Is God 'Mother'?
By: K. B. Napier
At their 1992 Conference the UK Methodists became the first major denomination to officially sanction the use of the term 'Mother' in relation to God. "Now," said one woman Methodist minister, "We are free to call God 'Mother' and the whole matter is balanced". Another Methodist, a man who had fought against having women as priests and against calling God 'Mother', said to her, "Today, I don't see what all the fuss was about!" As if to reinforce this new attitude, the ruling committee decided to elect a woman President. It was admitted that for too long, Methodists had been slow to recognise the place and use of women in the churches. Now they want to make sure that there is a good ratio of women-to-men on committees, in pulpits etc. Let us take these last points first...
Everything said in the above paragraph is nonsense! God chooses who will be a pastor, not a committee or a Bible college or a denomination or even a local church. God will not choose a woman to be a pastor. The whole theology of women and the teaching of the New Testament militate against such a choice.
Women certainly have their important place within local churches and within the Church as a whole...but their place is not in the pastorate. Nor is it found in any role which demands leadership over, or the teaching of, men within the churches. That many churches lack men of calibre and godly calling is a shame on the men (or a sign that the 'church' is not a true church)...it is not reason for women to usurp the role of men.
When it comes to denominational politics...denominations are errors anyway. They are not of God but of men, who love to build empires. A man I know, a former Communist political leader in Italy after the war, once told me cynically of his major objection to the churches. Most of his objection was aimed at the Roman Catholic 'church' (which he hated, because of its involvement with Hitler and its habit of controlling minds and bodies). But, his cynicism also included all denominations for, a communist believes, he said, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He added that “Even Protestants have their popes!” That is true.
He gave me examples of how church leaders manipulate things to their own ends and for non-spiritual purposes. Sadly, I could only agree with him! You see, when men elect power to themselves, they are immediately outside God's will, for no man has the right or the authority to claim power on his own behalf. All secular powers and authorities are delegated by God and must be used according to His Laws (which is why it is correct for society to question those in power whose lives are somehow deficient e.g. immorality etc.).
The same applies to Christian authorities...no Christian can claim power or authority in his own name. A Christian pastor has no authority or power of his own...these are delegated to him by Jesus Christ. This means he must exercise his authority and power on behalf of Jesus Christ and must act in accordance with the holiness of Christ. Thus, the pastor bases his words and actions upon Biblical precept and not on personal whims, ideas, or intellectual assumptions.
In this light we know that women cannot be priests. In fact, men cannot be priests either! At least, not 'priests' as we see them today. The meaning of 'priest' as applied to Christians in the New Testament is completely different from the way it is applied in certain denominations. Biblically, to be a 'priest' is simply to obtain a spiritual attribute; it is not a physical office at all! Nor does it carry privileges or status amongst our fellow men. Such would be absurd, for according to the Bible all Believers are'priests'...so to give credence to some and not to others is to twist Biblical precept beyond truth.
Whilst women are equal in terms of salvation, they are not thereby entitled to become leaders over men or to become pastors. This is clearly set out in all of scripture. In the New Testament, for example, we are certainly told that there are no males or females, etc., in God's Kingdom. That is a reference to our spiritual status in Christ - it has nothing to do with earthly position. This is seen in passages which refer to the role of women within the home and the local churches...clearly, a woman must not assume leadership. Biblically, elders (pastors/bishops) are inevitably men. In the matter of women learning Biblical doctrine and matters of practice, they are to go to their husbands (or males) for their tuition. All of this reinforces the role assigned them at the beginning of time, as recorded in the Old Testament.
In the Old Testament - again clearly - we see that God refers to women as the 'helpers' of men, to whom they are subject. This is not to be taken in the sense of slavery. Man was made of clay (of the earth), whereas woman was made of man (a rib bone). Thus it is said that the woman's 'head' is man/her husband and that man's Head is God. In absolute terms, of course, this means that we are all - men and women - subject to the same Lord and that men must treat women properly. Even so, scripture teaches that women in the churches must not assume leadership or the pastorate.
We must not avoid the point being made here - that there is a 'natural order' in creation. Just as angels were made 'higher'than mankind, so women were made subject to men. This does not mean that men are 'higher' than women. It just means that women have been given a particular role and place in creation. When they act within that given sphere, they are within the will of God. (Men must not abuse this order by repression or aggression).
None of this denies women access to education, work, etc. Women may lead businesses-but they may not lead men in the churches or become pastors. Similarly, men must not assume femininity. It is fashionable pseudo-psychology to suggest that men should be 'allowed to show both sides of their humanity - the masculine and the feminine'. In this context, 'feminine'refers to the 'softer' side of personality, the open caring for people and the loving of babies, etc. But this is an error, for care and love are requirements of men and women alike! They are not exclusively 'feminine', but are common traits for all of mankind. Thus men who do not practice love for their babies, or care for others, are not being 'masculine'...they are acting outside the demands of God. All of this is the background to the issue of God being both 'Father' and 'Mother'. In the interests of sex equality, Methodists (and many others) have 'allowed' their members to call God 'Mother'. Their arrogance is both sad and appalling.
Let us take an example...men see only white polar bears. In the interests of equality, they decide that polar bears should also be black. But there are no black polar bears. So, births are engineered and black is infused into the genetic structure of the bears. But few become black, so men tranquillise bears and then dye their fur black. Absurd? Of course it is - but no more absurd than calling God 'Mother' and falsely placing women in positions they ought not to occupy!
