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.”

The Wisdom of Saints: St Justin Martyr

Feast of Justin Martyr, Doctor, 165

ALMIGHTY God, by whose grace and power thy Martyr Justin was enabled to witness to the truth and to be faithful unto death: Grant that we, who now remember him before thee, may likewise so bear witness unto thee in this world, that we may receive with him the crown of glory that fadeth not away; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

 St Justin Martyr stands out among the saints of the second century in that many of the details of his life are recorded. He was born in the first years of the second century to pagan parents in the city of Flavia Neapolis in Judea. The city had been established by the Romans in AD 72 shortly after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. In some of his writings, St Justin records that his father and grandfather were also of Flavia Neapolis, which further suggests a pagan origin.

He was given an excellent education in all the classics of philosophy, poetry, rhetoric and history. His education was completed at Alexandria and Ephesus where he engaged with the various philosophies of the day seeking both to complete his education and to find God. At Ephesus, while studying under a Platonist, he had his first broad exposure to Christianity where he was impressed by the Christian martyrs being killed there.

His conversion to Christianity occurred around AD 130, and in his own words he converted due to his desire for both beauty and truth, both of which he found in Christianity. Using his background in philosophy and rhetoric, he began to engage in debates with non-Christians and eventually opened a school for Christian philosophy, first in Ephesus and then eventually in Rome after he moved there later in life.

While in Rome he continued in his debates and defence of Christianity to non-Christians, while continuing to run his school and teach his students. He debated and beat a philosopher named Cresens who later denounced him to the authorities for practising an unauthorized religion. He was tried before the Roman authorities, where he refused to renounce his faith. The Roman prefect Rusticus pronounced a sentence of death on St Justin and he and six of his students were beheaded.

St Justin Martyr, beyond his martyrdom, is remembered for his apologetics which survive to this day. In the earliest days of the church, there was some level of secrecy around Christians and Christian rites. Justin Martyr’s apology, beyond simply helping to defend the merits of Christian doctrine, helped to dispel some of the terrible rumours which had been spread, and largely believed, about what went on between Christians.

St Justin’s first apology was addressed to the Emperor and his sons in the Senate. The introduction explains that the apology is a petion to the Emperor, “on behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.” Namely, he was writing on behalf of Christians who were being accused of gross acts without merit, and faced persecution for it.

St Justin sets the tone of his apology, which speaks to the virtues of truth and beauty that had drawn him to Christianity in the first place, when he writes:
Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless. For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right.
He then goes on to conclude his introduction with words that speak to his own eventual end at the hands of Rusticus:

For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgment, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumours which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves. For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us.

From the very beginning of his apology, it is clear that St Justin truly believed in everything he wrote. He was not so blunt as St Jerome, but it was clear his heart was for God’s truth and he saw no need to compromise that truth in an effort to please the Roman leaders he was addressing.

Much of the rest of the apology focuses on addressing accusations and rumours being levelled against Christians. He begins by suggesting that Christians are being persecuted on the basis of their name, and not any facts:

But as we do not think it just to beg to be acquitted on account of the name, if we be convicted as evil-doers, so, on the other hand, if we be found to have committed no offence, either in the matter of thus naming ourselves, or of our conduct as citizens, it is your part very earnestly to guard against incurring just punishment, by unjustly punishing those who are not convicted. For from a name neither praise nor punishment could reasonably spring, unless something excellent or base in action be proved.

Here St Justin not only begins to make an argument about the need to follow standard jurisprudence and actually prove guilt before Roman citizens are punished for something, a theme he develops more fully later in his apology, he introduces something of a clever wordplay on the basis of the similarity between the Greek word for Christ and the Greek word for excellent and good.

The thrust of his argument is that accusations are being levelled without proof and that no punishment should be incurred without proof (and he indeed suggests that if anything like what Christians were accused of was actually being done by any Christians, the other Christians would justly support the punishment of those individuals), and he then proceeds to spend a significant amount of time discussing some of these rumours.

While today the Eucharist is administered only to those who have received the sacrament of Baptism, in the days of the early church, non-Baptised persons were not permitted to even participate in the liturgy surrounding the Eucharist. This seeming secrecy surrounding the sacraments helped contribute to some of the rumours being spread about Christians. Accusations of cannibalism were not uncommon due to rumours surrounding the Eucharist. St Justin addresses these issues head on by describing the liturgy that takes place when Christians gathered:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptised person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

This description of the liturgy itself should be extremely familiar to all Anglicans, but in that day would have been a revelation to pagans who would never have had an opportunity to read about it or witness it. He then goes on to conclude this section by discussing the Eucharist specifically with a passage that highlights a number of features of modern apologetics, including the use of Scripture to help explain Christian belief:

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.

St Justin Martyr lived as someone who sought the truth, and when he found it in Christianity, he sought to share that truth with others, and to help explain it to them in a rational way that a reasoned mind could not reject. The great modern apologists—Chesterton and Lewis—owe much to St Justin, who proved his adherence to the truth he wrote when he professed Christ unto martyrdom.

On Organs

The Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee, let thy continual pity cleanse and defend thy Church; and, because it cannot continue in safety without thy succour, preserve it evermore by thy help and goodness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Last Sunday identified two primary problems that have a tendency to arise when using contemporary Christian music in a worship service, for which the use of the Book of Common Praise was presented as a potential solution. The two problems were first and foremost that the prayers offered through some of that music are shallow, while the second was that there may be a tendency to shift God as the object of worship through the tool or medium of music, to worship of either self or the music itself.

