Protestantism: A Motherless Christianity (delivered at APU chapel on 10/23/2017)
In a week some of you are going to mourn that you are too old to get free candy. But this year, while the majority is celebrating Halloween, thousands of Christians will be celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. 500 years ago on the 31st of October 1517 Martin Luther posted his 95 theses and the infighting in the church dramatically escalated and spread. The verbal and physical abuse reached such heights of maliciousness that the church was separated. Families were divided. The Western Church split. And 500 years later, the West is still experiencing the pain of that tragic divorce. So how should we commemorate the sin of disunity and divorce?
I am an ordained pastor in the Free Methodist Church (a Protestant denomination). And I grew up in a Cuban Protestant family. My grandfather would often refer to the Pope as the Antichrist—a sentiment not uncommon for Latino/a Protestants to hold. And throughout my life as a Protestant in Evangelical Non-Denominational churches, I was told that the people in the churches across the street didn’t believe that Jesus saved them – I was told they worshipped Mary. I was led to believe that spending time thinking about the mother of Jesus was dangerous, if not evil; in the Protestant imagination she mysteriously entices people to idolatry. This is what I believed for many years. And for many Protestants this is a familiar experience, we grow up, are taught, and live in a separated church where our Protestant churches play the role of the bitter divorced father, who has nothing good to say about our mother.
500 years ago the fight over the mother of Jesus reached such heights that she literally became a battered mother. When the reformation spread, so did the defacing of Marian images, especially in the shrines devoted to her. Here is the Virgin Mary of Valladolid in Spain. In 1596 the English took over the Catholic city of Valladolid, they dragged the statue of Mary from the church into the market square where they cut off her arms and mutilated her face. Repeatedly, over and over, this act would be replayed throughout Protestant Europe. And we have been shaped by this domestic violence.
Protestants also reframed how we were to view Mary as a biblical character. Reformers in the 16th and 17th centuries sought out to pacify the mother of our Lord – diminishing her prophetic nerve in Scripture, especially in the Magnificat where she challenges the rich and powerful. Instead they would reframe her as a submissive and humble widow. If you were a Protestant and wanted to talk about Mary then you could only do so by highlighting her passive femininity. And we have been shaped by this silencing sexism.
Mary’s image would come to be replaced by images of the male heroes of the Reformation. One of Luther’s favorite images was this frequently printed title page to his German Bible. Who is standing under the cross? Who is missing? Under the cross are Martin Luther and Johann Friedrich (MacCulloch, 52). Mary has disappeared. And that reveals a great tragedy for Protestants. Our mother has been replaced and ignored. And we have been shaped by that abandoning of our mother.
The diminishing and disparaging of Mary, the Mother of God, is one of the saddest – and often neglected – consequences of the Reformation for Protestants. So when I was asked to speak in chapel on the Reformation, I thought that the best way of commemorating the Reformation would be to point out something we’ve lost: Our Mother.
Please stand for the reading of the Gospel. John 19:25-28
Now, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into what was truly his own.
The Word of the Lord. Please be seated.
Above is a Russian Orthodox icon of the crucifixion from the late 14th century. I want to make a couple observations on the passage using this icon.
Mary is with Jesus. Peter and many others have denied Jesus, and fled. But Mary is here with Jesus. Mary has been with Jesus from birth. And here she is again with her vulnerable Son.
The theologian Jean Vanier says this:
“Mary has always known the weakness of Jesus. She had held the tiny Jesus in her arms, she had fed him her milk, she had loved him, she had touched him with tenderness, and she had looked after him when he was little. When he cried, she was there to console him and to love him. Mary does not fear a humble, little, and vulnerable Messiah” (Vanier, Relationship , 115).
Mary is not afraid. Mary is faithful. She loves her Son, Jesus. Here she is at the foot of the cross. She will stay with him to the end.
Jesus is her son. Jesus has her human DNA in his body. Think about it, Mary is the one who provides to God the human flesh of our Lord and Savior. The flesh of Mary is taken into God’s life. And so, Mary’s flesh comes to represent all of humanity’s flesh; her flesh is our flesh, the flesh that God takes into his life through his Son Jesus. In this way, Mary plays an incredibly important role in our story since it is through her that all humanity is connected to Jesus. Through Jesus’s humanity, Mary’s and our humanity, is taken into the life of God. We stand before God in the humanity of Jesus through the assumed flesh of Mary. Think about that.
Also here in this icon we see Jesus on the cross facing his mother. We see the disciple whom Jesus loved; John is looking downcast. And we see Mary looking at John while pointing to Jesus. In all the icons of the East Mary is depicted as directing our gaze toward her Son. She leads us, she points us, to Jesus.
