus at his coming passion: "I say to you, you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice.... But I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you" (www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NLT&passage=John+16%3A2016:20, 22 ESV). The "woman" facing the hour of the Lord's passion, then, is identified with the Messianic congregation itself, rather as we find in chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation. (Reardon, 2004).

Despite the fact that all sects of Christianity have consistently placed more importance on Mary's role in Jesus' birth than his death, it would be inaccurate to suggest that traditional Protestants have ever treated Mary's role at the cross with the same level of seriousness or reverence as Catholics and Orthodox Christians. However, it is important to understand that Catholics approach the crucifixion in a decidedly different manner than Protestants. Catholics have traditionally shown more reverence towards Mary, and this reverence has included a greater respect for her role at the crucifixion. As pointed out by Roberts:

Roman Catholic tradition makes a great deal of Mary's presence throughout Jesus's crucifixion, adding all sorts of extra-biblical material to the gospel accounts. Moreover, in the Catholic tradition, Jesus's words to Mary and the beloved disciple are seen by some as establishing her as the mother of all believers. Furthermore, her suffering as the natural mother of Jesus, not to mention his devoted disciple, becomes paradigmatic of all human suffering. But a Protestant preacher isn't going to get this from of the New Testament sources, which is where we Protestant preachers go for our material. The "omission" of the "import" of Mary's role at the cross is "most striking" only if you look at it through Roman Catholic eyes. Then, I'll agree, it is remarkable to see how something so important in Roman Catholic piety appears to mean so little to Protestants. But this should come as no surprise to anyone, given the Protestant reliance on Scripture and the Catholic reliance on Scripture plus later tradition. (Roberts, 2005).

Therefore, it would be surprising, at best, and maybe even heretical, if Protestants were to place the same emphasis on Mary's role at the crucifixion as Catholics place on it, given that Protestants must interpret Mary's presence at the Crucifixion solely from a Scriptural point-of-view.

The fact that the Bible does not support the deification of Mary does not mean that there is no room for Mary in Protestantism. There is a broad gulf between worshipping Mary and respecting that she played an important role in the foundation of Christianity, both as the mother of Jesus and as one of his first followers. While cautioning that "we who base our theology upon Scripture alone will not be able to go the lengths of Marian veneration that are common among some Roman Catholics," Roberts explains that Protestants have Christian heroes and heroines, "and surely Mary should be prominent among them, if not preeminent." (Roberts, 2005). Given that Protestants celebrate other Biblical heroes, including those from the Old Testament, it should be clear that Robert's position is not inconsistent with Protestant ideals. Furthermore, Roberts cautions that, lacking an infallible Pope to establish Mary's divinity, if Protestant "veneration of the human Mary leads to praying to her as if she were a divine being or exalting her as a 'co-redeemer' with Christ, then we who base our theology on Scripture alone realize we can't go there." (Roberts, 2005). In short, Roberts acknowledges that Mary plays an important role as a Christian heroine. In fact, he suggests that Mary may be the most important of the solely-human heroes. He simply cautions against treating Mary as any type of deity, which is clearly prohibited under Protestant theology. Therefore, by demonstrating that one can respect Mary without worshipping her or having her replace God or Jesus, Roberts demonstrates that even conservative Protestants have room in their religions and in their lives to show devotion to Mary.

Given that Catholicism has provided the most obvious examples of Marian devotion and veneration, it should come as no surprise that the renewed Protestant interest in Mary has recently manifested in a traditionally Catholic manner, with many Protestants claiming to have seen images of Mary. Miriam Lambouras, a member of the Orthodox Church, engaged in a non-denominational examination of Marian apparitions. The results of her examination were very interesting, because she found that many non-Catholics had claimed to have seen images of Mary in recent history. Furthermore, she noted that these observations marked a change in traditional Protestantism, which had little use for the symbols and signs that many Catholics relied upon for affirmation of their faith. For example, she discovered that historically, "while many people (the vast majority being Roman Catholics, of course) considered these apparitions a direct sign from Heaven, others (mainly Protestant) considered them some kind of hallucination or even demonic delusion." (Lambouras, 2006). After examining the issue, Lambouras concluded that:

the whole issue was considerably more complex than a straight choice between Divine revelation on the one hand and demonic delusion on the other. Several other factors seemed to play a part in varying degrees of significance at different shrines - psychological factors, the question of ecclesiastical manipulation and papal involvement, nationalist and political elements, the presence of something much older than Christianity, namely the worship of the goddess, and finally, the possibility of a link-up with New Age syncretism and neo-paganism. (Lambouras, 2006).

Of course, the majority of Marian apparitions have traditionally been linked to Catholicism, and that continues to be the case. The most notable exception occurred in Egypt, where people of all faiths claimed to have seen an apparition of Mary. These claims began in 1968, in Zeitoun, Cairo. While similar to other alleged Marian apparitions, the most notable feature of the Zeitoun St. Mary claims is their differentness:

They concerned not the Roman Church, but the Coptic Church, and Coptic bishops, including the Coptic Patriarch's representative, were among the millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews and non-believers who many times witnessed the apparitions over a period of three years, from 1968-1971. The Coptic Church recognized the apparitions as true appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as did the Coptic Catholic Church, the Greek Catholic Church, and the then Head of the Evangelical Church and Speaker on behalf of all the Protestant Churches of Egypt. (Lambouras, 2006).

