Download Is It Okay to Call God "Mother": Considering the Feminine Face of God eBook

Smith writes an excellent book that goes into great detail on how to understand God as female and Mother. He writes not with anger, but with great love and concern and sensitivity, coming from a background as I do of not originally believing this was appropriate. To do this, he goes through point by point in the Old and New Testament, and early church history, looking at how God was understood and referred to, and how Jesus saw God. How El Shaddai can be very easily read in the Hebrew as "The Breasted One"- She who provides us with the milk of mercy and compassion of the womb, as the early church mothers and fathers referred to her, and as is referred to countless times in metaphor in the Old Testament. Smith takes us through his own process of discernment and revelation, as the Holy Spirit revealed to him who She is (using the Hebrew gender case in the Old Testament), and the steps that one can take in their own church to assist in this revelation. Yet he always insists that, on a personal level, the feminine be used only if it is helpful for the individual. He shares the meanings and interpretations of Paul's writings on women, for Swift rightfully points out that our treatment of women is intimately connected to our treatment of God- whether or not we see God as also female. Through it all, Swift remains committed to orthodoxy, and has a strong commitment to scripture. He in no way rejects seeing God as male, or advocates that God is a person and has gender in the same way we do- but rather, that God encompasses both male and female, both being acceptable metaphors for understanding who He is.
The only thing I'd question in this book was Smith's extensive use of the argument that Father God was used at one time because Father represented power and compassion in a society, and Mother did not, and so, back in the day, it would have been inappropriate to use Mother in referring to God, but now, in this day and age, it is permissible. While the argument has some merit, it really refers only to the West. It would imply that, within the 2/3rds world, where the concept of Woman and Mother are still often denigrated, that God should not be spoken of as Mother. And I think the rest of the arguments and discussion Swift lays out belies this idea. There are simply too many other positives to being able to see God as Mother, even in a culture that does not value women in the same way as men. For the women in the culture learn that God is like them, for they also are in Her image, and the men in the culture learn to value the women much more, for they also are in His image.
Having gone through my own conversion experience to see the Gospel's call for he emancipation of women, I related with relish to much of what Swift wrote. This I think will be a further step on my own journey. I have often referred, in my most intimate of moments, to God as Girlfriend. God as Mother is a bit more difficult, a bit more jarring. As Swift points out, there is cognitive dissonance there to begin with. But often, dissonance can be good, in helping us appreciate new realities, and break open the box we've put God into, stripping us of idolatry. It can often be simply that we have for so long understood God in one way, it is difficult in the beginning to understand Her anew. But as I practice this, I also begin to see God anew, and feel Her presence as a Mother, in a new, and very intimate way, being born again, as Spirit gives birth to Spirit.

Really awesome book. Well written by a genuine Christlike Christian, as opposed to the other kind.

Paul R. Smith (b. 1937) was the pastor for forty-nine years of a Southern Baptist church in midtown Kansas City, Missouri, leading it over time to become a ‘progressive, inclusive, integral church.’ He has also written Integral Christianity: The Spirit's Call to Evolve and Is Your God Big Enough? Close Enough? You Enough?: Jesus and the Three Faces of God.

He wrote in the Introduction to this 1993 book, “I started my lover’s quarrel with the church when I was eighteen… I eventually discovered a church that was willing to enter into an astounding degree of spiritual vitality and biblical faithfulness, exceeding all my expectations. The most recent of the nine major changes we have experienced over the thirty years of my pastorate there has been recognizing the feminine image of God. In one sense I wrote this books that our congregation could have a fuller explanation of why I believe it is important to call God ‘Mother’ as well as ‘Father’ in public worship… This is a controversial book, and I suppose there will be Christian bookstores that will refuse to carry it… I particularly don’t like being drawn into the minefield of ‘God language.’ … When my fears are most intimidating, I think of God’s audacity in revealing herself to us in the glorious scandal of pale, mortal flesh… I remind us all that God is incarnate neither in gender nor in language. God is incarnate in Jesus Christ, born of our sister Mary, and now risen and transcendent…” (Pg. 1-3)

