Jonathan Johnson-Swagel

To invoke maternal imagery in Christian theology is not to soften the hardness of patriarchal metaphors but to interrupt the metaphysical architecture they sustain. The invocation of divine mothering does not constitute a shift in tone but a redirection of theological gravity, a refusal of the sovereign imaginary that has governed much of Christian thought and praxis. Sovereignty, when used as a divine predicate, presupposes mastery, totality, and unilateral control. It assumes that divine agency is legible through the exertion of will, that power is revealed in the capacity to override, to command, to secure.

This structure has saturated theological anthropology, ecclesiology, and soteriology, leaving little space for divine presence as vulnerability, accompaniment, or shared becoming. The metaphors that dominate (Father, Lord, King) have not simply described God but have shaped what is taken to be real and authoritative within theological discourse (Foucault 1980; Coakley 2013). In this metaphoric regime, transcendence becomes indistinguishable from distance, and omnipotence becomes a cipher for cosmic paternalism.

Divine mothering does not offer an alternative image within this same symbolic field. It proposes another field entirely. When I name God as mother, I do not mean to feminize sovereignty or invert masculine domination with gentler control. I intend to displace the very logic of domination itself. Maternal imagery, when critically reappropriated, refuses the equation of power with coercion. Instead, it suggests a mode of divine action rooted in presence without possession, holding without erasure, and generativity without domination.

This is not a symbolic gesture. It is an ontological claim about how God is with the world. To say that God mothers is to say that God does not secure, fix, or overcome, but rather bears with, lingers near, and sustains that which is not yet whole. It is to propose a theology that finds its center not in omnipotence but in kenotic presence (Philippians 2:7; Pagels 1979).

This reconception requires critical precision. The maternal, like any theological metaphor, is not immune to co-option. It has long been idealized, projected onto feminized bodies, and used to sanctify asymmetrical relations of power.

Serene Jones cautions against the idealization of maternal sacrifice that leaves patriarchal structures intact by locating virtue in female suffering (Jones 2000). The maternal has been made to carry the burden of redemptive labor without agency, absorbing pain without protest, offering care without reciprocity. In this theological economy, women are expected to embody divine patience, divine endurance, divine self-erasure. Divine mothering must be distinguished from such projections. It cannot replicate the exploitative dynamics it seeks to undo.

For this reason, I locate divine mothering not in the image of the good mother as culturally defined, but in the disruptive force of maternal praxis as structurally reimagined.
To establish divine mothering as a theological category, I draw on the concept of “holding” from Donald Winnicott, whose theory of the maternal environment does not sentimentalize care but describes it as a condition of ontological viability. Winnicott writes that the infant becomes a subject not through instruction but through the consistent presence of a caregiver who holds the space in which subjectivity can emerge (Winnicott 1958).

Holding is not fixing. It is not the elimination of need. It is the non-anxious accompaniment of need as such. This act of presence without intrusion, support without domination, names a mode of divine agency capable of sustaining life without demanding completion. Theologically, it allows us to speak of God not as the one who resolves but as the one who remains. God does not overcome human finitude but inhabits it without withdrawal. This is what it means to mother.

Yet Winnicott alone is insufficient. Divine mothering cannot be framed only in terms of psychic stability or idealized relationality. Julia Kristeva introduces the maternal as the site of abjection, a liminal space in which the boundaries of self and other are negotiated through anxiety, rupture, and refusal (Kristeva 1982). The mother is not merely a figure of safety but of instability, the first site of ambivalence and the inaugural space of separation. In theological terms, this suggests that divine mothering includes the capacity to remain with chaos, to hold proximity to what cannot be assimilated. God does not resolve the abject but contains it, does not purify but remains near. Holding, in this frame, is not comfort but containment without collapse. It is the refusal to abandon what cannot yet be integrated.

This refusal gains its ethical and theological urgency in the context of trauma. Shelly Rambo’s theology of Holy Saturday insists that we must linger within wounds that resist closure and remain faithful to the fragments of suffering that doctrine cannot tidy (Rambo 2010). Resurrection, in this frame, is not reversal but continuation, life within death, not beyond it. Divine mothering is the theological name for this kind of presence. It does not redeem by transcending but by remaining. It does not claim to know what healing will look like. It simply refuses to leave. In this refusal lies its power: a fidelity that is not contingent on resolution, a staying that honors the non-linear time of grief. It is here, in the interstice between presence and transformation, that divine agency reveals itself as care.

