2 Corinthians 5:20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. (NIV)
I used to hate a guy called Graeme who lived about 500 yards from my home. I don’t what started the rivalry, but his house was in a different street, so that automatically put him in the category of “enemy.” We used to shout and call names at each other, throw stones in the summer, and snowballs in the winter. It went on for years and to this day, I can’t remember what caused such hatred.
I do, howev
er, remember what stopped it. We grew weary of fighting one another and decided to become friends. Instead of shouting at him, I asked Graeme if he collected postage stamps. To my surprise, he did and we arranged to meet after school to swap our doublers – stamps that we had more than one of. From that moment on, we became the best of friends and were constantly in each other’s company throughout our teenage years. We had discovered similar interests and given up on our fighting. We had buried the hatchet and reconciled our differences.
I guess that’s what God does when He sends Jesus into the world. He takes on our similarities and gives up on our enmity. God gives us a wonderful opportunity to be reconciled to Him and restored to His Kingdom. Without Jesus, we would be at war with God forever. Without Christ, we would have no hope of returning to God’s love.
This is why it’s important that we as Christians become ambassadors of God’s peace. Sadly, that’s hard to do in a world which is bent on war. However, if we want hatred to end and enmity to cease, then we have to become agents of reconciliation and servants of goodwill. Without Christ, our world will be at war forever. Without Jesus, the earth will have no hope of experiencing love.
Prayer: Lord Jesus, some people say that the hope of peace is mere pie in the sky and cannot ever be accomplished. Sometimes we fail miserably at keeping peace with one another, and Your church seems to be in the midst of all the fighting that’s going on. Remind us that our faith is not meant for fighting, but for reconciling. Help us to remember that You call us to be ambassadors of God’s unity, and not agents of the devil’s divisions. In Your Holy Name, we pray. Amen.
I used to hate a guy called Graeme who lived about 500 yards from my home. I don’t what started the rivalry, but his house was in a different street, so that automatically put him in the category of “enemy.” We used to shout and call names at each other, throw stones in the summer, and snowballs in the winter. It went on for years and to this day, I can’t remember what caused such hatred.
I do, howev
er, remember what stopped it. We grew weary of fighting one another and decided to become friends. Instead of shouting at him, I asked Graeme if he collected postage stamps. To my surprise, he did and we arranged to meet after school to swap our doublers – stamps that we had more than one of. From that moment on, we became the best of friends and were constantly in each other’s company throughout our teenage years. We had discovered similar interests and given up on our fighting. We had buried the hatchet and reconciled our differences.I guess that’s what God does when He sends Jesus into the world. He takes on our similarities and gives up on our enmity. God gives us a wonderful opportunity to be reconciled to Him and restored to His Kingdom. Without Jesus, we would be at war with God forever. Without Christ, we would have no hope of returning to God’s love.
This is why it’s important that we as Christians become ambassadors of God’s peace. Sadly, that’s hard to do in a world which is bent on war. However, if we want hatred to end and enmity to cease, then we have to become agents of reconciliation and servants of goodwill. Without Christ, our world will be at war forever. Without Jesus, the earth will have no hope of experiencing love.
Prayer: Lord Jesus, some people say that the hope of peace is mere pie in the sky and cannot ever be accomplished. Sometimes we fail miserably at keeping peace with one another, and Your church seems to be in the midst of all the fighting that’s going on. Remind us that our faith is not meant for fighting, but for reconciling. Help us to remember that You call us to be ambassadors of God’s unity, and not agents of the devil’s divisions. In Your Holy Name, we pray. Amen.
13 comments:
Dear Stushie,
I don't know if you will return to Doug Hagler's blog, so I'm reposting my response to you here, in slightly ammended form. It seems appropriate to post it here, given the topic of your article: reconciliation. Perhaps if we diverse Christians set aside what divides us long enough truly to listen to each other, we'll find common ground in Jesus Christ.
You said, "So, Doug, where does it say 'Loving Mother God' in the Bible?" Obviously, as Doug concedes, it does not describe God with those exact words. However, it does describe God with these words:
"For a long time I have held my peace,
I have kept still and restrained myself;
now I will cry out like a woman in labor,
I will gasp and pant." Isaiah 42:14
"For thus says the LORD:
As a mother comforts her child,
so I will comfort you." Isaiah 66:12a, 13a
"[Jesus said,] 'How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!'" Matthew 23:37b; Luke 13:34b
If we can call God such impersonal terms as "our shield", "a mighty fortress", and "rock" without the biblical literalists making a fuss, then most certainly we can call God something as intimate as "our Mother" and stand on solid biblical ground in the process.
