You Don't See That Everyday -- Just Got Doorbelled By Two Women Preaching About a Christian God the Mother

Tue, 2010-07-06 15:14

Ok, so in the past I’ve mentioned my religious ancestry a couple of times — the missionaries, the street preachers, the circuit-riding preachers, and the great-grandfather who helped found Christian Fundamentalism. I don’t think I’ve mentioned the inviolate morning ritual where after breakfast at my grandparents where everyone who could read even a little bit was obliged to sit together around the breakfast table reading in turn from the Bible. I’m sure I’ve mentioned that the roots of my liberal/progressivism come from lessons I learned in Sunday schools and vacation Bible school — lessons about forgiveness, about charity, about tolerance, about equality, and especially about the significance of every living human being and the importance of discounting no one. I’ve mentioned how shocked I am that modern conservative “Christians” appear to want to outright repeal of the Sermon on the Mount (the “blessed are the meek” one) and the Sermon at Gethsemane (the “hypocrites” one) and pretty much everything else I ever learned were the point of being religious.

Point being that while I, um, grew away from my religious upbringing I’m still pretty informed by it. And pretty familiar with it.

So a couple of minutes ago two conservative-missionary-looking young women rang my doorbell. And because I was raised to be polite even to obnoxious strangers I started composing a polite way to wish them luck with whoever they talked to next.

But then they said something that I really, completely, absolutely hadn’t expected: they were enrolled in a nearby seminary and were learning to spread the word about God the Mother.

God the Mother?

And I thought, woah, maybe they’re from one of the other Goddess-worshiping groups that go around. But no, they’re Christian all right, right down to the well-thumbed and highlighted NKJV Bibles. But they were still talking about God the Mother and citing chapter and verse in all the familiar ways with the difference being how if you want to get to Heaven you needed to understand that there’s a God the Mother.

I don’t buy it. Not anymore than I would any other doorbelling missionaries. And I have to say that based on what it actually says in the old and new testaments they’re really grasping at straws.

But no more so than anyone else trying to dig interpretations out of the world’s most Rorschach-ian tome.

After about 15 minutes I thanked them politely, and wished them luck with whoever they talked to next.

But wow.

Just wow.

They were dead earnest. They weren’t fooling. They weren’t particularly feminist in any of the meaningful senses of the word. They certainly seemed comfortable with the rest of patriarchal thinking — for instance I didn’t get any traction when I asked about some of the classic bugaboos of feminist theology. They didn’t sound like they’d heard of any of it nor did they seem at all interested.

But they’re convinced, using chapter and verse, that Jesus had a heavenly mother, and that the Book of Revelations says when he comes back he’ll come back with an equally-divine “bride.” And that if you don’t believe in these mothers and brides as much as you believe in the more traditional fathers and sons you won’t go to heaven.

Which, if true, would be an extremely rude shock to all my myriad, utterly Patriarchal ancestors. And the other roughly 99.99999% of Christianity through the ages.

Still, I’m willing to bet their denomination (I think they might have roots in a Korean branch of the Church of God?) wouldn’t be opposed to the ordination of women priests the way, say, Catholics are (assuming they even have priests, which Protestants usually don’t.) Nor might they be so dead set on women staying home barefoot, pregnant, ignorant, and utterly dependent on their “lord and master” husbands the way, say, the Southern Baptist Convention is. Or maybe they do, I dunno, but at least they let women go proselytizing independently, which I only remember seeing Seventh Day Adventists do.

Not much else to say about them except maybe they call themselves Elohims based on a plural, multi-gender ending on one of the original Hebrew words for God.

Anyone else ever heard of this?

Not much else to

My liberal Protestant church

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2010-07-06 15:31.

My liberal Protestant church uses gender-neutral words for God. It’s not uncommon among the more liberal branches.

Yup. For these women’s

Submitted by figleaf on Tue, 2010-07-06 16:23.

Yup. For these women’s denomination they interrogate the use of the royal/divine “we” as evidence that there’s more than one god implied the word God in the original language. I didn’t pursue it much but they seemed ready to argue that we’re putting the cart before the horse — that the royal we, meaning “me,” is derived from the Biblical use where, they believe, we means, well, “we!” :-)

Thanks, Anonymous,

fl

I remember my mother talking

Submitted by Zeborah (not verified) on Tue, 2010-07-06 16:06.

I remember my mother talking about how God sometimes compared himself to a “mother hen”. Googling on that I found Our Mother Who Art in Heaven which includes more references. I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone before who believed that the Christian God really is female in any meaningful literal sense. Most who veer in that direction are more likely to point out that it’s all metaphorical anyway. But there are a bazillion theological offshoots, so I’m not entirely surprised.

(Hmm, I think this won’t let me embed my icon, so I’ll just link: http://www.dreamwidth.org/userpic/442105/271559. )

[Yeah, a mother-hen analogy

Submitted by figleaf on Tue, 2010-07-06 16:19.

[Yeah, a mother-hen analogy wouldn’t be the same thing. These women seemed perfectly up on the use of metaphor in the Bible (e.g. Jesus’s reference somewhere or other to “the water of life”) but their attitude towards this mother business was a lot more literal.

Thanks, Zeborah.

fl

Although I haven’t come

Submitted by FD (not verified) on Tue, 2010-07-06 17:31.

Although I haven’t come across this particular sect before, I have read a certain amount of research suggesting that early translations of Biblical writings may have been biased, and that there is a possibility that “God” was intended to have both masculine and feminine aspects, meaning that translations using the standard pronouns He, Him, His, and Father are actually not representative of the full original meaning.

