Though I find Gungor's (and the Liturgists') music to be pretentious some moments, I genuinely enjoy their music, and their thoughts, and their honesty. They weave a tapestry of art that seems to transcend the barriers of lyric and harmony and melody. Their music is moving, because it is greater than the sum of its parts. My bones to pick come not out of self-righteousness, but from a dedicated listener who has some honest worry for the theology of not just the individual members of the band, but also the individual followers and listeners of the band. They have the unique position of being palatable to both the contemporary church and the emergent. They have significant secular crossover as well.
Michael Gungor and his bands have always seemed like button-pushers. In some respects, this is a good thing. They see a problem in the Christian music industry. One, that it is an "industry" at all. Two, Christian music is generally bad or identifiable in very blase ways. Three, they find that many Christian music artists aren't very intellectually honest. So in one sense, I applaud them for sticking up for the purpose of music as they see it, and defining their music on their own terms. The problem is that they also end up defining a lot of other non-art-centric, non-culture-centric things as well.
This wouldn't be a problem if I didn't see the amount of weight their words carry on their readers and listeners. This wouldn't be a problem if they were being "intellectually honest" with their agenda. I get it. All people have an agenda. I have agenda to at least air-out some boiling thoughts in my mind. They have an agenda to at least make some sort of living creating music. But they also seem to have another agenda in mind, with all the preaching (and yes, it is preaching) that they are doing in their music.
For most Christian artists, this agenda is usually something like trying to express or ascribe holiness, or love, or attributes to God. Not that God is given any real holiness, or love, or attributes based on what we say about Him. It's just part of what it means to witness. If you're a Christian, and you tell people you believe in God, people will begin to at least understand some small portion of God by your actions, whether that understanding is flawed because it's being seen through a flawed person, or that understanding is redeened because it's being seen through a redeemed person. And people gain both good understanding and bad understanding from the same observed person. The good, from the Holy Spirit within us that causes and motivates us to glorify Him and be at peace with all men, the bad coming from the sin nature within us that causes and motivates us to glorify ourselves and be at enmity with God.
Michael Gungor says he is being honest when his band releases an album called "God, Our Mother".
So, I get it. Assigning a sex to God seems superfluous. So here are some common arguments we've seen for God as mother.
1. God doesn't have a real gender. The Bible uses accommodating language when it calls God "Father" or personifies 'Him' in a male pattern. But it is accommodation, not denotation. So God is not literally a Father in any biological sense. More in a experiential or spiritual sense. Maybe existential.
2. God is not always described sex/gender exclusive. The Bible says in some verses, like Hosea 13:8, that God is like a bear robbed of her cubs. Or Isaiah 66:13, "As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem". The Bible also refers to God in some (read: most) verses as being "Father" and he is referred to with male pronouns.
3. God is not a man. The Bible says God is spirit, not flesh. Exodus 20:4, tells the Israelites not to carve images of any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. This commandment was also understood as to not carve an idol that one imagined was an image of God. Romans 8:9: You, however are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. John 4:24: God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.
There are probably other, more intellectually long-winded arguments one can make for the "Motherhood" of God, but I think this may be enough for now. So I'll try and refute some of these points, or at least show that they don't make sense, especially in light of sola scriptura.
1. God doesn't have a real gender.
So this is a true statement. But it isn't true because he has two genders. And it isn't true because He isn't a biological father. And despite these concepts which would have had a very long time to stew in the hearts and minds of Israel and other believers, Scripture still constantly refers to God as He, Him, Father. Scripture constantly refers to those who belong to God with the adjective His. Why then did scripture make this distinction? And why does Scripture use accommodating language to refer to God as He, Him, Father?
Because God accommodated to Israel in this way. If we subscribe to verbal plenary inspiration (the theological position that God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired men to write the books and letters of the Bible perfectly), then the Bible was written by God through the hands of men, and that God himself chose to be referred to with male pronouns. The New Testament, Jesus uses this God-given accommodating language and refers to God as Father because that is how God commanded people to refer to Him. In Acts and the epistles, all Jesus' followers refer to God with masculine pronouns.
To make the assumption that God would be pleased for people to refer to Him as Her is a very bold step, if we believe in any regard the tenets of regulative principle. If God never referred to himself with a feminine pronoun, why would any believer dare to refer to God with feminine pronouns directly?
2. God is not always described sex/gender exclusive.
This is also a true statement. God is not described as only masculine/feminine. There are even some verses like Hosea 13:8, or multiple verses in Isaiah, or Jeremiah, that seem to support the assumption that it is good to call God Mother.
The problem with the assumption is that it is anthropomorphism. What is that?
Miriam-Webster defines anthropomorphism as this: an interpretation of what is not human or person in terms of human or personal characteristics.
Genesis says that man and woman are created in God's image. Genesis 1:26-27. God refers to the entirety of humanity as "man" in verse 26, and then refers to the individual parts as "male and female". So both men and women, male and female, bear God's image. The problem is when we attempt to make God bear "man and woman's" image. That's anthropomorphism. If God is a Spirit, he cannot be described in human terms. The opposite, however, is true. You can describe the number "one" as a "number". But you cannot describe "number" as "one".
So when The Liturgists say "God, Our Mother", they are describing God in human terms. But they aren't saying "God is like our Mother", they are saying "God, our mother". It isn't metaphorical, they are using the sentence literally. Why is it literal? Because God is described as a literal father.
