sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bride of Christ, Catholic theology, Church Fathers, God the Father, Mother church, People of God

J DFM 2.2 (2012): 4-32

The as Bride and Mother: Two Neglected Theological Metaphors WAYNE SHEALY

INTRODUCTION love while eschewing the Church. To love Jesus Wayne Shealy (Ph.D., The In a recent book on , is to love the Church, his bride and our mother. This Southern Exploring Ecclesiology: An Evan- article will also argue in favor of an evangelical engage- Baptist gelical and Ecumenical Introduction, ment with the maternal and nuptial metaphors for the Theological ) Brad Harper and Paul Louis Metzger Church, with one caveat: the two metaphors should be is for lament the fact that “people are into considered together and in the order. & Counseling ‘Jesus’ and ‘spirituality’ today, but at CrossPointe Church in 1 FEMININE ECCLESIAL IMAGES: Columbus, GA, overseeing not ‘’ and ‘Church.’” Their spiritual formation, proposed solution to this problem THE CONTEMPORARY SCENE discipleship, and children’s is, in part, an emphasis on two meta- !e Church as bride of and mother of ministry. He is originally phors for the Church: the Church as forms an important of ecclesiological reflec- from South Carolina and a graduate of Clemson mother and the Church as bride. !ey tion, particularly among evangelical, Roman , University. Wayne holds the argue that, though the contemporary and feminist theologians. Given that bridal imagery for Master of , Master Church o"en plays the harlot just as the Church is scattered throughout the of , and Doctor of Philosophy degrees Israel did in ’s day, she does not (e.g., 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:21-33; Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9; 22:17), from The Southern Baptist lose her status as mother and bride. As the Church as bride of Christ is a recognized ecclesial Theological Seminary. mother, she “birthed the under metaphor in contemporary . As such, there to coming to CrossPoint Church, he served in several the guidance of the Spirit” and all has been some, though limited, reflection on the nup- di!erent churches as well “those who are are born tial image of the Church among evangelicals, most o"en as Clemson’s chapter of into the Church.”2 As bride, she con- in contexts that treat it as one of many ecclesial meta- Campus Crusade for Christ. 4 He married his wife, Beth, sists of “simultaneously spotted and phors. Many evangelical books on ecclesiology, however, in 2003 and they now have spotless believers” who are making are virtually silent on the Church’s nuptiality.5 !is lack two dughters. “preparations for the [eschatologi- of attention demonstrates that most evangelical theolo- cal] wedding banquet.”3 For Harper gians unconsciously agree with Paul Minear that “bride” and Metzger, to know the Church belongs “in the category of minor ecclesial images.”6 as mother and bride exposes the dis- !eological re#ection on the maternal metaphor for connect between those who say they the Church, on the other hand, is almost nonexistent

2222 among evangelicals today. !is neglect is not new. Writ- theologians. While not a monolithic group, feminists ing in 1943, theologian Plumbe argue that, historically, feminine ecclesial metaphors noted the indifference toward the Church’s mother- have been used to support masculine language for hood in the of his day: “[T]he notion and inequality among men and women. In short, they of the maternity of the Church is wholly neglected in argue that Scripture is a product of a male-dominated Protestant manuals of dogmatic theology.”7 !is indif- society that has projected its fallen social structure ference has been a hallmark of evangelical ecclesiology onto God and the Church, making masculine since the time of the . While there is a gen- and the Church feminine. The gendered symbolism eral consensus in the validity of the Church as mother,8 of the Bible, therefore, is problematic because it por- both historically and biblically evangelicals have not trays God/men as initiators and the Church/women produced serious theological re#ection on it9 and o"en as responders. For example, Roman Catholic feminist cite the motherhood of the Church simply as a “tip of theologian Susan Ross opines that the main problem the hat” to , whose “église mère” was at the with the nuptial metaphor is that “the relationship of center of his ecclesiology.10 bridegroom and bride is not an egalitarian relation- Roman , on the other hand, has ship. !is metaphor was used precisely because men increasingly employed these metaphors of the Church and women were not equal.”15 since Vatican II in an attempt to wed to Reformed feminist theologian Amy Plantiga Pauw ecclesiology as well as to respond to the challenges of argues similarly: “!e images of the Church as mother those who insist that women be included in the priest- and bride are not without their problems in the con- hood. For Roman Catholic theologians, Mary is seen temporary setting, not the least of them being their as the Church’s matriarch and exemplar. As Henri de tendency to reinforce normatively masculine images Lubac states, “Mary is the ideal $gure of the Church, for God.”16 Neither theologian, however, rejects the the of it, and the mirror in which the whole use of feminine metaphors for the Church. Rather, Church is re#ected. Everywhere the Church $nds in her “in revised form, both of them can still contribute”17 its type and model, its point of origin and perfection.”11 to one’s ecclesiology so long as a “ of In addition to de Lubac, John Paul II and Swiss suspicion”18 is used when handling the issue. Focus- theologian wrote extensively ing