Scripture and Responsibility

During class the week before last, we were discussing how the Bible, as the inspired word of God, is supposed to interact with the reader. We also broached several questions such as; does the written word provide the illumination of salvation? Is an intermediary required between the reader and the text? What role does the Holy Spirit play, if any? If illumination is brought about only by God, then what role do we have as witnesses to God’s glory? What role does the reader play, and how is he or she responsible for the choice to either believe or disbelieve the Bible, which depends on the answer to the previous questions. Ultimately, these questions seem to dance around the theme of responsibility. For, if understanding the Bible is only possible via the Holy Spirit, then the unbeliever can always answer that the Holy Spirit is not providing any illumination, and thus can continue to justify a lifestyle that does not consider or care about God. On the other hand, to posit that anyone can glean illumination of God’s word by simply regarding it on his or her own, then what role does God play, if any, in understanding the Bible? Does that then reduce God’s role in bringing people to salvation?

The first dilemma that I find, and that was also briefly raised during class, is the question of whether or not we are arguing in a circle. We assert that the Holy Spirit is required in order for us to see the Bible as the word of God and, by the Spirit’s illumination, come to know God as creator. Yet we also need the Holy Spirit to draw us to God’s word in the first place, for we are unable to even come before Him of our own volition because of our sinful nature that will not come into the light for fear that it will be exposed. The unbeliever might therefore scoff and accuse us of question begging.

Calvin seems to have dealt with people like myself, concerned with how to answer the non-believer when he writes “Some worthy persons feel disconcerted, because, while the wicked murmur with impunity at the Word of God, they have not a clear proof at hand to silence them… that, until he (the Holy Spirit) enlightens their minds, they are tossed to and fro in a sea of doubts (Calvin, I.vii.4).” Calvin points out that there is no proof that will satisfy the unbeliever of the objective revelation to be found in God’s word because they are unable to be “silenced” until the Holy Spirit speaks to the doubter directly. It is a salient reminder that we cannot bring people into a right understanding of scripture of our own work, and that the work must be done by God Himself.

There is an example of how the Bible can be understood in the Gospel of Luke. When the resurrected Christ meets two of his disciples on the Emmaus Road, He explains to the disciples that do not yet understand how all of the scriptures pointed to Jesus’ death and resurrection. Furthermore, it was not until Jesus broke the bread and gave it to his disciples that their eyes were opened, and they recognized Jesus (Luke 24:25-31). Here we have two followers of Jesus had heard him teach and saw Him die, and yet they did not understand the implications of the crucifixion, the empty tomb, the Old Testament; neither did they recognize Him. On their own, they were unable to piece the totality of God’s Word together to see the fruit it bore in illuminating the revelation of Christ. It was only when Christ explained the Word to His followers and in the breaking of the bread that they understood. It is very significant that it was not only Jesus’ explanation of the scriptures that allowed their eyes to be opened, but Jesus harkening back to the crucifixion with the breaking of the bread. Essentially, what the disciples required was not only Jesus speaking, but Jesus doing.

Calvin hits on this same idea, “It is preposterous to attempt, by discussion, to rear up a full faith in Scripture… For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed in the inward testimony of the Spirit (Calvin, i:vii:4).” These two disciples did not understand the thrust of the Word until not only did Jesus discuss it with them, but broke the bread to remind them of the powerful testimony of how Jesus lived and walked as the Word himself. Therefore, we are not faced with circular reasoning so much as God pursuing us to give us what is necessary to understand His Word.

How am I to understand this inward testimony of the Holy Spirit that I can only receive? Although I never bothered to pick up a Bible until just before my conversion experience, I have had professors pontificate upon the beauty of the Bible who were openly agnostics or even atheists. If even nonbelievers can attest to the beauty of God’s Word, and hold it in some sense of reverence because of that quality, how then does the “inward testimony of the Spirit” testify to me in a way differently than to some of my previous professors? I know from past experience that my own bias is to consider the convictions that God brings about within His people in a more mental fashion. While I may begin explaining the beauty of the parallels between the “I Am” statements in John’s Gospel and those in Isaiah, and the beauty seems obvious to me, I am occasionally met with a “So what?” rejoinder. Thus it sometimes seems that nonbelievers can both witness to the awesomeness of the Bible, or just as often totally dismiss it.

