The Church As Bride and Mother: Two Neglected Theological Metaphors WAYNE SHEALY

J DFM 2.2 (2012): 4-32 The Church as Bride and Mother: Two Neglected Theological Metaphors WAYNE SHEALY INTRODUCTION love Jesus while eschewing the Church. To love Jesus Wayne Shealy (Ph.D., The In a recent book on ecclesiology, 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 Seminary) Brad Harper and Paul Louis Metzger Church, with one caveat: the two metaphors should be is Pastor for lament the fact that “people are into considered together and in the proper order. Pastoral Care & Counseling ‘Jesus’ and ‘spirituality’ today, but at CrossPointe Church in 1 FEMININE ECCLESIAL IMAGES: Columbus, GA, overseeing not ‘religion’ 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 Christ and mother of Christians ministry. He is originally phors for the Church: the Church as forms an important tradition of ecclesiological reflec- from South Carolina and a graduate of Clemson mother and the Church as bride. !ey tion, particularly among evangelical, Roman Catholic, University. Wayne holds the argue that, though the contemporary and feminist theologians. Given that bridal imagery for Master of Divinity, Master Church o"en plays the harlot just as the Church is scattered throughout the New Testament of Theology, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees Israel did in Hosea’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. Prior mother, she “birthed the Bible under metaphor in contemporary evangelicalism. 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 born again 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, Roman Catholic theologian Joseph Plumbe argue that, historically, feminine ecclesial metaphors noted the indifference toward the Church’s mother- have been used to support masculine language for God hood in the Protestantism 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 deity masculine since the time of the Reformation. 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 John Calvin, 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 Catholic theology, 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 Mariology 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 sacrament 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 “hermeneutics of In addition to de Lubac, Pope John Paul II and Swiss suspicion”18 is used when handling the issue. Focus- theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar 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 must 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, believes 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 Revelation 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 people of God, 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).

Load more