The Church as Mother

By Molly

16 Feb 2007

 What is the Church supposed to look/be like?  It’s a careful question to ask, especially because (as a member of a consumer-driven society), I am more apt to think in terms of, “What am I gonna get out of it,” versus, “What do I want to help birth and grow?”

The second comment hits me hard, because as a mother, I can quickly testify that birthing and nurturing are not, “jobs,” I take on, but a way of life. My children don’t shut off after I labor for eight hours, but rather require mothering twenty four hours a day. Similarly, the joy that comes from watching them grow does not end after a project is completed, because, in this case, the project is human beings, things that do not come off of a factory assembly line but exist in a continual state of being and becoming.

Likewise with the Church. She is called the New Jerusalem, who is, “our mother” (Galatians 4:27). Perhaps thinking of her as a mother would be a helpful analogy as I fumble my way into rethinking the church. The following are generalities (most of them true of father’s as well as mothers), and I find myself wondering how much they correlate to the purpose of the Church in the world…

1. Mother as Warrior.

Sometimes mothering brings up images of soft fuzzy blankets and we forget that fighting is involved.  The reason I don’t walk deep into the woods near my home in early Spring, though, is because a female brown bear lives somewhere nearby.  While she’s usually painfully shy when single, every Alaskan knows that the worst place to be in the world is between a mother bear and her cubs. 

I, too, remember laying on my bed, having just pushed out my first child, my mind swirling with shock at the intensity of what had just happened to me. I felt almost confused at the power of my emotions—that even though I didn’t even know the squalling slimy bundle suddenly in my arms, that even though she had just caused the most painful experience I’d ever passed through, I knew I would jump in front of a Mack Truck to save her life.  Not once, but a thousand times over.  It made no sense.  I mean, I had just looked in her eyes for the first time ever, yet my mothering instinct was no different from a mother bear. “No one hurts one of mine without coming through me, first.”

2. Mother as Sustainer:

As a mother of a newborn, I feed him with my own self. His food comes digested from my own stomach, broken down by my body into sweet milk, easily suckled and perfect for his digestive tract. Later, I will teach him how to eat solid foods, first spooning them in myself, carefully mashed, and later letting him try it.

As he grows, I stop cutting them up into baby-sized bites, and soon, he wields the knife and cuts pieces for himself.  Part of mothering is feeding.  Our very bodies are designed for it, the closest thing to a Lord’s Supper replica we can find, flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone.  I am a sustainer of life. 

3. Mother as Teacher:

I fix his meals at first, later teaching him to cook for himself—spreading peanut butter on toast first, later preparing a whole dinner from scratch.  I change his diapers during those first months, and later I teach him how to use the bathroom, “like a big boy.”  As a homeschool mother, I take him from the Alphabet Song to a slow labored pronunciation of, “cat,” then, “cattle,” then, “cateracts.”  We pile together on the couch, exploring far away lands through the cadence of my voice and a stack of good fiction. 

In the ambling minutes of each day, I explain why we can only see the stars at night, why sometimes clouds are grey and other times are white, and answer his question when he wonders why the pioneers used covered wagons instead of Ford trucks.  The questions never stop, and as all good mothers do, I (usually) welcome the continual interuptions of curious minds.  I am a teacher.    

4. Mother as Nurturer:

I hold her close, cooing her gentle lullabies, kissing her sweet-smelling forehead, rocking her in my arms. She loves the feel of me, loves being next to my skin. As she grows, I still hold her, though less and less as she leaves my arms to crawl and then to toddle around. She explores for a while, but when she needs security, she comes running back to my arms. When strangers stop by, she runs to my legs, clutching them and peeking out from behind them. She knows that she is safe with me.

As time goes by, she learns that she doesn’t have to hide behind me, but our touch doesn’t stop, nor do my murmuring affections. I put my hand on her shoulder often, tickle her in fun, snuggle with her as we converse.  I affirm her, build her, bless her.  I am a nurturer.

5. Mother as Boundary-Giver:

With the soft words come firm ones. Children do not naturally know the difference between a toilet bowl and a toy. For their own health and safety, they need to be made aware. Mothers provide boundaries, and teach appropriate behaviours.