Calvin serves to remind me, however, that “There are other reasons, neither few nor feeble, by which the dignity and majesty of the Scriptures may be not only proved to the pious, but also completely vindicated against the cavils of slanderers (Calvin, I.viii.13).”

My immediate response to this passage was to claim that Calvin had contradicted himself immensely, by first asserting that no one can use a formal or rigorous proof to produce a “firm faith in Scripture,” and then claiming “other reasons” through which “the dignity and majesty of the Scriptures may be not only proved…” The greater context of this passage tells us that Calvin is arguing for the doctrine of Scripture as being worthy given the sacrifices of the martyrs since the inception of the Christian church, which, among with “other reasons” may attest to the “dignity and majesty of Scripture” as being provable to the pious, not the impious, or those who do not already believe. Furthermore, while the dignity and majesty may be proven only to the pious, this stands in contrast to the believer attempting to bring about a proof, for the nonbeliever, of the holiness of Scripture.

Calvin is making an important distinction here, and this distinction is based upon the heart of the person who is searching the Scripture. “These (the aforementioned other reasons)… cannot of themselves produce a firm faith in Scripture until our heavenly Father manifest his presence in it, and thereby secure implicit reverence for it (Calvin, I.viii.13).” The willingness to regard Scripture as holy, and be illuminated by it, is brought about by God changing our hearts and securing an “implicit reverence,” a reverence that we are willing to grant a priori at that point because of how God has manifested in the Scripture, and therefore changed us. The reverence is the key because, even without it, we may be willing to grant that the Bible is an awe inspiring book or a work of distinct beauty. We may also intellectually understand the Bible without reverence, but without an appropriate attitude of the heart, brought about by actually beholding God in Scripture which can only be done if He “manifests his presence within it,” we will not be able to ascertain Scripture as inspired by God.

I have found this wrongness of human attitude towards God to be prevalent in the Gospels. Jesus compares His generation to children in the marketplace who, when John the Baptist called for repentance, they wanted someone more joyful, like Jesus. The same generation, when Jesus preached, wanted someone dourer, like John the Baptist (Luke 7:31-35). The problem the people had been not an intellectual one; it was much bigger than that. Indeed, no matter if God gave them a joyful message or a mournful one, they were committed, in their hearts, to refusing that message.

Just as people may understand the teaching of John the Baptist or Jesus and yet refuse them, so may people yet understand and cherish the Bible on a purely intellectual level as a masterpiece of ancient literature, yet still refuse to heed what it says. The holiness of the Scripture can only be attested to by the revelation of the Holy Spirit in the life of that person who is reading it; only then is Scripture illuminated, in the course of a person’s life and not during some mere intellectual exercise. That is why Calvin attests that only God can bring about “the conviction which revelation from heaven alone can produce. I say nothing more than every believer experiences in himself, though my words fall far short of the reality (I.vii.5).” Calvin’s existential appeal is something that I have also found to be true. My assertion that the Scripture is what the Scripture claims itself to be, the inspired and illuminated Word of God, has only come about by seeing God demonstrate His truthfulness continuously in my life, and in the lives of others. A friend of mine recently joked that I was a fundamentalist who never questioned the Bible, which is ironic considering my skeptical background. And yet that friend was, in a way, pointing out that my conviction showed on the outside, something that was not a part of me until God revealed Himself to me, creating that change.

We are left with the question of the role of the witness to Christ towards those who have not yet been brought to God by the illumination of the Holy Spirit within that person. If God does all the work, I may ask, what is my role? Is there any work left for me to do? Raising this question, however, runs the risk of a false dichotomy; that where I am working then God is not working, and where God is working then I am not. “Still, the human testimonies which go to confirm it will not be without effect, if they are used in subordination to that chief and highest proof, as secondary helps to our weakness (Calvin, I.viii.13).” As Calvin has previously pointed out, there is no substitute for the conviction that the Holy Spirit brings about in the hearts of people, and the Holy Spirit may certainly use our witnesses to help someone along in their search for God, but that secondary role we play points to the glory of God. The Great Commission is a good example of this, calling us to preach Christ to the world beneath the umbrella of God’s sovereign will and the work of the Holy Spirit.