That care is not apolitical. Rosemary Radford Ruether’s ecofeminist theology demands that maternal imagery never be confined to the interpersonal. It must confront the global systems that render care impossible and survival optional. Maternal metaphors must resist the privatization of care into domestic labor and instead become the grounds for collective resistance. When I speak of divine mothering, I mean the God who refuses environmental extraction, who stands with the raped earth and the exhausted caregiver, who resists economies that commodify the vulnerable (Ruether 2010). Jürgen Moltmann situates divine presence within liberation movements, not as an abstract solidarity but as an eschatological participation in the undoing of death-dealing systems (Moltmann 1972). Dorothee Sölle’s vision of creative resistance further reveals that divine agency is not neutral but insurgent, a force that mothers by making room where the world has denied it, by gestating possibility where there is only dispossession (Sölle 1975). Mothering is political when it feeds, shelters, and disrupts. God mothers when God acts through communities who refuse to abandon the most vulnerable, when God’s love refuses to settle for order over justice.

The coherence of this vision depends on its integration with the classical theological tradition. I root divine mothering in kenosis not as ethical metaphor but as metaphysical grammar. Philippians 2:7 describes the self-emptying of Christ not as loss of divinity but as the fullest expression of divine being. In emptying, God reveals that power is not control but presence. Divine mothering is the form that kenosis takes in relational space. It is not a new attribute but the articulation of divine love in its most vulnerable form. It holds the world not as possession but as shared life, not as subject but as neighbor. In this vision, God does not protect creation from finitude but dwells within its fragility, making possible the emergence of something new.
To say that God mothers is not to add a metaphor to the catalogue of divine names. It is to reject the grammar in which those names have been legible. It is to refuse sovereignty as the governing image of divine action and to propose instead a theology in which power is measured not by control but by capacity to remain, to hold, to bear-with.

In what follows, I will trace how this theology emerges in scripture, in historical reception, in ethical frameworks, in pedagogical practices, and in ecclesial life. The goal is not to recover a forgotten image but to propose a new center, a theology built not on domination but on presence, not on omnipotence but on accompaniment. Divine mothering is not a corrective. It is a theological beginning..
To build a theology of divine mothering is not to impose contemporary sentiment onto ancient texts but to recover within scripture the underacknowledged contours of God’s relational presence, a presence that does not dominate but gathers, consoles, gestates, and abides. The absence of explicit references to God as “Mother” in canonical texts has often been used to justify the exclusion of maternal metaphors from theological discourse. Yet this absence functions less as prohibition than as concealment. Beneath the surface of paternal sovereignty, there runs a subterranean current of maternal presence that gestures toward another kind of power: one that holds rather than commands, nourishes rather than secures, and births without control.

My aim in this section is not to catalog maternal imagery but to reorient exegesis toward modes of divine presence that have been misread or minimized precisely because they do not conform to dominant paradigms of authority. To mother, in the biblical witness, is to be with, not to hover above but to remain alongside, in grief and in generativity alike.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, divine mothering is present not as exception but as hidden grammar. When God says in Isaiah 66:13, “As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you,” the metaphor is not ornamental. It recasts divine care as something embodied, tactile, intimate, and unsovereign. This is not the comfort of paternal reassurance or imperial peace; it is the comfort of a body that draws near, of arms that enfold without overpowering. The context of this verse (offered to a displaced and wounded community) underscores its theological force. God does not restore Israel through might but through presence. The divine act is not to conquer but to console. And console here must not be reduced to emotional support. The Hebrew root nacham connotes a deep movement of the body, a turning inward, a groaning from the womb. Divine comfort, in this sense, is labor. It is the act of dwelling with what is broken, not to fix but to feel with.

This theme intensifies in Isaiah 49:15: “Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you.” The rhetorical force of this verse lies in its destabilization of expectation. It names maternal care as the highest standard of attachment (biological, instinctive, covenantal) and then exceeds even that. Divine memory, here, is not omniscient surveillance but affective fidelity. The act of not forgetting is not an assertion of informational capacity but of relational integrity. To be remembered by God is to be held. The divine subject is not distanced observer but one whose body bears the memory of the other, as a mother bears the trace of the child she has nourished and carried. This is not metaphor as analogy but as participation. God is not like a mother. God is mothering.

Psalm 131 presses this further, depicting the psalmist as a weaned child resting on its mother. This is not the image of dependence but of trust that has passed through the crisis of hunger. A weaned child has experienced separation, loss, and frustration. And yet the psalmist evokes a state of serenity that is not achieved through satisfaction but through presence that persists beyond provision. The divine here is not cast as one who answers but as one who remains. Maternal imagery becomes a theological horizon in which rest is not the absence of need but the presence of non-anxious holding.