He explains, “My thesis is simple: Calling God ‘Father’ and never ‘Mother’ says something in our day that Jesus never intended, namely, that God is exclusively male or masculine. This in turn appears to make men more like God than women are. A simple and biblically-based solution to both problems is to call God ‘Mother’ while continuing to call God ‘Father.’” (Pg. 3) He continues, “There are three things I do desire… [as] we explore the feminine side of God. (1) That our image of God will be expanded and that however we address God, it will become more meaningful. (2) That we recognize that calling God Mother can be faithful to the Bible, beneficial to the church, and significant to others, whether we personally feel comfortable in doing so or not. (3) that we understand the need for the church to recognize corporately both the masculine and feminine face of God when gathered for worship… even in the midst of diverse personal practices.” (Pg. 7)

He suggests, “The acknowledgement of the human side of the Bible does not detract from its divine side in any way, but it does make it more complicated to understand… this authoritative revelation of God in scripture is contained in a vehicle that has been touched and shaped by its culture, namely language. The challenge is to learn to distinguish the content of revelation from the form of revelation. We must separate the message from the envelope.” (Pg. 37)

He quotes Isaiah 49:15, and comments, “God’s love is like a woman’s love for her nursing child. Even though sometimes human mothers may neglect their children, God will never neglect her little ones. Motherlove is the sustaining foundation of our earthly life and God’s motherlove is even more consistent and reliable. This image also occurs in Numbers [11:11-14] when God is angry with the complaining Israelites and Moses complains to God.” (Pg. 62)

He points out, “We must remember that the metaphors of mother and father are not describing sexual characteristics. The shock and clash of the two different metaphors provide some great advantages in using them together. The combination reminds us that God is not limited to masculine or feminine imagery. It also reminds us that God is a personal being but not a human being. Finally, it reminds us of the metaphorical nature of language and its limitations in referring to God so we do not idolize our symbols.” (Pg. 72-73)

He explains, “I expected to find [a] strong argument for God as Father in the Gospels, but I was surprised with the rest of the New Testament. First I looked for any accounts of actual prayers offered by the early Christians [in the New Testament] since here would be the strongest evidence for how the early believers understood Jesus’ teaching on how to address God. I found eleven occasions where the actual words of a prayer or praise addressed to God were recorded [Acts 1:24; 4:24; 7:59-60; 10:13-14; 1 Cor 16:22; Rev 4:11; 11:16-17; 15:3; 16:5; 16:7; 22:20]… I was stunned! In all eleven prayers and the twelve meanings, god was named four times as ‘Lord,’ three as ‘Lord God Almighty,’ twice as ‘Lord Jesus,’ once as ‘Lord and God,’ once as ‘Holy One,’ and once as ‘Sovereign Lord.’ And not at all as ‘Father.’ It seemed these Christians closest to Jesus did not always follow Jesus’ instructions to call God Father. To put it even more strongly, these earliest Christians NEVER addressed God as Father… There are no accounts in the New Testament of anyone but Jesus addressing God as Father!” (Pg. 81-83)

He argues, “Jesus saw God as like the best of what a father meant in his culture… In my mind this change in the meaning of the word father is one of the most compelling reasons to include Mother along with Father in some way in our praying, worshipping, and speaking about God. The meaning of the word ‘abba’ in Jesus’ time is simply not available to us today in the one word ‘father.’ If we continue to use Father for God in the content of its meaning today, without qualification, we seriously distort its biblical intent.” (Pg. 99)

He notes, “The essence of the incarnation is God becoming human, not God becoming a male Jew. Since Jesus as Christ, Messiah, Savior and Redeemer transcends sexual identity, I wonder if it is wise to continually refer to the Risen Christ in masculine terms. Surely Jesus’ maleness recedes into the background of eternity as our Risen Savior. I personally try to avoid using masculine pronouns for the Risen, transcendent Christ except when I am speaking of him during his time here on earth before his ascension.” (Pg. 143)

He cautions, “I want to remind my readers again that although I encourage you to consider female images for God and even to experiment with them, if calling God Mother in your own personal prayer life is not helpful to you, don’t do it. However, I am very pointedly asking all Christians to recognize the necessity of corporate worship which recognizes both male and female images of God. Will we make room in our public worship liturgy for various expressions of addressing God so God can be affirmed in many ways? This means that while I may only address God as Mother privately, I am willing to sing about God as Father on Sunday morning. And while you may only address God as Father privately, you are willing to sing about God as Mother when we worship together.” (Pg. 256)

This is an excellent, non-polemical treatment of the subject, that will be of great interest to those studying such gender/language issues in the church.