Home > American Protestantism, Apologetics/Defending the Faith > “Christ Our Mother” – A Church That Embraces a False Understanding of Human Sexuality Inevitably Embraces a False View of God

“Christ Our Mother” – A Church That Embraces a False Understanding of Human Sexuality Inevitably Embraces a False View of God

February 15th, 2013
Marketing Advertising Blog — VuManhThang.Com


When a church embraces a false view of human sexuality, this will and does, inevitably flow from, and leads back to, a false view of God. Witness the following “blessing” offered up by in a liberal protestant church body’s worship resources, and then ask yourself what the consequences are for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

God our Father bless you and shield you.
Christ our Mother shelter you and carry you.
God the Holy Spirit guide your journey
+ both now and forever.

Yes, you read that right, “Christ, our Mother.” Folks, this is not simply a confusion of languages, this is an apostasy from orthodox, Christian Trinitarian theology and language.

As observed elsewhere about this blessing by Rev. Pastor Peter Speckhard, a LCMS pastor: “Aside from ludicrously and meaninglessly referring to Christ our Mother, a Trinitarian invocation or benediction does more than name the relationship between us and God, it speaks to the Triune nature of God. To refer to “God” as our Father and then go straight into calling Christ our Mother truly, thoroughly mangles the Trinitarian theology that is part and parcel of a Trinitarian benediction.” Precisely so!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
  1. Bruce
    February 14th, 2013 at 13:21 | #1

    Pastor Peter Speckhard is too kind. It isn’t just ludicrous and meaningless, it’s blasphemous and heretical.
    One of the ladies at our church tried to get all the women to read some popular Christian novel where God the Father was portrayed as an African woman.

  2. Jonathan Trost
    February 15th, 2013 at 09:02 | #3

    Ouch! Yet another corruption!

    Presumably, this “blessing” is a use intended as an alternative to the Church’s traditional Aaronic Blessing, “The Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make his face shine,….”. It achieves a couple of implicitly intended purposes:

    1. It avoids use of that “nasty” word, “Lord”, which some find sexist and degrading to women.

    2. It suggests that God is not Three in One, but two in one, a duality of some sort, made up of “God our Father” and “God the Holy Spirit” from whom “Christ our Mother” proceeds?

    3. Offered as an alternative “worship resource”, it implies a validity equal to that which long has been. (As I’ve said here before, if you want to get rid of something, make its use optional and substitute something “of equal or greater value”.

    This is just another, newer effort to replace the Church’s definition of God as “Three in One” with something else. For decades now, some liberal “Protestant” churches have used the following baptismal formulary: “I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sustainer.” These words, of course, don’t define God and are not His Name. Rather, they only reference certain of the attributes of the One who creates, redeems, and sustains.

    Oh, for some authority in the Church!

    Veni Creator Spiritus!

  3. john pawlitz
    February 15th, 2013 at 15:01 | #4

    Amazing how sexual morality is intricately related to the purity of the Gospel. Looking at these kinds of problems, it makes it more obvious why morality is so highly emphasized in the New Testament. Living a sexually pure and decent life actually seems to be a kind of theological confession.

  4. Nicholas
    February 15th, 2013 at 19:36 | #5


    That would be “The Shack” by William Paul Young. It is an immensely heretical book that seems to be very popular in the “evangelical” world.

  5. Nicholas
    February 15th, 2013 at 21:59 | #6

    It is not surprising then how Matthew Becker, who is both feminist and “gay-affirming,” has now begun to criticize the Athanasian Creed.

    Many of the old mainline denominations first adopted false views of God (Unitarianism/Socianism) and then false views of human sexuality. When one heresy is embraced, others follow.

  6. Nick
    February 17th, 2013 at 10:41 | #7

    When I read this last week I had a good chuckle and thought “this kind of nonsense could only appear in some heretical cesspool in San Francisco or New York.” I wasn’t laughing when it appeared in my bulletin this Sunday. I don’t know if this is a sop to the feminists who have taken over Lutheran seminiaries, or the transgendered, which is apparently the next group whose fetishism will be embraced by the ELCA. But I do know that next weekend I am scoping out the Missouri Synod congregation down the road.

    • February 17th, 2013 at 16:18 | #8

      I fear a lot of ELCA congregation just let a secretary or other staff member “copy and paste” and the pastor simply assumes it is acceptable material, as, frankly the pastor should be able to assume, but….best to read things more carefully. I’m sorry this happened.

      And, welcome to The LCMS.

  7. Mark
    February 18th, 2013 at 01:09 | #9

    What’s scary is that such a perversion of the Name of God – Father, Son, and Spirit – such a perversion of the Incarnate sexuality of the man Jesus, Son of God and Son of Man, the new Adam, such a perversion may lead us to overreact and lose a delicate tension in our Christology: Christ as a picture of femininity (picture, not in substance).