The creation account in Genesis 1:27, though often mobilized to support anthropocentric or binary anthropologies, also contains a generative potential for maternal re-reading. The divine image is not imposed but breathed, called forth, spoken into being, not by command but by desire. Creation emerges not from battle but from hovering, from the brooding Spirit over the waters (Genesis 1:2). The Hebrew term rachaph (to hover or flutter) carries the image of a bird nesting over her young. This maternal overture opens the text, reminding us that divine power first manifests not in fiat but in presence that waits, warms, and watches.

This presence is rendered even more explicitly in Psalm 139:13–14, where the psalmist addresses God not as external evaluator but as the one who has “knit me together in my mother’s womb.” The womb here is not a metaphor for creation in general but a space of divine intimacy. God does not create from a distance. God shapes within, remains within, holds from the inside. The theological significance of this text is not simply that God is creator but that God creates with proximity, that divine action takes place in the hidden spaces of gestation, silence, and slow formation. Divine mothering is not an act of display. It is a practice of hiddenness. It is the sacred patience of forming what no one else can yet see.

Turning to the New Testament, the maternal logic of divine action does not disappear but deepens. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus cries out, “How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” This lament is not rhetorical flourish. It is a theological event. Jesus positions himself not as judge but as mother, not as one who demands obedience but as one who longs to gather. The image of the hen does not promise protection through strength but through vulnerability. A hen does not fight off the fox. She shelters her young with her own body, exposing herself to the violence that would otherwise consume them. Divine agency, in this image, is sacrificial proximity, not defensive power. The lament that follows is not a condemnation but a grief that emerges from frustrated attachment, a theology of rejected nurture.

This same maternal posture is enacted in Luke 7:13, when Jesus encounters the widow of Nain. Seeing her grief, he does not offer doctrinal reassurance or demand faith. He is moved by compassion and says simply, “Do not weep.” The raising of her son that follows is not a display of power but an act of maternal restoration. It is not the miracle alone that matters, but the gaze, the interruption, the refusal to walk past suffering. Jesus, in this scene, becomes the one who sees as a mother sees, who stops, who draws near, who allows the cry of another to reorient his path. Maternal action is not reactive. It is responsive. It is the discernment of when to intervene and when to remain.

The crucifixion narrative in John 19:26–27 may appear an unlikely site for maternal theology, but it contains one of its most profound enactments. As Jesus hangs dying, he looks upon his mother and the beloved disciple and says, “Woman, here is your son… Here is your mother.” In this moment, Jesus does not secure doctrine, ensure belief, or command allegiance. He reconstitutes relationship. He forms a new kinship of care in the shadow of death. The maternal here is not symbol but structure. It is the very logic by which community is preserved in the face of rupture. Divine mothering, in this scene, becomes the means by which grief is not privatized but shared, by which loss becomes the soil of solidarity.

None of these passages operate through the logic of control. They do not present God as agent of rescue or king of triumph. They reveal a divine subject who mothers by staying, by gathering, by holding, by weeping, by remembering. To read these texts through the frame of maternal praxis is not to impose a foreign lens but to retrieve what has been obscured by centuries of hermeneutical alignment with power. Divine mothering is not a symbolic softening of divine character. It is the name for a theological reorientation that finds in scripture a God who does not dominate history but dwells within it. A God who does not impose order but midwifes new creation from within its pain.

In recovering these motifs, I am not simply arguing for theological inclusivity. I am proposing a reconfiguration of the divine-human relation. If God mothers, then God does not lead from above but holds from below. God does not intervene as exception but accompanies as condition. This is not to diminish divine agency but to dignify divine presence as that which makes life possible without demanding subservience. In the next section, I will explore how this biblical horizon animates ethical, liturgical, and communal praxis, resisting the temptation to reduce mothering to affect or metaphor, and instead allowing it to become the structuring logic of a theology grounded in shared vulnerability, collective resilience, and generative solidarity.

If divine mothering is not simply a metaphor but a theological grammar (one that reconfigures our understanding of power, presence, and relationality) then its implications cannot remain confined to speculative doctrine or poetic exegesis. They must saturate the ethical and ecclesial life of the church. Theology, when it claims metaphysical seriousness, must make demands upon the social body. Divine mothering calls not for admiration but for embodiment. It resists the abstraction of care into moral ideal and insists instead upon relational practices that disrupt logics of domination. To say that God mothers is to assert that ecclesial life must be structured around holding, not hierarchy; around mutuality, not surveillance; around interdependence, not control. This is not a pastoral suggestion. It is a theological imperative.

