On God the Mother

The First Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, the strength of all them that put their trust in thee: Mercifully accept our prayers; and because through the weakness of our mortal nature we can do no good thing without thee, grant us the help of thy grace, that in keeping of thy commandments we may please thee both in will and deed; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

It is both topical and old news that people within the Anglican Communion are working towards adoption of a view of God as Mother. The most recent news comes from a report that fresh on the heels of approving the ordination of female bishops, female clergy are pushing for a formal review of the church’s liturgies to refer to God as mother and using feminine pronouns. In the Anglican Church of Canada, the various national working groups reviewing liturgical resources and our hymn book have long used the term “inclusiveness” to mean using gender neutral and feminine terms to refer to God. There are many reasons presented for this, including that presenting God as Father and using masculine pronouns perpetuates a patriarchal view of society and oppresses women, and that women are more capable of understanding God when he is presented as Mother rather than Father. Other arguments are also presented, but ultimately there is a general two point argument presented in support of whatever the goal for presenting God as mother, or using feminine pronouns, happens to be.

First, God is beyond gender. No right-thinking Christian would disagree with this point. God the Father may be referred to in his identity using the masculine pronouns, and with the term Father, but he is not a man or male.

This is quite true. God is beyond gender, but that isn’t always the point. It would be incorrect to refer to God as ‘it’ though it is something that seems to frequently happen in relation to God the Holy Spirit. God is neither a man, nor male, but neither is he a woman or female.

Second, God is presented often using feminine imagery in the Bible, and therefore it is entirely Scriptural to refer to God as Mother. The most compelling verses come from Isaiah 66, where God himself describes himself as a mother. God says, “As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you.” Most other verses compare God to a mother in some way, either human or animal. While these verses tend to be used in support of this position, one of the two counter-arguments for the Scriptural supports is found in them.

In Psalm 131. 2, the Psalmist writes to God saying, “But I have calmed and quietened my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child is my soul within me.” There are two points to be made here. It is not entirely clear that the mother in this picture is meant to be God. As the Psalmist says, “I have quietened my soul,” not, “You have quietened my soul.” Even, however, if we accept that in this image it is meant to be God that is the mother, and not the Psalmist, it is mere imagery in a poem that is being used to give weight to the words. It is describing something by simile. God is not a mother, but acting like a mother acts. Similarly in Hosea 13, God says to Israel, “I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs; I will tear open their breast.” In this passage the image of a mother cub is invoked to show how God will guard Israel. Again it is imagery that conveys the meaning and weight of God’s willingness to protect his chosen people. It does not imply God is in fact a mother bear, and more than the passage in Isaiah or the Psalm should be taken to suggest God is a human woman.

Beyond the fact that these passages are merely using imagery, the most important point is that they are describing attributes of God, but not God’s identity. Again, further proof of this is found in the Gospels, where Christ himself, incarnate as a man, uses the same feminine imagery to describe himself in the Gospels. In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” Here Christ uses the image of a mother hen protecting her chicks to describe how he would protect Israel, but it in no way impacts his identity. A practical example could also serve. How often has a father been described as protecting his children in the same way as a mother bear? Does this impact his identity as a father, or impact the use of the male pronouns for him? Certainly not, so why would a similar image in Hosea cause us to act any differently towards God the Father?

St Justin Martyr once wrote that, “no one can give a name to God, who is too great for words; if anyone dares to say it is possible to do so, he must be suffering from an incurable madness.” Here he makes two points. First, yes God is beyond gender: too great for words. Second, no one can give name to God. It is fine to use imagery or other words to describe God’s nature, but it is different to seek to change his identity by naming him.

One last argument that is sometimes raised, usually in connection with the first idea of God being beyond gender is that the use of masculine pronouns and Jesus’s identification of God as, “our Father,” is simply an entrenchment of patriarchal values of Jesus’s day. He spoke in terms that were acceptable to the male-dominated culture of his day, or the Bible writers merely recorded his words that way because of their own biases.

The first argument is easily disproved by the Gospel of St John. In chapter 6, Christ performs many signs and miracles, and then finishes the chapter preaching at the Synagogue in Capernaum where he tells the assembled Jews that he is the true bread of life and that all must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. This was abhorrent to the Jews, given the Jewish dietary restrictions against the consumption of blood and human flesh. They ask for clarification of what he means by this, thinking there must be some other meaning, but he again says clearly and without any desire to avoid offending their sensibilities maintains that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to receive eternal life. A few verses later, the Gospel records:

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offence at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (St Jn 6. 60-63)

It was a hard saying and they were offended. Christ came not to weave himself into Jewish society, but to reveal God’s truth and love. There is no compromising that truth or love.

According to St Justin Martyr, anyone who seeks to redefine God’s identity must be insane. There is another possibility, however, and it is that they simply are not yet ready to submit to God. Rather than transforming ourselves to conform to God, we seek to transform God to conform to our expectations of him, or in this case her, and in doing so, we replace God with ourselves.

Christ came into the world to save sinners, to reconcile us to God, not to allow us to transform God to be more like ourselves.

Upon hearing Christ’s difficult and troubling words, his disciples asked, “who can listen to it?” The answer must be all those who wish truly to follow Christ, for as he answers, “the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”