Calling God "Mother" Is a Rejection of God's Special Revelation:
The Scriptures and His Son Jesus Christ

By Bradley R. Brandon

A Paper Presented to Dr. Russell D. Moore - The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

©April 2005

Introduction

The use of the word “Mother” to refer to God is hot topic today among Christians from both liberal and conservative sides of the religious fence.  Mother God terminology has several sources from which it springs such as liberal feminist theologians, male liberation theologians, African tribal religions, ancient goddess worship, and the non-related Roman Catholic understanding of Mary as the Mother of God.  For the most part, the most common and vocal supporters for referring to God as Mother are the feminist theologians.

The danger of designating or calling God “Mother” is that it denies the special revelation of God, which is composed of His word the Bible and His fullest revelation in the person of Jesus Christ.  The relevancy of calling God “Mother” has to do with how we treat and understand God’s disclosure of Himself to humankind first in His word and finally in His Son.  What we believe about calling God Mother says a lot about what we believe about the Bible and ultimately what we believe about God.  Nowhere in Scripture has God revealed Himself or called Himself “Mother.”  The Bible does contain descriptive feminine language about God, but it never addresses God as “Mother” nor does it address God in feminine language.

Defending the biblical teaching and revelation of God as Father is important because the Fatherhood of God is tied to several other important truths.  It is tied to God’s relationship with His people through covenant, inheritance, provision, protection, nurturing, and discipline (tied to Sonship).  All of these truths are revealed in the Bible and they all reveal to us parts of the overall character and nature of God.

Positions for calling God “Mother”

Two positions that seem to be more adamant in calling God “Mother” are the African Traditional conceptions of a Father-Mother God, and the more radical feminist use of this language.  This writing will focus more on the feminist argument than with the African.

African Christian Usage of Father-Mother God

In an article by George Kwami Kumi, the concept of calling God “Mother” or more specifically in this case, Father-Mother God is explained from his disbelief that this term is not widely used in the U.S.  As an Akan Ghanaian Christian, Kumi is accustomed to referring to God as Father-Mother God, and it is surprising to him that such a practice is seen as a strange one in the United States.  He explains that the Akan Africans have a complimentary understanding of God as Father and Mother, but that God does not have a gender whatsoever. 

They see the Fatherhood of God as being over all of creation and therefore, all men have a Father God whether they are Christian or not.  They also believe that God the Father is the Father of lesser deities, and He is of course the personal God of the individual believer.  The concept of God as Mother is simply one that compliments the concept of God’s Fatherhood.  The motherly aspect of God is one that is caring, nurturing, etc….  There are only three groups in all of Africa that use this feminine terminology when referring to God, and the Akan are one of those.  The majority of other African Christians do not refer to God in Mother language.¹

Female Liberation Theologians’ Use of the Term “Mother”

The second group to favor using Mother God terminology is the feminist liberation theologians.  It seems this group by far has the loudest voice among those arguing for the use of gender inclusive language when referring to God the Father.

This group differs from the African group for instance because their reasons have no cultural roots whatsoever (even the roots are wrong).  Feminists argue for gender inclusive language for a variety of reasons, while at the heart of those reasons lies the desire to ignore the special revelation of God in favor of general revelation only.  However, they appeal to Scripture as one of the main supports for their use of gender inclusive language to refer to God.

Biblical-Grammatical Argument for “Mother God”

The loudest argument heard from the feminists concerning the use of gender inclusive language to address God the Father may be that the Bible itself supports their view.  The texts most commonly appealed to are found in Proverbs 8, Isaiah 42,49, 66, and others, but none from the New Testament are used.  There is a lot of discussion concerning the role that the literary devices of simile and metaphor play in supporting the concept of calling God “Mother.”

Similes are not appealed to because it seems to be understood that by using the words “like” or “as” to link to things together, one is only making a comparison of things to illumine the meaning of one or the other.  The definition of metaphor however seems to cause a bit of disagreement between liberals and biblical inerrantists.