Traditional accounts of moral formation in Christian theology have often centered on the individual as agent of virtue. Rooted in Aristotelian frameworks and later Kantian adaptations, these traditions have emphasized personal development, autonomous deliberation, and internalized norms. Divine mothering disrupts this paradigm. The maternal subject is not autonomous. She is porous, responsive, shaped by the cries and needs of others. To locate divine agency in mothering is to reject the privatization of ethics. It is to insist that moral formation arises not from isolated reason but from shared vulnerability. The community does not exist to discipline the individual into virtue. It exists to hold its members through disorientation, to accompany them in discernment, to sustain their capacity for moral responsiveness when their strength is insufficient. An ethic shaped by divine mothering is not concerned with rule-following but with presence, with fidelity to one another’s pain, and with the communal labor of staying-with.

Winnicott’s theory of the holding environment, developed to describe the developmental necessity of consistent caregiving, becomes here a theological and ecclesial resource. In a maternal ethic, the church does not offer answers; it offers holding. It does not rush to closure but makes room for uncertainty. In this model, silence is not absence but attention; doubt is not failure but participation. Moral maturity is not the ability to decide quickly or rightly but the capacity to bear tension without collapse. It is, as Simone Weil once wrote, “the ability to remain attentive to another’s suffering without turning away” (Weil 1949). The maternal community becomes the place where that attentiveness is taught, practiced, and sustained.

This vision demands liturgical reconfiguration. In traditions shaped by paternal sovereignty, worship has often functioned as a performance of doctrinal certainty, a ritual affirmation of divine power, a dramatization of the hierarchy between creature and Creator. Divine mothering refuses this alignment. Worship becomes not proclamation of divine invincibility but enactment of divine holding. Lament, often relegated to marginal liturgical spaces or occasional services, must become central. Not as performance but as honesty. The congregation gathers not to be fixed but to name what cannot be resolved, to grieve what remains broken, and to rest in a presence that neither explains nor abandons. This is not therapeutic liturgy. It is eschatological fidelity. It is the refusal to pretend that redemption has yet rendered the world whole. Divine mothering does not promise triumph. It promises accompaniment.

In these practices, the church becomes not the household of rules but the household of presence. Jean Bethke Elshtain, in her critique of both liberal individualism and illiberal paternalism, warned against the romanticization of the maternal in civic discourse. She feared that appeals to motherhood would be used to conscript women into symbolic roles that mask political coercion or to legitimize forms of soft power that still depend on state violence (Elshtain 1982). Her caution remains vital. Divine mothering must not be misread as sacralized care work in service of theological sentimentality or ecclesial order. It must not become a banner under which women are once again asked to serve without voice. It is not a moralizing ideal to regulate behavior or a trope to reinscribe gender norms under theological cover. Elshtain insisted that any use of maternal imagery must reckon with its political freight, with its deployment in national mythologies, welfare policy, and war justification. She exposed how appeals to motherhood in American civic religion often serve to naturalize sacrifice, obscure violence, and call forth allegiance under the guise of nurture.

A theology of divine mothering, if it is to avoid these traps, must be unambiguously anti-authoritarian. It must reject maternal imagery that functions as nationalist comfort or ecclesial sedative. Divine mothering, rightly understood, is not about making people feel held in their existing structures. It is about creating the structures in which true holding is possible. This means dismantling the systems that produce abandonment: systems of racial capitalism, gendered labor extraction, carceral control, and ecclesial complicity with the state. To mother, as God mothers, is to build the material conditions under which no one is disposable, no pain is privatized, and no suffering is spiritualized away. The maternal here is not domestication. It is insurgency.

This insurgent maternal ethic extends into the socio-political domain. Divine mothering does not remain at the level of ecclesial intimacy. It informs how the church engages the world. It compels redistribution of power, reparation for harm, and the structuring of economic and ecological life around care rather than extraction. Rosemary Radford Ruether’s insistence that theology must be materially accountable to both the oppressed and the earth finds its fullest articulation in this frame (Ruether 2010). The maternal church is not a safe haven from politics but a formation site for political courage grounded in co-suffering. It teaches its members to show up where systems have abandoned, to stay where others evacuate, and to act not from certainty but from shared risk.