On its own, Protestant recognition of the Marian apparitions may not have signaled a major departure from the Protestant faith, if this recognition had been limited to a few individual Protestants. However, what is significant about this apparition is that a very significant number of Protestants, as well as members of other major religions, admitted to witnessing the apparition. Given that the traditional Protestant attitude towards Marian apparitions has been to treat them as if they were evidence of demonic possession, the fact that tremendous numbers of individual Protestants and the speaker on behalf of Egypt's Protestant churches acknowledged the validity of the vision marked a dramatic change in Protestant attitudes towards Mary. Although Lambouras ends up questioning the authenticity of the visions, which is a position that is necessarily dictated by her own religious affiliation, the importance of Marian apparitions is not to be determined by whether or not they actually existed. In fact, determining the validity of a Marian apparition is not only beyond the scope of this paper, but may be beyond the scope of any human being. However, the fact that some Protestants and, in fact, all Egyptian Protestant churches, were willing to accept the validity of at least one Marian apparition signals a tremendous post-Marian movement for the Protestant church, which would traditionally have characterized such an apparition as something bad or toxic. Of course, this recognition does not mean that Protestants as a whole now believe in Marian apparitions or that Protestantism has grown to embrace similar supernatural or psychic-type phenomenon. What it does signify is that Protestants have grown more accepting of the concept that Mary's role in Christianity may, in fact, be broader than Protestant tradition would suggest.

In addition, while Marian apparitions continue to be somewhat unusual, they are only one sign of a growing spiritual acceptance, which may signal more significant changes in the modern Protestant church. As Lambouras points out:

Many Marian apparition enthusiasts do not realise is that spiritual phenomena are almost commonplace these days. The Pentecostal / Charismatic groups are very quick to identify their experiences with the Holy Spirit, just as the Protestant revivalists in Indonesia in the 1970's unquestionably accepted their "voices," "angels" (invariably quoting Scripture by chapter and verse), visions of "Christ," healings, miraculous lights accompanying evangelists, and mysterious fires from heaven that consumed Roman Catholic statues, as genuine. People who bring "Christian" ideas to their experiences often assume, all too readily, that they actually are Christian experiences, the work of the Holy Spirit, and they seldom pause to ask if they might possibly originate from quite another kind of spirit. (Lambouras, 2006).

With her last sentence, Lambouras demonstrates her own religious bias, because her Orthodox background prohibits a belief in things such as apparitions. However, her study into the Marian apparitions demonstrates that some Protestants do believe that they are genuine, and that they are more and more open-minded regarding challenges to traditional Protestant theology in general. Furthermore, given that there has even been official church recognition of these apparitions, it appears that Marian devotion can be consistent with Protestantism. This recognition may even suggest that Protestant officials are more and more willing to embrace things outside of traditional theology, which suggests that there is room for Mary's role in Protestantism to change and grow.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that some other religious scholars have expanded upon the idea that Marian devotion can be consistent with Protestantism, and have even gone so far as to suggest that Marian devotion may be necessary for the continued health of Protestantism. This suggestion does not mean that scholars believe that the deification of Mary will become a necessary element of Protestantism. On the contrary, it is important to keep in mind that one of the largest differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is that Catholics believe in prayers to saints, including Mary, while Protestants do not believe in the use of intermediaries in prayer. Therefore, one should not anticipate ever seeing the same level of Marian devotion in Protestantism as in Catholicism, because one should never anticipate seeing Protestants pray to Mary. Not only would that be inconsistent with Protestantism, it would be heresy by all Protestant standards. Therefore, Protestants will probably never get to a place of asking Mary for her direct divine assistance.

However, simply because Mary is not a deity does not mean that she should not be considered in prayers, or even support a blanket assertion that Protestants should be prohibited from praying to Mary. In fact, Byassee suggests that the Protestant reluctance to pray to Mary is misplaced, and that it is not only consistent with Protestantism, but possibly even an imperative for Protestants. Most Protestants believe that "death does not sever the bonds of the body of Christ." (Byassee, 2005). Therefore:

To ask for a departed saint's prayer, then, is not in principle different from asking another Christian for her prayers. We hold that the saints are not simply gone but are ever alive to God, and so we ought also consider them to be available as intercessors, and powerful ones at that. (Byassee, 2005).

Despite his belief that Protestants need to reconsider their views about praying to the saints, especially to Mary, Byassee also acknowledges how uncomfortable the majority of Protestants are with the concept of praying to a saint, even if those prayers are merely asking the saint for their prayers:

This is precisely the point at which Protestant theologians get most nervous. Such a request of prayer from Mary smacks of an effort to gain divine favor by some route other than Christ -- the height of idolatry. To prop the door open here even an inch threatens to bring back the medieval system of veneration of scores of saints in an effort to earn the favor of a distant and foreboding Jesus. Hence we slam the door shut. To honor Christ, the saints must be excluded. (Byassee, 2005).

However, that conclusion does not necessarily follow from even a literal interpretation of Scripture, and, as Byassee points out, may actually be extremely limiting to Protestants. No one would suggest that a Protestant was engaged in any type of idolatry if he asked a spiritual friend or pastor to pray for him in time of trouble. Given that death does not end existence for Christians, there is essentially no difference in asking for that assistance if a person is dead or living. However, the departed saints of Roman Catholicism, the Christian heroes of Protestantism, are almost certainly more spiritually aware than most living Christians. Therefore, a request for their assistance in prayer is simply a request for expert assistance, which is not prohibited by Protestantism. On the contrary, "The strengthening of the bonds of the body of Christ, stretching as they do across the divide between earthly life and death, should bring tribute to Christ rather than discredit." (Byassee, 2005).