Remember the story at the beginning of John’s Gospel, where Mary and Jesus and some friends are at a wedding in Cana. Here Mary tells Jesus that the wine is finished, he says: “‘Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.’ His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you.’” Jesus only calls his mother “Woman” in two places in the gospel, at the wedding and at the cross (the gospel lesson we read). So here you have two stories that are connected. Second, at the wedding, Jesus introduces the concept of his “hour” that has not yet come. John tells us that his hour is the hour of his death, the crucifixion. The cross is the hour when all is finished. Again, here we see that Cana and Cross are bookends to the story. Lastly, and here I want to return to the icon, Mary tells the servants “Do whatever he tells you.” “Do whatever my Son Jesus tells you.” She does not say do what I tell you, but she points to her Son. The mother of Jesus in icons and in the gospels is repeatedly pointing us to Jesus. Here in this scene John’s eyes are looking at the ground (his gaze is lost), but Mary is looking at him gently gesturing that he lift his eyes. She does this because she is now his mother too, and mothers remind us where to look. Think about that.
On the cross Jesus is dying; we are at the end of the gospel. Here he finishes what he came to do. His hour has arrived and his last act here is of uniting his mother to the disciple who he loves – and this disciple stands in for all disciples, for you and for me. Jesus looks down and sees his mother and says: “Woman, behold your son.” And then he says to the disciple “Behold, your mother.” Jesus did not say ‘behold MY mother’, rather he said ‘ YOUR Mother.’ This is an adoption scene.
Jesus has given us his mother and in so doing he makes us his brothers and sisters. “Behold, your mother.” Jesus has just united his mother and his disciples in a beautiful act of communion. At the very beginning of the Gospel in the prologue, we are told that we will be given power to become children of God. And here we see that reality.
In John chapter 17, Jesus prays: “I glorified you on earth by accomplishing the work that you gave me to do.” And what was that work he was given to do by the Father? It was the work of unity and communion, “that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. … so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (John 17:21, 23). Vanier states: “The final gesture of Jesus is to bring Mary and John into oneness as he and the Father are one, to create a covenant of love between them” (Vanier, Drawn into the Mystery, 324-325). Jesus prays and works for unity, for unity. We are brothers and sisters of the same mother. Think about that.
And lastly, here is John, the disciple whom Jesus loved. We are that disciple, we are that beloved of God. Here in the icon John is downcast, he is lost in grief, fear, and remorse. He cannot look to Jesus, he is afraid. We are the disciples whom Jesus loves. We are anxious about the future, we are heart broken over failed relationships, we are troubled by our repeated failings, we have suffered too many losses, we are curved in on ourselves in worry, it is too hard to look up, we are lost. Jesus knows we need a mother’s help, so he gives us his own. Sometimes we need her encouraging nudge to see Him, to see our brother, and be reminded that we are not alone, that we are part of God’s beautiful family. Mary tells us, “Look up, look to Jesus – do whatever he tells you, do not be afraid” Think about that.
In conclusion, disunity is a sin. Our disunity and endless Protestant separations and divisions are a witness of brokenness, the anti-image of the love between the Father and the Son. How do you commemorate a separation, a divorce? Well, you start by remembering your mother and listening to her admonition to “Look up, and Do whatever he tells you to do!” And this is what Jesus is telling us to do – he says “ I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34-35). So stop fighting, stop name-calling, ask for forgiveness, and seek peace. Befriend a Catholic, befriend a Protestant, befriend an Orthodox Christian and remember that we all come from the same mother. And she is one strong mother. … I don’t want a motherless Christianity.
Pray with me:
Father, 500 years of pain. 500 years of name-calling. Send upon us your rushing Spirit so that our hearts might be utterly broken by the many divisions we perpetuate and live in. We confess that we have not loved one another and because of our failure to love, we have failed to be seen as your disciples in the world. Father, we confess that way too often we look just like the world, especially in our divisions. Give us the strength and courage to seek friendship and unity, reconciliation and forgiveness.
We thank you for giving us Mary as our mother. Help us to cherish her as you cherish her. And teach us through her witness, how we can help usher all humanity to your Son, for the glory of your Name’s sake. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Let’s not celebrate our divisions; let’s work at coming together. Remember your mother!
Continued from PART 1 ....
BUCER’S WRITINGS ON MARRIAGE & DIVORCE
Due to space and time I will briefly outline four areas of Bucer’s thought on marriage and related topics that are articulated primarily in his treatises Von der Ehe und Ehescheidung of 1533 (written to help the reform in Ulm on questions related to marriage – over 200 pages) and his last work De Regno Christi published of 1551. The four areas include the de-sacramentalizing of marriage, the denigrating of celibacy, a heightening of sinfulness, and elevating the companionable aspects of marriage above all other aspects of marriage.