This ethic also reconfigures leadership. In traditions governed by charisma, authority, or executive function, leadership is often conflated with decisiveness, clarity, and vision. Divine mothering displaces these imperatives. The leader is no longer the one who knows but the one who holds. Leadership becomes the capacity to co-regulate a group through uncertainty, to tend to affective undercurrents, to create spaces where grief is not pathologized and dependence is not despised. It is not less rigorous than traditional leadership. It is more so. Because it demands that the leader be attuned not only to systems but to wounds, not only to strategies but to suffering. This form of leadership is not antithetical to action. It is the condition for just and lasting action.

In all these dimensions (ethical, liturgical, political, pedagogical) the invocation of divine mothering enacts a refusal. It refuses to sacralize control, to romanticize pain, or to spiritualize power. It proposes instead a theological anthropology in which human beings are held rather than judged, formed through presence rather than performance, sustained not by doctrine but by relation. Divine mothering is not a supplement to theology. It is theology enacted through flesh, risk, and fidelity. It remakes the church as a space of rupture that does not collapse, of grief that does not isolate, of care that does not end. In the next section I will trace how this maternal paradigm reshapes theological education, translating divine presence into pedagogical structures that train not only the mind but the nervous system for the work of sustained, non-coercive accompaniment.

To speak of divine mothering as an ontological grammar is to recognize that it cannot remain confined to ecclesial ritual or pedagogical experimentation. A theology that claims divine care is relational, non-coercive, and materially entangled with vulnerability must reconfigure not only what we think but how we live. Divine mothering insists that theology touch the systems through which we organize our time, distribute our resources, and structure our relationships to land, labor, and one another. If God mothers, then our economies must become wombs rather than markets. Our communities must cease to perform strength and instead learn how to hold fragility without shame. Our ecological imagination must shift from stewardship, which implies ownership, to kinship, which demands co-suffering and shared dependence.

The ecological dimensions of divine mothering cannot be rendered metaphorical. They are not implications. They are enactments. The maternal, when rightly understood, is not a theme to reflect upon but a structure through which to organize collective life. The climate crisis is not a test of technological innovation or policy optimization. It is a crisis of relational severance, of the severing of care from scale, of nourishment from politics, of presence from time. Divine mothering does not resolve this crisis by romanticizing the earth as a passive body to be protected. It reveals that the earth, like the womb, is not a vessel but a co-creator: an agent of life, vulnerability, resistance, and decay. A theology of divine mothering must therefore resist theologies of dominion, whether they are wrapped in pastoral rhetoric or ecological virtue. It must resist the spiritualization of extraction, wherein even care becomes a resource to be administered by those with power. Divine mothering reconfigures our posture from managerial distance to embodied reciprocity. It does not ask how we can fix the earth. It asks how we can stay with the pain of what we have already broken without looking away.

This staying is not passive. It is infrastructural. Communities that take divine mothering seriously do not organize around efficiency, certainty, or scale. They organize around presence, patience, and interdependence. Mutual aid networks, for example, enact divine mothering when they refuse to instrumentalize help, when they build systems of care not as emergency response but as political form. These networks mother when they redistribute without surveillance, when they hold grief collectively, when they refuse to let suffering become isolated. Community gardens that grow food not to maximize yield but to restore soil, build relationship, and resist food apartheid are not charitable endeavors. They are sacramental spaces. They are wombs of resistance where the rhythms of compost and care mirror divine patience. Divine mothering insists that these spaces are not marginal to theology. They are theology. They are the body of God.

This theological materialism extends to labor. If mothering names divine action, then care work (so often feminized, racialized, and invisibilized) must be recognized not as precondition to real work but as its highest form. The church that claims to follow a God who mothers cannot outsource its caregiving while privileging those who preach or lead. It must resist the ecclesial reproduction of capital logics, in which those who manage budgets or interpret texts are elevated over those who sit with the dying, wash the dishes, or hold the crying child. Divine mothering demands that we re-inscribe theological value into the very acts our institutions most often exploit. It calls us to see janitors and caregivers, aides and kitchen workers, not as servants to the sacred but as the sacred themselves, as those who most fully reflect the God who stays, who tends, who labors in obscurity.

In our workplaces, divine mothering becomes a practice of attending to the nervous systems that animate professional performance. The theology of high-functioning burnout, in which worth is tethered to productivity and exhaustion is sacralized, must be unlearned. Divine mothering interrupts the linear temporality of project plans and quarterly goals. It reorients teams around mutual regulation, shared accountability, and rhythms of rest. The leader who mothers does not organize her team to outperform; she structures it to withstand, to hold each other during collapse, to stay relational in the face of ambiguity. This does not mean inefficiency. It means fidelity. It means refusing to turn coworkers into abstractions, refusing to exile those who grieve, refusing to perform competence when what is needed is presence. In workplaces that claim any connection to theological vision (hospitals, schools, nonprofits, faith-based institutions) divine mothering must become the primary criterion for leadership. Not charisma. Not certainty. Not performance. The ability to mother must become the test of theological intelligence.