Having established that Marian devotion is not inconsistent with Protestantism, it is necessary to determine whether Mary is a useable symbol for woman-church and Protestant feminism. The short and simple answer to that inquiry is "yes," but there is actually nothing simple about that answer. For example, it may actually be impossible to separate the rising, new interest in Mary from the feminist movement, which would make it similarly impossible to understand whether new interpretations of Mary have been shaped by the feminist movement, or whether the feminist movement in the Protestant church has resulted from a re-examination of Mary's role in the church. Recent years have shown a rising Protestant interest in female biblical characters, but many scholars have still avoided discussing the role of the Virgin Mary, which is surprising. After all, Mary is certainly the most significant woman mentioned in the New Testament, at least according to traditional Protestant theology. (While Mary Magdalene actually plays a similarly significant role in the New Testament, she is an even more controversial figure for most Christians, who continue to view her as some type of prostitute, despite the absence of any Scripture supporting that description). However, the rise in scholarship about these female biblical figures has not yielded an archetypal heroine to rival the male heroes in the Bible. This is especially true of the scholar's approach to the Virgin Mary, which simply has not fulfilled the scriptural promise.

This failure should not be attributed to a lack of perception or even to any sort of unintentional oversight. Instead, it seems that this failure may be due to the fact scholars have consciously avoided focusing on Mary, because her role, from both a modern feminist perspective and a traditional Protestant prospective, is a superficially limited one. After all, Mary's conception was visited upon her, and even the birth of Christ, Mary's defining moment, was not described as differing from the experience that other women had in labor and delivery. When viewed as a womb or a vessel, Mary was not only deprived of power in Protestantism, but also deprived of her power as a strong female role model and feminist symbol. As a result, not only have many Protestants been inclined to dismiss Mary as an unexceptional person who was simply selected to play an exceptional role, but likewise many feminists were unable to embrace Mary as a powerful religious symbol because of their perceptions of her as something akin to a passive brood mare.

However, the view of Mary as a passive vessel is simply not supported by Scripture. However, to understand how strong Mary actually was, one must study more than Scripture. From a modern perspective, a young unwed mother is nothing remarkable. On the contrary, unwed mothers are commonplace. Circumstances were tremendously different in Mary's time. An unwed mother would have met with such a tremendous level of scorn and derision that consenting to that treatment would have been sufficient to demonstrate Mary's strength of character. Of course, the shame of unwed motherhood was simply the first of Mary's challenges. Not only did she give birth to Jesus under inauspicious circumstances, but also with the knowledge that her son would die before her. There may be no horror in life greater than that of a child predeceasing a parent, and for someone to willingly accept such a challenge indicates strength of character far greater than one would ever expect from a passive victim.

In fact, Scripture simply does not support the notion that Mary was in any way a passive victim, or even that she was anything other than a strong and capable woman. On the contrary, Biblical portrayals of Mary demonstrate that she was chosen by God because of her tremendous willingness to do his work, rather than randomly selected. It is impossible to read the Gospels without coming away with a sense of Mary's strength and devotion to God. In fact, "while Mary is not mentioned a lot in the Bible, she is deeply connected with the major themes of the Gospels." (Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, 2004). Given that the Protestant faiths differ from Catholicism and Orthodoxy in that Protestants place a much greater emphasis on the Gospels, it becomes clear that for Protestants to fully understand the Gospels, they must develop a much greater understanding of Mary's role in them. (Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, 2004). Biblical scholar Timothy George thinks that Mary's submission to God's will actually gives a wonderful example of Christian submission, without revealing any of the passivity that has plagued traditional images of Marian piety. In fact, George finds that Mary's submission is "an act of humility; it's an act of surrender to the will of God. And that's a wonderful line of discipleship for any Christian that wants to take seriously the call of God on our lives." (Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, 2004).

In fact, what made Mary noteworthy and different from the other women of her time is that she did respond to God's call. This is significant and should not be downplayed. One must remember that what makes humans so remarkable is that they have free will. Though God could have made religious devotion an inescapable obligation, he chose not to do so. Instead, God imbued humans with the ability of self-determination, which allows each individual to make the choice of whether or not to respond to God's call. This basic choice has not changed since Mary's time. Part of the issue with self-determination is that when people make choices, they do so without the security of knowing the outcomes and consequences of those choices. As evangelical youth worker Shannon Kubiak points out that "Mary did not have all the answers, and she didn't pretend to have all the answers. She was not all-knowing." (Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, 2004). However, Mary's humanity should not prevent her from becoming a symbol for women in the church. On the contrary, "Mary's imperfections are a reminder that you do not have to be perfect to come to God. You do not even have to be perfect to be used by God for great things." (Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, 2004). In fact, one of Mary's messages may actually be that perfection is an unattainable goal for humans, and that Mary was blessed because of, not despite, her human imperfections.

The newfound emphasis on Mary's humanity has led to some rather dramatic changes in the Protestant view of Mary. The first Protestants viewed Mary in much the same way as Catholics, concentrating on things like her virginity, rather than on her willingness to fulfill God's desires. Modern Protestants are finding it more and more difficult to embrace some of the less scientifically plausible aspects of the nativity story. As a result, some of them go so far as to challenge things like the virgin birth. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that modern scholars, like Reardon, are encouraging a symbolic reading of Mary:

If the community of faith can symbolize the mother of the Messiah, then the physical mother of the Messiah can certainly symbolize the community of faith. Indeed, this symbolic development is hardly surprising. The mother of Jesus, after all, is portrayed in much of the New Testament as the model Christian. According to Luke, she "kept all these things and pondered them in her heart" (www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NLT&passage=Luke+2%3A19Luke 2:19 NKJV). She declared herself "the maidservant of the Lord," eager for God's will to be accomplished in her life (www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NLT&passage=Luke+1%3A381:38 NKJV). Indeed, in the whole New Testament she is the first to speak of "God my Savior" (www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NLT&passage=Luke+1%3A471:47). If all Christians feel in their depths the love of Christ poured out for them upon the Cross, would this not be supremely true of his mother who stood in faith beside it? (Reardon, 2004).