The problem of Christians arguing in a circle is not a true assessment of the spiritual situation we are in. Although we are incapable of reaching God on our own, He yet provides for us the conviction within our heart to see and experience His revelation to the world, within His word, and thus allows us to respond freely to Him should we seek Him out.

Women in the Early Church and What it Means for Us - Part III

Thus, Adam is singular but also plural similar to how God is similar but plural in the trinity. In the trinity we can see a difference in hierarchy perhaps, but no essential difference between the three persons (R. Zacharias, Veritas Forum). If the core of both Adam and Eve is to be made in the image of God, then I also fail to see how the two could be ontologically different, that is to say different in essence, as Ferrara argues. Both are made in the image of God, and shortly thereafter, following the same parallel structure, both are given dominion over the Earth, “Male and female share in power and authority, even as they share in dignity (Spencer, p. 23).” If we then have a command from God to jointly rule, and are both made in His image, what then of God’s creating Eve as a helper to Adam? Does not Eve being made for such a role show her to be subservient, if not secondary, to Adam?

Genesis 2:18, which describes the reason for which God made Eve, literally reads “And the Lord God thought it was not good for the Adam to be by himself; ‘I will make for him a helper as if in front of him’ (Spencer, 23).” As Spencer goes on to illustrate, the key words are “as if in front of him,” which does not imply subservience but rather equality. The writer of Genesis, obviously aware of the nuances of ancient Hebrew, would have written that Eve was made as a helper either behind or beneath him. “Rather, God created woman to be ‘in front of’ or ‘visible’ to Adam, which would symbolize equality (if not superiority!) in all respects. Even more, one can argue that the female is the helper who rules over the one she helps! In effect, God has inaugurated a mutual submission, even at creation (Spencer, p. 25).”

This is not to say that neither I, nor I think Spencer, am arguing for the superiority of women over and against men. Rather, we find the leader who serves throughout the entire discourse of the Bible. Jesus gave us this example in the Gospels, when asked who would be first in the Kingdom of Heaven and Paul calls upon husbands and wives to live in mutual submission to one another. Thus we are to help one another, as Eve was created to help Adam but was also not created as his inferior or as an addendum to his character. Indeed, “the term ‘helper’ most frequently refers to God (thirteen times) and sometimes refers to military protectors and allies (four times). As the Psalmist sings: ‘I will lift up my eyes to the hills/ From whence does my help come?/ My help comes from the Lord/ who made heaven and Earth (12:1-2 RSV)’ (Spencer, p. 26).” God is very often called our helper, and God is not subordinate to us. Therefore, we can safely conclude, along with Spencer, that Eve was not made to serve Adam but rather to serve God alongside Adam.

The curse itself also further illuminates how we have often misunderstood how Genesis speaks to us of the relationship between men and women. While Eve was cursed for a desire for her husband to rule over her, she was not cursed, as Spencer notes, to be ruled over by any or all men. Thus, we still do not have a precedent yet for male leadership over female leadership. However, Spencer then goes on to assert that, “If God’s acts of redemption lift the effects of death, shame, independence, and irresponsibility, is it not also possible that Adam (and all men) can try to make work more pleasurable and that Eve (and all women) can try to make labor more pleasurable? (Spencer, p. 42).” This sentence, I admit, made me pause to reconsider her stance. If God established the curse because of our sin, then who are we to try to lift and reverse it? Perhaps we must wait for God to reverse the curse lain upon us after the return of Christ, at which point God will dry every tear and right every wrong. However, God saw fit to defeat death and sin on the cross in the person of Jesus Christ. Even before the crucifixion, Jesus called upon his disciples, as God called upon the prophets, to heal the sick and raise the dead. Thus God commands us to strive against the death we brought into the world through our sin, why should we not also strive against the other sufferings and inequalities that we have brought into the world?

