I1P@PSUECL (02/02/90)
a tsatsara X-VMS-News: psuecl bit.listserv.christia:3474 > From: James Kiefer <JEK@NIHCU> > Subject:JEK: more on the use of the title, "Mother of God" > Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 01:40:00 EST > Message-ID:<CHRISTIA%90012208482417@FINHUTC> > My apologies to those who were offended by my use of the phrase > "Surrogate Mother of God" in a previous posting. It was not intended > to be a wisecrack, but rather to address the fact that some persons, > when they hear the assertion, "Mary is the Mother of God," > understand it to mean that Mary is older than God and that God owes > His origin and existence to her, which view they rightly reject; > while others persons understand it to mean from the first moment of > His existence as a man, Jesus was fully Divine as well as fully > human, that what Mary carried in her womb for nine months was truly > God, that in Jesus Christ, Deity and humanity are united in a single > person, who can say of Mary both, "She is My mother," and "She is My > creature," and it is the same "I" who speaks, which view they > rightly accept. Thus, many of those who dispute about the phrase > differ on words rather than on facts. > > If I had posted less quickly, it might have occurred to me to point > out that the actual term officially chosen by the Church to refer to > Mary is the Greek word "theotokos," which is customarily translated > "Mother of God," but is more literally translated "God-bearer." And > this is perhaps less open to misunderstanding. > > C.S. Lewis, in his book MERE CHRISTIANITY, undertakes to give an > outline of Christian doctrine as agreed upon by all Christian > churches, avoiding those questions on which there is disagreement > among Christians. (If you think this means a book of blank pages, > guess again.) In the introduction to the revised edition, he says (I > quote from memory, since, by Murphy's Law, my copy is at the other > terminal): > > > Thus some people have drawn conclusions from that fact that I > > made no mention of the Virgin Mary except in asserting the > > doctrine of the Virgin Birth. But surely my reasons for doing > > so are obvious. The Roman Catholic views on the Virgin are > > held (very properly so) not only with the intensity which a man > > will naturally feel in defending doctrines which he believes to > > be true, but also with the special fervor which a man will feel > > when the honor of his mother, his sister, or his beloved is at > > stake. It is very difficult to disagree with them in such a way > > that you will not appear to be a cad as well as a heretic. > > Meanwhile, the corresponding feelings of the radical Protestant > > go down to the very roots of monotheism itself. It will seem to > > him that the distinction between creature (however holy) and > > Creator is being blurred -- that polytheism is risen again. It > > is very difficult to disagree with him in such a way as not to > > appear to him to be worse than a heretic -- an idolator. > > Surely if any topic could be counted on to wreck a book on > > points of Christian agreement, this is it; and no discussion > > could be less profitable for those who are not already > > convinced that the Virgin's Son is God. > > Apparently we all need to remember that this is a matter on which we > need to deal gently with our Christian brothers and sisters. > > Since there is a widespread impression on both sides that this is a > dispute between Roman Catholics and Protestants, it seems worth > while to post a quotation from Martin Luther's sermon "On the > MAGNIFICAT" (the Song of Mary, Luke 1:46-55). > > > "For He that is mighty hath done great things for me, and > > Holy is His Name." (Luke 1:49) > > > > The "great things" are nothing less than that she became the > > Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things > > are bestowed upon her as pass man's understanding. For on this > > there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place > > in the whole of mankind, among whom she has no equal, namely, > > that she had a child by the Father in Heaven, and such a child. > > She herself is unable to find a name for this work, it is > > too exceedingly great; all she can do is break out in the > > fervent cry: "They are great things," impossible to describe > > or define. Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single > > word, calling her the Mother of God. > > No one can say anything greater of her or to her, though > > he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees, or > > grass in the fields, or stars in the sky, or sand by the sea. > > It needs to be pondered in the heart, what it means to be the > > Mother of God. > > LUTHER'S WORKS, Vol. 21, p. 326, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, > Concordia Publishing House, 1956. > > Let me say in ending, what I perhaps should have said in the > beginning, that the equivalent of this title is bestowed upon her in > Holy Scripture, in that Elizabeth addresses her as "the mother of my > Lord" (Luke 1:43). > > Yours, > James Kiefer
I1P@PSUECL (02/02/90)