on the bridal metaphor, Ross argues that though on the nuptial and maternal imagery of the Church in this image has a long and complex history, “it is inter- recent years, each of them invoking these metaphors in twined with the tradition’s sexism” and be used discussing practical questions of women’s ordination12 carefully so as to avoid feminine or masculine stereo- and male-female relationships in the family and in the types.19 Pauw, on the other hand, that these Church. John Paul II, in particular, taught that the feminine metaphors complement each other well Church has both an apostolic-Petrine dimension and a and she is hopeful that they can bolster a “view of the Marian dimension and, of the two, the Marian dimen- Church in a context of religious pluralism.”20 sion is more fundamental and more closely related to In short, the contemporary use of mother and bride the main purpose of the Church, which is sanctifica- as ecclesial metaphors varies greatly depending on one’s tion.13 In her striving for holiness the Church seeks to theological camp. Roman Catholics increasingly utilize follow in the footsteps of her most eminent member, maternal and nuptial metaphors in their theological Mary, the virginal bride who is fruitful as mother of all formulations, while feminists do so only reluctantly the faithful.14 In contrast to evangelicals, Roman Catho- and with much nuance. In contrast, evangelicals tend to lic theologians are more apt to treat these two feminine assume the bridal image of the Church, without giving metaphors together and in contexts that extend beyond it much serious theological re#ection, and neglect the the traditional locus of ecclesiology. maternal image, acknowledging its validity yet remain- A third use of these metaphors is made by feminist ing nearly silent as to its signi$cance.

2323 MOTHER AND BRIDE: TWO ECCLESIAL children among both Jews and Gentiles. METAPHORS THAT BELONG TOGETHER Second, the fact that the recipients of John’s second Evangelicals should engage the maternal and nuptial letter are “the elect lady and her children” (verses 1, 4-5) metaphors for the Church since they are introduced suggests the motherhood of the Church. Most commen- by the biblical authors, considering them together and tators agree that John uses such terminology to identify in the proper order. Speci$cally, it will be argued that, a local Church and its members.23 If the Church is a when juxtaposed, the ecclesial images of mother and “lady” (κυρίᾳ) who has children and those children are bride present the Church in both her spatio-temporal believers, then it naturally follows to recognize this as and eschatological realities, yet the relationship between an example of the motherhood of the Church. In other these images is paradoxical. !e Church does not prog- words, John writes this letter to a local Church that he ress from bride to mother as one would expect given describes as a mother of believers. the pattern for women of marriage then motherhood; Third, the episode of the woman and the dragon rather, she advances from earthly mother to heavenly in 12 likely alludes to the maternity of the bride. !is notion is supported historically and bibli- Church, or, more specifically, the maternity of the cally in three ways. First, the image of the Church as whole , Israel and the Church.24 This mother of believers describes the Church on earth in woman gives birth to a male child, the promised Mes- that she gives birth to the children of God and pro- siah, whom the dragon seeks to destroy (verses 4-5). vides nourishment in the form of word and sacrament. When his e+orts fail, the dragon makes “war on the rest Second, the image of the Church as bride describes of her o+spring, on those who keep the commandments the Church eagerly awaiting her eschatological state of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (verse 17). as united to her bridegroom, Jesus Christ. !ough the Most commentators identify the woman’s “o+spring” as Church’s eschatological dimension has been inaugu- believers in Jesus throughout the ages since the found- rated in her founding and is experienced proleptically in ing of the Church. One’s is signi$cant in this age, it is not experienced fully until the age to come. how this text in interpreted; however, it is clear that the !ird, the clear progression of these metaphors is from woman identi$ed here is both mother to the , as earthly mother to heavenly bride, and not vice versa. Israel, and mother to believers in Jesus, as the Church. !at is, the Church as a laboring and nurturing mother !ese three examples provide Scriptural support for the is on her way to becoming the perfect and glorious bride Church being identi$ed and described as “mother.” who is gathered to her bridegroom without any “spot or wrinkle” (Eph 5:27).21 Despite this evidence, the Church’s maternity is, admit- The Church as Mother of Believers tedly, in nascent form throughout the New Testament Evangelicals o"en dismiss the ecclesial image of mother writings. !e ecclesial image of mother, however, has because it is di%cult to cite explicit biblical texts in sup- a long and rich tradition in the Church25 and much port of it. Yet, at least three passages support the validity can be learned from a critical evaluation of how this of this metaphor. First, Paul states in Galatians 4:26, metaphor has been used in the past. !e image of the “But the above is free, and she is our mother.” Church as mother has enjoyed prominence from the Here, as Hans Dieter Betz asserts, in reaching the con- time of the early Church up through the Reformation. clusion that the heavenly Jerusalem is our mother, Paul It has been one of the more familiar yet unique eccle- takes up, no doubt polemically, a famous dictum of Jew- sial images used throughout the history of Christian ish theology, ‘Jerusalem is our mother,’ and claims it for thought, despite appearing abruptly and inexplicably Christians and for the Church.22 !e Church, then, is in the late second-century patristic literature.26 In fact, identified as the mother of believers. God is at work regarding this image, even “independent of Scripture through the Church to bring about the new birth of his citation … the full popular personi$cation was ‘in the