Furthermore, it is almost impossible to discuss Mary's role in the church without acknowledging a potentially powerful feminist influence. To bring his son into flesh and into the world, God chose to use a woman alone. This choice was important. After all, according to Scripture, God had already created human life, without the use of a womb, when he created Adam from earth. Furthermore, God had created human life from another human, without the use of a womb, when he created Eve from Adam's rib. Being all powerful, it is absolutely clear that God did not have to use a woman to bring his son to life. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that:

Attention to Mary has been embraced by some theologians as part of a feminist strategy of overcoming patriarchy. They point out that the Protestant rejection of Mary has meant losing the powerful woman who gave birth to Christianity in the beginning. As Reformed theologian Christopher Morse notes, at the "most important event of all history the mighty male is excluded!" Simeon the New Theologian argued in the 11th century that God had already made a child from no parents (Adam) and had made one from a male with no female (Eve). God often makes children from two parents male and female (the rest of us). One thing only remained for God to do -- to make a child from a female alone. Hence it was fitting for God to work through a woman, Mary, without aid of a man. Perhaps God's enfleshment in human history via a woman alone should be seen as a resource for feminism, if used carefully. (Byassee, 2005).

However, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the use of Mary in Protestantism has a tremendous potential for backlash against women. For centuries, the ideal woman has been portrayed as someone who is submissive and chaste. Therefore, "some theologians regard an emphasis on Mary's submission, self-effacement and purity as a potential step backward for women." (Byassee, 2005).

Furthermore, even the notion of Mary's virginity is controversial to some modern Protestant scholars. For example, Spong believes that Mary's virginity is merely one aspect of the patriarchy of the church. According to Spong:

For most of the two thousands years of history since the birth of our Lord, the Christian church has participated in and supported the oppression of women. This oppression has been both overt and covert, conscious and unconscious. It has come primarily through the church's ability in the name of God to define a woman and to make that definition stick. It was grounded in a literalistic understanding of Holy Scripture thought of as the infallible word of God and produced in a patriarchal manner. (Spong, 1992).

Therefore, Spong links Mary's virginity with patriarchal mores suppressing female sexuality, and goes on to challenge that notion, especially as it relates to the Virgin Mary. Spong's point-of-view directly contradicts other scholars, who find the narratives of Jesus' conception and birth to be among the most feminist elements of the Bible and of Protestantism. Instead, Spong believes that:

Patriarchy and God have been so deeply and uncritically linked to gender by the all-male church hierarchy that men have little understood how this alliance has been used to the detriment of all women. In a unique and intriguing sense, the parts of the Bible that have contributed most to this negativity have been the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. These stories, far more than is generally realized, assisted in the development of the ecclesiastical stereotype of the ideal woman against which all women came to be judged. The power of these birth narratives over women lies in their subtle illusions and romantic imagery. Those biblical passages that contain obvious prejudice against women can be quickly confronted and easily laid aside. But subtle, unconscious definitions and traditional unchallenged patterns resist so simple an excising. So it is that through these passages of Holy Scripture the picture of a woman known as "the virgin" has found entry into the heart of the Christian story, and from that position she has exercised her considerable influence. (Spong, 1992).

Therefore, Spong would probably not agree that Protestants should move towards Marian devotion, because, to him, the very notion of Marian devotion reflects patriarchal attitudes rather than detailing the true story of the nativity.

However, that is not to say that Spong does not believe that Protestants should explore the Virgin Mary. He does find elements of Mary's story to be very compelling, both to Protestants and to feminists seeking to rectify some of the sexism in the Bible. However, he does not believe that Mary's virginity should be an element of Mary's story. On the contrary, Spong believes that literal interpretations of the birth narratives in the gospel are destructive. Furthermore, Spong asserts:

do not believe that Mary was in any biological sense literally a virgin. I do not believe that someone known as a virgin mother can be presented with credibility to contemporary men or women as an ideal woman. I do not believe that the story of Mary's virginity enhanced the portrait of the mother of Jesus. To the contrary, I believe that story has detracted from Mary's humanity and has become a weapon in the hands of those whose patriarchal prejudices distort everyone's humanity in general but women's humanity in particular. (Spong, 1992).

There are several reasons why Spong believes that Mary's alleged virginity is so harmful to women. One of those reasons is that Mary's virginity:

contributed to that peculiarly Christian pattern of viewing women primarily in terms of sexual function. Women may deny their sexuality by becoming virgin nuns, or women may indulge their sexuality by becoming prolific mothers. But in both cases, women are defined not first as persons and second as sexual beings but first and foremost as females whose sexuality determines their identity. This means, in my opinion, that the literalized Bible in general, and the birth narratives that turn on the person of the virgin in particular, are guilty of aiding and abetting the sexist prejudice that continues to live and to distort women even as late in history as these last years of the twentieth century. (Spong, 1992).

Instead, Spong suggests that Christians need to realize that the Virgin birth cannot be taken literally, thereby freeing themselves from literalism. Once freed from literalism, Christians will be able to explore the myths of Christianity. In fact, Spong seems to believe that Christians can take their religious traditions seriously without taking them literally, and that such an approach will save Christianity from its seemingly imminent demise. (Spong, 1992). Spong is not the only scholar to suggest that Christianity, most particularly Protestantism, is facing a sort of identity crises, which if not resolved appropriately, will lead to the end of the religion. In addition, he is not the only scholar to assert that a re-consideration of Mary is one of the things that may be able to revive the church.