    In relation to God, that is the Father, He submits to Him as head (1st Corinthians 11:4). This relationship is envisioned by the created order of man: male and female, male :: head, female :: subordinate. Just as Father and Son are equal of being and essence, neither more or less God, so also male and female are equally human, neither more or less than the other. Nonetheless, there is a definite order of equals in humanity, this ordained by God to bring a picture of the Trinity into our daily lives. As we are right to see Eve coming from Adam’s side as a foreshadowing of the Church springing from the blood and water from Christ’s side, so also should we see Eve from Adam’s side as a temporal picture of the eternal generation of the μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος, human from human to illustrate God from God. This does not mean the Son is actually female, no more “Father” means God impregnated some cosmic mother to produce the Son. Rather, just as humanity is created to have fathers and sons to aid us in understanding the Maker of Heaven and Earth, so also humanity is created as male and female in order to help us know the Creator Himself as He is in His Trinity of Unity.

    Likewise, when Christ prays, “Nevertheless, not my will but Yours,” He has fulfilled perfect femininity by the submission to His head. This does not mean Jesus is a woman or may be called a woman, let alone a mother. But He embodies the feminine ideal as the vicarious representative of humanity in relation to God, which ideal He fulfilled as a human male. It is wholly improper to refer to Jesus as Mother, for Jerusalem above, Heaven, the Church Triumphant, is our Mother. It is only in relation to the Church, when He is personifying it, can the Word be improperly analogied as Mother, which He Himself does by saying He desired to gather Jerusalem as a mother hen would its own chicks. He says this as the Head of the Church on behalf of the Church.

    This benediction is a gross misuse of the subtle nuance of human sexuality, which was originally created in the image of God, male and female, a finite representation of the Infinite. While God the Trinity, from eternity, transcended human gender, God the Word, in His Incarnation, became Himself the very male sex He had created to reflect His likeness. This was no mistake or coincidence, and His masculinity is our salvation. It is only in very particular instances, and only in relation to His submission to His Head or His being the representative of the Church, that is acceptable to refer to Him in by feminine simile. It is never permissible to call Him our Mother, for He is our Mother’s Husband, her Head, her Lord. But I fear that such vulgar shame, indeed sexual abuse, as is perpetrated by the above benediction might become the Adversary’s snare to cause us to forsake certain delicate nuances of our Theology, overlooking them in our wrath against blasphemy, so that if he cannot woo us outright with the sexual lie, he might incite us to imperfect hatred to our own detriment.

    • February 18th, 2013 at 08:12 | #10

      Christ is definitely NOT a “picture of femininity.” That is an incorrect assertion that has its roots in so-called “feminist theology” but it has no basis in Sacred Scripture, particularly the New Testament texts, where, everywhere, Christ is referred to as the bridegroom and His Church as the bride. You are really reaching and going well beyond the text of Scripture with your claims in your comment. I’m curious from whence you are deriving these points of view. I trust nobody at Concordia St. Paul is teaching these kinds of ideas. If anyone is a model woman, it would be the Second Eve, Mary, the Mother of Our Lord. There is where one can find an abundance of healthy images and understandings of what it means to be a Christian woman.

  8. February 18th, 2013 at 06:26 | #11

    Don’t run away too fast. Confront Pastor. There are many others who do not have the strength to confront and it is up to us to do so. Some just sit and believe…. We are to ask and back everything up with Biblical truths. I confronted Pastor yesterday (Sunday) when it showed up as the benediction. He led me to believe this idea is not only in the Bible (which I asked him to provide the scriptures. . .and I hope he will) but also within the Hebrew language and lost through Greek and English translation. I might be seeking out a Rabbi to confirm. We should be open to things we just don’t know but ALWAYS research and if it is not backed up by God’s Word, then we shall pray for those who deceive, who are being deceived and ask for strength and endurance to live the Great Commission, Matthew 28:16-20, and live by TRUTH as an example to others.

    • February 18th, 2013 at 08:10 | #12

      “Christ Our Mother” has absolutely zero support from any Biblical text. Anyone who tells you that, is, at best, ignorant of how to read and interpret Scripture, or being intentionally misleading.

  9. Jonathan Trost
    February 18th, 2013 at 14:57 | #13

    Whenever words such as “heresy”, “apostasy”, and “heterodoxy” become anathema and “dirty words” to some within the Church, those same people will feel free to proffer up such a theologically shallow concept as “Christ, our Mother”.

  10. Nick
    February 18th, 2013 at 20:29 | #14

    In response to Mark’s post, as both a Christian and the husband of a modern, successful, professional woman, it’s hard to decide what I find more offensive: the image of “Christ our Mother or the retrograde notion of submission as the height of femininity. But let’s stay on topic with the former. If there is room for this imagery of a feminine Christ, then we have to reconstitute our notion of the Trinity. Basically, we are back to Arianism, because the only way Christ can be our “mother” is if he was not “of one being with the FATHER,” but “of the same essence as the Father,” in the way that Eve is of the same essence as Adam. Otherwise we need to eliminate the imagery of God the Father, and the Creed needs to be revised to reflect this new gender neutral Christ, perhaps to read “of one being with the multiple sexed deity.” That actually kills two birds with one stone; it allows for “Christ our Mother” and helps to wipe out those tedious patriarchal references to God as the Father. The Nuns on the Bus should be happy.

Comments are closed.