2424 air’ well before the middle of the second century.”27 Yet who entrusts himself to his mother’s breast.”33 In his once the image was introduced, patristic writers consis- Treatise on Works he states, “The second work tently employed it as an expression characterizing the of this command [honor thy and mother] is to nature and function of the Church. In particular, the obey our spiritual mother, the holy Christian Church.”34 , exempli$ed by and Augustine, Calvin expounds on the image of mother to an even and the Reformers, particularly and John greater degree than Luther. For him it is clear: outside Calvin, emphasized this metaphor in their ecclesiolo- the Church there is no hope for either of gies, though they developed it in various ways. or for . “There is no other way to enter As stated in Cyprian’s famous dictum: “If one is to life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give have God for Father, he must $rst have the Church for us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she mother,”28 patristic writers understood the Church’s keep us under her care and guidance until [we put] o+ motherhood as a natural extension of God’s paternity mortal #esh.”35 Calvin speaks here explicitly of the vis- and an individual’s association with her as a requirement ible Church on earth, and he repeatedly uses the image for salvation. In addition to Cyprian, Church fathers of mother to impress this reality on the minds of his such as , , Clement of , and readers. For the early Church fathers, the image of regularly spoke of the Church as mother. For mother was one of the most common ways to identify them, “mother” was more than just a beautiful meta- and describe the Church. !is changed a"er the Refor- phor demonstrating the importance and necessity of the mation as Protestants and evangelicals began to use the Church—though it certainly was that. !is metaphor term less frequently. signi$ed “life as we are born from her womb … identity as we are offspring of the bride of Christ … nourish- What Does This Metaphor Mean? ment as from her hands we receive food and drink, the While there is no uniform understanding of the Church very body and blood of our Jesus Christ.”29 The as mother or what the metaphor signi$es, several com- popularity of this metaphor grew to such a degree that mon themes emerge. First, new birth and are it extended beyond the bounds of theological treatises intrinsic to the Church’s maternal function. Cyprian, to , architecture, and .30 for example, believed that baptism apart from the one This image was also prevalent in the writings of true Church was ine+ectual and took place in “spuri- Augustine, who was fond of speaking of the two par- ous and unhallowed water,” while the baptismal water ents of believers: Father God and Mother Church. “We of Mother Church was, like her, “faithful and unpol- all had our fathers and mothers on earth, of whom we luted.”36 The practice of baptism ritually enacts the were born to a life of toil and ultimately death; we have miracle of new birth. In this ritual, the Church acts as found other parents, God our Father and the Church spiritual mother from whom newly born children (sym- our mother, of whom we may be born to eternal life.”31 bolically) emerge.37 Baptism, then, is a sort of “birthing” Augustine also expanded beyond the views of many of of new believers into the community in that it the earliest Church fathers as he stressed the of serves as the entry point to the Church. this mother and her imitation of Mary: “She is a , Also intrinsic to the Church’s motherhood is the and she also brings forth children. She imitates Mary, nourishment she provides her children in the form of who gave birth to . Did not the holy Mary Scripture, , and the Lord’s Supper. !e Church bring forth her child and remain a virgin? So, too, the does not just give birth to the children of God and Church brings forth children and is a virgin.”32 allow them to stagnate in immaturity or die as new- !e maternal metaphor for the Church continued borns; rather, as mother, she sustains their lives, pro- in force through the up to the sixteenth- viding them nourishment in relation to the . She century Reformers. In 1518, Luther advised believers feeds her children , with courses of preaching to confide their doubts to the Church, “like a child Scripture and teaching right doctrine, and celebrating

