Is God also Mother? Apparently Not, in this Diocese

I have no problem with naming God the Father.  This is no doubt easier for me because I was raised in a close nuclear family with a loving and guiding earthly father.  But how might someone think of the name for God differently who had suffered an abusive father or had been raised in a severely disfunctional family?  Might the concept of Father be surrounded by different associations and personal connotations for another person?

These were the thoughts that passed through my mind as I read the article by Dr. Christopher Brown, in the May edition of The Albany Episcopalian, subtitled "The Syntax of Gender in Speaking about God".  The Rev. Dr. Brown is the Canon Theologian of our diocese, and his carefully crafted articles are a regular feature of our diocesan publication.  This most recent edition of the magazine, with Dr. Brown's article, is now up on the diocesan website.

The Rev. Dr. Brown speaks of his early encounter with 'the seminal feminist theologian' Mary Day, and her 'stinging indictment of patriarchy and its claim of an irredeemable male bias in Christianity.'  The feminist author's 'brilliant diatribe' against Christianity can, according to Brown, be summed up in the formula: If God is male, then male is God.

Mary Daly's solution was to reject Christianity.  Other theologians and Christian believers have 're-imagined the Christian faith from the ground up' in a feminist light.  The results have been 'often creative, passionate and incisive,' but do not always 'resemble Christianity as it has commonly been understood.'

The reaction of the institutional Church to feminist criticism has been to 'broaden the range of religious imagery and language to be more gender inclusive.'  An example of this development is the 1997 supplement to The Book of Common Prayer titled Enriching our Worship.  Brown admits that the Bible and other Christian writings contain much feminine imagery, and the motivation behind the liturgical changes reflects a commitment to justice.  Nevertheless, he pronounces that 'the entire project... is misconceived.'

By trying to 'assiduously avoid the masculine pronoun in referring to God', the new liturgies 'strive for a typically Anglican balance.'  But the result is 'a profound adjustment: the avoidance of the Trinitarian formula.'  Apparently, in Dr. Brown's estimation, the substitution of "it is right to give God thanks and praise" for "it is right to give Him thanks and praise" is a direct assault on the doctrine of the Trinity. 

In The Venerable Dr. Christopher Brown's view, the more inclusive liturgical lexicon is an attempt to "neuter" God, which is 'a non-starter, since in everyday experience, an "it" is always far less than a person.'  God has revealed himself [sic] to us 'in a human person named Jesus of Nazareth', who brings us into intimacy with God.  The bottom line is: 'Can we affirm our divine adoption in Jesus without privileging the use of male language?'  Dr Brown provides his answer: "Actually, no."

What bothers this reviewer the most about Dr. Brown's indictment of inclusive language in general, and in particular the  alternative liturgies in use by The Episcopal Church, is that by publishing his opinion in the diocesan magazine he assumes a normative view for our clergy and congregations.  In fact, many parishes in our diocese use inclusive language routinely in their liturgies and from their pulpits.  In doing so these parishes follow accepted practice within the wider Episcopal Church and throughout our Anglican Communion.

Nor does the substitution of gender-neutral pronouns do violence to the Trinitarian formula.  If the rewording of prayers to use the name of God directly instead of the pronoun "him" is sufficient to erode the power of the Trinity in the imaginations of the congregants, then Dr. Brown must seriously undervalue our common grasp of Christian basics, as well as the influence of centuries of Church teachings.

Despite the promise of the title, Dr. Brown's article does not address the question of whether we can legitimately address God as our Mother.  Many Christians have done so, and to return to the question that came to mind when I first read the article, it may be a necessary step for many who seek God, or a deeper knowledge of God.  Compared to this, the questions that Dr. Brown seeks to settle appear to be of small matter.

Comments

[Rev. Kris Lewis]

God is so much more than our conceptions of gender. Recognizing that shouldn't be seen as an 'assault on the doctrine of the Trinity.'

