I'm glad you do, because this would confusing to me. 'Mother' is only used for abbesses (either Tamav, which is Coptic, or Amma, which is Arabic) or some historical female ascetics in my Church, so if I were to call you Mother, it would sound like I was referring to one of the Desert Mothers, like St. Syncletica, St. Sarah, etc.
In our case, I think it's an extension of calling male priests "father." When women started to be ordained priests, clearly "Father" wouldn't do, so the logical term in its place was mother.
I do find that many people unfamiliar with ordained women either get confused or assume I'm a nun. I always tell them I'm not obedient enough for that!
I'm not sure what to make of these posts from our Protestant friends like Genez and others. They don't seem to make a lot of sense. I asked about St. Peter's use of elevated language and got a response about not calling anyone "Father", even though that's not present in any of the salutations (though he does call Timothy "a beloved son"...hmmmmmm...
).
So what is there to say about that? I think we're having different conversations by this point.
I think the problem is that the NT evidence is scant. So if you bring to your reading an experience of a very hierarchical church, or a set of assumptions about life in NT times being a very highly socially stratified affair, then you're more likely to read hierarchy, titles, respect etc into the NT evidence. But if you bring an experience of a very informal church, or one with a very flat leadership structure, or a set of assumptions about the early church in which everyone was seen as very equal, then you're more likely to read that into the NT evidence.
My own hunch - as an aspiring patristic scholar who has a bit of familiarity with not just the NT but other very early church documents - is that modern Western Christians tend to underestimate the degree of formality and hierarchy in play in even the very early church. Hierarchy and formality was how everything in that society functioned, and I don't believe even the church escaped it, even during the period when highly charismatic expressions also flourished.
But that's just my take, and I'm in a hierarchical church (although I would note that we have modified our governance structures to be more participatory, even for lay people, and see that as a healthy thing), so... perhaps that's just evidence of my biases, too.
You are missing my point. Most in positions of authority are weak in their understanding. If they were not? They would not hide tucked away in a denomination.
I've left most of what you've said unanswered, because it's largely so vague as to be unanswerable. But this idea that choosing to minister within a denomination is to "hide tucked away" is not at all in line with my experience. You become more visible because of - for want of a better word - denominational "branding." To minister within a denomination is to be identified with that denomination and carry all its "baggage" with you wherever you go. By contrast, to choose to minister in an independent congregation means that you are largely unknown and invisible.
There are benefits and drawbacks to the visibility of a denominational identity; in my experience, one of the benefits is that complete strangers will approach me when out and about, seek practical help, want to talk about faith, ask to be prayed for/with. It opens doors to conversations that otherwise would not happen, because in ministry, visibility = availability. And the denomination and all that goes with it - the collar, the title, the role - helps make me visible, and thus available, to my local community in a way that I couldn't be without any of that.
It's the exact opposite of hiding away.
