Billy Hall, Contributor
MOTHER'S DAY is here again and so our thoughts turn naturally to all women who have borne children. But the concept of 'mother' becomes difficult when applied to God, as revealed in the Bible. This is because the image of the God of Biblical revelation is essentially masculine.
The term 'Mother of God', in reference to Mary, the human mother of the divine Jesus, is not the same as 'Mother of God', a substitute name for the God of orthodox Christian teaching about the concept of God, meaning, the Godhead the Trinitarian concept that prevails as orthodox teaching. This article is focused on the term 'Mother God' that goes to the heart of Christian theology concerning God.
Normally, when Christians think about God, from a normative earthly perspective, they think of God the Father and God the Son. This reference makes them automatically think of God the Mother, for our understanding is essentially in human terms. When, therefore, we think such terms, we are led naturally to consider that there is a missing dimension 'God the Mother'.
But is such a reference valid or tenable? Is there such a person in the Christian understanding of the 'Godhead'? How could such a concept be understood within the orthodox doctrine of the 'Trinity'?
ENGENDERING GOD
In attempting to reconcile such contradictory issues, some theologians have tried to make out that God the Holy Spirit might be God the Mother! But other theologians consider that statement impious, as well as heretical. During the early centuries of the Church, the doctrine of the Trinity was crucial, and so became a principal test for orthodoxy.
Inherent in that belief of the church is the notion that God's image through Christ is masculine. This convincing position is well supported by the character of 'the man Christ Jesus' who came to earth to show us what God is like, and in whom the fullness of Godhead is expressed bodily and fully.
As the modern Feminist Movement has gained momentum, and, as some theologians exceedingly bold in their creativity, have posited unusual thoughts, the argument has been made that it is acceptable to address God as 'Mother'. Feminists appeal generally and, in many instances, justifiably, for language that is more 'gender inclusive'.
However, the application of the concept of gender-inclusive language when referring to the God of Biblical revelation presents a special and formidable challenge. The issue is not simply about language. Theological matters of profound character must be considered.
Of course, there are some of the view that the church is too fussy about the issue, for God is too big to be much concerned about whether He is perceived or addressed in terms of femininity. For example, the revisers of a new liturgy for the Episcopal Church in the United States commented that the time may come when "another generation may well reform and renew the perceptions and images of God sufficiently to actually call God 'Mother' without hurting or alienating many faithful people" (Banner, Michael, 1983, "Five churches in search of sexual ethics" Theology 96:276-289).
But that comment seems more fanciful than prophetic. Look at it again, especially in regard to the likely outcome, "without hurting or alienating many faithful people". Surely, language governs perceptions and practices, therefore, from the church's orthodox perspective, within theological understanding and liturgical practices, "what governs our prayers is what governs our belief" (lex orandi, lex credendi).
GOD, NOT GODDESS
The God of Biblical revelation has never been presented as a goddess. Also, references to God in regard to feminine attributes have never translated into a title. The Bible does refer to God as a mother bear, mother eagle, and mother hen and a human mother in childbirth, and as a nursing mother. But the Bible never addresses God in feminine terms.
Significantly, it is Jesus who has provided us with a masculine address of God. The Old Testament has no parallel. It is Jesus, in the New Testament, who has left us with what many regard as a model prayer, and in that prayer Jesus spoke of "Our Father who art in heaven-" The use of 'Father' as a title is something we learn from Jesus.
When Jesus left us that prayer, was he being merely conventional in the use of language? Or, must Jesus be judged as being simply a man for his times? When Jesus addressed God as Father, was the reference about sexuality? Was the reference unbalanced in terms of gender inclusiveness? Was he theologically naive, or wrong? Those questions come into focus and perhaps 'Mother's Day' is a good time to reflect on them and the critical theological issues they raise.
GOD IS NOT A SOCIOLOGICAL CREATION
Certainly, these questions take us to the root of Christian theology, and so relate to matters of heresy and orthodoxy. The God of Biblical revelation is one of particularity. He is not a sociological creation or projection. His images are important for they reflect his reality, which is not rooted in sexuality, but in authority.
God is perceived as Source as above all and so progenitor of all created reality. For the bringing into being of anything living or otherwise God did not need a wife. He created by the word of His power. In effect, this means that when He speaks, and what He has in mind comes into reality. He bypasses processes of procreation, and gestation.
This conception of God separates Him from His creation, which is important if He is to be understood in transcendent terms, rather than pantheistic. In fact, as one theologian says, to picture God otherwise than transcendent leads logically to what is a different religion, emanating from the womb of a goddess. In such a scheme of things, quite unlike Christian orthodox conception of deity, "all things participate in the life or in the substance and divinity of that deity the creator is indissolubly bound up with the creation" (Elizabeth Achtemeier, "Female Language for God: Should the Church Adopt it?" The Hermeneutical Quest, Allison Park, PA: Pickwick 1986, p. 100).
The God of Biblical revelation then, cannot be identified accurately in the substitute term 'Mother' or the coupled 'Mother/Father', of 'God/ess or God/she. Such terms, says Edith Humphrey, "do not, in fact, call to mind a God who transcends sexuality but an androgynous or hermaphroditic deity of grotesque proportions" (Edith M. Humphrey, "Why we worship God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit", CRUX, June 1996, vol. xxxii, No. 2, p. 9).
In Canada, at the Montreal Declaration of Anglican Essentials, in 1996, the discussants, after diligent examination of divergent views, stuck with the orthodox position: the Trinitarian concept that has prevailed for centuries that God is accurately referred to as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They went on to deplore attempts "to modify or marginalise" this formula "for the sake of the Gospel" as some say.
In Jamaica, evangelicals are not in the mood for experimenting with this orthodox understanding of theology and so alternatives heard from other sources have had shock effect but never engendered discussion other than to say the views reflected an aberration.
Theological discussion beyond proof-text referencing (Bible study) has never been a strong point for evangelical groups, and on that count, liberals tend to dismiss the responses of 'Bible students' on theological issues as naive or shallow or knee-jerk, rather than reflective.
However, in this instance, evangelicals have some very good theologians in their corner, even several from within the Anglican worldwide communion, which leads in clergy willing to at least explore new theological dimensions, no matter how peculiar.
However, whether Anglican, Catholic, Baptist or Pentecostal, the concept of 'Mother God' is not consistent with orthodox Christian theology. 'Father God', Yes. But not 'Mother God'!
