Julian of Norwich introduces an argument that places Jesus as our Mother. Julian was born in the mid 1300s and worked as an Anchoress in the Roman Catholic Church. Julian is not the only one who supports this argument a native New Yorker, Elizabeth Johnson, also supports this argument. A major difference between Julian of Norwich and Elizabeth Johnson is that Johnson identifies as a feminist as she currently alive. The reason Julian isn’t a feminist, as I can see it, is due to the time that she was alive and working. Back in the 1300’s as one would expect, religion served a large portion of people's lives; however, females did not have the rights that they have today which served Julian's experience in the church as one very distinctive from the one Johnson had gone through. When the initial argument was presented it was supported by Julian of Norwich, who did not identify as a feminist, but did reflect on the works of Jesus and his suffering in part for us as whole. Julian does this through various aspects of her argument, since she was experiencing the Church in the mid to late 1300s. Though her texts are quite aged the argument is still quite…show more content… In order for people to have a better understanding of both Jesus and God people must be able to take into account that they are both beyond the restrictions of genders and display aspects of both. Once people can come to this conclusion they will be able to have a better understanding of what we currently don’t understand. Additionally, for people to make this happen they must let go of using pronouns that regard gender when speaking about God. As stated previously the Holy Trinity is also at fault for this pronoun usage by creating an environment where they refer to God as Father and Jesus as Son literally rather than simply a