2525 the Lord’s Supper. Similarly, as mother she is the reposi- a birthing and nurturing institution.”41 In this way, the tory of the Christian and of the . She themes of divine paternity and the “sonship” of believers is the repository of the Christian faith in that access to cross paths with the motherhood of the Church. Taken salvation comes about through the gospel that has been as a whole, in the triumvirate themes of divine pater- entrusted to her. She is the repository of the Holy Spirit nity, ecclesial maternity, and Christian fraternity, we who unceasingly labors to deliver her children to the encounter “the ful$lled form ($gure) of the natural rela- life of the Spirit. As mother, the Church provides spiri- tionships of father, mother, and child.”42 In other words, tual nourishment and life for her children so that they believers are in , and daughters of might grow “to mature manhood, to the measure of the , and brothers and sisters of one family, stature of the fullness of Christ” and not be “tossed to the Church. and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of !e image of the Church as mother is a picture of doctrine” (Eph 4:13-14). the visible Church on earth. She gives birth to children Conversely, the maternal image of the Church as symbolically represented by baptism. She nurtures serves as a reminder that separation from the Church her children through the ministry of the word and the is separation from one’s life-giving mother, resulting in Lord’s Supper. In her, we are reminded that God is our either malnourishment or death. Many symbolically Father and that we are brothers and sisters with one emerge from her in baptism, are nurtured by her in the another. A relationship with her is so necessary that preaching of the word and the partaking of the Lord’s to separate oneself from the Church is to be spiritually Supper, yet reject her in the end. This tragedy serves malnourished and, perhaps even, spiritually dead. as a reminder that the image of the Church as mother is a picture of the visible Church on earth: she births The Church as Bride of Christ and nurtures many who forsake her motherhood and !e importance of the bridal image to ecclesiology has ultimately deny the Christian faith. !ose who forsake been of some debate. As stated earlier, Paul Minear in her are not like newborn infants who long for her pure his well-known book, Images of the Church in the New spiritual milk (1 Pet 2:2); rather, they lash out against Testame nt, is of the opinion that this image is a minor her and deny her authority, which is akin to rebelling one.43 Richard of St. Victor, on the other hand, judged against one’s own mother.38 that “nuptial symbolism is without doubt that which !e motherhood of the Church also calls attention best expresses the inmost nature and destiny of the to the paternity of God and the fraternity that believers Church.”44 Regardless of its importance in relation to have with one another. !e Church is not autonomous other ecclesial metaphors, the appearance of nuptial with respect to her origin and continued existence; imagery throughout the New Testament “demonstrates indeed, she “is mother only insofar as she continually its currency in the early Church and the readiness with refers to the Father.”39 !e Christian, then, introduced which it was appropriated.”45 Richard Batey cites the into Mother Church through the initial rite of baptism varied sources of New Testament nuptial imagery, (symbolizing the new birth that results in being made most of them alluding to or explicitly referencing the a child of God) can “continually turn to his Father Church.46 One thing is clear a"er a brief survey of these who is in .”40 Furthermore, the motherhood of passages: the Church is the bride of Christ. Of course, the Church points to the fact that all those born of the New Testament authors did not write in a vacuum. her share a common identity. Her children are equally Nuptial imagery is rooted in the , par- loved by the Father and adopted into his family, having ticularly in Hosea, where Israel is pictured as the spouse been qualified by him “to share in the inheritance of of (Hos 2:2, 14-20; 12:12). the ” (Col 1:12). !e maternal ecclesial image is Historically, the image of bride has been a promi- thus arguably “a way of countering elitist divisions in the nent force in the development of ecclesiology. In the community and promoting the sense of the Church as early Church, this image conveyed the purity of the

2626 true Church (as opposed to the heretical one), the only true believers—as opposed to all professing believ- love and intimacy between Christ and the Church, ers or Church members—will be united to the bride- and the Church as an eschatological reality. Awareness groom. On that day, the Church will make herself ready of the metaphor’s ecclesiological importance started by clothing herself in $ne linen, which is “the righteous with Irenaeus, Tertullian, and . deeds of the saints” (Rev 19:7-8). Unfortunately, the allegorical method of interpretation The nuptial metaphor also emphasizes the close con- by Hippolytus and Origen spun this metaphor in an nection of Christ with the Church and the unity that unhealthy direction where the focus became the Song believers have with one another. As Ernst Best has of Songs instead of appropriate New Testament texts.47 opined, the nuptial metaphor takes us “further into For the most part, this allegorical interpretation reigned the relationship of Christ and the Church than any through the Middle Ages up until the time of the Refor- other” New Testament image.51 Indeed, this metaphor mation. !e Reformers themselves, however, were slow is predominately “a symbol of the lordship of Christ to expound on the nuptial image, with the exception over the Church,”52 emphasizing “the necessary depen- of Martin Luther in his polemics against the Roman dence of the Church upon Christ.”53 As Lord, Christ has .48 authority over the Church, and the Church, by nature of Christ’s lordship, is dependent on him. At the same What Does This Metaphor Mean? time, the nuptial metaphor maintains a clear distinction The most important aspect of the nuptial metaphor between Christ and the Church. As such, it comple- is that it brings to ecclesiology an eschatological per- ments the Pauline metaphors of the Church as the Body spective, placing the Church beyond the limits of time of Christ and Christ as