My toddlers will not know to come when called unless I teach them. First, I help them by modeling what I want them to do, and squealing happily when they move their pudgy toddler feet to my voice. Later, if they do not come when they are called, I will repeat firmly the request, including a certain “look” in my eye that means cooperation is not optional. If needed, I will go to them and firmly walk them to me, making sure they know this is not a game.  Soon, the toddler hears her name is called and she pads her way to Mommy as if it’s the most natural thing in all the world.   

Mothers help their children learn acceptable behaviours. We all laugh at the dinner table, yet we also learn to chew with our mouths closed and to carry our plates to the sink when we’re through. We have a good time at the grocery store, but we also learn that we don’t pitch fits when we pass by the toy aisle and see something we want.  TRe child doesn’t know that it’s unacceptable to throw a tantrum—someone has to patiently draw the boundary lines for him and then guide his feet back inside of it when they stray.    

Mothers don’t give in to whining, and mothers know that sometimes children need to experience consequences that hurt in order to learn lessons that will bring growth.  I realize that playing in the toilet bowl seems fun, but for reasons my toddler can’t understand, it is a boundary he is not allowed to cross.  Though  he may disagree with me and try it anyway, I gently but firmly make the boundary line clear until he realizes that it’s pointless to keep pushing.  I am a Boundary-Giver. 

 

  

I see God in all of those. He fights for me, He is my strong tower. He sustains me, feeding me with His own words, later teaching me to prepare them for others. He nurtures me, holding me close, resting His hand on my shoulder. He sets boundaries for me, rescuing me when I wander off but also helping me realize the seriousness of obedience.

Is the Church designed to do the same for God’s children?

Part of me doesn’t like, “Church as Mother,” because I am nervous about giving the church too much power, having lived through an abusive church setting.  Admittedly, I am equally concerned about forming a shrugging, “whatever,” church family where everyone is left to themselves, so I realize that power is not necessarily bad. 

Here, the mother analogy helps me, because a mother has power, but a good mother’s power is used to build up her family.  The mother analogy also acknowledges my frustrations with the middle ground (the “good solid traditional church”), as it’s structure seems by (well-intentioned) design to maintain a strong divide between the clergy and the laity, sort of like a mother who never lets her children advance past age twelve. 

So for me, seeing the Church as a Flourishing Mother seems to be a helpful analogy, in that a mothering framework means the strong are always about the business of nurturing up the weak.  Perhaps can be a constructive analogy to use for those who, like me, are searching for a way of “re-realizing” the church, for not only does it help me see what I want, but also what does not fit:   

Evil Mother:

In an abusive, power-hungry church, the weak are kept weak, because the ones in charge can retain their positions only so long as they are the only ones strong. Adults are still in diapers, still dependant on bottles of formula, still struggling to piece vowels and consenants together to form words. (Anyone who somehow manages to grow-up is promptly labeled rebellious and kicked out).  People write books about surviving with mothers like these. 

Absentee Mother:

In a, “whatever” congregation, the weak are left weak because there is no one there to care for them. These are the babies we hear of being rescued, their bodies crusted in unwashed filth, their piteous cries long silenced for lack of hope that anyone will answer. Those who aren’t rescued die quietly somewhere in a dark corner, not realizing the injustice, unaware that life was meant to be lived any differently. 

Flourishing Mother: 

This is where it feels right, though the details are sketchy and perhaps will remain so permanently.  It’s not the details–it’s the general flavor of the thing, the feel of the analogy, the innate fit of the puzzle piece. 

Can we be the Church as Mother, figuratively nursing babies, preparing meals and spreading the aroma of joy?

Can we be the Church as Mother, delighting in the sparkling eyes around us, believing that God will come through for the toddler even when he’s throwing a tantrum, believing that He is big enough for the teenager who is questioning everything—loving them when they are unlovely even to themselves? 

Can we be the Church as Mother, speaking firmly when firmness is called for, raising babies into adults without fear of our “position” as a grown-up being overtaken, simply because that was our goal in the first place?

 

Molly Aley is a proud mother to five, among other things, and blogs regularly at adventures in mercy. 

