GOD THE MOTHER AND RETHINKING THE NICENE CREED

In the letters section of the recent issue of the Lutheran [July, 2015], Pastor George S. Johnson advocated openness to rethinking the Nicene Creed to reflect the feminine nature of God.  He wasn’t exactly specific; but one may suppose a revisionist formulation like ‘I believe in God the Mother”.    (Perhaps “God the Father” and “God the Mother” would alternate from service to service).  Maybe some way would be found simultaneously identify both genders without emphasis to one or the other.   In any event, the charge is that, by refusing to put a feminine face on the divine, we put God in a very small box when limiting the Creator to male imagery. 

This call to recognize the “womanlike” facet of our Lord is made now and again—often times in periods of intensity followed by episodes of drought in which there is nary a breath devoted to such a transformation.  The problem for the modernizers is that Lutherans and the greater Church are and have been loath to fiddle around with the creeds. 

(Exception being the Church at large did annoyingly shifted “He descended into Hell” to “He descended into the dead” in the Apostles Creed.  But that’s a story for another time.)

For Lutherans (Let’s be honest.  We mean the ELCA here—the party most likely.)  to go it alone and change the Nicene Creed according to their lights would do irreparable damage to ecumenical relations the Catholic and Orthodox Churches—not mention other creedal Churches.  In spite of the predictions of the “sunshine and sugarplums” Christians in our midst, The Catholic Church is not likely to follow Protestant trailblazing—and let’s not delve in science fiction and even talk about groundbreaking departures from tradition by the Orthodox.

Nevertheless, Pastor Johnson cites Martin Luther himself to justify writing:  “As Martin Luther said, ‘Everything we teach needs to be open for examination and possible revision.’”.

Actually, I have some sympathy for Pastor Johnson’s suggestion.   After all, in both Sunday School and Confirmation, we little Lutherans were told that God was neither male nor female in spite of the fact God is usually addressed as “Father” and Jesus Himself was and is a man.  (For some reason, the Holy Spirit—the Spirit of Christ-- is often referred to as “it”)  If God is neither gender but we call Him “Father”, then it seems entirely reasonable that we may also refer to God as mother.  This seems, even absent Biblical precedent, reasonably coherent.  And herein lies the problem.

While Luther did advocate examination and possible revision, he also had a grave mistrust of reason:

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

 More specifically, Luther abhorred theological/philosophical speculation in matters of faith.  Christian teaching should only be grounded in the Scriptures.    As he saw it, the Church had been plagued by the violent invasion of philosophical reasoning through the centuries and such reasoning had worked to obscure the Gospel and the plain meaning of the Scriptural text.   In light of this hazard, Christian teaching should not go beyond what is revealed in Scripture.

It is frequently objected that the Bible does in fact use feminine metaphors in describing God acting in some maternal role .   Many of the examples cited are quite a stretch; but such images are there.   One only has to remember Jesus’ lament:    “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!  (Matthew 23:37)

 

The critical flaw in the conjecture that such images warrant the use of such appellatives as “God the Mother” is that these images are precisely that:  metaphors.  They describe actions—not persons.  They are not proper names.   That Father and Jesus are proper names is, yes, the point.   They are the names revealed to us in the Gospels.  It is by Jesus’ instruction in the Lord’s Prayer we are told ‘this is how you should pray…our Father.’

The Father is literally Father of His only the Son, but he becomes our Father by adoption, by grace, by union with Christ by the Spirit so that Christ’s relationship with the Father becomes ours by participation. So if God is the Father of Jesus, and we are in Christ by the Spirit, then his Father is our Father.   Father is thus not a gender, nor is it a function, it is a pure relation of a person to another person.   God is not distant and impersonal.  He is a personal relationship with us for which names are essential.  When we are in close relationships, names are vital and exact—not optional, metaphorical, or flexible

As Luther would say, it is not safe to stray beyond the revealed Word of God.   Truths which are not discoverable by reason.   While the revealed Word of God confounds us and are a scandal to the ideals of our time, we must trust beyond understanding our Lord has His own purposes.