the Church’s head. to assume the dimensions of itself. !e meta- !is image also serves as a reminder that the Church phor of the bride of Christ describes the Church in her is Christ’s betrothed and her purpose and ful$llment are eschatological state and calls attention to the need for reached through devotion to him who betrothed her. As ecclesiology to think in eschatological and not simply Batey observes: spatio-temporal terms. !is image, therefore, becomes “a metaphor of hope for the future,”49 a bride await- Christ exemplifies the masculine qualities of ing her future wedding. !is eschatological dimension active love; he has initiated the betrothal and would not be true if the Church were simply pictured provided for the Church’s life; his elective love as the “wife” or “spouse” of Christ. !at the Church is continues to protect the Church from meaning- pictured as a bride awaiting her bridegroom highlights lessness and despair. !e Church as a Bride must an important eschatological reality. respond with submission, loyalty, and dedica- !e eschatological dimension of this metaphor is fur- tion—looking to him for the power to under- ther on display in the already/not yet tension currently stand her origin, de$ne her purpose, and insure true of the Church as she lives between the times. In one her future.54 sense, the Church as bride is entirely holy and unfailing, sanctified and cleansed by the word (Eph 5:26).50 In According to Batey, the Church’s status as bride de$nes another sense, the frailty and fallenness of this bride is who she is and how she ought to live. As bride, she continually manifested in her spiritual adultery, requir- actively serves her bridegroom, not out of sheer duty but ing that her bridegroom, Jesus Christ, continually liber- out of delight that she is his bride,55 a picture of the ten- ate her from her whoring ways and purify her by his sion between free grace and the radical demands of the union. Though a , she remains a sinner and can- gospel. !e nuptiality of the Church, therefore, helps not purify herself. !e image of the Church as the bride protect her from both laxness and legalism. of Jesus Christ, therefore, is a picture of the invisible !e image of the Church as bride is a picture of the Church on earth awaiting her future home in heaven: Church awaiting her eschatological state, which has

2727 been inaugurated in her founding and is experienced Church, as described in the nuptial metaphor, consists proleptically in this age. !is state is not experienced only of the elect and is an object of hope in this earthly fully until the age to come when the Church is fully life, while the visible Church, as described in the mater- united to Jesus Christ, her bridegroom, in the new heav- nal metaphor, is the concrete form of the Church on ens and the new earth. !ough she is a spiritual whore, earth. she is also pure because she has been washed clean “in This distinction, however, is not because the blood of the lamb” (Rev 7:14). This reality gives the visible Church is a necessary expression of the invis- believers great hope. !e image of bride also reminds ible Church; thus, the relationship is not one of opposi- the Church that they are cherished by Christ and $nd tion, but one in which the visible is a sign and servant of their corporate identity in him. the invisible.63 Christians are not to abandon the visible Church under the guise of being members of an invis- The Church as Both Mother and Bride ible body. Stated from the perspective of the maternal These two feminine ecclesial images belong together. and nuptial metaphors for the Church, Christians are Juxtaposing these images creates a paradoxical yet com- not to abandon their mother, while at the same time plementary relationship that is demonstrated in three purporting to be united to the bridegroom. ways. First, the maternal image describes the visible Second, the image of the Church as mother is an Church on earth, while the nuptial image describes the expression of her spatio-temporal reality, while the invisible Church awaiting her eschatological state. !is nuptial image describes her eschatological . The distinction between the visible and invisible Church maternal image is a description of the Church’s spatio- is attributed to Augustine—whose ecclesiology at this temporal existence on earth where she seeks to ful$ll point was shaped by the Donatist schism56—and more her mission until the parousia (Matt 28:18-20). The fully developed by Calvin in opposition to the Roman image portrays the Church as assembled in an historic Catholic teaching that the Church is the one visible reality (situated in space and time) to do the work of the organization that has descended from the apostles in a ministry (Eph 4:12), namely, to live out the gospel in a continual line of succession.57 particular time-and space-bound culture. For Calvin, the Church is primarily a visible com- Conversely, the metaphor of the Church as the bride munity of believers as signi$ed by the image of mother. of Christ emphasizes the eschatological nature of the In fact, it was in the context of his discussion of the Church.64 In 2 Corinthians 11:1-4, for example, Paul Church as “the mother of the faithful through whom addresses the Corinthian community as a “pure virgin” one has rebirth and salvation”58 that Calvin $rst used whom he, as father of the bride, has betrothed exclu- the expression “visible Church” in a positive sense.59 !e sively to one husband, Jesus Christ, in order to present maternal image describes the visible Church;60 she is a her to him at the . For Paul, the betrothal “mixed assembly,” yet remains the exclusive site of God’s was a past fact brought