An understanding of Marian devotion and attitudes towards Mary is virtually impossible if one relies only upon Scripture, because the Gospels were written in a style reflective of Jewish historical and religious traditions. Therefore, to truly understand Mary's role in Christianity, one must return to the roots of the church, which cannot be found by studying any part of Christianity, but can only be resolved by looking at Christianity's Jewish heritage. In this context, it may be necessary to look at the tradition of midrash. Midrash refers to the Jewish tradition of probing, teasing, and dissecting sacred stories "looking for hidden meanings, filling in blanks, and seeking clues to yet-to-be-revealed truths." (Sprong, 1992). Through midrash, the understanding of a sacred story would certainly change through time, which would probably result in changes to the Scripture. Therefore, for Gospel to contain something other than literal truth, in effect, "to retell stories out of the Jewish religious past to illumine the new experience by showing how the past was seen in and fulfilled by the present." (Sprong, 1992). To understand this, one needs to understand that the Scriptures were not written to address the issue of whether or not events occurred, but rather to explain those events and their significance. While such an explanation may appear simple on the surface, it actually captures an essential point about Scripture. According to Spong:

There was nothing objective about the Gospel tradition. These were not biographies.

They were books written to inspire faith...To force these narratives into the straightjacket of literal historicity is to violate their intention, their method, and their truth. To see them as expressions of the genre called midrash with a Christian twist is to enter Scripture in a new and perhaps a life-giving way? (Spong, 1992).

Therefore, Spong does not believe that one should revere Mary on the basis of the virgin birth.

Even if Marion devotion is consistent with Protestantism, it does not follow that there has been an upswing in pro-Mary sentiment in the various Protestant churches. Responding to an article in Time magazine, in which David Van Biema argued that Mary's popularity was growing among Protestants, David Roberts suggests that Van Biema's evidence that Protestantism is headed towards a pro-Marian tipping point is thin. (Roberts, 2005). In fact, Van Biema uses a pro-Mary sermon by Pastor John Buchanan of Chicago's Fourth Presbyterian Church to bolster his arguments. However, Robert's examination of Buchanan's sermon reveals that it does not support Van Biema's thesis that Protestants have to find a new place for Mary. Undoubtedly, Buchanan's sermon urged his congregation to make a place for Mary in the church. However, according to Roberts:

After calling Protestants to give Mary her place, Buchanan then explains exactly what place he means. Mary is to serve as "a reminder" for Protestants. She is not a focus of essential doctrine, not a heavenly queen who prays for us, not a co-redeemer alongside of Christ, and certainly not someone who should play a major role in our worship and piety... Rev. Buchanan may be using Mary in an unusual way (though, frankly, I doubt it's that unusual). But his theological points are solidly Protestant and biblical. Mary is mostly a marvelous reminder of who God is and how God acts. (Roberts, 2005).

Furthermore, Roberts conducted an investigation beyond Buchanan's sermon, seeking to support his own theory that Buchanan's sermon did not signal a departure from traditional Protestant beliefs or suggest that there would be "any significant changes in the liturgy, piety, and theology of Fourth Presbyterian Church." (Roberts, 2005). On the contrary, Roberts' investigation revealed that Buchanan's sermon was extremely consistent with Fourth Presbyterian's prior teachings and with the mainstream Protestant approach to Mary. While Buchanan ended his sermon on Mary with the words "Hail, Mary," he ended a similar sermon on Joseph by encouraging people to hail Joseph, as well. (Roberts, 2005). Furthermore, Roberts:

downloaded several orders of worship from the church website (from 2004 and 2005). In these, Mary shows up in very traditional Presbyterian garb. She's mentioned in the Apostle's Creed and in Christmas carols as the composer of the Magnificat or the mother of Jesus. That's it. No "Hail Mary's." No songs to Mary. No veneration of the virgin. Just good ol' Protestant Mary. (Roberts, 2005).

In fact, because one of Buchanan's sermons leveled the playing field between Mary and Joseph, Roberts believes that "the actual evidence from Fourth Presbyterian Church" disconfirms Van Biema's main thesis, which is that Protestants are on the verge of a pro-Marian tipping point. (Robert, 2005).

Roberts disagrees with another of Van Biema's contentions, which is that the influx of Hispanics into Protestantism is going to lead to a more pro-Marian approach by mainline Protestants. In his article, Van Biema describes the very pro-Marian approach taken by the El Amor de Dios Church in Chicago, and cites this as an example of Protestants embracing Mary. However, Roberts cites his own personal experience to suggest that the experience in one church not be equated with the broader experience of Protestantism. Roberts states:

I've known Hispanic Protestant pastors who are more strongly opposed to things they regard as Roman Catholic - including the veneration of Mary - that I am because they have personal experience of the extent to which Mary can dominate Latino piety, "even to the point of claiming the supremacy of Mary over Jesus Christ," to quote Enrique Gonzales. Thus I'm disinclined to accept the views of Braaten and Van Biema on the growth of Marian piety within Protestantism just because Hispanics are moving to this country. It may turn out that having more Hispanics in Protestant denominations makes them less open to Mary, not more. It appears that both Landaverde and Gonzales have seen their approach to Mary draw Hispanics to church. Yet, at least as far as I can tell, Gonzales is more thoughtful in his rejection of Marian veneration than Landaverde is in acceptance of it. (This may not be fair to Landaverde, however, since I have little to go on besides a couple of quotes in articles.) (Roberts, 2005).

If Roberts' hypothesis is true and pastors are simply using a more pro-Marian approach to draw Hispanics into their churches, such tactics do not necessarily indicate a coming change in Protestant liturgy.

In fact, Roberts hypothesizes that the increasing openness that many Protestants are exhibiting towards Marian devotion is actually part of a larger picture. He posits that "the greater openness of Protestants to Mary is simply one sign of the greater openness among Protestants to Roman Catholicism in general." (Roberts, 2005). Roberts may be incorrect, his theory has some merit. For example, even in recent times, there has been tremendous strife between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant churches. The two sides have not been content to hold different religious beliefs, but have even gone so far as to doubt "each other's salvation and vociferously den[y] each other's orthodoxy." While it is true that there is still a division among Christians, Protestants and Catholics seem to have come to the conclusion that they share the same core beliefs about God and Christ. The result of this realization has been less Protestant antagonism towards elements of Christianity that have traditionally been considered Catholic. Marian devotion is simply one of those elements. In addition, many modern Protestant churches have begun to return to the roots of the church, searching for ways to practice Christianity. As a result, they have "adopted practices that we once would have identified as 'Roman Catholic'- passing of the peace, Ash Wednesday services, the use of visual images in worship, etc. This has given Protestants a greater appreciation for Catholic traditions and made it easier for us to 'cross over' in our worship." (Roberts, 2005).

Perhaps even more significant is the fact that many Catholics are becoming Protestants. There has been a tremendous influx of Hispanics into the United States in recent years. The majority of these people were raised in the Catholic Church. However, many of them are leaving the Catholic Church to "embrace an exuberant style of worship" that they feel bring them closer to God. (Diamant, 2006). Where Catholicism in America features solemn services and focuses on the need for intermediaries in one's relationship with God, whether on earth, where priests and the pope are called upon to mediate the relationship between worshipper and God, or in heaven, where the saints are expected to act in the mediator capacity; Protestantism offers worshippers the promise of a personal relationship with God. As a result, the Protestant experience in America is oftentimes closer to the Catholic experience in other countries than Catholicism in America.

One of the most unique and puzzling aspects of Marian devotion is the ability that Mary has to bridge cultural gaps. The most obvious example of this bridge-building power is the fact that those raised as Catholics can embrace Protestantism, with the aid of the Virgin Mary. As a matter of fact, "One of the most profound and most persistent roles of the Virgin Mary in history has been her function as a bridge builder to other traditions, other cultures, and other religions." (Pelikan, 2006). Accounts of Mary in the Qur'an are even more detailed than accounts of similar events in the New Testament. Furthermore, Mary was the key to understanding Jesus for both Christians and Muslims. For examples, Muslims believed that Jesus existed and that he was a prophet, if not the divine Son of God. In contrast, to Christians, it was necessary that Jesus be not only the Son of God, but also that he be partially human. As a result, "as for Christian orthodoxy, so in a directly antithetical way also for Muslim orthodoxy, the key to the correct understanding both of who Jesus was and of what he did was Mary, his mother." (Pelikan, 1996). This vision of Mary was essential for bridge building between Islam and Judaism, as well as between Islam and Christianity. For Muslims, Mary was the "point of connection between Jesus and the history of Israel." (Pelikan, 1996). Mary also connected Islam and Christianity, because she reaffirmed the idea of a monotheistic deity in both religions; in Christianity because she was the means by which God manifested himself on earth, but in Islam because she was the mother of Jesus, whom the Muslims believed was an apostle. (Pelikan, 1996).

Conclusion

If the examination of Mary's role in modern Protestantism has revealed anything, it is that there is no one answer to the question: does Mary play a significant role in modern Protestant religion? On the contrary, that question has as many different answers as there are individual Protestants and different Protestant denominations. However, regardless of what denomination, it is clear that Mary's role in Protestantism is one that can be described as at least superficially respectful, but limited. In addition, it becomes clear that Mary's role in any denomination continues to be circumscribed, especially when compared to Mary's role in the Catholic Church. There is tremendous disagreement over whether Mary should play a larger role in Protestantism. Proponents of Protestant Marian devotion believe that increasing Mary's role in Protestant theology and liturgical tradition is exactly what is needed to revitalize the Protestant church and increase its relevance to mainstream society. On the other hand, some opponents of Protestant Marian devotion worry that increasing Mary's role in Protestantism would increase the risk of idolatry and actually be heretical. Still other opponents of Marian devotion believe that Mary's role in Christianity has been distorted by years of sexist religious leadership, and that Mary has been transformed from a potential symbol of feminist power into a tool for female oppression. Because of this, those opponents suggest that Mary should not necessarily be given a greater role in the church, but that her role in the church should be reexamined, reassessed, and, if it is merited, possibly expanded.

Given the lack of emphasis that Mary receives in the modern Protestant church, one might get the impression that she has never played an important role in the faith. However, as history reveals, this impression is simply inaccurate. The Reformation was not prompted by any anti-Marian sentiment, and the original Reformers exhibited a greater level of Marian devotion than some later Protestant denominations. However, since the Reformation, Protestants have increasingly associated Marian devotion with Catholicism, which has helped result in a Protestant backlash against Mary, which is probably not merited. In addition, the fact that Mary has few appearances in the New Testament makes it difficult for Protestants, who are generally limited to literal Biblical interpretation, to understand Mary's true role in the establishment of the early church and as Jesus' parent.

From the available research, it appears that there are four possible approaches to Mary's role in current Protestant liturgy. The first approach is to leave Mary's status as it is. The second approach is to increase Mary's status in the church, even going so far as to elevate Mary to a status similar to the one that she holds in Catholicism. The third approach is to downplay Mary's role in the church, because that role has been used to enforce sexist stereotypes, and to completely change Mary's role in the church. The fourth approach is to dramatically reconfigure Mary's role in the church, highlighting those aspects that have traditionally been ignored by the Protestant church, to bring about greater unity between the churches and with other religions.

Advocates who suggest that Mary is receiving adequate attention in the current Protestant church are being dishonest, though it appears that this dishonesty is probably the result of ignorance rather than any malicious anti-Marian sentiment. In recent history, Mary has received some adulation from Protestants, but that adulation has generally been limited to the fact that she gave birth to Jesus. Therefore, it ignores the fact that Mary seems have had the power of prophecy, like other great Biblical figures before her. In addition, that approach ignores the impact that Mary would have had on Jesus' personality, since she was the primary parent in his life. Even Protestants who emphasize Mary's obedience are missing the point, because they minimize the role that Mary's free-will played in her decision. She was not obligated to accept God's choice of her to carry the Messiah. In fact, one of the greatest gifts, and also one of the greatest burdens, given to mankind by God is the gift of free-will. Mary could have decided not to be the one to carry Jesus. To ignore that she made a choice, and that she had to have been cognizant of the consequences of her choice, downplays Mary's strength.