First, Augustine set the ecclesial purposes for marriage in the 5th century; they were procreation, fidelity, and sacrament. Augustine’s third purpose of marriage as a sacrament evolved and increased in importance during the medieval period, in part because from the 7th century marriage under the purview of the church rather than the civil authorities. The concept of marriage as a sacrament was theologically and politically codified in canon law and this had made divorce nearly impossible while providing various complicated means for annulment (predominantly for the rich). At the same time obligatory clerical celibacy (though repeatedly contested) continued to elevate the celibate life over all other forms of life.
Bucer, with Luther and other reformers, rejected marriage as a sacrament. And in so doing they worked to undue the ecclesial authority over marriage by seeking to make marriage a civil arrangement. [1] Various Protestant territories quickly put together civil marriage courts. This transfer of authority of marriage to civil courts had radical consequences that have played out in today’s current system, for good or ill. Granted Luther, Bucer, and others could not see beyond Christendom.
Second, in addition to removing marriage from the sacramental list, the reformers attacked clerical celibacy. The obligatory celibacy of the priesthood was seen as evil by reformers. [2] Bucer held that “Before God no vow may be made or kept and no one may promise another person something or ask another to promise something if such a promise promotes evil or prevents the good or if that promise prevents the turning away from evil and the promotion of good.” [3] Hence, given the clear awareness of his own sexual fires and the common accusations of priestly sexual exploits, the vow to celibacy was illegitimate.
Likewise, Bucer believed that only around 1/1000 were given the actual gift of celibacy. [4] Therefore, because celibacy was an extremely rare gift from God, Bucer held that marriage should be compulsory for everyone. [5] As he stated in De Regno Christi , “unless God has clearly reserved another calling for a person—every man and every woman is called to marriage, and that a person may well be grateful to God for calling him or her to such an important estate.” [6]
The reformers did not reassign the celibate life so that it equaled the value of the married life, instead they repealed and replaced celibacy. Married life was superior to the single life. That such was the case can be seen by how Bucer held that a single person was only half a person. Selderhuis paraphrasing Bucer, states: “Only then one is a whole person, for all those who live outside of marriage, although God has not—on account of their nature by a special command—called them to a life without marriage, are only half humans. They are only half useful to society as well, and often they are altogether useless, and even harmful.” [7]
Contrary to the medieval West, marriage was for Bucer “the most important and highest sphere of life and from it all the others proceed.” [8] This was a radical shift, leading not only to the disparaging of the single life, but also resulting in the neglect of friendship as a legitimate and holy relationship. As Thomas Heilke demonstrates in his article, “Friendship in the Civic Order: A Reformation Absence”, the topic of friendship is blatantly absent in any of the writings or preaching of the reformers. Energy was focused on the topic of marriage and family, not firends.
The lacuna of friendship in Bucer’s thought (though he had many friendships) is seen in how he interprets the second greatest commandment, to love one’s neighbor. And according to him “Marriage offers the best opportunity to fulfill the law for ‘so also the whole law is fulfilled in loving one’s neighbor.’ … Hence the love of neighbor, which is most profoundly and perfectly expressed in the mutual love of marriage, causes us to remain in God.” [9] Likewise, marriage advances neighborly love because it generates more family members to love through in-laws and children. [10] The love of friends in Bucer is not considered in his nor in other reformer’s works, though all were familiar with Aristotle’s and Augustine’s treatments of friendship, among others. Within the nuclear family Jesus’ commands were now fulfilled at home.
Third, clerical celibacy was easily blamed as the root of immorality in the Church. The sin of sexual lust was so strong that to try and demand people to suppress it, was an act of evil. The hold of lust cannot be controlled and so, as Thomas Safley has said, the arguments for clerical marriage “took as their basic premise the degeneracy of human nature and the necessity of human sexuality. In this context the reason for extolling marriage was essentially negative; it served as a means of attacking the Catholic practice of clerical celibacy.” [11]
Fourth, While marriage was elevated as the highest form of relationship and one that every human person was naturally called to, so not to be inflamed with desire, the reformers adjusted the definition of marriage. Luther, Bullinger, and other reformers wished to keep procreation as a principle, though basically on account that its more important function was curbing sexual desire. Bucer, agreeing that marriage was important because it helped stop sin, nevertheless wanted to emphasize a more positive side of marriage, the way in which marriage fostered mutual love and service. [12] Bucer stated that “a real marriage exists only when there is harmony between the two partners and they so love each other that as a result the two become one.” [13] Hence a marriage is not a real marriage when love is gone, this he calls a ‘phantom marriage.’ [14] In this he was basically following Roman Law. So when Cranmer sought Bucer’s advice on the Book of Common Prayer , Bucer told him to move procreation to third place on the list and to raise mutual service as the first reason for marriage, which Cranmer did not change, but in the most recent book Bucer’s suggestion was implemented.