about by faith in Jesus Christ covenantal blessings in Christ.61 !e motherhood of the that will not be constituted until the eschaton. The Church re#ects the “social and visible Church existing Church, therefore, is the eschatological community65 in the world,”62 whose function is to bear and nourish that experiences in Christ the beginning of the new age, believers until the parousia. awaiting a future consummation, which “will not be the Conversely, the nuptial metaphor describes the manifestation and glori$cation of a perfection already invisible Church (the Church as God sees it) united achieved in the Church, but radical cleansing and trans- to her bridegroom, Jesus Christ. !e distinction here is formation.”66 primarily eschatological in that the invisible Church is To conceptualize the Church as the bride of Christ the Church that will come into being at the end of time and the mother of believers is to maintain a tension when God administers the final judgment and gath- ubiquitous in the New Testament. The Church lives ers his bride to himself. In other words, the invisible between the times, where she experiences through faith

2828 the presence of her Lord in a spatio-temporal setting ness. He obliterated her ugliness and gave her beauty.”73 and yet longs for a future consummation.67 She finds It is by identifying himself with this ugliness of that pleasure and purpose, delight and design in both the Christ, who became “without form or majesty” (Isa realization and anticipation of her Lord.68 !e tension 53:2), brings about the transformation of the bride. maintained by the nuptial and maternal metaphors does justice to both the here-and-now and eschatological CONCLUSION realities of the Church. !ese two feminine metaphors o+er a complementary !ird, these two feminine metaphors have di+erent of the Church and, therefore, are best examined foci: the image of the Church as mother focuses on the in light of one another. On the one hand, the maternal Church as a birthing and nurturing institution, while image describes the visible Church in her spatio-tem- the nuptial image focuses on the Church’s relation- poral reality; on the other hand, the nuptial metaphor ship to Jesus Christ. !e Church’s maternal functions describes the invisible Church anticipating her escha- of birthing believers and nurturing them in Scripture, tological state. !e motherhood of the Church depicts doctrine, and at the Lord’s Table have a rich history in her as a birthing and nurturing institution, giving rise the life of the Church. Augustine illustrates the impor- to many “sons of God” (Gal 3:26), while the nuptiality tance of these maternal functions when he urges young of the Church portrays her union with her bridegroom. converts: “Behold the womb of Mother Church: see When juxtaposed, these metaphors also protect against how she groans and is in travail to bring you forth lacunae in developing one’s ecclesiology, the maternal and guide you on into the light of faith.”69 Likewise, image guarding against too strong an eschatological Luther employs the maternal image when he compares reading and proud triumphalism,74 and the nuptial the Church to the mother who births a baby and nur- image shielding against a neglect of eschatology and the tures him to manhood: “!e Church namely teaches, contemporary preoccupation with the Church’s faults. cherishes us warmly, carries us in her womb and lap and !ese two ecclesial images have a lot to o+er the con- arms, shapes us and makes us perfect according to the temporary Church and evangelicals would be wise to form of Christ until we grow to become perfect men.”70 engage them and do so together. Similarly, Calvin views the Church as a birthing and nurturing institution: “!e Church, into whose bosom ENDNOTES God is pleased to gather his sons, not only that they may 1 Brad Harper and Paul Louis Metzger, Exploring Eccle- be nourished by her help and ministry as long as they are siology: An Evangelical and Ecumenical Introduction infants and children, but also that they may be guided (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009), 11. Within the past by her motherly care until they mature and at last reach few years, books on a popular level that explore why the goal of faith.”71 Traditionally, therefore, the maternal believers and unbelievers alike are turned off by the image has been employed to denote the Church’s birth- Church but love Jesus have become commonplace. ing and nurturing functions. 2 Ibid. Conversely, the metaphor of the Church as bride 3 Ibid., 12. denotes the intimacy and permanence of the union of 4 Evangelicals who incorporate this metaphor as part Christ and the Church. Claude Welch observes that of a general discussion of ecclesial metaphors include this metaphor “may lead us to the heart of the mystery Earl D. Radmacher, !e Nature of the Church (Hayes- of the Church’s being” in that it “de$nes the nature of ville, NC: Schoettle, 1996), 241-56; Robert L. Saucy, that present union by referring to a union which is to The Church in God’s Program, Handbook of Bible be.”72 Paradoxically, the bridegroom both loves the bride Doctrine (: Moody, 1972), 44-49. in spite of her sin and puri$es her by taking her sin on 5 E.g., Edmund Clowney, !e Church, ed. Gerald Bray, himself, which is why Augustine can opine: “When was Contours of (Grand Rapids: she [the bride] loved? When she was still in all her ugli- InterVarsity, 1995); John S. Hammett, Biblical Foun-

2929 dations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiol- an essentially ‘material’ or ‘receptive’ nature and that ogy (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005); S. Horton, relations between men and women are to be under- People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville: stood as asymmetrically complementary” (114). Westminster , 2008). 16Amy Plantiga Pauw, “!e Church as Mother and Bride 6 Paul S. Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testa- in the Reformed Tradition: Challenge and Promise,” ment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 56. in Many Voices, One God: Being Faithful in a Pluralistic 7 Joseph C. Plumbe, “Mater Ecclesia: An Inquiry into World, ed. Walter Bruggemann and George W. Stroup the Concept of the Church as Mother in Early Chris- (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 134; cf. tianity,” !e Catholic University of America Studies in idem., “!e Graced In$rmity of the Church,” in Femi- Christian Antiquity 5 (1943): viii. nist and Womenist Essays in Reformed Dogmatics, ed. 8 Douglas Wilson, Mother Kirk: Essays and Forays in Amy Plantiga Pauw and Serene Jones, Columbia Series Practical Ecclesiology (Moscow, ID: , 2001), in Reformed !eology (Louisville: Westminster John 23-24; cf. Horton, People and Place, 91. Knox, 2006), 201. 9 For example, in his chapter on the nurture provided 17Pauw, “The Church as Mother and Bride in the by the Church, a topic that could easily elicit refer- Reformed Tradition,” 134. ences to the maternal image of the Church, Edmund 18Ross, Extravagant A#ections, 114. Clowney neglects any such discussion, opting instead 19Ibid. to address the nurture that the provides indi- 20Pauw, “The Church as Mother and Bride in the vidual believers and the nurture of children in homes Reformed Tradition,” 134. and in Christian schools. See Clowney, !e Church, 21I am indebted to Amy Plantiga Pauw for in#uence on 149-54. this aspect of my argument in her work, “!e Graced 10For the central role that Calvin’s view of the Church as In$rmity of the Church,” 200; idem., “!e Church as mother played in his ecclesiology, see Léopold Schüm- Mother and Bride in the Reformed Tradition,” 134. mer, L’Ecclésiologie de Calvin à la lumière de l’Ecclesia 22Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Mater: apport aux recherches ecclésiologiques ten- Letter to the Churches in Galatians, Hermeneia (Phila- dant à exprimer l’unité en "oie de manifestation, delphia: Fortress, 1979), 247-48. Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 11 23Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, NAC (Nashville: Broad- (Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 1981). man & Holman, 2001), 38:219-20. 11Henri de Lubac, The Splendor of the Church, trans. 24Grant R. Osbourne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rap- Michael Mason (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), 320- ids: Baker Academic, 2002), 456. 21. 25In particular, the rich history of the maternal image 12For example, in statements regarding the question of has been compiled and evaluated by Plumbe, Mater women’s ordination, Pope John Paul II argues that Ecclesia, and de Lubac, !e Motherhood of the Church. male presiders are needed at the in order to 26Commenting on its early patristic roots, Monica symbolize Christ as the Church’s bridegroom. Mulieris Miller explains that the term “mother” as applied to Dignitatem, 25-26. the Church occurs with “great frequency and sponta- 13Ibid., 27. neity … [indicating] that the practice had entered the 14Avery Dulles, Models of the Church, exp. rev. ed. (New mainstream of tradition well before the close of the York: Doubleday, 2002), 228. second century.” Monica Migliorino Miller, Sexuality 15Susan A. Ross, Extravagant A#ections: A Feminist Sac- and Authority in the Catholic Church (Scranton, NJ: ramental Theology (New York: Continuum, 2001), University of Scranton Press, 1995), 142; cf. Joseph C. 111. Ross is even more explicit when she objects that Plumbe, “Ecclesia Mater,” Transactions and Proceed- the nuptial metaphor for the Church “is seriously ings of the American Philological Association 70 (1939): problematic” because “it assumes that women possess 536-37.

3030 27Plumbe, Mater Ecclesia, 9. Similarly, Plumbe remarks 38Interestingly, Hans Küng expressed his anger at the that the idea of the Church as mother is “common- Roman Catholic Church by refusing to love the place with patristic writers everywhere” (47). Church as a mother. See Hans Küng, On Being a 28Cyprian, Letter 74.7.2, in Ancient Christian Writers: Christian, trans. Edward ,uinn (Garden City, NY: The Works of the Fathers in , vol. 47, eds. Doubleday, 1976), 522-24. Walter J. Burghardt and !omas Comerford Lawler, 39Angelo Cardinal Scola, The Nuptial Mystery, trans. The Letters of St. Cyprian of , trans. and Michelle K. Borras, Ressourcement: Retrieval and annot. by G. W. Clarke, vol. 4 [Letters 67-82] (New Renewal in Catholic !ought (Grand Rapids: Eerd- York: Newman, 1989), 74. mans, 2005), 254. 29Carl E. Braaten, Mother Church: Ecclesiology and Ecu- 40Ibid. menism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 2-3. 41Jensen, “Mater Ecclesia and Fons Aeterna,” 138. 30Robin Jenson documents this phenomenon in “Mater 42Scola, !e Nuptial Mystery, 254. Ecclesia and Fons Aeterna: The Church and Her 43Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament, Womb in Ancient ,” in A Feminist 56; see fn 6. Companion to Patristic Literature, ed. Amy-Jill Levine, 44Richard of St. Victor, , 196, 405- 137-55 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008). 06, as cited in de Lubac, !e Splendor of the Church, 31Augustine, 57.2, in Works of Saint Augustine: 365; cf. Ernest Best, One Body in Christ: A Study in A Translation for the 21st Century, ed. John E. Rotelle the Relationship of the Church to Christ in the (Hyde Park, NY: New City, 1990-), 3:109-10. of the Apostle Paul (London: S. P. C. K., 1955), 179. 32Augustine, Sermon 213.7, in Fathers of the Church: A 45Richard A. Batey, New Testament Nuptial Imagery New Translation (Washington, DC: Catholic Univer- (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971), 1. sity of America Press, 1947-), 38:127. 46Per Batey, nuptial imagery is used in the Synoptic Gos- 33Cited in , Christian Faith: An Essay pels (Matt 9:14, 15; 22:1-14; 25:1-13; Mark 2:18-20; on the Structure of the Apostles’ (San Francisco: Luke 5:33-35; 12:35-40; cf. Luke 14:15-24), John’s Ignatius, 1986), 199. Gospel (2:1-11; 3:25-30), the Pauline Epistles (2 Cor 34Martin Luther, Selected Writings of Martin Luther: 2:2-3, Eph 5:21-33); the Johannine Epistles (2 John 1529-1546, ed. !eodore G. Tappert (Minneapolis: 1); and Revelation (19:6-9; 21:2, 9; 22:17). Ibid. Fortress, 1967), 169. 47For Origen’s view of the nuptial motif in the Song of 35John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vols. Songs, see Christopher J. King, Origen on the Song of 20-21 of !e Library of Christian Classics, ed. John Songs as the Spirit of Scripture: !e Bridegroom’s Per- T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: fect Marriage-Song, Oxford !eological Monographs Westminster, 1960), IV.1.4. (New York: , 2005), 1-7, 36Cyprian, 73, in !e Ante-Nicene Fathers: Trans- 14-17, 110-12, 217-18. lations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, 48E.g., Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian 10 vols., ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, (1520),” in Luther’s Works: American Edition, ed. rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerd- Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, vols. 31-54 mans, 1973), 5:321-23. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1957-75), 31:350-51, as cited 37Feminist theologian Robin Jenson comments on in Timothy Lull, ed. Martin Luther’s Basic !eological how the early Church fathers connected baptism and Writings, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 397- the maternal function of the Church: “In [baptism], 98; idem., Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper—Part the Church was the spiritual mother—at once both III (1528), in Luther’s Works, 37:369, as cited in Lull, fecund and virginal—from whose impregnated womb ed., Martin Luther’s Basic !eological Writings, 67. (a baptismal font) her children emerged.” Jensen, 49Batey, New Testament Nuptial Imagery, 68-69. “Mater Ecclesia and Fons Aeterna,” 137. 50De Lubac underscores this point: “!e Bride of Christ

3131 cannot be degraded; pure and uncorrupted, she knows that the nuptial metaphor for the Church is funda- one dwelling alone and keeps in chastity and mentally eschatological. Claude Chavasse, !e Bride of the sanctity of one hearth.” De Lubac, !e Splendor of Christ: An Enquiry into the Nuptial Element in Early the Church, 112. (London: Faber & Faber, 1940), 222-29. 51Best, One Body in Christ, 179. 66Claude Welch, !e Reality of the Church (New York: 52Batey, New Testament Nuptial Imagery, 68. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958), 135. 53Brian P. Flanagan, “!e Limits of Ecclesial Metaphors 67Batey, “Paul’s Bride Image,” 182. in Systematic Ecclesiology,” Horizons 35.1 (2008): 41. 68Ibid. 54Batey, New Testament Nuptial Imagery, 67-68. 69Augustine, Sermon 216.7, as cited in de Lubac, Chris- 55John Piper, This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Faith, 104. Permanence (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009), 95-103. 70Martin Luther, Weimarer Ausgabe 10:1.2; 366, 18-34, 56Justo González summarizes, “It was over against [the as cited in Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology, Donatist] position that Augustine developed his dis- 48. tinction between the visible Church and the invis- 71Calvin, Institutes, IV.1.1. ible [one].” Justo L. González, A History of Christian 72Welch, !e Reality of the Church, 133-34. !ought: Volume 2 (From Augustine to the of the 73Augustine. Expositions of the : 33-50 (Vol. 2), Reformation), 2nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1987), vol. 16 of !e Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation 28. for the 21st Century, ed. J. E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund 57Calvin, Institutes, IV.1.7. Calvin weaves his discussion Hill (Hyde Park, NY: New City, 2000), 285. of the visible and invisible Church throughout Book 74Pauw, “!e Grace In$rmity of the Church,” 201. IV of the Institutes. 58Ibid., IV.1.2. 59Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical and Global Perspectives (Down- ers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 51. 60Calvin explicitly links the concept of the visible Church with the maternal metaphor: “But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible Church, let us learn even from the simple title ‘mother’ how use- ful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her.” Calvin, Institutes, IV.1.4. 61Horton, People and Place, 194. 62De Lubac, !e Motherhood of the Church, 155. 63González, A History of Christian !ought, 2:162 64For an eschatological reading of the bridal imagery of the Church, see Annette Merz, “Why Did the Pure Bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11:2) Become a Wedded Wife (Eph. 5:22-23)? !eses about the Intertextual Trans- formation of an Ecclesiological Metaphor,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 79 (2001): 131-47; Richard Batey, “Paul’s Bride Image: A Symbol of Real- istic Ecclesiology,” Interpretation 17 (2001): 176-82. 65For Claude Chavasse, the marriage between Christ and his bride has already occurred. Thus, he denies

3232