In communities marked by trauma, displacement, or chronic abandonment, divine mothering becomes a modality of political resistance. It refuses the logic of containment, whether in the form of policing, surveillance, or managed benevolence. The maternal community does not fix the one in pain; it makes space for her to remain in pain without being discarded. It does not demand transformation as the condition for belonging. It does not measure growth by legibility to donors or funders or institutional metrics. It holds. It lingers. It waits. It believes in futures that do not yet exist, not out of optimism but out of faithfulness to the present that has not yet collapsed. When housing collectives choose dignity over legality, when street medics treat wounds others have criminalized, when parents teach children to resist shame, when trans elders care for those whose families will not, these are theologies. These are acts of divine mothering, unaccredited but holy.

The test of divine mothering, then, is not conceptual elegance. It is material fidelity. If our liturgies speak of maternal God but our institutions abandon the vulnerable, we are not theologians. We are liars. If our seminaries affirm maternal care but expel those whose grief cannot be contained in a semester schedule, we are not forming ministers. We are perpetuating spiritual violence. Divine mothering is not a metaphor to be preserved. It is a practice to be enacted. And it will be known not by its beauty but by its fruit: whether those who suffer are held, whether those who labor are honored, whether those who grieve are not left alone.

In the section that follows, I will turn to the methodological synthesis that holds these theological, ethical, ecological, and pedagogical strands together, not as a unified theory but as an interdependent matrix. I will argue that divine mothering offers not a solution but a refusal: of mastery, of abandonment, of violence disguised as order. And I will trace how this refusal opens space for new forms of collective life to emerge.

To speak of divine mothering as a theological method is to enter dangerous territory. It is to risk collapsing metaphor into prescription, and care into coercion. It is to risk baptizing maternal labor once again into systems that will exploit its affective appeal while refusing its structural costs. Theological method, when reorganized around maternal categories, must not presume coherence or harmony. It must resist the temptation to resolve complexity through image or affect. Divine mothering, if it is to function as a methodological paradigm, must remain a site of unresolved tension. It must refuse to be domesticated into a new orthodoxy of care. Its value lies not in the stability it offers but in the pressure it exerts on the disciplines it enters: biblical hermeneutics, moral theology, political praxis, and institutional pedagogy.

The turn to divine mothering as method is therefore not additive but subtractive. It does not provide a new center. It deconstructs the architectural assumptions of theological method itself: that truth is best approached through argument, that formation is best achieved through mastery, and that coherence is the telos of faithful thought. These assumptions have shaped generations of theological inquiry through pedagogies of control, epistemologies of clarity, and metaphysical commitments to sovereignty. Divine mothering interrupts these logics not by offering an alternative center, but by generating a methodological periphery, a field of practices and dispositions grounded not in certainty but in fidelity to what remains unresolvable.

To methodologize divine mothering is not to codify it into principles. It is to trace its demands through our forms: how we construct argument, how we respond to contradiction, how we listen for absence within texts and traditions. Its first demand is a politics of refusal. Not a politics of refusal as abstraction or gesture, but as disciplined resistance to theologies that explain too much. Divine mothering refuses interpretive closure. It does not bind the wound. It sits with it. It does not end the silence. It shares it. It does not aim at completion but at sustained presence. This refusal is theological labor. It is not lack. It is method.

Refusal also becomes institutional ethic. The seminary or congregation that claims divine mothering must not simply teach it. It must refuse the forms that contradict it. It must refuse pedagogies built on competition, liturgies built on triumph, ecclesiologies built on control. It must refuse the deployment of maternal language as a soft veneer for unexamined paternalism. Divine mothering is not care rebranded. It is refusal embodied. It turns down the offer of productivity at the expense of presence. It rejects speed in favor of repetition. It declines mastery in order to remain in proximity to the unknowable.

Yet refusal alone is insufficient. Divine mothering, as method, must also be held accountable to the structural consequences of its claims. It must be interrogated: who is expected to hold? Who is granted the capacity to be held? Who is asked to wait, and who is protected from waiting? Feminist, womanist, and decolonial critics have warned, rightly, that maternal metaphors too easily naturalize expectations of availability, emotional labor, and gendered endurance. The theological academy, no less than the church, has long relied upon these unspoken economies, invoking the maternal when convenient and discarding it when costly. Methodologically, divine mothering must include its own critique. It must not elevate maternal presence into the universal. It must remain historically located, structurally accountable, and attentive to its potential to obscure more than it reveals.