Share on Facebook

24 comments

Trackback


  1. Comment by Peter Aschoff

    11.18 am on 16 Feb 2007

    Great post, Molly. I did not realize there are so many dimensions to this term. Until now it reminded me only of the more difficult sides of catholicism – the kind of firm embrace that leaves little space for breathing, let alone moving. Thank you.

  2. Comment by Jason

    1.29 pm on 16 Feb 2007

    Hi Molly, great metaphors and application to the church. Like Peter, my first thought was about the Catholic church notion of ‘mother church’ and who does that translate today, and how many men are defining church, and what would a feminine input look like?

  3. Comment by Paul

    1.54 pm on 16 Feb 2007

    Thanks Molls, i love rhe metaphors and can see how aspects of it tie in with any growth/development – i am not sure what I am missing but i feel that I am – are you saying that this helps you dealing with different people’s development stage in church or something that is more about how church should be about with the people who attend?

  4. Comment by Marcia

    3.48 pm on 16 Feb 2007

    Golly, Molly, I have to admit that when I read the title of this post my instinct was, oh no she’s not. She’s not dragging my conservatively-bent mind through that gender stuff again, is she?

    : )

    So I was happy to read on, and realize I’m not going to have to strain my mind this time. I can just agree, and say, great post.

  5. Comment by reneegrace

    5.36 pm on 16 Feb 2007

    I really like this… and I can see how even the BEST churches have growth to do in at least one of these areas… just like the best mothers are growing and continually stretching themselves to be all God wants them to be.

  6. Comment by Molly

    6.29 pm on 16 Feb 2007

    Thanks for the thoughts, all.

    Peter, yes, I’m not looking for the embrace that says, “You’ll never grow up,” either. :)

    Jason, I was worried it was a little too feminine, but figured a few female analogies every now and then can’t kill anybody. :)

    Paul, When I try to rethink “church” in my head, (respecting the current traditional model but at the same knowing there are so many things about it that hinder more than help), this analogy helps me get a good framework for what church leaders are supposed to be, a good feel for one of the main purposes of the church, etc.

    Marcia, Hardyharhar…

    Reneegrace, Good point. I hadn’t thought of that (that no mother thinks she’s perfect, but rather doing the best she can with what she knows).

  7. Comment by Bryan Riley

    7.26 pm on 16 Feb 2007

    I have to admit that I, like Marcia, wondered if you had really taken the gender stuff to a new level, even though in the past you and I had seemed to be on the same track! :)

    Having said that, here is my first reaction after digesting all of the post. WOW! Fantastic! Great writing and what a captivating picture you are painting of the church! I have to admit I have not given much thought to the church and its role in my life.

    When I think of the church as believers and followers of Jesus Christ, then I see how submitting myself to the community of believers could be a great source of all of those things above. And, it solves to a certain degree the fear of an abusive power system.

  8. Comment by Helen

    7.40 pm on 16 Feb 2007

    Molly thanks for another very thoughtful post.

    One thing which strikes me about the church as mother is – mothers are involved in a process in which their children grow up and the mother needs to progressively let go – which doesn’t mean the end of the relationship but moving into a different relationship.

    I wonder if there is some analogous process which should happen with church and people. If so, does it? Or do churches have the problem some mothers have that they don’t want their children to grow up and they don’t want the relationship to transition away from one in which people are dependent on them like a child is on his/her Mom?

    1. Comment by tom

      11.12 am on 20 Feb 2007

      great post molly, i had a similar thought to you helen, that the last stage for the mother is releasing its children to go out into the big bad world on their own, and to run the risk of (the biggest shock horror of a parent imagineable…) becoming PARENTS THEMSELVES!
      This really strikes me as an important stage, and fundamental to growth, but often in our (bigger is better) churches it is nice and cosy and useful having hundreds of kids running around, and its easier for all concerned that way…so the kids never think they need to fly the nest. And some churches see flying the nest as abandoning the mother, but its what needs to happen. And it may sound harsh, but at this later stage is it the job of the mother to push the chicks out of the nest to see if they’ll fly?

      1. Comment by Helen

        5.33 pm on 20 Feb 2007

        tom: exactly.

  9. Comment by Helen

    8.06 pm on 16 Feb 2007

    In short what I am saying is –

    mothering is fine;
    smothering is not!