Jesus’ own life reveals how God equally values women as much as men. Indeed, Mary Magdalene is the first person to see the empty tomb from which Jesus has arisen (John 20:11-18, NIV), and shortly thereafter women are the second witnesses to the risen Lord (Matthew 28:8-10, NIV). In Luke’s Gospel, women are one of the marginalized people groups that Jesus specifically reaches out to, the others being Samaritans, the sick, the poor, and sinners. Luke also includes the discussion between Jesus, Mary and Martha concerning the “proper place” of a woman. Martha rebukes Mary for not assisting her in her homemaking chores, and yet Jesus applauds Mary’s decision to instead listen to him teach. Given how we have already discussed that, in first century Palestine, a woman’s place was as the homemaker, Martha’s anger at being left to work by herself is understandable.

Although Jesus does show a concern for Martha’s feelings… he declares it is Mary who has selected the good share and, moreover, that share will not be taken from her! Mary, not Martha, has made the right choice. And Jesus would not allow Martha, or anyone else, to stop Mary from learning as his male students would learn… Not only does Jesus not think women are exempt from learning the Torah, but also they do best to learn God’s law… Jesus has returned to that original injunction in Deuteronomy 31:12: ‘Men, women, children and strangers are to learn to fear the Lord and do all the Lord commands’… As well, Jesus did not allow the fear of immorality to prohibit women from learning (Spencer, p. 60-61).

May I suggest that this is how Paul intended for “let women learn in silence,” a phrase that is often quoted to assert the exclusion of women from leadership? Learning in silence does not necessitate how we here in the western part of the world, if not the USA, understand silence; that is, silence as submission, yielding or being lorded over by the one who speaks.

In every instance in the New Testament this silence is an appropriate or, usually, an ideal response or state. Paul often uses the same word in other contexts to exhort Christians on how to live or act. ‘In 1 Timothy 2:2, 1 Thessalonians 4:11, and 2 Thessalonians 3:12 all people are exhorted to lead a ‘quiet and peaceful life in all goodliness and proper conduct (1 Tim 2:2, NIV)’ (Spencer, p. 76).

Here we have the appropriate context with which to understand Paul’s exhortations to silence. It is not a dogmatic and caustic command for women to stay silent and learn from their brothers in Christ, but rather a call to obedience, peacefulness and goodly conduct.

Consequently, when Paul commands that women learn in silence he is commanding them to be students who respect and affirm their teacher’s convictions. ‘In all submission’ is a synonym for ‘silence’ here. Paul does not exhort women always to be submissive to men. Rather, ‘in all submission,’ as ‘in silence’ modifies the manner of learning women should do. The women have not been silenced out of punishment but silenced out of conviction because their teachers are worthy of respect (Spencer, p. 77)

Thus, Paul is not claiming male dominion over females but rather is calling women into a proper attitude of learning from their teachers and brothers in Christ. We have here a doctrine on how we ought to conduct our Sunday school classes, perhaps, but nothing that commands us to hold women in silence and to learn from their “male superiors.”

Finally, are there any women mentioned in the New Testament who actually were in positions of leadership? Paul mentions Junia, a woman’s name, as his “fellow prisoner,” “prominent among the apostles (Romans 16:7, NIV).” Interestingly enough, Chrysostom, as well as Jerome, both affirm that Junia was a woman, and the former even commends her devotion for being “counted worthy of the appellation of apostle (Spencer, p. 101).” It is not until the thirteenth century that Junia is referred to as being a man, and Paul seems to relate to Junia as being equal with him in his duty and ministry to the world as ministers of the word. “Certainly authoritative preaching would have to be a part of such a (Paul’s as an apostle) testimony. Junia, along with Andronicus, apparently laid the foundation for the churches at Rome: ‘they came before me in Christ (Rom. 16:7). The churches they establish have lasted to this day. No wonder Junia and Adonronicus were notable apostles (Spencer, p. 101).” If Paul, whom we often quote to show that men are meant to hold authority over women, speaks of a woman as being his equal as an apostle, how then can we maintain that men are, indeed, supposed to hold just such authority? The answer, though it may gall some of us, strikes me as being “we can’t.”