They may well have had a point. And I say this as an atheist.

Yup. The woman who did all

Submitted by figleaf on Tue, 2010-07-06 21:00.

Yup. The woman who did all the talking pointed to a line in Genesis where got says something like “we created man and woman in our image.” Which is one of the reasons they think God was using a plural rather than royal “we.” I definitely agree that three thousand years of very patrilinear thinking would have winnowed out most evidence of an early recognition of a non-paternal God. That evidently drives their sense of conviction though — they’re sure the traces of evidence are actual traces of a more authentic scripture rather than over interpretation. (I’m hugely sympathetic for quite a few reasons both social and theological. I could be convinced but not with the evidence they presented either in person or on the denomination’s website.

Thanks, FD,

fl

I’ve occasionally seen

Submitted by Nightfall (not verified) on Tue, 2010-07-06 18:08.

I’ve occasionally seen hardcore feminists refer to God as “she”, but that’s the extent of it. This seemed to be less of a “God as mother” thing and more of a deliberate reminder that using a male pronoun all the time makes unwarranted gendered assumptions.

They’re definitely not doing

Submitted by figleaf on Tue, 2010-07-06 21:01.

They’re definitely not doing that. And they seem more to be saying that there’s a God the Mother who’s been written out, not that there’s not also a God the Father.

Thanks, Nightfall,

fl

What you’re describing sounds

Submitted by Sungold (not verified) on Wed, 2010-07-07 01:49.

What you’re describing sounds very much like Gnosticism. Did they talk at all about any of those non-canonical gospels – the Book of Philip or the Gospel of Mary? The Gnostics considered God to be both mother and father, and they used a lot of feminine metaphors for the divine. But I have a hard time imagining how Gnostic thought would get tangled up with a denomination (Church of God) that I think of as being Pentecostal – and how those two traditions could be reconciled.

I’m glad you’re adding a feature to help people follow comments. Thanks for taking my beef seriously. But for the life of me, I can’t see where it is!

That’s the funny thing,

Submitted by figleaf on Wed, 2010-07-07 08:39.

That’s the funny thing, Sungold, except for that one rather significant point they seemed to be straight-up evangelical/pentecostal. They were using the NKJV Bible but they said any Bible would do.

As for the “follow” links, I’ve dialed back the aggressive caching, a lot, and flushed the old cache. You should be able to see the options (plus a “share this” feature I’d forgotten to enable) on all pages now.

Sorry about the persistent annoyances. (They’re starting to annoy me too!)

fl

“God the Mother” is LDS.

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-07-07 05:42.

“God the Mother” is LDS. They are Mormon missionaries.

Mormons believe in a mother

Submitted by Holly (not verified) on Wed, 2010-07-07 06:04.

Mormons believe in a mother in heaven—or, more accurately, mothers in heaven. Part of the justification for polygamy in this life is that it will be practiced in the next life. Mormons also believe that God has sex. In fact, that’s a big part of the reward for sexual restraint on earth: you get to lots of sex in heaven, and it results in spiritual pregnancies. Every single person born on this earth was, according to Mormon doctrine, procreated spiritually in heaven via heavenly father having sex with one of his wives.

Mormons sing a hymn called “Oh My Father,” that includes a verse that goes

In the heav’ns are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal Tells me I’ve a mother there.

Mormons don’t talk about Mother in Heaven all that much because supposedly she’s a delicate shrinking flower who gets upset if she’s too much in the spotlight, and God the Father has all these rules to protect her name from being taken in vain, the way his always is. She’s not secret; she’s just too sacred to be talked about much.

So you can decide if that’s a more rewarding view of the afterlife: men get to have straight sex for all eternity with many different women, and women get to get knocked up and endure spiritual pregnancies, spiritual childbirth, spiritual lactation and spiritual post-partum depression for all eternity.

At least the 72 virgins waiting for the martyrs of Islam aren’t threatened with that.

On the use of “we” – it’s

Submitted by SnowdropExplodes (not verified) on Wed, 2010-07-07 15:37.

On the use of “we” – it’s been suggested that this is a reference to the three persons in one – the Trinity of Christian theology (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). I know that when Isaac Asimov wrote “In The Beginning” comparing the Biblical creation story with science, he made mention of that linguistic point.

My own faith is that God is all genders and none, and I usually make a point of, the first time I use a pronoun for God, saying “He/She/It/They” (because God is plural and singular as well as being male, female, both and neither). In fact, that “we created man and woman in our image.” line is pretty key to my understanding (I note that in my NIV Bible, it’s slightly different: the full verse reads “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”; I think this is confusing because at this stage it seems that “man” is the entire human race, so the singular pronoun seems out of place). Because it is God’s spiritual image that is replicated, it follows that God must have a female aspect spiritually in order to create a woman in His/Her/Its/Their image.

My understanding growing up

Submitted by figleaf on Wed, 2010-07-07 19:00.

My understanding growing up was similar to the one you grew up with — if there was any actual “we” involved it was that trinity thing.

I’m much more persuaded by their point that Genesis 1.27 says “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” They take that to mean he created both male and female in his image, implying he and/or they have some kind of female dimension.

I dunno. I’d much rather Christologists had spent their time arguing that point instead of the usual stuff like how many nails were used in the crucifixion or how there could still have been a trinity before Mary had Jesus.

Thanks, SE,

fl

User login