Redeeming our mother(s)

In seminary I have been taught a lot about how coming to know God as a loving parent through the name and relationship of Abba (Daddy)/Father does a lot in helping heal the wounds that our earthly male parents (biological, stepfathers, and male role models) have inflicted (knowingly or not). From personal experience a better understanding of God as Father has helped me to forgive my own father, and wounds that go back to childhood (7 years old) are finally closing (admittedly the scars will remain, but I'm not subconsciously controlled by those early encounters). One of the things I've observed is that wounds are better healed by someone similar to the original inflicter (men tend to heal wounds that other men inflict better than women can, and vice versa).

In October I selected the Nazareth as one of the sites in Israel that I was responsible for leading the devotion. For the next 3 months I soaked in the words of Mary's encounter with Gabriel, and the amazing faith that is voiced in her magnificant. Little did I know that as I preached that January in Nazareth I would find myself much closer to Mary than I realized. I voiced the declaration of my faith as a young, newly engaged woman, that desired to love God with my whole heart....and I began to wonder. If God as Father (IE. 'masculine' ) could redeem, restore, and heal my understanding of men in general, and fathers in particular, how are the mother images restored for Christians.

In the tradition of Christianity three contenders have arisen as contenders to that job. The first is Mary, Theotokos (Greek - literally, God-bearer). Mary as the mother of Jesus (aka God) can provide mothering to all Christians, ministering to the pain inflicted by the women in our lives. This is the view of Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox (at least as I understand their teachings). The second option is that the church is our 'mother'. St. Augustine argues that no one can have God as their Father, without also having the church as their mother. The final possibility is that the feminine imagery of God found in Scripture (IE. Jesus statement in Luke about desiring to gather the people of Jerusalem 'like a hen gathers her chicks'). Granted that the feminine imagery is scare in Scripture and must be handled carefully to prevent goddess worship (IE. the Sophia movement).

Obviously each of these has limitations. But then so does portraying God strictly in masculine terms (no matter how Biblical they are - God is not a human male). The problem with Mary is that, despite her heroic faith (evidenced through her whole life), she is still just one woman, with all the imperfections that come with that condition. We have several accounts in Scripture that her 'mothering technique' was less than perfect (see Jesus in the temple at 12 and the wedding in Cana). The problem with the church is that it is an impersonal institution stretching across time, geography, languages, and experiences. How can something so amorphous speak to the wounds inflicted by a 'mother' of a single believer?

The last option is for the Church to begin using the female imagery Scripture uses to describe God in worship. There are places were God refers to himself (blast the limitations of the English language) as a mother to Israel (Isaiah 66:13).

In true Wesleyan fashion I think the answer is both/and. God uses the lives of Christian men, and the witness of the Church and Scripture to minister to the wounds inflicted by men. So too should the lives of Christian women (beginning with Mary) and the witness of the Church and Scripture minister to the wounds inflicted by women. It's time for the Church to learn and teach more about the feminine nature of God.

Trinitarian Language

In the church's struggle to come up with adequate language to describe/explain God a new favorite has emerged to replace the more traditional person language of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The new attempt is to refer to them as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer. While these are validly true descriptions of the actions of God I'm beginning to question how far the church should go in this direction. Yes it reduces the patristic overtones that traditionally are used to squeeze out the feminine perspective. But my fear is that by limiting the God-head to what God does we have done to God what we have already done to ourselves.

Much has already been written about the anthropocentric tendency to identify ourselves by what we 'do'. I'm a 'doctor', or a 'teacher' or a 'stay-at-home-parent'. But such descriptors limit us to one dimension, primarily the vocational sphere. Our job (or lack there of) only tells a part of our story. It mitigates the fact that we are also children, friends, Christians, and people with a variety of interests, hobbies, gifts, relationships and experiences.

As Christians the primary direction of our faith is built upon a relationship with the Father, through the access gained by the Son, and empowered by the Holy Spirit. If we lose the relational nature of the Trinity will we also lose our relationship with the Trinity???

I really am interested in the thoughts.

Lost

I'm at that point again in my life where I've got the machinery of my life so well set that I'm being carried along. I've got one more year of seminary, I'm right on track for the ordination process, the planning for my wedding is coming together. All of these streams are combining into one river that is taking me with it. I'm no longer in control of my life, but it's not a healthy release. The monsters I've created are now consuming me. I'm losing who I am in what I am doing. I'm lost and the only thing keeping me from flipping completely is the security of a faith that is grounded outside of myself. The disciplines that I use are speaking truths to me that I desperately need to hear, and quite frankly I'm too tired to listen. I know I'm in a dangerous place right now. I feel like I'm on an amusement park ride and if it doesn't stop soon I'm going to throw up or pass out from the dizziness.