The facts are simple - in the whole of the Bible, women are subject to men, especially within the churches. Women are not given the office of pastor/elder/bishop. They are to go to men for tuition in the things of God. Now, if women are subject to men, God would not call Himself 'Mother', if only on grounds of the 'natural order'. But there is more to it than that. When we examine what we must do or say as Christians, our only guide is the Bible. That is where we get our guide for living from. If the Bible says we must do this or, not do that, it is our duty to comply. Once we alter what it says, we are no longer acting as God wants. We now come to the most potent reason of all for not calling God 'Mother'. This reason is so simple, yet arrogant men (and strident feminists) ignore it completely in the interests of 'sexual equality'. It is that, IN ALL OF SCRIPTURE THERE IS NOT ONE REFERENCE TO GOD AS BEING FEMALE OR AS HAVING 'FEMALE' ATTRIBUTES. As if to emphasise this, every reference to God is given in terms of maleness. Although God is spirit, the reference is to 'He' and 'Him', not to 'her' or 'she'. Although the Holy Spirit is spirit, all reference is to 'Him' - nothing to indicate 'her' or 'she'. Although Jesus Christ was the very image of God on this earth, He was definitely a man, not a woman! He said that when we see Him, we see the Father. No reference to woman or to 'Mother'.
Nothing could be plainer than that.
It could be claimed that this does not rule out that God has feminine attributes. But this is to completely misunderstand the nature of God and Holiness. For His own reasons, God refers to Himself as a male. It should be obvious to all that this 'maleness' is not limited to those attributes we humanly and commonly call 'male'. It is a common mistake to equate 'male' with aggression and even violence. Yet, these are signs not of being male, but of being sinful!
If we look at what it is to be male and female in the ultimate Biblical sense, then we actually remove the usual barriers built by feminists and sexists alike! When Eve (or female) was made, she was made from the 'stock' of Adam, or male. Apart from certain physical and physiological differences, female is essentially male. Now, male (the first, named Adam) was made in the'image of God'. That is, his essential being is fashioned after God. Now, if God is spirit and Man was made in His image, then we cannot be talking about human characteristics.
We cannot ascribe human emotions to God, for He is pure and perfect. He cannot, by definition, be swayed by emotions; He cannot act emotionally. God cannot react to situations, for He is never surprised by them! He knows all and sees all, even before they occur. Whatever He does is out of perfection. Emotions are labile and alter with situations/moods. God does not have moods! Thus, God cannot display either masculine or feminine 'sides' of His personality, for He is pure and holy. He is not as we are. Whatever He does is simply God-like, not male or female. Yet, we could take this a stage further and say that, if we had to choose, God's actions are masculine! As proofs we can take the references to Him as being entirely 'male'. We would then have to say that what God means by 'male' in the human sense is a reference to man's physical attributes and to his role as a leader within the home and church. But these attributes cannot and do not apply to God, Who is spirit and perfect.
Now if we say that God refers to Himself as masculine, but that those things which differentiate men and women on this earth do not apply to God, then it stands to reason that God's masculinity does not refer to earthly ideas of male and female! God's masculinity is something more central and wholly spiritual. Thus, if we ‘work it backwards' we can say that to be 'male' in the ultimate sense, is to be like God spiritually. It then has nothing to do with being 'feminine' or 'masculine' in the usual sense of these terms...and so all talk of sexism and feminism becomes spurious. It would mean that the present arguments used by feminists in particular are not based on reality or on fact.
Just as within the churches each person is allocated different gifts and roles, yet each is the same to God, so being human means the allocation of different roles (man and woman) for earthly reasons - but these roles do not make men and women essentially different. There cannot be two separate images of God: if Man was made in the image of God and woman came from Man then she, too, is in the image of God... an image which is neither man or woman, but is 'masculine' (with a meaning we do not properly perceive). As we have already argued, to be ultimately masculine appears to have nothing to do with being humanly male.
We can deduce from this (if it is correct) that Adam was made male for earthly purposes, but was essentially masculine in the spiritual sense. Before he sinned, this masculinity was holy and incapable of mood or personality defect, making his actions, words and thoughts like God's in that they were the result of purity. He would not have displayed the 'aggression' often ascribed to being male and he would not have displayed 'softness' which is often ascribed to being female. Rather, he would have acted purely, his thoughts and emotions, etc. being neither female nor male, but simply of-God and of-holiness. Adam was, before the Fall, totally in God's image and 'masculine' in the sense that he was as God made him.
If all of this is correct, then to speak of showing a feminine or a masculine side of our natures is an invention. Rather, we ought to show the spiritual and God-intended wholeness which God originally created. We cannot be holy and pure in the original sense, because we are sinners and we continue to sin though saved. But we can certainly aspire to wholeness and be led by the Holy Spirit into a life of discipleship, which will take us in the right direction.
The conclusion is, then, that to call God 'Mother' is wrong Biblically and theologically. The Bible itself clearly refers to God in the masculine sense, although such a sense cannot include the earthly or human sense (which is only of human invention and speculation). We have no right to alter those teachings and statements which are declared openly in scripture. To do so is sin.
---oOo---
Bible Theology Ministries
PO Box 415, SWANSEA SA5 8YH
Wales
United Kingdom