Fifth, and lastly, because of the importance of mutual love and service for a marriage, Bucer held that if it was not present in a marriage, divorce could be acceptable. Divorce was also acceptable for impotence, dementia, and forms of sickness that make fulfilling one’s conjugal duties impossible. As John Burcher, the English merchant mentioned in a letter to Bullinger, “In the matter of marriage Bucer is worse than permissive. One time, around the table, I heard him debate this issue when he stated that divorce should be granted on any ground, no matter how trivial.” [15] In fact, Bucer at times would talk about divorce as an instituted grace that allowed people to re-marry—since being single was susceptible to having lust run wild.
93 years after Bucer’s death in Cambridge, John Milton, who was dissatisfied with his marriage arrangement (his wife left him to move back in her mother’s house), translated 25 of Bucer’s chapters on marriage and divorce from he De Regno Christi , which Bucer had dedicated to the boy king Edward VI of England. Milton was translating these chapters in hopes to sway parliament in his favor, which was ultimately unsuccessfully.
Though Bucer’s thoughts on marriage and divorce were well discussed and known both in England and on the continent, his ideas were nowhere completely put into law, until the 20th century.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
This quick survey of Bucer’s ideas and experiences with marriage highlight how the reformation radically changed the practices of Protestant clergy in Europe. In promoting clerical marriage the reformers were elevating the institution of marriage while likewise disparaging singleness, so much so that the various protestant witch trials in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, targeted predominantly single women. Today singleness in the church continues to be seen as a failed or inferior estate than marriage, or in the word’s of Bucer – if you are single you are half of a person. In making marriage and the family the place where one fulfills the commandment of love of neighbor, as Bucer advanced, the concept of friendship and the love of a stranger also diminished. The only forms of intimacy that were being seen as legitimate and are legitimate in today’s church are the intimacies of marriage – i.e. sexual intimacy. No one wants to be a half-person, and everyone wants their relationship to be the best possible. Nobody asks, “Will you civil union me?” Thus same-sex intimate relationships for mutual service and companionship provide a context for the love of neighbor. Whereas this could have been a definition of friendship in the Medieval West, today it defines marriage. Hence, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and the complexities we face around marriage and its definition today.
[1] DRC 153, 180, Selderhuis, 28-29.
[2] Bucer following Luther held that vows were not valid: “Therefore no Christian is bound to vows invented by human beings, certainly not if these vows clearly constitute a hindrance to a life lived in accordance with God’s commandments. Such a vow, moreover, can hardly be called perpetual, for how could a person make a promise for all eternity when no one knows what God’s plan may be for his or her life, which is surely the case when that person is only fifteen, as Bucer himself was when he made this vow. The vows, accordingly, militate against the gospel in two ways: (1) by making a perpetual vow, a person is taking the control of his life into his own hands whereas all things are in God’s hands; and (2) he attempts thereby to earn heaven, whereas we receive heaven only on account of the merit of Christ” (BDS 1:170 in Selderhuis, 60-61).
[3] Selderhuis, 155.
[4] Early on Bucer “stressed in his preaching that the celibate life is a gift from God and cannot, therefore, be imposed arbitrarily on any person whatever as an obligation” (Selderhuis, 58 – this idea comes from BDS 1:143).
[5] “Marriage is implanted in humans by nature and, unless one has received the gift of chastity everyone is called to marriage. It is therefore both impossible and unnatural to prohibit marriage or to vow a solemn vow of perpetual chastity, for ‘nature remains nature.’ Among all peoples, which there fore includes non-Christian peoples, one observes the zeal that is applied to ensure that marriage will begin in the proper manner and to maintain it that way as well” (Selderhuis, 169). Again this view is coming from Selderhuis 171 looking at DRC 205 and Einf. Bed. 119b (full quote in footnote 49). In addition, Marriage is the most important institution: “Marriage is the most important and highest sphere of life and from it all the others proceed” (Selderhuis, 250-251).
[6] Selderhuis’s paraphrase on 171.
[7] (quote from Predig Buceri, 156a (TE, 222).” (Selderhuis, 173).
[8] (Selderhuis, 250-251).
[9] (Selderhuis, 171 – Einfältiges Bedenken (Cologne reformation work), 119b).
[10] Selderhuis, 171.
[11] Safley, “Marriage” in OER, 19.
[12] Selderhuis 258.
[13] (DRC 210) (Selderhuis, 265).
[14] (DRC 210) (Selderhuis, 265).
[15] John Burcher an English merchant in a letter to Heinrich Bullinger June 8, 1550 (quoted in Selderhuis, 1).