[William F. Hammond]

I think several of us have agreed that we may very well be able to agree on what is Anglican orthodoxy (in the legitimate sense of the word "orthodox").

But we have stopped short of making a list of essentials.

Beyond the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, what else is required?

I would add explicit mention of the BCP.

I would hope not the totality of the 39 Articles though possibly some particular things therein.

What else?

[John White]

Rightly said, Dr. Brown. We do all agree on the essentials of orthodoxy. We have the Creeds and Scripture. These we signed on to at Baptism, Confirmation, and some at Ordination. We who believe in these essentials are orthodox. Our points of disagreement, though they appear large on our limited horizon, are matters of interpretation and conscience. Anyone who can join the congregation in repeating the Creed, and who can respond "Amen" after the Gospel is read, is orthodox to me. Is there an issue with that?

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

The question of orthodoxy need not to be a point of contention between Bob Dodd and me. I think we can come to a definition of orthodoxy on which we agree, and according to which most of my AVM friends would want to be theologically orthodox. (Consider Dennis Wisnom’s comment below.)

I agree that “orthodoxy” can understood in variety of ways. So let me quote from something I wrote last year:

“Orthodoxy is not synonymous with ‘traditionalism’ or ‘conservatism.’ It is rather the catholic consensus about what constitutes the authentic articulation of Christian revelation on essential matters of faith — and not just on a surface level. There are religious conservatives whose outlook may not be entirely ‘orthodox’ in this sense. Some conservative Christians have ‘Apollonarian’ tendencies, and piously minimize Christ's humanity. Some may tend toward works righteousness and a ‘Pelagian’ moralism that does not grasp the nature of grace and justification.”

My understanding of Christian orthodoxy is that, while it has stable content, it is not tied to rigid or static forms of expression, and our understanding of orthodoxy does in fact develop over time. I doubt Bob and I would disagree over this. Our differences lie in the particulars.

[Robert T Dodd]

After a gracious beginning, Fr. Brown's most recent comment stumbles badly at the end.

Brown: “'Authoritarian' is mere pejorative."

Really? How else would you describe a diocese whose leaders rewrite Convention resolutions without input from their authors, and a bishop who rules a resolution to change the time and place of Convention "out of order?"

Brown: "Classically understood, the term 'orthodox' is essentially a marker of authenticity as opposed to a one-sided distortion or trendy substitute for the Gospel."

A false dichotomy. “Orthodox,” whose many synonyms include accepted, given, traditional, and customary, can denote a valuable frame of reference that changes over time in response to new information. Or it can denote a mental straitjacket, a sanctioned excuse for ignoring new knowledge even when doing so injures others.

Who or what is the target of Fr. Brown’s “one-sided distortion” comment? As to “trendy substitute,” how about the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, all of whom adjusted or augmented Mark for different audiences? Their authors recognized that definitions of orthodoxy vary with context and over time.

Brown: "Do we really NOT want to be orthodox?"

Not if orthodoxy requires intellectual and social blinders.

[Dr. Richard Hopkins]

This is why i struggle with groups such as Albany Via Media. Not because of issues such as gay marriage or gay ordination, or what you eat for breakfast. I can sit at the table with you and disagree on a number of issues, and still see us as being members of the same part of the Body of Christ. However, it is Christ, a man, who came down from Heaven, who said that we are to pray to God, our Father. No one knows the Father except the Son...if we cannot even accept the words spoken by our Savior as truth...then all of the other things we a gree or disagree on are meaningless. Jesus is the example for us, we pray our Father, we uphold the belief in the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not because we are sexist bigot Christians, but because we are Christians who follow our Lord.

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

“Push back” is a curious term. It suggests a scuffle in the school playground before class.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I expected my article to elicit conversation and debate. I again commend John White for this unique forum. Over the years I and Father Hart, Dennis Wisnom, John White, Bob and Marya Dodd, Alison de Kamel and others have engaged in lively and often impassioned debate, while maintaining a growing mutual respect.

I have no wish to “compartmentalize” my article. I strove to present a clear and nuanced point of view, and I stand by it. What bothers me is my sense that not all seem to have read my article with sufficient care to register what I am and am not saying. The article certainly had nothing to do with an “unwilling[ness] to share formal authority with women.” It was about how we speak of God.

Is an “authoritarian orthodox movement” seeking to “infect” the diocese of Albany? “Authoritarian” is mere pejorative. Classically understood, the term “orthodox” is essentially a marker of authenticity, as opposed to a one-sided distortion or trendy substitute for the Gospel. Do we really NOT want to be orthodox?

[Harriet Warnock-Graham]

Christopher Brown, You are getting push back from women because many of us have heard variations of your points many times in the past from a plethora of church authorities who were unwilling to share formal authority with women and who now do so only grudgingly.

While you may wish to compartmentalize your article, once it's out there, it can not but be read in the context of the authoritarian orthodox movement which seeks to infect the Diocese of Albany.

[Rev. Paul Hartt]

It is abundantly evident in the Gospels how greatly Jesus loved women and was compelling to them. His disciple base alone makes that clear. Rev. Keaton's point about gender in this regard is sound. Of course, Jesus' view of the masculine equally turned religious culture on its head at many points.

Still, an honest view of Scripture finds the situation of gender nuanced well beyond the standard Feminist worldview. In fact, basic academic Feminism is contradicted at several points. Jesus is a gender realist, not ideologue. I think that what He thinks a woman is and what He thinks a man is would challenge both.

God language is reflected in this matter, but not driven by it.

[Elizabeth Kaeton]

Paul - Please do not ascribe motives to my point - which is that Jesus was talking about a huge shift in the ancient Hebrew mind (which, apparently, still applies to some so-called 'modern' minds) about the relationship we have with God in prayer. Jesus is all about relationships, not gender. Indeed, he outraged the Pharisees because he treated women differently than the proscribed cultural norms.

That, sir, was my point. God is a Great Mystery that is beyond our imagining or language. The Church should be reflective of that Great Mystery.

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

“Visceral fury”? I had no idea that my article was so transgressive. I honestly tried to present my thoughts in a reasoned fashion that showed respect for points of view with which I disagree and invited conversation.

The claim that my article was a “defense of masculine dominance” is ridiculous. As I read scripture, and not the least the Biblical doctrine of Creation, male and female are called to partnership and complimentarity not dominance and subjugation.

[Rev. Paul Hartt]

The Rev. Elizabeth Keaton writes:

“By the way, Jesus didn't teach us to pray "Our Father". The word he used was "Abba" - the equivalent of our "Daddy or Dada". What Jesus was saying was, "When you pray, crawl up into God's lap as if you were a baby." That was as outrageous a thing to say to the ancient Hebrew mind as it is to some "modern" minds to hear God referred to as Mother.”

___________________________

“Abba” means father or daddy. It does not mean mother or mommy. The Rev. Keaton’s remark about laps is an attempt to muddy the water by changing the subject. The translation Father is perfectly sound and anything else would be a deliberate textual abuse in the service of an agenda and bias.

As for Rev. Brown's question, I too beleive that the article has not been read with care by some making comments.

[Harriet Warnock-Graham]

I was staggered by the visceral fury I felt as I read Christopher Brown's article, recalling the agonizing bondage of inadequacy, impotence, and worthlessness that traditional Christianity inculcated in me during my childhood and adolescence, merely for being female.

Good work "Fr" Brown. To restate a useful cliche, "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." Your defense of masculine dominance in traditional Christian language reminded me that women haven't progressed so very far within the church that we couldn't still lose everything we've gained.