If divine mothering is to function as method, then it must remain unstable. It must act not as scaffolding for system but as pressure against its weight-bearing joints. It must surface the silences upon which theological method depends: the silences around labor, dependency, bodily pain, theological doubt. Divine mothering names not a new method to replace what came before but a haunting of all method by what it excludes. It asks us to theologize in the presence of the child that cries through the lecture, the caregiver who is late because of the crisis, the pastor who cannot finish the sermon because they are too tired to speak. It asks us to see these not as interruptions of theological labor but as its most faithful horizon.

In the final section that follows, I will not conclude this project but extend it. I will trace how divine mothering must generate new grammars of assessment, metrics not of resolution but of staying, not of certainty but of fidelity. And I will propose a horizon in which divine mothering continues to pressure us( not to believe more, or do more, or explain more) but to remain where we do not yet know what healing will require.

This essay does not conclude because the work it names cannot conclude. Divine mothering, if it is to remain methodologically viable and theologically honest, must refuse the gesture of closure. It cannot end in resolution, only in remainder. It leaves behind no synthesis but a set of reorienting demands: dwell where others flee, listen where others interpret, hold what others discard. Divine mothering is not a theological idea to be accepted or rejected. It is a discipline of presence forged in grief. It does not arise from doctrinal symmetry or liturgical preference. It arises from wound.

I name this here because it would be dishonest not to. The theological architecture I have built has always been haunted by the maternal wound I carry. This project does not emerge from abstract concern for metaphor, nor from academic allegiance to feminist critique alone. It arises from the ache of having to raise myself in the shadow of absent nurture. It arises from the quiet fury of having become an adult whose capacity to hold others was formed not by being held, but by surviving abandonment. That survival (the relentless vigilance, the premature responsibility, the unspoken ache for tenderness never offered) is not incidental to this theology. It is its soil.

In the absence of a mother who could stay, I have spent much of my life learning how to stay for others. This is not martyrdom. It is the logic of trauma metabolized into care. It is the architecture of theological insight built on the scaffolding of what was never given. And this, I must confess, is why I write so fiercely against sovereignty. Because I know what it means to be shaped by power that does not protect. I know what it means to be disciplined by care that always arrives too late. I know what it means to wait for love that never becomes reliable. To theologize from this place is not to indulge in autobiography. It is to confess that method is never abstract. It is to insist that the most rigorous theology is that which remains accountable to the body that writes it. Divine mothering is not my abstraction. It is my survival reconfigured into liturgical and communal possibility.

And so I anticipate the critiques. They are not hard to imagine. Some will say this project sentimentalizes God, replacing divine sovereignty with affective language that cannot bear doctrinal weight. Others will argue that the use of maternal metaphor risks reinscribing gendered expectations under theological auspices, placing the burden of holding back onto feminized bodies. Still others will suggest that this project, by privileging holding over resolution, surrenders the eschatological promise of Christianity to an endless Holy Saturday. And some, perhaps especially those who read me with affection, will worry that I am writing from a wound too close to the surface, that the theology risks collapsing into autobiography.

To each of these critiques, I respond without deflection. Yes, there is a risk of sentimentality. But sentimentality only arises when affect is untethered from structure. What I offer here is not mood but method, rigorously structured, hermeneutically vigilant, ethically accountable. This is not soft theology. It is theological hardness that refuses the premature comfort of doctrinal symmetry. Yes, maternal metaphor is dangerous. But its danger lies in its misuse, not in its elimination. Every metaphor bears risk. The paternal metaphor has dominated Christian theology for centuries, and it has done far more than risk, it has justified violence, enshrined hierarchy, and spiritualized control. Divine mothering, rightly understood, does not idealize maternal labor. It renders visible the asymmetries and structural extractions that care has always involved, and then it refuses to spiritualize them. It insists instead on redistributing care as a communal, theological, and political obligation.

As for the charge of Holy Saturday without resurrection: that is precisely the point. Divine mothering does not deny resurrection. It refuses to narrate it as resolution. It reframes resurrection as fidelity, as God’s refusal to abandon the crucified, not by reversing death but by remaining with those death touches. The eschaton in this frame is not triumph. It is co-suffering presence made unkillable. It is not the end of pain but the refusal to be evacuated from it.