Some of the weaknesses with the current Protestant approach to Mary stem from Protestant's main weakness in general: literal Biblical interpretation. Without going so far as to state that the Bible does not contain the word of God, one can still question the wisdom of literally interpreting its words without understanding the contextual background. For example, even those who appreciate Mary's strength and the personal sacrifices that she made in order to carry the Christ, cannot fully appreciate her choice without understanding Judaism at the time of Christ. To interpret the Bible without understanding Jewish society at that time, in conjunction with historical facts, is to understand only part of the story. When one factors in the influences of Jewish society, which would have set Mary up for considerable difficulty as an unwed mother and also clarifies Joseph's own religious intensity, Mary's true strength becomes that much more apparent. Therefore, leaving the current Protestant approach to Mary unaltered is an unacceptable alternative, because it simply omits a large part of Mary's story, which would have been understand by the readers and writers of the Gospel at the time of its writing, but are beyond the comprehension of the average modern Christian who lacks the historical background to truly understand the material.

Unlike Protestantism, Catholicism has an extensive collection of extra-Biblical resources, which it has relied upon to develop its opinion of Mary. Because these resources include materials about the history of Judaism and the development of the early church, it may seem like embracing a Catholic approach to Mary is the best alternative for current Protestants. Certainly there are merits to such an approach. First, Catholics recognize that Mary was not simply a peasant chosen at random by God to carry Jesus, but a devout woman who was blessed by God. This recognition is a major advancement over the Protestant approach to Mary, and seems to afford a level of respect equal to that which the mother of God should receive.

However, there are certain substantial problems with the Catholic approach to Mary, which makes it incompatible with Protestantism on some basic levels. Surprisingly enough, reliance on extra-Biblical materials is not one of those problems, because there is nothing about resort to midrash that is truly anti-Protestant, as long as those extra materials are used to supplement understanding of the Scripture. The problem is that the Catholic approach to Mary does not supplement Scripture, but actually replaces some of the basic aspects of Scripture. For example, to many Catholics Mary is considered the Queen of Heaven, and her status is seen as equal to, and some would even say greater then, Jesus. This position is simply untenable for Protestants, who are a strictly monotheistic religion. There is no room in Protestantism for the deification of Mary.

Furthermore, many Catholics pray to Mary and other saints. Such prayers are consistent with Catholicism, which is a mediated religion. For example, the Pope is considered infallible and God's mouthpiece on Earth. Beneath him, an entire priestly hierarchy is given the same responsibility. Part of this responsibility is that the priests mediate the relationship between God and the laity. This approach to prayer and religion is very anti-Protestant, and to embrace it would signal a major departure from the Protestant faith. Protestants believe in a personal relationship with God, and insist that all Christians should be able to approach God without the assistance or interference of an intermediary. Therefore, Protestants should not embrace prayers to Mary, or to any other saint, as part of their religion.

While a fully Catholic approach to Mary would violate the spirit of Protestantism, it does not follow that Protestants should not adopt some elements of Catholic reverence for Mary. In fact, many modern Protestant churches, especially those that have experienced an influx of Hispanic worshippers, believe in offering prayers to Mary. However, when one understands that the worshippers are not asking Mary for divine favors, but simply asking for her assistance in their prayers, much as one would ask a devout friend for help with prayer and devotion, this position seems entirely consistent with Protestantism. Moreover, the position recognizes that Mary was an incredible figure in the early church and may be the best wholly-human example of piety in all of Christian history.

However, not all Protestants agree that Mary should play a greater role in the church. It is no secret that Protestantism has not been consistent with feminism. There are several cogent arguments to be made that suggest that the Protestant churches have developed an image of Mary as an obedient and subservient woman, which they have then used to subjugate women throughout history. The emphasis on Mary's sexuality certainly appears to support this point-of-view. For example, the one element of Mary's story that is consistently highlighted in stories of the nativity, which is the most-reinforced element of Mary's story in Protestant theology and liturgy, is that she was a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception. However, when one steps back from the story and views it from an objective perspective, one sees that Mary's virginity has little to no impact on the actual weight of the nativity. Whether or not Mary was a virgin, and whether Jesus' conception was accomplished through a literal or figurative entering of the Holy Ghost into Mary has no impact on the fact that a woman bearing the son of God was a miracle. Even had Mary had several children prior to Jesus, the conception of Jesus would have been a miracle. However, the Protestant church has consistently emphasized Mary's virginity as an essential element of the nativity story. Furthermore, this view of female sexuality actually signaled a departure from the traditional Jewish approach to female sexuality, which was much more accepting than the attitude than the Protestant attitude towards sexuality. Therefore, critics of Mary's role in Protestantism believe that she has been used as a tool to restrict female sexuality, by equating virginity and asexuality with religious devotion.

Furthermore, critics of Mary's role in Protestantism have reasons other than sexuality to believe that Mary has been used as a tool of oppression. Mary has consistently been identified as obedient and subservient. Moreover, Mary's obedience and subservience has been held out as an example of religious devotion. The problem with this example is that, while Mary's subservience may have signaled her religious devotion, women were not encouraged to simply by subservient to God. Instead, generations of Protestant women have been instructed that subservience to males is an essential element of religious devotion. This has been a perversion of Mary's example. While devout Christians may be required to be subservient to God and obedient to his wishes, that subservience does not translate into sex-based subservience in a secular environment. It is not necessary to restrict Mary's role in Protestantism in order to correct the years of sex-based discrimination. On the contrary, it may be absolutely necessary to increase awareness of Mary's role in order to correct this misconception. Mary was not subservient to the males in her life. Though the Bible has few examples of Mary's interactions with her Son, she did not even approach him in a subservient manner. On the contrary, by choosing to become an unwed mother, Mary flew in the face of the predominantly male Jewish establishment. When she made her choice, she did not know whether or not Joseph would marry her once he found out about her pregnancy, and yet she decided to carry Jesus. Therefore, if Protestants concentrated on the implications of Mary's decision, it would reveal Mary as a tremendously powerful and independent woman, helping transform her from the image of a passive victim into the image of strength.

