Mother of God, is this title appropriate?
Posted: March 13th, 2009, 2:15 pm
I believe that the original controversy about calling Mary "the mother of God" became mired in the talk of the two natures of Christ and thus in the limitations of the antiquated metaphysics of the age. But we have another example to draw from in which a scientific understanding can be helpful and thus avoid being misled by medieval metaphysics, which has more to do with the human language than the nature of reality. This is the example of two kinds of parents that human beings can have: biological parents and the parents that raised them. From one set we have the biological inheritance, the DNA that makes us biologically human, and from the other we have the inheritance of mind which I believe is where our true humanity lies. It is my belief that by the first, we are bretheren to all the forms of life on this planet, and by the second we are the children of God for I believe that this inheritance of mind first comes from God.
Thus to look at Mary's relationship to Jesus, I think a theoretical understanding of what it means to be a parent as the contributor of information and as one who provides a protected and nurturing environment is quite helpful. Clearly Mary provided the nurturing womb in which the infant Jesus grew and clearly she played the most important role in raising the child as well. The fact that Jesus was a carpenter like Joseph makes it clear that Joseph's role as a father in raising Jesus was also just as substantial as any father who raises a child. Perhaps we cannot say with too much clarity or certainty where the biological inheritance for Jesus came from, but that is the least important question as far as I am concerned.
But in any case, although Mary may have contributed information and a nurturing environment that played a role in the growth and development of human body and mind of Jesus, we must ask whether she made any contribution that played a role in the growth and development of Christ's divnity in any way. Clearly not! Chrisitians are not adoptionists that believe that Jesus became God and so since Jesus was always God then it is clear that Mary did not contribute to Christ's divinity in any way whatsoever. For that reason I think it is absurd to call Mary the "mother of God". The relationship between Mary and God is one of Mary being the the child and God being the parent.
There are logical difficulties here to be sure, for the following simple syllogism seems valid:
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore Mary is the mother of God.
But this is only the consequence of the deceptive simplicity of human language which makes statements that sound like absolutes when in reality they are no such thing. Mary is the mother of Jesus only in a certain sense even though this is the sense that is most typically used because the word typically refers to human relationships, but we also know that Mary's father is God in a sense quite different from the usual sense of human relationships, and this suggests to me that we have two very difference senses operating in the two first statements of the syllogism making them incompatable so that the syllogism is not valid and its conclusion cannot be drawn.
BUT I will speak to the problem in the original controversy to say that this should not be construed as a reason for a seperation in Christ between the human and the divine. I would in fact say that all that is human in Jesus in all its finitude and vulnerability is still an act of God and thus an expression of His divinity for it is by His infinitude and omnipotence that He could become fully human in the way that He did -- a power over Himself that is difficult for us to fathom.
Thus to look at Mary's relationship to Jesus, I think a theoretical understanding of what it means to be a parent as the contributor of information and as one who provides a protected and nurturing environment is quite helpful. Clearly Mary provided the nurturing womb in which the infant Jesus grew and clearly she played the most important role in raising the child as well. The fact that Jesus was a carpenter like Joseph makes it clear that Joseph's role as a father in raising Jesus was also just as substantial as any father who raises a child. Perhaps we cannot say with too much clarity or certainty where the biological inheritance for Jesus came from, but that is the least important question as far as I am concerned.
But in any case, although Mary may have contributed information and a nurturing environment that played a role in the growth and development of human body and mind of Jesus, we must ask whether she made any contribution that played a role in the growth and development of Christ's divnity in any way. Clearly not! Chrisitians are not adoptionists that believe that Jesus became God and so since Jesus was always God then it is clear that Mary did not contribute to Christ's divinity in any way whatsoever. For that reason I think it is absurd to call Mary the "mother of God". The relationship between Mary and God is one of Mary being the the child and God being the parent.
There are logical difficulties here to be sure, for the following simple syllogism seems valid:
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore Mary is the mother of God.
But this is only the consequence of the deceptive simplicity of human language which makes statements that sound like absolutes when in reality they are no such thing. Mary is the mother of Jesus only in a certain sense even though this is the sense that is most typically used because the word typically refers to human relationships, but we also know that Mary's father is God in a sense quite different from the usual sense of human relationships, and this suggests to me that we have two very difference senses operating in the two first statements of the syllogism making them incompatable so that the syllogism is not valid and its conclusion cannot be drawn.
BUT I will speak to the problem in the original controversy to say that this should not be construed as a reason for a seperation in Christ between the human and the divine. I would in fact say that all that is human in Jesus in all its finitude and vulnerability is still an act of God and thus an expression of His divinity for it is by His infinitude and omnipotence that He could become fully human in the way that He did -- a power over Himself that is difficult for us to fathom.