However, not all feminists agree that the Bible can be used to support this view of God as Mother.  Many feel that the Bible is simply wrong in that it was written by males who were living in a patriarchal society and that colored everything they said and most assuredly it colored their addressing God as Father.  Reverend M. James Divis of the Catholic Church writes “Some feminists claim that the Bible is biased since it was copied through the many centuries by male scribes.”²

Experience Appealed to in Relating to God as Mother

Another source of those who support addressing God as Mother instead of or in conjunction with addressing Him as Father is human, personal experience.  In an article entitled “My Mother and My God” in the May-June 1996 The Christian Ministry, Douglas J. Williamson describes how he has an accurate understanding of the attributes of God through the experience of his mother.  He and many others like him do not necessarily believe that addressing God as Father is wrong or that it needs to be done away with, but as he says in his article, “for some of us the male image of God simply does not have as much meaning as the female, and we do not wish to be left out of the worship community because a different metaphor, a metaphor of God as mother, makes God real to us.”³

Position for Calling God Father and not Mother

The reason why the subheading includes the statement “and not Mother” is that without it, it would include those who support calling God both Father and/or Mother.  This position sets forth the claim that God is properly referred to as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that the first person of the Trinity should be addressed as Father and not Mother.  The witness of Scripture, the Lord Jesus Christ, and a proper understanding of simile and metaphor guide us in understanding why God should be referred to as Father and not Mother.

The Inerrant Witness of Scripture and Jesus in Addressing God as Father

The reason that Father should be used to address God and not Mother is that God has revealed Himself as Father in His Word of Scripture, and although it is commonly known that God has no gender, He has chosen to reveal Himself most fully in His Son whom He calls Son.  The fullest revelation of God the Father is in His Son Jesus, and Jesus was not female.  God simply chose to reveal Himself to man and He can be personally known only through special revelation which is composed of His Word and His Son.

How one understands and sees the Word of God is the key issue in this debate.  If biblical inerrancy and infallibility are held to then the Bible is sufficient today to inform of about God.  If those things are not held to, then the Bible is something else than the Word of God.  Feminists who use the Word of God to support their concept of God as Mother while claiming that it has errors due to a patriarchal society are in essence damaging their own source of evidence.  If the Bible is not without error at all then it is an untrustworthy witness.

Concerning the reliability and sufficiency of the Bible, Jesus attests in John 17:17 that “Your (God the Father) word is truth.”  Also concerning the Person of Jesus as God’s revelation He says of Himself, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6, NASB).  Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 2:9 both clearly affirm the fact that God is most fully revealed in His Son Jesus Christ, and although God does not have gender, Jesus does and therefore God cannot be addressed as Mother.

Another support for God as Father is the fact that Jesus refers to God as His Father and the Father of those who are in Christ.  There are numerous places in the Scriptures where Jesus does this.  The book of John is complete with them (John 10:30; 14:6; Matthew 6:9ff).  The uses of “Father” by Jesus to address God are too numerous to count, but it can be seen from Jesus’ use of the term Father that it is the correct way to relate to God the Father.  In John 10:30 Jesus plainly states that He and the Father are one.  He is not saying that they are one in the same person, but that Jesus is in perfect communion with the Father and that He is the exact representation of His Father.  Also in John 12:28 Jesus address God as Father and God answers Him.  Although Jesus is not bound by words or even certain words in His relation with the Father, He models what it means to properly address and understand God.  We must be willing to listen to the Word of God in Scripture and the revelation of the Son Jesus Christ for the proper guidance we need in relating to God.

In leading up to a detailed discussion about the use of simile and metaphor in the Bible, Andrew J. Dell’Olio supports the use of Mother language in reference to God and he appeals to General Revelation in support for his belief.  He is correct in that we can know some things about God in General Revelation, but ultimately we have to rely in Special Revelation to reveal God to us.  He claims that those who reject using gender-neutral terms on the basis of the fact that the term “Mother” is nowhere used in Scripture are disregarding the witness of General Revelation.  He states it this way: