God, our Mother

I'm in a season of shaking things up in my theology. This isn't something new. People have been doing this since the history of the world, but this time I'm doing it for myself instead of only accepting what others have found. I'm seeing what truths stay and which of my "truths" aren't actually integral. Is my faith formed by a brick wall, as Rob Bell describes in Velvet Elvis: Beliefs stacked one on top of another, such that if one piece is found to be untrue, then the whole wall falls? 

I sometimes fear that if I shake too hard, my whole faith will fall down. I suppose it's a risk I'm okay taking. 

Spurred on by Sarah Moon's Mother Bear Liturgy, as shared in my senior seminar reconciliation course, I am examining God's identity--be it self-proclaimed or given by humans-- as father. 

So why would the Bible--the living Word of God--use "Father" to describe God if it is wrong or incomplete? Who am I to question that? Prompted by my wise professor, I continue to look deeper into the context. I must remember that the Bible, though still applicable today, was written by specific people, to a specific people, in a specific time. The context into which Jesus came was extremely patriarchal. It was a context in which rites, values, and wealth were passed on from fathers to sons. Jesus, who was born out of wedlock and was claimed to have been conceived without an earthly father, was considered illegitimate in his society. He had no father and he had no rites, values, or wealth. It was in this context that Jesus called God his "Father". This was an analogy that society understood. And an analogy that gave Jesus legitimacy. 

Jesus already acted so counter-culturally...so counter-Empire...would he have had the legitimacy he did if he talked about God as his Mother? Or as neither? 

Perhaps Jesus called God "Father" because of his lack of an earthly father; a redemptive and healing relationship for his own illegitimate status in society. And perhaps Jesus called God "Father" because of his love for the people he was with. Because he knew that we humans can't fully comprehend God's beyond-ness. We need Someone with pieces we can relate to. In that context, the relatable piece was "Father". 

It made sense for Jesus to call God Father in that context...what about now? 

After Jesus left the earth, his followers and his followers' followers continued to use this analogy. In Ephesians 5:22-33, for example, husbands are compared to Christ as wives are compared to the Church. Through this analogy, the author helps married couples gain their understanding of what love looks like in the different contexts. Yes, the love of Christ for the Church is immense. It meant giving up his life for the Church. But, really, how can one even compare the Church to Jesus? Yes, Jesus was fully human...but he was also fully God. GOD! And the church is so little in comparison. Why does the author choose men to be compared to Christ? Is it because men are innately created to be leaders, both spiritually and otherwise? Or is it perhaps because this was written to a patriarchal society? And possibly by a sexist author? 

I am sure that Ephesians 5:22-33 was a beautiful challenge to couples at the time...but what about now? 

Perhaps the reason this has persisted even through today is because males wrote the Bible. Because our church fathers chose the books to go in the Bible, the doctrines, and the creeds. And perhaps we're at a time when we don't need to rely solely on seeing God as only "Father". 

I think William Paul Young touches on our clingy-ness to God-as-only-Father when he brings the Trinity into The Shack. In this book the Holy Spirit is seen as an elusive Asian woman, Jesus as a middle-eastern worker (which is not far from what we know to be true). And "Papa", to top it all off, as a big black woman. This view of the Trinity is not neat or easy to grasp for those who grew up with White-Jesus flannel graphs in Sunday school. When the main character, Mack, asks Papa about them, Papa, with grace and candor, explains: 

"To reveal myself to you as a very large, white grandfather figure with flowing beard, like Gandalf, would simply reinforce your religious stereotypes"

Later, Papa (remember: big black woman) continues to explain: 
"I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it's because I love you." 

As I continue reading The Shack and Sarah Moon's Apostles' Creed I find discomfort in the amplification of gender. How in the world can I see God as Mother? How can I re-claim my place, as a female, in Christian theology? And how can I do this in the midst of a still-patriarchal Church? 

Perhaps leaning into these discomforts is a key to addressing the misogyny and patriarchy still seen in the church today. Perhaps it's a key to understanding God in God's fullness. And perhaps the more we know of God, the more we know of ourselves and others. If our command, as Christ-followers, is to love God and to love others, perhaps this part of my theology is worth shaking.