hjgasdjhgahjgdjhagjdgjhag tastas erase erase X-VMS-News: psuecl bit.listserv.christia:3474 > From: James Kiefer <JEK@NIHCU> > Subject:JEK: more on the use of the title, "Mother of God" > Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 01:40:00 EST > Message-ID:<CHRISTIA%90012208482417@FINHUTC> > My apologies to those who were offended by my use of the phrase > "Surrogate Mother of God" in a previous posting. It was not intended > to be a wisecrack, but rather to address the fact that some persons, > when they hear the assertion, "Mary is the Mother of God," > understand it to mean that Mary is older than God and that God owes > His origin and existence to her, which view they rightly reject; > while others persons understand it to mean from the first moment of > His existence as a man, Jesus was fully Divine as well as fully > human, that what Mary carried in her womb for nine months was truly > God, that in Jesus Christ, Deity and humanity are united in a single > person, who can say of Mary both, "She is My mother," and "She is My > creature," and it is the same "I" who speaks, which view they > rightly accept. Thus, many of those who dispute about the phrase > differ on words rather than on facts. > > If I had posted less quickly, it might have occurred to me to point > out that the actual term officially chosen by the Church to refer to > Mary is the Greek word "theotokos," which is customarily translated > "Mother of God," but is more literally translated "God-bearer." And > this is perhaps less open to misunderstanding. > > C.S. Lewis, in his book MERE CHRISTIANITY, undertakes to give an > outline of Christian doctrine as agreed upon by all Christian > churches, avoiding those questions on which there is disagreement > among Christians. (If you think this means a book of blank pages, > guess again.) In the introduction to the revised edition, he says (I > quote from memory, since, by Murphy's Law, my copy is at the other > terminal): > > > Thus some people have drawn conclusions from that fact that I > > made no mention of the Virgin Mary except in asserting the > > doctrine of the Virgin Birth. But surely my reasons for doing > > so are obvious. The Roman Catholic views on the Virgin are > > held (very properly so) not only with the intensity which a man > > will naturally feel in defending doctrines which he believes to > > be true, but also with the special fervor which a man will feel > > when the honor of his mother, his sister, or his beloved is at > > stake. It is very difficult to disagree with them in such a way > > that you will not appear to be a cad as well as a heretic. > > Meanwhile, the corresponding feelings of the radical Protestant > > go down to the very roots of monotheism itself. It will seem to > > him that the distinction between creature (however holy) and > > Creator is being blurred -- that polytheism is risen again. It > > is very difficult to disagree with him in such a way as not to > > appear to him to be worse than a heretic -- an idolator. > > Surely if any topic could be counted on to wreck a book on > > points of Christian agreement, this is it; and no discussion > > could be less profitable for those who are not already > > convinced that the Virgin's Son is God. > > Apparently we all need to remember that this is a matter on which we > need to deal gently with our Christian brothers and sisters. > > Since there is a widespread impression on both sides that this is a > dispute between Roman Catholics and Protestants, it seems worth > while to post a quotation from Martin Luther's sermon "On the > MAGNIFICAT" (the Song of Mary, Luke 1:46-55). > > > "For He that is mighty hath done great things for me, and > > Holy is His Name." (Luke 1:49) > > > > The "great things" are nothing less than that she became the > > Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things > > are bestowed upon her as pass man's understanding. For on this > > there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place > > in the whole of mankind, among whom she has no equal, namely, > > that she had a child by the Father in Heaven, and such a child. > > She herself is unable to find a name for this work, it is > > too exceedingly great; all she can do is break out in the > > fervent cry: "They are great things," impossible to describe > > or define. Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single > > word, calling her the Mother of God. > > No one can say anything greater of her or to her, though > > he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees, or > > grass in the fields, or stars in the sky, or sand by the sea. > > It needs to be pondered in the heart, what it means to be the > > Mother of God. > > LUTHER'S WORKS, Vol. 21, p. 326, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, > Concordia Publishing House, 1956. > > Let me say in ending, what I perhaps should have said in the > beginning, that the equivalent of this title is bestowed upon her in > Holy Scripture, in that Elizabeth addresses her as "the mother of my > Lord" (Luke 1:43). > > Yours, > James Kiefer