  10. Comment by Molly

    8.17 pm on 16 Feb 2007

    Yes, Helen, I completely agree. I was trying to say that the average “traditional” church is sort of that smother-mother…where the children are allowed to grow up to age twelve, but not past that point. It’s interesting…(that clergy/laity way of looking at the church, where clergy and laity have a huge gulf between them, never to be crossed).

    Bryan, Harumph to you and Marcia! (No, just kidding)… :) I agree, it really solves the fear of abuse, because a good mother is seeking to grow people UP, not keep them down.

  11. Comment by steven hamilton

    8.28 pm on 16 Feb 2007

    molly…wonderful posts with vivid, moving images. it stirs my heart, as i was just recently thinking along this lines for God, as i witnessed yet again my beuatiful wife giving birth to our third daughter…but i like the analogies for Church too…and i agree with you also from (10) we need to look back to the ‘Mther as Teacher and Nurturer’ so she produces the ‘priesthood of all the believers’…

    peace

  12. Comment by Molly

    9.09 pm on 16 Feb 2007

    Steven, congratulations to you guys on your new baby! :) Thanks for the helpful commentary.

  13. Comment by Paul

    11.42 am on 17 Feb 2007

    thanks Molls, we’re all mothers now as much as we are also being mothered :)

  14. Comment by makeesha

    3.52 pm on 20 Feb 2007

    Beautiful Molly, you are a skilled and eloquent writer. I personally like the “mother as loving but flawed human being” hehe

  15. Comment by Molly

    4.59 pm on 20 Feb 2007

    Me too… :)

    (from a loving-but-flawed human being)

  16. Comment by sarah

    9.12 pm on 7 Apr 2007

    If the church is mother, then what about the head of the mother. What about positions of authority in the church being held by men, so that the men can protect the mother so she can nurture the children. If the women are the head of the mother then the men are looking to be nurtured by the mother and what happens to the children. If the women are in authority of the church is it because men are afraid of being domineering and in response become passive and allow all sorts of nonsense into the family of believers. I believe we need men as authority, women as those living with the authority and nurturing the children so the church can grow into a healthy, thriving family, not lame and unhealthy. Gods order is important.

  17. Comment by Molly

    10.44 pm on 7 Apr 2007

    I think that in viewing the church as “Mother,” we’re talking about men and women both being that. It’s much like saying the Church is the “Bride of Christ.” That’s figurative language, used to give a visual way of describing a relationship. The same is true when we say the the church is “Mother.” We’re saying it’s one way of looking at the relationship—not the only way, just one way. And it’s not really talking about gender, but an overall sort of relationship and function.

    So this post really wasn’t intending to say that the women are supposed to domineer over men. I’m sorry if it came across that way. I wasn’t intending to speak of specific genders/individuals at all.

    However, I’m not sure I agree with you that “God’s order” equals men in authority and women living under that. I do realize that’s one way of looking at things (and I myself have lived under patriarchy for most of my life), but I’m personally no longer convinced that patriarchy is the only possible Biblical view.

    I think that patriarchy was just the way the world worked during the writing of the Bible, which simply shows us that the Fall of man caused men to rule over women (Gen. 3). But that doesn’t mean that was God’s intended design for male/female relationships—it simply means it’s a sad consequence of the Fall, just like pain in childbirth. Therefore within the Body of Christ, I’m not sure we should be happily perpetuating and endorsing the heirarchal relationships born of the Fall, and doing so using verses written to a very patriarchal culture in order to support our claims.

    For example, Paul also told slaves to obey their masters, but that didn’t mean Paul was supporting slavery—actually, in telling the masters that God did not view them as superior, Paul was being very subversive. Perhaps the same is true of Paul’s words to men and women in Ephesians 5, when he told men to love their wives as they love themselves (for we must ask, IF men loved women as they loved themselves, would they really then continue to rule over them, demanding silence and submission?)?

    But that’s just me and some of my rambling questions. :) Thanks much, either which way, for sharing your thoughts and concerns.

