Now of course, Mothering Sunday, as it was, had nothing to do with human mothers, rather, with mother churches. From the 16th century people would return to their mother church on this day, often a cathedral for the Mass for Laetare Sunday, also known as Refreshment Sunday, Sinmel Sunday, Mid-Lent Sunday or Rose Sunday. Children started picking wild flowers along the way to their mother churches or families to give to their mothers, and it it this that started what is now the secular festival of "Mothers' Day".
Which brings us to the present day's observation. This is ambivalent. On the one you have the nice moment when children go forward to get flowers to give to their mothers; I've always seen daffodils used, my favourite flower. Children do breakfast in bed for their mothers, buy them cards and maybe presents as well. On the other side there is some concern by some Christians about the issue that such an observance is a burden for women who have had miscarriages, or have not been able to have children, or have decided (with their partners) to not have children. Today can therefore be about reliving pain, or feeling left-out or under pressure to exclusively define being a woman by being a mother. To add to that, despite what is largely said for today, not everyone has had positive relationships with their mothers.
A friend wrote on Facebook that today is for those who are mothers, as well as women who mother people in different ways. I find this to be a good way of linking the joy that some have with the pain that others have. Indeed, I've seen women who are not mothers receive flowers today. Flowers can also be given to those who have been harmed by their mothers.
There's another issue here, seeing as we're talking about mothers, namely, the language used in liturgy. I mean here, the use of the word "mother" to talk about God. There are different issues going on here as well:
We have centuries of what some call an overtly "masculine" way of looking at God, with ordination being restricted for men. Therefore, calling God Mother is a way of "redressing the balance", taking verses of Jesus comparing himself to a mother hen, and God being like a woman in labour (other examples can be seen here.)
We also have the issue that there are people who have problems with the word "father" due to their own experiences and therefore find talk of "Father God" to be off putting.
Within Orthodox theology is the concepts of the essence and energy of God. As Vladimir Lossky says in that article:
In fact, like Marx I believe that we all create our own conceptions of God. It is feasible that the revelations of God were culturally conditioned and that other societies may have seen talk of God as Mother. I don't believe that myself, preferring to go for the "what is revealed is that which should be revealed" route. But still.
In any case, while I am quite OK with talk of God as being like a mother, I (being a standard Anglican) see that others find talk of Mother God to be very helpful and healing. It doesn't speak to my condition (as we Quakers say), but then again, just because I don't like something in theology doesn't mean that I should not engage with it.
In any case, Robert Bly in his introduction excellent book "Iron John" wrote of how men began to reject their fathers who were following the "John Wayne" model of being a tough, hard-working, rough father, and in doing so rejected fathers outright. I would add that women did likewise, but this had different consequences for men when they themselves become fathers. Some became "softies" but found that "women don't like that", or that they were allowing themselves to be abused and belittled by women. The term "patriarchy", I believe is part of this, which implicitly links fatherhood with domination. Of course, men have huge advantages in life, sexism against women is endemic to our societies. I prefer the term "domination" within an intersectionalist framework, namely that there is more than male domination, also white and heterosexual dominations, among others.
Therefore while I'm all for talk of God as being like a mother, I believe that "inclusive language" should also include God as being like a father, or even Father. Perhaps then all our wounds to the deepest part of our beings will be healed.
Which brings us to the present day's observation. This is ambivalent. On the one you have the nice moment when children go forward to get flowers to give to their mothers; I've always seen daffodils used, my favourite flower. Children do breakfast in bed for their mothers, buy them cards and maybe presents as well. On the other side there is some concern by some Christians about the issue that such an observance is a burden for women who have had miscarriages, or have not been able to have children, or have decided (with their partners) to not have children. Today can therefore be about reliving pain, or feeling left-out or under pressure to exclusively define being a woman by being a mother. To add to that, despite what is largely said for today, not everyone has had positive relationships with their mothers.
A friend wrote on Facebook that today is for those who are mothers, as well as women who mother people in different ways. I find this to be a good way of linking the joy that some have with the pain that others have. Indeed, I've seen women who are not mothers receive flowers today. Flowers can also be given to those who have been harmed by their mothers.
There's another issue here, seeing as we're talking about mothers, namely, the language used in liturgy. I mean here, the use of the word "mother" to talk about God. There are different issues going on here as well:
We have centuries of what some call an overtly "masculine" way of looking at God, with ordination being restricted for men. Therefore, calling God Mother is a way of "redressing the balance", taking verses of Jesus comparing himself to a mother hen, and God being like a woman in labour (other examples can be seen here.)
We also have the issue that there are people who have problems with the word "father" due to their own experiences and therefore find talk of "Father God" to be off putting.
Within Orthodox theology is the concepts of the essence and energy of God. As Vladimir Lossky says in that article:
Wholly unknowable in His essence, God wholly reveals Himself in His energies, which yet in no way divide His nature into two parts--knowable and unknowable--but signify two different modes of the divine existence, in the essence and outside of the essence.Therefore what we know about God can only come from what God has revealed to us. God has revealed himself as Father, that was the word that Jesus used to describe that one hypostasis. Biblical mentions of God being mother take the form of similarities, not expressions of God's nature. I can say that someone is feline without that person being a cat. It is from this understanding that there are Christians who reject talk of God as Mother, while can be comfortable with God as being like a mother. Our limited understanding requires one the one hand similarities in order to understand God, on the other hand, some negative theology is order to ware us off from creating our own God, so to speak. It is not that God is like our fathers.
In fact, like Marx I believe that we all create our own conceptions of God. It is feasible that the revelations of God were culturally conditioned and that other societies may have seen talk of God as Mother. I don't believe that myself, preferring to go for the "what is revealed is that which should be revealed" route. But still.
In any case, while I am quite OK with talk of God as being like a mother, I (being a standard Anglican) see that others find talk of Mother God to be very helpful and healing. It doesn't speak to my condition (as we Quakers say), but then again, just because I don't like something in theology doesn't mean that I should not engage with it.
In any case, Robert Bly in his introduction excellent book "Iron John" wrote of how men began to reject their fathers who were following the "John Wayne" model of being a tough, hard-working, rough father, and in doing so rejected fathers outright. I would add that women did likewise, but this had different consequences for men when they themselves become fathers. Some became "softies" but found that "women don't like that", or that they were allowing themselves to be abused and belittled by women. The term "patriarchy", I believe is part of this, which implicitly links fatherhood with domination. Of course, men have huge advantages in life, sexism against women is endemic to our societies. I prefer the term "domination" within an intersectionalist framework, namely that there is more than male domination, also white and heterosexual dominations, among others.
Therefore while I'm all for talk of God as being like a mother, I believe that "inclusive language" should also include God as being like a father, or even Father. Perhaps then all our wounds to the deepest part of our beings will be healed.
No comments:
Post a Comment