Lester Start’s Works

1The Motherhood of God

Lester Start

December 9, 1979

First Baptist, Kalamazoo

The manger scene in Bethlehem recalled in the Scripture lesson draws attention to the focal point of the whole Christmas story - the birth of the baby Jesus, the Christ child. Where there is a baby there has to be a mother - so the manger scene should call attention to the mother as well. And indeed, this has been the case in the artistic portrayals of that manger scene in the long history of religious art. Pictures of the Madonna and Child are many. And the greatest artists have shown a sensitivity to the spirit of Mary, the depicting a kind of brooding tenderness and wonder - as if they were putting on canvas the mood of Mary reflected in the text, “and Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart”. But the focus of these paintings is always on the baby Jesus. Madonna and Child becomes Child and Madonna (isn’t it always the case that the baby gets more attention than the new mother). And properly so here because the focus is on the great event of the birth of the son of God. But in consequence Mary fades into the background, and theologically becomes less important than the Holy Spirit, and in spite of the fact, as the Catholic Church has stressed, that Mary is unique in giving birth to God in mortal form, the image of motherhood has tended to be de-emphasized, if not actually suppressed. We think of God the Father easily, God in masculine terms almost always, as Prince, King, Ruler, Master. And in spite of the Christmas story of the birth of Jesus, Christ, as the creed goes, the only begotten son of God; begotten not made, who was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary - the image of motherhood fades before the more dominant masculine image of the Holy Spirit. There is God the Father and a masculine Trinity with the result that the feminine aspects of personality seemed to be ignored. This is part of the basis for the charge that our religion has a sexist bias slanted toward male domination.

There is an interesting exception. If you were to attend a Christian Science service, you would hear as part of the service the Lord’s prayer, with a kind of responsive addition that is called its spiritual interpretation. After “our Father”, there comes the response “Father-Mother God”. Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science and writer of this spiritual interpretation obviously rejected the image here and elsewhere in her writings of a God exclusively male, exclusively Father. And this was done long before women’s lib - about a century ago.

Why is it that the feminine aspects of God are de-emphasized? One obvious answer is that God is clearly male - except that we all know such a response is too obviously guilty of picturing God in human terms, anthropomorphizing Him, instead of seeing him as a transcendent spirit. A better answer is that historically the female principle was associated with the pagan fertility religions that the Hebrew people found in the land of Canaan, where they settled after the Exodus. The early prophets, constantly fought the Baalization of their religion. Fertility magic with its focus on the female principle of generation was part of the new way of life of agriculture. It, and the female principle it represented, was rejected as evil.

From this, and in connection with this, it was easy to consider the female principle itself as evil, the masculine as, therefore good, and the woman as the temptress, the source of evil for man. This sounds and is sexist. But it was Eve, who after being tempted by the serpent, in turn tempts Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit.

Another reason would be the general male dominance of Oriental and middle Eastern society. When one looked for images and metaphors to express the greatness of God - Father, King, Ruler, Creator, suggested themselves. Female images would be unthinkable for the Highest in the spiritual realm when the male was dominant in the temporal order. It is this spirit to Paul reflects when he advises wives to be subject to their husbands.

Another reason for neglecting the female principle was the extraordinary notion that creation was essentially a male action, that the child was the result of the seed of the male, and that the woman served mostly as incubator, and did nothing to contribute to the nature or character of the offspring created. That is why, in the light of new biological knowledge, belatedly in the last century the Catholic Church developed the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary - that by a special act of grace she was freed of sin. Otherwise, the taint of sin, would have been handed down to Jesus, even though he was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

But in spite of all the reasons to neglect and reject the feminine image, the female principle persisted and grew in the medieval church, especially in the cult of the Virgin, in the worship of Mary as the mother of God. An elaborate Maryology, a theology stressing the role and importance of Mary, was developed. And we can well understand that in the midst of war and cruelty and plague the maternal image of the Madonna with her promise of mercy was closer than the far off image of God on his throne - no matter how fatherly He might be and the church grew uneasy about the preference. But the Protestant reformers rejected Maryology entirely as Maryoloty, the idolatrous worship of a figure less than God. Calvinism taught a God of awful sovereignty and power. And the masculine images have dominated the Calvinist tradition, which we Baptists inherit.

This history may explain the dominant masculine imagery, but it does not justify it. And even though our religion emerges from a male-dominated society, we can find in the Scriptures plenty of examples of images applied to God that are clearly feminine and maternal. In Deuteronomy God is likened to a eagle watching over her nest, fluttering over her young, spreading broad her wings, and bearing them on her wings. And the Psalmists sing of abiding under the shadow of the wings of God, of being protected with the feathers of God’s wings. Both male and female birds tend their young, of course, but in Deuteronomy the bird is clearly a mother bird, and when Jesus says “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” - the bird is clearly not a rooster and the loving concern of a mother for her brood is clearly the image Jesus is using as suggesting his concern. And in John, the last verse of the first chapter, Jesus is clearly said to be in the bosom of God. And Isaiah likens God’s undying love and mercy to a mother’s love for her infant. He asks, “Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb?”

But perhaps the best example of the maternal image in the Bible is in Hosea, chapter 11. It reads: “When Israel was a boy, I loved him; I called my son out of Egypt. It was I who taught Ephraim how to walk, I who had taken them in my arms, but they did not know that I harnessed them in leading strings and led them with bonds of love - that I had lifted them like a little child to my cheek, that I had bent down to feed them.” And again, “How can I give you up Ephraim, how surrender you, Israel”.

The prophet is expressing a devoted love, a love that will not let go, even though the children of Israel are rejecting the God who led them out of Egypt. This is the kind of love we associate with a mother who continues her love and concern for children, no matter what. And the images here of bending down to feed them, teaching them to walk, lifting them, leading them with bonds of love are clearly maternal. It is this maternal solicitude that inspired Byron Bangert of Judson Church to preach in Stetson Chapel a sermon based on this passage entitled ‘God as a Jewish Mother”.

The maternal image is clearly in the Scriptures, not only in the manger scene of the Christmas story. And the maternal image is seen in other religions as well. Buddhism has its Kwan Yin, goddess of mercy, that has been called the Chinese Madonna. And Hinduism has a whole series of female deities associated with its gods. It would be strange if the attributes of God were to be exclusively masculine. Both principals masculine and feminine are needed.

This notion is illustrated in the ancient Chinese symbol of the Tao. The Tao represents the creative power that operates throughout all of nature. It is the power of life and creativity in nature. It is symbolized by a circle, but the circle itself is composed of two parts separated by a curved line - these represent the two cosmic forces that together form the creative spirit. They are called the Yang and the Yin. These represent among other things the male and female principles. These are not considered opposing in the sense that one is good and one is evil. They are rather complimentary: what is good is a proper balance of the two. The teaching is that both are required for creativity - both principles in proper balance are needed in every creation - in every person.

What should we conclude from this? That God is still male? That He has some female attributes? That He is both male and female? That He transcends these human qualities and is neither? These exhaust the possibilities.

It seems to me that in the profound sense, God transcends these distinctions and the ultimate mystery of His nature goes far beyond the qualities suggested by the these terms. Yet insofar as we approach God in terms of our own experience and attribute to Him those qualities we find most valuable in our experience, when we understand God as creative love, it is difficult to see how we can view Him without the images of mother as well as father - love. Creative love requires both the masculine and the feminine dimension. And the creative spirit of God reflects those loving qualities we associate with the maternal as well as paternal images.

The image of God cannot be sexist. God as father shares the maternal instincts of tender concern. The father of that prodigal son in the New Testament story loved his son with a mother’s loving devotion. And I like to think that the lost son came to himself, when he thought of how his actions were hurting his father, when he imagined the tears in his father’s eyes.

I think we should conclude, too, in terms of our own lives in an age concerned with sexist rivalries - that the masculine and feminine principle are not opposed, rather that both should be expressed in the complete person. Winston Churchill was intensely masculine, but he was easily moved to tears of compassion. A macho image is not ideally masculine, it is exploitive; nor is poor little helpless woman ideally feminine. Parental loving concern is a masculine quality and competent creative work is a feminine one. There are sexist elements in our religion, in our Scriptures. God the Father has dominated our thinking and Paul certainly regarded women as the second sex. But there are plenty of images of the motherhood of God - especially in the manger scene - and Jesus shocked everyone by treating women as persons.

The message of the manger is that of God’s creative love and this love is clearly seen in Mary as well as Jesus. It is the profound mystery of God’s creative love which unites all that Mary may well have been sensing - as she kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. So may we keep and treasure and ponder, the wonder of God’s love that passeth all understanding.