Perhaps you are already familiar with the 1984 document, edited by Alan E. Lewis and published by The Saint Andrew Press (Edinburgh), entitled The Motherhood of God: A Report by a Study Group appointed by the Woman's Guild and the Panel on Doctrine on the invitation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. If not, I commend it to you, especially since it is the product of your mother Church (or at least a study group reflecting its diversity). The report lists numerous examples of female/motherly imagery for God in the Old Testament (page 37). The Isaiah passages I quoted are included in that list.
Interestingly, I forgot about The Motherhood of God report, which I read back in 1990, until several hours after I quoted the Isaiah passages above. Funny how the Bible sticks with you more than any documents produced by human councils or groups.
Yours in Christ,
Mark
You make some interesting points, Mark. My bone of contention with this is that God is described like a mother in the Bible, but never directly addressed as mother, whereas Jesus addresses God as Father on numerous occasions.
I'll read the CofS report, which I didn't know existed, even although I was in Scotland at the time it was published. It couldn't have made much of an impact at the time, but it may be relevant to the ongoing theological/liturgical discussion in our churches today.
Finally, I think that the Eastern Orthodox approach to this issue may be the key to the impasse that we are experiencing. Their significant understanding of Mary's role as the Mother of God and their spiritual connection to her appears to be a more satifactory way of expressing feminine divinity in a patriarchical tradition.
Thanks for your comment.
You said, "My bone of contention with this is that God is described like a mother in the Bible, but never directly addressed as mother, whereas Jesus addresses God as Father on numerous occasions."
I've heard this concern many times before so, for the sake of discussion, let's adopt it as a standard and carry it to its logical conclusion. If we use only those addresses employed by Jesus in the four gospels, we must rule out many addresses for God commonly in use throughout the Church for the last two millennia, even if they are found or suggested in any book of the Bible other than the four gospels.
Are you suggesting that this is what we should do?
Yours in Christ,
Mark
No, but what I am expressing, Mark, is that when Jesus was gender specific about God, he called Him "father" and did not at any time call God "Mother."
Jesus went to the Cross, so it would have made no difference to Him for being crucified for radically calling God "mother" , but He didn't - therefore, who are we to address God in terms that Christ avoided?
You said, "who are we to address God in terms that Christ avoided?"
Yes, that has been the reason of tradition. And by that reasoning, Jesus Christ also "avoided" addressing God in ways reflected by the wealth of traditional Christian liturgy since the first century. Not least among the images "avoided" by Jesus, but embraced by orthodoxy, was the maternal image of the baptismal font as womb of rebirth!
Stushie, "avoid" is a strong, speculative, and potentially misleading, word. Though the gospels do not record Jesus addressing God as "Mother", that does not mean that he avoided addressing God as "Mother", or even that he never addressed God as "Mother" at all. All we can say is that the gospels do not record him addressing God as such. No more, no less, the lack of record indicates only moral neutrality on this issue.
We know Jesus was socially conditioned. Along with being fully divine, he was (and still is) also fully human. For instance, he clearly struggled to overcome learned behaviors toward women and Gentiles. After all, the Syro-Phoenecian woman had to confront him boldly in order to get him to move beyond his cursory insult ("you dog") and to heal her daughter.
I'm not surprised that the gospels don't record Jesus addressing God as "Mother". It was not common for Jews of his day to refer to God with feminine terms and images, even though those terms and images were (and still are) found more than once in the scroll of the prophet Isaiah and in other OT passages. Labeling a divine hypostasis Dame Wisdom was the closest the author of Proverbs got to employing female imagery for God, but he wouldn't let it stand on its own without juxtaposing it with a stereotypical patriarchal image: the harlotry of foolishness and unrighteousness. Yet up Dame Wisdom popped again as Sophia, co-helper of God in creation, in the apocryphal "Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach".
Yes, female imagery for God made patriarchal Jews uncomfortable. Yet archeological evidence of statuary proliferation shows that the average Israelite during the period of the United Kingdom, particularly women, were very comfortable embracing the notion of female deity, at least as a consort for YHWH.
However, on biblical grounds alone, we simply can't reject the divine female imagery offered by Isaiah and reflected in other OT passages. Ruah (Spirit) and Shekinah (Glory/Presence) are all feminine nouns in Hebrew and used to express manifestations of God in the OT. God created us "male and female" in "his" image, which means that there is not only something masculine about God, but also something uniquely feminine--and, I contend, beyond gender as well.
With all due respect, the "Jesus avoided" case against using gender-inclusive and gender-neutral language for God appears to me to be more a case of avoiding traditional discomfort than it is a case of engaging in solid biblical study and interpretation.
Thank you for your willingness to engage in this dialogue. I don't see how the Church will ever experience reconciliation in Christ if we are unwilling to hear each other out and consider differing views without rejecting them out-of-hand.