At the beginning of their album, the Liturgists state: "a father is a man who raises a child, donates sperm during conception, or both". They are defining the term and idea of father based on human experience. They are defining father based on cultural presuppositions: God cannot be a literal Father because he does not temporally raise a child. He cannot be a literal Father because he does not donate sperm. Therefore, God is not a literal Father and people who hold to that position cannot defend God's Fatherhood because there is no literal corollary.
Let me state this clearly. God is called "Father" not because He is like a "father". Fathers are called "father" because they bear that image in God!
Now the next statement wouldn't be half-true or problematic if the basis of God's accommodating masculinity wasn't established in point one. Let's replace male pronouns and nouns on this one.
God is called "Mother" not because She is like a "mother". Mothers are called "mother" because they bear that image in God!
Why is this untrue and problematic? Because the same scriptures that people use to say that God is mother generally use simile, not metaphor. And the distinction is sharp enough for it to not be unintentional. Let's take Hosea 13:8 for example.
I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs;
I will tear open their breast,
and there I will devour them like a lion,
as a wild beast would rip them open.
Do you see that God is like "a bear of robbed of her cubs"? Simile. Not a metaphor. Later in Hosea 13 God refers to Himself as a "He".
Deuteronomy: 32:18
You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you,
and you forgot the God who gave you birth.
But in this verse, God says "you forgot the God who gave you birth". That's a little interesting. How can a masculine God bear children? Still later in Deuteronomy 32 God refers to Himself as a "He".
How can a masculine God 'bear' children? If we bear in mind that human beings bear the image of God, then we see in human motherhood what we see in human fatherhood. Mothers are called "mother" because they bear that image in God. A mother birthing a child is bearing God's image in the act of creating man and woman. It's a reflection of what God has done. The same goes with human fathers raising a child or "donating sperm" to an egg. It (the act of birthing) is a reflection of what God does when He creates human beings.
If we can call men to pursue and love their wives as Jesus loves the church, why are similar analogies so easily ignored?
This isn't to diminish the worth of motherhood, of child-bearing and -rearing, of the process of pregnancy, or anything. This isn't to diminish the value of women, or to favor the value of men. This increases the value and worth of motherhood (and fatherhood). A woman gains her "mothering" characteristics by bearing God's image. A man gains his "fathering" characteristics by bearing God's image. Nevertheless, God accommodates with masculine pronouns. Why? Probably because He wishes to be viewed primarily as Father. This has no bearing on the worth, value, or usefulness or meaning on motherhood. I drive cars. It does not mean that I will not occasionally drive trucks. It does not mean that I look down on people who drive trucks.
The physical reality of motherhood and fatherhood find their complete end and design in the spiritual and existential reality of God. They are not whole without Him. They have no meaning without God defining that meaning. And He has done that, perfectly.
3. God is not a man.
Also true! God is also not a woman. God does not have a Male/Female gender because He is Spirit. But because He is Spirit, and because He defines creation, he can define himself to accommodate to others the way he would like. And scripture constantly, boldly refers to God with a masculine pronoun. So God does not have a real gender. But He has decided it best to describe himself as a Father.
Most of the issue with using this point is that we cannot define a spiritual God with human characteristics. God does not take on human aspects of existence, such as gender, race, age, disposition, personality, diversity, unity, etc.
People get those from God, not the other way around. God defined gender in such a way that echoed His image. God defined race in a way that echoed His image. God is not a man. But God created man. And God created man in His image. Man cannot re-create God into his image. The corollary: God is not a woman. But God created woman. And God created woman in His image. Woman cannot re-create God into her image.
A single mother fulfills the role of mother and father for her children. A single father fulfills the role of father and mother for his children. But God is not limited by gender, and He is not limited by resources or flesh the way that a mother or father would be. He fulfills both roles perfectly, for He defines them. And yet scripture refers to God with masculine pronouns directly, and may use some metaphors and similes when describing him with feminine pronouns.
When we call God "Mother" in preference of "Father", we are not ascribing him glory. Not because mother is somehow a lesser title than father. But because God commands us to call him so: Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven."
His commandment is one of life, one that Christians should cling to, not question and take their hands off wondering if they can catch some other ledge to hang on to Christ with.
While the Liturgists may say
God our Father
Giver of daily bread
Blessing our hands and covering our heads.
God our mother
Leading us into peace
Blessing and comforting all those in need ;
in scripture, Matthew 6:7-13 says
“And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this:
“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil."
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil."
Fathering finds its meet in God.
Mothering finds its meet in God.
Fathers are fathers because they bear God's image.
Mothers are mothers because they bear God's image.
Therefore, God's image is the shadow in which fatherhood and motherhood exist.
God created fathers and mothers and loves them equally.
God created children who need both earthly mothers and earthly fathers.
God redeemed His children who need God, who, though calling himself Father and fulfilling the role of Father, does fulfill the metaphorical role of mother spiritually speaking.
Therefore, birth, bearing, rearing, nurturing, providence, care, protection, provision, wisdom, teaching, instruction, discipline and all other responsibilities of fathers and mothers come inherently from God's image for which he created them to bear and reflect.
God still calls himself a Father, despite lending human motherhood some very distinct characteristics in respect to human fatherhood.
Therefore, God is not our Mother.
God is our Father.
May we always be defined by God's terms, and not seek to define God by our terms.
Nick