What is the Book of Common Praise and how does it potentially resolve these issues? The Book of Common Praise is the officially authorized hymn book of the Anglican Church of Canada, though it is not a mandatory book nor does it hold the canonical status of the Book of Common Prayer. There have been four authorized versions in the 20th century, the 1908 Book of Common Praise, the 1938 Book of Common Praise, the 1971 ecumenical Book of Common Praise developed in conjunction with the United Church of Canada and finally Common Praise which was authorized in 1998. The 1938 Book of Common Praise, which was reprinted most recently in 1963, is by far the preferred hymnal for traditional Anglicans in Canada, given the significant theological changes and problematic doctrinal innovations introduced in Common Praise.

St Justin Martyr in his Apology in Defence of Christians 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.” Had he lived to see the publication of Common Praise, he might have made a similar comment on the revisionist slant of the committee that created it, which decided to re-write some hymns in order to, for example, affirm God as Mother in the revised text of Hymn to Joy. This type of revisionist agenda reminds us that the importance of hymnody is not simply in ancient tunes, traditional instruments such as a pipe organ or choirs, but rather in the orthodoxy of the words being sung. St Augustine of Hippo spoke to the nature of hymns saying this:

It is a song with praise of God. If thou praisest God and singest not, thou utterest no hymn: if thou singest and praisest not God, thou utterest no hymn: if thou praisest aught else, which pertaineth not to the praise of God, although thou singest and praisest, thou utterest no hymn. An hymn then containeth these three things, song, and praise, and that of God. Praise then of God in song is called an hymn.

Hymns are prayers, sung in praise of God. The traditional hymnody of the Anglican Church of Canada reflects St Augustine’s three-fold requirements. More than that, the hymns were written long-enough ago that they all reflect a traditional theology and avoid a shallower approach.

Like good prayer, a good Christian song ought to thank God for something He has done or something He is. In doing so, it ought to speak to what He has done, or who He is. Poor Christian music fails to expound on God’s nature, and instead simply uses ‘Christianese’ and Biblical sounding words to create a catchy lyric, something which often times will shift the focus away from God and back towards either the music itself or the person who is singing it. In other words, for good Christian music the message is God, while for bad Christian music the message is the medium.

While not at all seasonal, Easter provides an interesting comparison of a traditional hymn versus popular contemporary Christian praise music. Perhaps one of the most commonly sung hymns on Easter Sunday is, appropriately enough, Easter Hymn, known more commonly by its first line, "Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia!" The second is called This is Amazing Grace by Bethel Music, and was the most popular Easter praise song in the United States in 2014.

Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia! our triumphant holy day, Alleluia! who did once upon the cross, Alleluia! suffer to redeem our loss. Alleluia! Hymns of praise then let us sing, Alleluia! unto Christ, our heavenly King, Alleluia! who endured the cross and grave, Alleluia! sinners to redeem and save. Alleluia! But the pains which he endured, Alleluia! our salvation have procured, Alleluia! now above the sky he's King, Alleluia! where the angels ever sing. Alleluia!

Who breaks the power of sin and darkness Whose love is mighty and so much stronger The King of Glory, the King above all kings Who shakes the whole earth with holy thunder And leaves us breathless in awe and wonder The King of Glory, the King above all kings Chorus: This is amazing grace This is unfailing love That You would take my place That You would bear my cross You lay down Your life That I would be set free Oh, Jesus, I sing for All that You've done for me Who brings our chaos back into order Who makes the orphan a son and daughter The King of Glory, the King of Glory Who rules the nations with truth and justice Shines like the sun in all of its brilliance The King of Glory, the King above all kings [Chorus] [Bridge:] Worthy is the Lamb who was slain Worthy is the King who conquered the grave Worthy is the Lamb who was slain Worthy is the King who conquered the grave Worthy is the Lamb who was slain Worthy is the King who conquered the grave Worthy is the Lamb who was slain Worthy, worthy, worthy Oh

While both songs do speak to truths about God, Easter Hymn more clearly speaks to God in each and every line and more clearly each and every line’s purpose is to praise God for who He is and what He has done. In This is Amazing Grace, by contrast, the first six lines speaks only to one implied truth that God has broken the power of sin. If St Augustine were to evaluate the song, it seems doubtful he would find it fits his criteria of a hymn.

As JB Philips warns in his book Your God is Too Small:

It is natural and right, of course, that the worship we offer to God in public should be of the highest possible quality. But that must not lead us to conceive of a musically "Third-Programme" god who prefers the exquisite rendering of a cynical professional choir to the ragged bawling of sincere but untutored hearts.

Regardless of the medium, it is possible to warp the purpose and to substitute our own preferences towards the music. The intention of using music as a tool of worship must always be to praise God, and our concern must be for the words being said and their intended audience, not the degree of musical excellence.

The use of a hymnal encourages that focus, providing other benefits beyond simply assurance of orthodox theology in the words being sung. With limited musical accompaniment, it is the voice of the people which is the primary tool of worship, while the organ merely maintains the meter of singing. A hymnal containing the tune to a song can also allow a parishioner unfamiliar with a given tune the opportunity to sing.

This is not to say that there is no merit to listening to more contemporary Christian music, regardless of what St Augustine would have made of it as a tool for worship. The question is the degree to which it is appropriate as a tool of worship for the mass. A Christian song which may not be appropriate for the mass due to its lack of theological depth or even its ability to truly praise God may still be appropriate to listen to outside of the mass as a wholesome form of musical entertainment. A song which lacks any form of thanks to God for who He is and what He has done can still at the least encourage us to think about God.

Worship is not about musical preferences or traditional versus contemporary. We must always recall the importance not of the music or the form or instruments, but rather of the intent: does this music honour God?