  18. Comment by sarah

    3.11 pm on 9 Apr 2007

    I believe there is a difference between dominance and authority. Authority, for me, paints a picture or order. As a mother it is important to embrace your God given authority of your children so they feel safe, loved and cared for. Not demanding your own way or trying to dominate them, but using suggestion and guidance (because it may be our will and not God’s). It is very hard to do, speaking from experience, because I believe the human tendency is to go into extremes – subservience and dominance. I believe, in Christ we have been given authority over demons – those demons may well come through our husbands or our children (for various reasons) and as Christians we are not called to submit to them. We are called to submit to our own husbands – but not to Satan. So when our husbands ask us to do ungodly things, I believe we can exercise our authority over that. The patriarchal society as described in the OT and the one that Jesus came to overthrow, I believe, subscribes to “if it comes from a man, than it comes from God” – not true. But there needs to be order. I believe it is right and good for a wife to submit to her husband, as is pleasing to the Lord and that children submit and obey their parents until such time that there is a relevation such as Jesus describes “who is my Mother – one who does the will of God”. I believe we can exercise authority over our own lives by chosing who we will serve. If we are convicted to serve Christ then we will have difficulty bending our knee to Baal, in whatever form it comes – parents, husbands, wives. But ultimately, there needs to be order. Wives, I believe, are best to enter into a relationship with a man whom they believe is trying to serve the Lord and therefore she will have little difficulty in submitting (not cowering, not being subservient) and wives also are asked to “submit” in the sense that we need to “present our ideas” to our husbands. Someone has to be the head – it is only orderly. The head of the church is Christ, the head of the woman is man and we as women have a responsibility to make Godly choices in this matter. Order is godly. If we allow our children to take authority over us, we have let them down, and if our husbands don’t exercise authority they have let us down. When Eve asked Adam to do something, that God had expressly told them not to do, she knew she was defying God (problem #1), when Adam listened to Eve instead of God he knew he was not doing the right thing (problem #2) and when the serpent tempted them it was problem #3 – so all were punished. How different our lives would have been if Adam would have exercised his power in their relationship and lovingly told Eve that God had told them no to, therefore they needed not to – at that point Eve’s response would be to listen to Adam (he was confirming to her what God had said) and things may have been much different. When men listen to women, because women want to be more influential then God, we are all in trouble, as well as when women listen to men who want to be more influential than God, on things we know are not in keeping with his word, we are in trouble. Thanks for your last input – what do you think about what has been said. Looking forward to your feedback.

  19. Comment by sarah

    3.24 pm on 9 Apr 2007

    I also wanted to comment on the issue of silence. There seem to be many cases when Jesus asked women to go and tell the people (including men). I don’t believe for a minute that Jesus asks women to be quiet. I believe that Paul was trying to describe some sort of order in the church when he asked women to learn in silence and that a woman should not teach a man (I agree, it is better for men to learn from men) and that women should not have authority over men (I agree because I believe it is good for men to learn how to have authority in the biblical sense and not be robbed of this learning experience and growth experience by handing it over to women or for fear of being called a misogynist). Godly male leadership is what we all need, so women can get on with our calling and children can grow to love Christ. If women are ruling (in the church) men, men cannot grow in their calling. In the world, however, I believe it is an entirely different situation. I believe in the world, female authority is fine (as described in the story of Deborah) and God does raise up women for roles to bring order and peace. But in the church and in the family it is a different story. I also believe women can be leaders but not elders (in a position of leadership but not authority), that women teaching women is a wonderful calling and women teaching children, and women preaching, but not in positions of authority of men. Please feel free to challenge any of these ideas, I welcome the intellectual and spiritual exercise!!

    1. Comment by Paul

      3.02 pm on 12 Apr 2007

      hi sarah, thanks for your thoughts, You may be interested in reading a couple of other posts on this site as well which you might enjoy the challenge to your thinking:

      http://jasonclark.ws/2006/08/25/exploring-the-role-of-women-in-missional-churches-of-the-western-world/

      http://jasonclark.ws/2006/09/15/is-christianity-irredeemably-sexist/

  20. Comment by Molly

    4.34 pm on 9 Apr 2007

    Sarah,
    I have responded to you via private email.
    Warmly,
    Molly

  21. Comment by sarah

    8.23 pm on 9 Apr 2007

    okay,

Comments are now closed.