God, the Maternal Father

Last updated on: May 25, 2013 at 8:40 am by Sarah Moon

God, the Maternal Father 2013-05-24T17:42:24-05:00 Sarah Moon

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

click for source

I’ve been working through Elizabeth A. Johnson’s She Who Is lately and finding it fascinating and challenging. Much of my journey from fundamentalism so far has been figuring out what I don’t believe about God. Johnson’s book, along with other feminist theology I’ve been reading, is helping me lay some foundation for figuring out what I do believe.

In one section, she talks about a trend that I’ve frequently seen in the many mainline churches I’ve attended over the past 4 or 5 years. God is Father. God is King. God is He. But God is a maternal father. God is a benevolent king. God is a he in touch with his “feminine” side. I’ve been to many more “liberal” Christian churches, yet, with one exception (besides the Unitarian Universalist church I sometimes go to–they’ve got it together in this area), the most inclusive anyone gets when it comes to talking about God in general is describing a “masculine” God who has “feminine” traits.

I like what Johnson has to say about this (on pg. 48-49 of She Who Is):

God persists as ‘him’ but is now spoken about as a more holistic person who has integrated his feminine side . . . Men gain their feminine side, but women do not gain their masculine side (if such categories are even valid). The feminine is there for the enhancement of the male, but not vice-versa. There is no mutual gain.

This image of God as maternal father doesn’t break God out of the box that patriarchy puts on into. It gives men the opportunity to be more fully human, and to see the fullness of their humanity in God. But as Johnson says, there isn’t much mutuality here.

In fact, Johnson even goes so far to say that “the feminine is incorporated in a subordinate way into an overall symbol that remains masculine.” Men can now represent the “whole” of humanity, because they can hold “masculine” and “feminine” traits. They can be strong AND kind. Powerful AND nurturing. Logical AND emotional. After all, isn’t God? Wasn’t Jesus?

Women on the other hand, must continue to fight our way out of the boxes that restrictive gender roles can trap us in without the luxury of being able to point to God and say, “But SHE is . . .” Women don’t get the same affirmation of knowing that when they are strong and powerful and intelligent (traits typically stereotyped as “masculine”) they are still reflecting God’s image.

We need to move beyond the image of God the Maternal Father. It’s not enough.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 24, 2013

Must Reads!

Next Post

May 28, 2013 From the Archives: Feminism and Abstinence

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2017 March 2017 November 2016 October 2016 July 2016 June 2016 March 2016 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Do to others as you would have them do to ____.

Select your answer to see how you score.

Everyone Themselves You Others