[Dennis Wisnom]

In an 'Outline of the Faith commonly called the Catechism' beginning on page 845 of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, in the section on the Creeds, the question posed: "What is the Trinity?" The answer is this: "The Trinity is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." I admit that I am most comfortable within the context of the Episcopal liturgy when I hear the words, 'Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' And I also confess that I am uncomfortable, at times, with putting "God" in place of "blessed be his kingdom..." Part of me says, 'we need to honor & respect the words of the prayer book and tradition. Yet I admit I like the different blessings used by priests in different Episcopal dioceses in Province 2 in which they stray from the traditional Trinitarian formula, however, let me be very clear here, I am most comfortable when the priest or bishop says, 'the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.' I also admit I like a lot of what 'Enriching our Worship' offers, however, an element of EoW that I do not like is what I consider to be the new words of the Nicene Creed, 'was incarnate...and became truly human.' That is NOT what the Nicene Creed says. The Nicene Creed says 'for us and for our salvation he came came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary and was made man." BCP p 358

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

I did not say that inclusive language “assaults” the Trinity. My point is that functionalist, gender neutral Trinitarian formulae in current usage are an inadequate substitute for “Father, Son and Holy Spirit. ” The reasons which I have offer for this assertion (see my comment below) derive from the basic facts regarding the development of Trinitarian doctrine. Take a look at J.N.D. Kelly’s classic study, “Early Christian Doctrines.”

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

In response to Catherine Parker, I did not suggest that men are made in God's image and women are an "after thought." Anyone who reads the scripture with any care (and that is really all I am asking) will recognize that God's making male and female in Genesis 1:27 stands in parallel with the previous phrase in which “God created man in his own image.”

Somehow the complementarity of male and female reflects the image of God. In particular, as Karl Barth says, it points to the relational nature of God, and hence our being made for fellowship. I don’t think it means that God is androgynous – since gender is a thing of creation. Nevertheless, I readily agree that there are feminine images that refer to God. They tell us something about God, but they do not warrant speaking of God as “Mother,” especially in view of the fact that God is consistently “Father” and “Husband” to Israel, and the Father of Jesus. In the end we call God, “Father,” because Jesus did, not because of some misogynist claim that women are less significant or worthy than men.

[Gari Green]

I find the contention that inclusive God language inherently assaults the Trinity absolutely ridiculous. The argument reminds me of those tired old saws that stated women could not be priests since in our femaleness, we were unable to represent Christ.

[Catherine Parker]

God invented the concepts of male and female when he created humans and other animals. It is the height of arrogance to believe God created men in his image and women as an after thought.

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

If Catherine Winsor had read my article she would know that I recognize and affirm feminine imagery in the Bible and Christian tradition. My point was that it is evocative and descriptive, but not, at least in scripture, the language of direct address. Not only Julian of Norwich, but also Anselm, speaks of Jesus as mother. These references are poetic and evocative, but certainly not propositions within a systematic theology.

The Holy Spirit as the feminine side of the Godhead? The evidence is mixed. The Hebrew, “ruah” is a feminine noun, but the Greek, “pneuma” is neuter. Some maternal images have been used in reference to the Holy Spirit in Christian tradition, as well as Gnosticism. On the other hand, Acts 16 speaks of the “Spirit of Jesus,” and Galatians 4:6 of the “Spirit of the Son” sent into our hearts. The Paraclete in the John’s farewell discourse is clearly masculine. So far as Wisdom is concerned, the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 provides the textual antecedent to the pre-existent “Logos” in John 1, a point that is important to Athanasius in his argument against Arianism. And Jesus seems to identify himself with Wisdom in Luke 7:35 and 11:49.

[Elizabeth Kaeton]

Actually, Christopher's essay inspired today's post on my blog.

http://telling-secrets.blogspot.com/2011/06/living-with-commas.html

As for saying that Mary Daley's comment about the KKK being "over the top" - well, it's my personal favorite precisely because it is over the top. That was Dr. Daley's way - pushing the point of the exclusion of women from the RCC by excluding men from her classes, creating new words to push the point about patriarchy's control of everything, including language.