Furthermore, one of the reasons that Mary has not been seen as a symbol of Christian feminism is because the Protestant church has consistently downplayed Mary's role in the establishment of the early church. Even if one only looks at the Scriptural references to Mary in the early church, those references establish a clear picture of Mary's involvement in the early church. For example, Mary is mentioned as being with Jesus at several different times. Even as Jesus' mother, it would have been unusual for her to travel with him. On the contrary, Mary would have been expected to establish a home with Joseph, and, after his death, to reside with an older male relative. The fact that she traveled with him leads one to believe that there was a reason for her presence, and the most logical reason is that Mary was one of his religious followers. Furthermore, Mary was one of the people there to witness the fact that Jesus was not in his tomb. Her presence at the tomb was tremendously significant, because the absence of Jesus' physical body is the fact that established his ascension into Heaven. Without his ascension, Jesus would have a difficult time establishing his claim as the Messiah. Therefore, that Mary was one of the witnesses to this event made her extremely influential at the beginning of the church. In addition, while on the cross, Jesus instructed Mary to act as a mother to his disciple. Taken wholly in context, this instruction appears curious. The disciple in question was not motherless, nor did he seem to be in need of parenting. If the instruction was directed at the two people personally, it would actually have made more sense for Jesus to instruct John to act as Mary's son, rather than instructing Mary to act as John's mother. However, when one considers John's official role, which was to become the leader of the emerging church, the instruction to Mary makes much more sense; Jesus was instructing Mary to give John the type of spiritual and religious guidance that she had given to Jesus. Finally, Scripture reveals that Mary was present at some of the meetings of the early church. While Mary's appearance at other points in Jesus' life may have been explainable by the fact that she was his mother, that explanation fails once Jesus died.

While it is true that Mary has not been used as a symbol of feminine strength, it is clear that Protestants do not need to abandon any current Marian devotion in order to abandon the sexism that has traditionally plagued in the church. On the contrary, it appears that focusing a greater concentration on Mary's life, and the implications of her choices and actions would actually increase feminist awareness in the Protestant church. While a focus on Mary's subservience is warranted, because it does demonstrate her pious obedience of God's will, it has taken over too much of Mary's image, leaving little room for the image of a woman of strength. Therefore, in order to further feminist aims in the Protestant church, Mary must receive more attention, but that attention must focus on aspects of Mary other than her sexuality and obedience.

Of course, years of sexism are not the only problem plaguing the current Protestant church. One need only watch a television news program to become aware of the tremendous strife that exists between different religious groups. While some staunch advocates of certain religious practices may believe that such strife is inevitable, the accomplishments of the ecumenical movement prove that such a belief is simply not true. For years, Catholics and Protestants believed that they could not resolve their religious differences, but the last fifty years has seen tremendous improvements in Protestant-Catholic relationships. It is only reasonable to believe that similar strides can be made in relationships between Protestants and members of other religious groups. What may be surprising is to learn how Mary could play a major role in this religious reconciliation.

First and foremost, it is important to recognize that Mary herself appears in the religious traditions of several other major religious groups. Her appearance there makes it clear that members of other religions are receptive to Marian messages. However, one must realize that how Mary appears in these other religious texts differs significantly from how Mary appears in the Bible. The most significant difference is that Mary is not seen as the mother of the Messiah in any of these texts. This should come as no surprise, since non-Christians do not view Jesus as the Messiah. However, many other religions do view Jesus as a major prophet, and they recognize Mary as the mother of a prophet. This point-of-view actually emphasizes Mary's special relationship with God, because Mary is also seen as a prophet by some of the other major world religions.

However, it is not simply Mary's role in the text of other religions that makes her an accessible symbol for religious unification, but also Mary's symbolic role. First, the concept of the virgin mother is not unique to Christianity. On the contrary, religious history reveals several instances of alleged virgin births. By emphasizing the common elements between Mary's story and these other mythologies, Protestants could demonstrate that there are similarities between Christianity and other religions, and possibly make Christianity more accessible to people of other cultural and religious backgrounds.

The problem with acknowledging that Mary is not the only alleged virgin mother is that some Protestants fear that will threaten the uniqueness of Christ. However, when viewed in the light of modern critics, many of whom believe that Jesus was not the product of a virgin birth, it may not be damaging to the Protestant church to abandon things like the literal interpretation of Mary's virgin conception. Instead, these scholars suggest that the Bible should be viewed as a collection of allegorical tales, and that one should not seriously consider the possibility of scientifically impossible things, like the virgin conception. If Protestants were willing to view their own holy text as an allegory, rather than as a literal transcript of past events, it is tremendously likely that the church would become more open-minded and less likely to respond in a hostile manner to ideas presented by other religions. More importantly, a less literal Protestant church might be less likely to draw criticism from members of other religions. Of course, such an approach would signal a radical departure from modern Protestantism, which relies heavily on the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Looking at the four choices, it seems obvious that none of those choices alone will further the aims of modern Protestantism. Equally obvious is the fact that the church must reconsider Mary's role in theology and liturgy. Abandoning Mary as a symbol simply will not work; she is too entrenched in the hearts and minds of Christians. Therefore, in order to remain vital and relevant, it is clear that Protestants need to expand Mary's role in the church, and be willing to expand her role beyond her description in the Scripture, to give a more accurate depiction of Mary's role in the early church.