And yes, this project is personal. It arises from my wound. But the wound is not a distraction from method. It is method. To theologize otherwise is to pretend that theological labor occurs outside of embodiment, outside of attachment, outside of loss. My mother was not reliable. My childhood was not protected. My tenderness was not met. And so I have built here a theology that does not require reliability to be true, that does not require protection to make sense of care, that does not wait for tenderness to arrive before insisting it is holy. I have done what theology always does: I have taken what was broken and made from it a frame through which others might survive.

To deepen the ontological force of divine mothering, I turn briefly to Jean-Luc Marion and Jean-Luc Nancy, whose phenomenological accounts of givenness and adoration resist the possessive tendencies that so often haunt theological discourse. Marion’s saturated phenomenon displaces epistemic mastery with excess; in divine mothering, this excess takes the form of presence that cannot be reduced to intention or utility. God is not the agent who secures outcomes but the one whose overflowing presence refuses containment. Nancy’s notion of adoration, too, allows us to reimagine worship not as ascent toward a sovereign but as the shared act of opening, a disposition of holding rather than having. To adore in this mode is to mother: to face the world not with judgment or defense, but with hands that hold without grasping. Divine mothering, then, becomes not an image added to God but a structural revelation of divinity unmoored from dominion.

Yet no theology of divine mothering can remain accountable without reckoning with the critique offered by womanist theologians such as Delores Williams, who warns against valorizing redemptive suffering. If divine mothering is to remain an act of refusal rather than sanctification of harm, it must repudiate theologies that spiritualize endurance without agency. God’s accompaniment must not be mistaken for divine sanction of suffering. Rather, it names the refusal to turn away even when others do. Divine mothering must recognize its proximity to histories of exploited care (racialized, gendered, and invisibilized) and refuse to reinscribe that violence as sacred. The maternal is not an emblem of sacrifice; it is the insistence that care, to be divine, must be chosen, distributed, and defended against every system that would make it

In this light, divine mothering becomes more than metaphor or ethic. It becomes a politics of theological witness. It becomes the refusal to abandon those whose lives remain unheld. It becomes the articulation of a God who, like the ones this world discards, does not force her way into meaning but waits in the corner, holding the grief that no one has yet made legible. It becomes a theological discipline that prepares communities (not to fix) but to remain. To remain with those who cannot heal quickly. To remain with those whose rage has not yet subsided. To remain with the broken institutions, the exhausted caregivers, the shattered kinships, and to insist, again and again, that this too is a site of divine presence.

What I have built here is not a new doctrine. It is a demand. That our theology be structured by fidelity rather than resolution. That our institutions be governed by care that costs us something. That our liturgies make room for what cannot be named. That our pedagogy train us not to speak first but to hold. That our politics be shaped not by speed or certainty, but by the slow, aching labor of learning how not to abandon one another.

God mothers. I do not mean this as poetry. I mean it as methodological revolt. I mean it as refusal. I mean it as a summons to build institutions, churches, households, classrooms, and economies that no longer reproduce the wound I carry. And I mean it as the first gesture of repair: to say what was never said to me and to make it the beginning of a new theological world. I will not leave you. I am here. I am not going anywhere.

Works Cited

Coakley, Sarah. God, Sexuality, and the Self: An Essay ‘On the Trinity’. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political Thought. Princeton University Press, 1982.

Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Edited by Colin Gordon, Pantheon Books, 1980.

Jones, Serene. Feminist Theory and Christian Theology: Cartographies of Grace. Fortress Press, 2000.

Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Translated by Leon S. Roudiez, Columbia University Press, 1982.

Marion, Jean-Luc. Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness. Translated by Jeffrey L. Kosky, Stanford University Press, 2002.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology. Translated by R. A. Wilson and John Bowden, Harper & Row, 1974. (Original German ed. 1972)

Nancy, Jean-Luc. Adoration: The Deconstruction of Christianity II. Translated by John McKeane, Fordham University Press, 2013.

Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Random House, 1979.

Rambo, Shelly. Spirit and Trauma: A Theology of Remaining. Westminster John Knox Press, 2010.

Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Integrating Ecofeminism, Globalization, and World Religions. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.

Sölle, Dorothee. Suffering. Translated by Everett R. Kalin, Fortress Press, 1975.

Weil, Simone. Waiting for God. Translated by Emma Craufurd, Harper & Row, 1951. (Originally published in French in 1949)

Williams, Delores S. Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God-Talk. Orbis Books, 1993.

Winnicott, D. W. “The Capacity to Be Alone.” International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, vol. 39, 1958, pp. 416–420.