She was brilliant and abrasive and moved us to re-examine patriarchy in ways that no one else did. I'm quite certain she and God are having a great laugh over her sometimes outrageous attempts to expand their understanding of the mystery of God.

By the way, Jesus didn't teach us to pray "Our Father". The word he used was "Abba" - the equivalent of our "Daddy or Dada". What Jesus was saying was, "When you pray, crawl up into God's lap as if you were a baby." That was as outrageous a thing to say to the ancient Hebrew mind as it is to some "modern" minds to hear God referred to as Mother.

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

Did anyone actually READ my article (other than John and Dennis – and thank you for the nice comment, Dennis)? I do not claim that God is male – I twice make it clear that God is NOT male.

My concern is the integrity of a syntax of scriptural language and imagery in our theological and liturgical discourse. If we don’t strive to conform to scripture, we are just making it up as we go along – and THAT is idolatry.

For those who are interested, the methodological background of my thinking about the syntax of Christian discourse derives in large measure from work of the “Yale School” theologians, George Lindbeck (“The Nature of Doctrine), Hans Frei (“The Eclipse of Biblical Narative), and Bevard Childs (author of numerous books on “Canonical Criticism”), as well as the theology of Karl Barth.

The motivation behind my article was not to keep women in their place, and or foster gender inequality. I favor inclusive language with reference to human beings in everyday discourse and in Biblical translation when it is faithful to the text (where “anthropos” really means “human being” and not “man”). My issue is how we talk to and about God.

[Jill McNish]

Wow that is really regressive! He says that to de-gender God makes God "less than" a gendered being. Not. God does not need a biological gender and is so much bigger than maleness or femaleness or even both combined. To confine God to maleness is what makes God "less than" the awesome mystery that it is. And it is idolatry.

[Catherine Windsor]

This guy is misguided. Period. Remember the passage is "And let Us make...", Us being the Trinity, which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the feminine side of the Godhead, also known as Sophia for Her Wisdom, and, that our "courteous Lord" Christ is "our Mother" [Julian of Norwich].

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

So far as Canon Keaton’s comments are concerned: I have followed her blog, “Telling Secrets,” for a long time, and while I disagree with her on many things, I respect her. She is smart, and despite her adamant progressivism, her theological outlook periodically betrays surprising veins of classic Christian orthodoxy, which sets her apart from some other prominent progressives.

But her ad hominem comment about “insecure male clergy persons” seems off the mark. I admit to being insecure about many things, but I enjoy and respect – and am not the least bit threatened – by strong and intelligent woman in the church or anywhere else, and I work effortlessly with my female colleagues. I might point to the ease and mutual respect in my relationship with Prof. Dolores Williams, an African American “Womanist” theologian who served on my dissertation committee at Union Seminary – and whose theological outlook was quite different from my own.

The implication that my article challenges “women’s equality” is simply not the case, and the reference (via Mary Daly) to the Klu Klux Klan is way over the top.

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

The problem with “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier” – and most other non-gender specific Trinitarian formulae – is:

1. “Father, Son and Spirit” is a NAME, (“Baptize in the name of the Father…). It is personal and specific, it is not simply a job description.

2. As a purely functionalist designation, “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier” refers only to God’s three-fold work in the economy of salvation, and says nothing about the three-fold relationality among the divine persons within the Godhead. It thus leans in the direction of the modalist heresy, as Fr. Hart suggested.

3. Finally, "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier" is rendered problematic by the ancient Trinitarian doctrine of “Perichoresis” (or “Circuminsession”) which refers to the mutual indwelling of the three persons and their shared participation in activities that are proper to each.

Example: Is the Father the Creator?
Well, yes…but then consider the reference to the role of the Son, “by [whom] all things were created, in heaven and on earth” (see also John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2, 1 Cor 8:6).