Yours in Christ,
Mark
Yous said: "With all due respect, the "Jesus avoided" case against using gender-inclusive and gender-neutral language for God appears to me to be more a case of avoiding traditional discomfort than it is a case of engaging in solid biblical study and interpretation."
This doesn't make any sense to me,Mark. Jesus was willing to be betrayed, falsely arrested and accused, scourged,tortured, and shamefully crucified, yet He was not willing to use the word "Mother" to address God because of traditional discomfort??
That sounds absolutely ridiculous and completely culturally connived.
I don't mind being in dialogue over this issue, but let's not impose modern pc where there is none.
Dear Stushie,
I'm not attempting to "impose modern pc". I am considering the very real issue of the entrenchment of culture in the life of all humans. Jesus' divinity did not shield him from his humanity. Every age and every culture has its deeply rooted prejudices. I know: I grew up in old Confederate territory, and I grew up in the Church. Racism is still a major issue in the US, and the 1950's are still considered to be the Golden Age in most Presbyterian churches. Incredible! You can't dynamite some of these attitudes out of people.
Now whether or not we agree on "modern pc" and Jesus' address of God, you have still not responded to my other point. To wit, is the Church only allowed to refer to God using the exact language uttered by Jesus Christ as recorded in the four gospels?
Yours in Christ,
Mark
Stushie,
I reread your last response and realized I missed your main point. Sorry, it's been a long week and my brain shut down.
The traditional discomfort I'm talking about isn't primarily about Jesus' discomfort--it's about the Church's discomfort. I contend that some of our interpretations of scripture are driven by our comfort (or discomfort) levels. For instance, folks who easily quote, "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever" seem to shy away from God's change of mind and heart after talking with Moses, or of God's declaration of repentance to Jonah.
Some of the revered early Church Fathers and medieval Church Doctors had no problem waxing eloquent about the divine feminine/Motherhood of God. Yet when power calcified in the Church, not only feminine imagery but also female leaders were excluded by the patriarchal system. (I'm not talking DaVinci Code fabrications. I'm talking acknowledged history.)
All that aside, the sense I get from arguments against addressing God with feminine imagery, in general (not yours specifically), is that it is is viewed as threatening. I find that to be rather odd.
What is so threatening about addressing the First Person of the Trinity as "Mother" occasionally (and never when baptizing)? How does it threaten the sovereignty of the One Triune God? How does it undo the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ alone? How does it undermind the power and working of the Holy Spirit? Since there are unquestionably feminine references to God in scripture, how does it throw the authority of the Bible into question to call upon God as "Mother" once in a while?
I don't intend to be combative with my questions. I'm simply very, very curious, and honestly so. I truly want to understand what is so threatening.
Yours in Christ,
Mark
It isn't threatening at all, Mark, -it's just not part of Christ's way of directly addressing God in prayer.
Nowhere in the Gospels does He address God as Mother - absolutely nowhere. And I would rather follow His example than those of modern people.
Dear Stushie,
I don't mean to be difficult. Please address the question I'm asking now for the third time: Is the Church only allowed to refer to God using the exact language uttered by Jesus Christ as recorded in the four gospels?
Yours in Christ,
Mark
I guess Mark you're not reading me. When you mean the Church are you talking about individuals or the holy catholic church or denominations?
There are many creative ways that we address God, but there are something that we won't say: for instance, I would not address God as a plate of spaghetti or mother hen. So, I use words like Lord, God, King, Majesty , Sovereign, Father, even Abba.
I then add attributes merciful, Patient, compassionate, loving, living, etc..
But when You say Mother God, you're being non-scriptural - it's just not there. Before Jesus, people would usually refer to God in martial language. But after Christ came, he taught us to say "Father."
Since then, no one has come along equal to, or is more important than Jesus, save the Holy Spirit. I follow Christ, therefore I'm going to follow Christ's words and ways. He says' Father" when He talks to God and calls us to pray "Our Father", therefore I keep to what He says. Why? - because I'm not bigger or better than Him.
Dear Stushie,
Thank you for your answer. I understand a little better where you're coming from, though I don't agree fully with you.
As I see feminine imagery used for God in the Old Testament, I see no problem applying it in address to God, both in individual and in corporate prayer. That Christ is not recorded as doing so does not negate the reality that those images are clearly recorded in the Old Testament. You see it otherwise. We disagree.
Even so, I believe we both still share Jesus Christ as the foundation and cornerstone of faith.
I'm content to end this thread, unless you wish to say more.
Yours in Christ,
Mark
Thank you Mark. It's been an enlightening conversation.
God bless.
Post a Comment