The words that “women are to learn in silence,” much like the words “compel them to come in,” have been thoroughly used and abused by people throughout the history of the Christian church. Although many have argued that men hold authority over women, that women are unfit for leadership in the church, and that God intended it that way, we can only look back to the original Biblical writings and see that from the beginning God created two distinct people to equally serve Him and hold dominion over the rest of His creation. To base male authority on the maleness of Christ is to run the risk of excluding women by implying that as only men are, in a special way, like Christ therefore only women can be saved. Yet as we look at history, or even the present day, we see this to not be true. Jesus reached out to the centurion as well as to the Samaritan woman and called both to believe in Him for them to be saved. Jesus Himself, God’s special revelation to the world that all might hear His word and be saved, called women to be apostles and, therefore, could easily do the same today. God’s word and will does not change. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8, NIV).

References

Robbins, John W. Scripture Twisting in the Seminaries, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1985

Spencer, Aida Besancon. Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry, Thomas Nelson: 1985

Objections to Women Leaders in the Church. www.bibleweb.org/TruthAbout/ta37.htm. Cited 11/1/05

Catholic Answers: Women and the Priesthood. www.catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp Cited 11/1/05

Ferrara, Jennifer and Wilson, Sarah Hinlicky. Ordaining Women: Two Views.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0304/articles/ferrarawilson.html Cited 11/1/05

Zacharias, R. The Harvard Veritas Forum, Georgia, Ma: Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, 1995.

Rosell, Dr. Garth M. Lecture Notes, CH500, 2005.

Women in the Early Church and What it Means for Us - Part II

women begs the question, is there any fundamental difference between men and women themselves, or ontologically?

As Jennifer Ferrara claims, citing John Paul II, there is a distinct and fundamental difference between men and women. In his “Catechesis on the Book of Genesis,” John Paul II claims that there is no basic, androgynous human model to which either male or female attributes are added but rather that there are male humans and female humans. Therefore, as Ferrara goes on to argue, there are male souls and female souls that are essentially different from each other. Eve is not just a feminized version of Adam, but rather a whole new different and complimentary creature that also can express the love and glory of God. Ferrara notes that,

Though John Paul II never speaks of male headship, he recognizes that inherent to their natures are differences in the way men and women express love for one another. Men have the more active role in the relationship: the husband is the one who loves while the wife is she who is loved and in return gives love. This special capacity to receive love is what is meant by feminine submission and is the basis of the image of the submission of the Church to Christ. Submission here means to be subsequent or responsive, not necessarily obsequious or subservient. For the man, a love modeled upon Christ’s self-sacrifice leads to a desire to provide and protect to the point of a willingness to give one’s life, both literally and figuratively. Men represent Christ in a way that women cannot because men’s relationship to creation is one of detachment and distance. They cannot fully share in the intimacy that women have with their children. Therefore, they better serve as an image of transcendent love, a love that is wholly other but seeks only the welfare of the other. As primarily relational beings, women are images of immanence and ultimately of the Church, which is prepared, at all times, to receive Christ’s love. The result is a mutual submission, even mutual dependence, that does not undermine the role of men in church or home (Ferrara)

I find this to be the most compelling argument against the allowance of women leaders in the church. It is an argument that is rooted in scripture, and it also makes assertions that I have experienced in the world. Furthermore, the author of this article is, herself, a woman and therefore arguing for an interpretation that is decidedly anti-feminist and thus, at least in that regard, to her seeming loss given a presupposition that feminist values and goals are the best. John Eldredge has written several books concerning how men and women ought to relate to each other, and one of the primary facts he asserts is the need for men to pursue women, the need of women to be pursued by men, and I have seen men and women, believers and non-believers, who believe this to be true. Even if that desire is not openly argued, it is lived in people’s lives. Ferrara draws upon a similar assertion, recognizing the difference of men and women in their ontology, and the difference in which both show and receive love, but also claiming that both reveal the love of God for His creation. Although the idea of “separate but equal” is thought to be pure and utter bunk by contemporary society, and the notion as it was spoken did not agree with how it was practiced in our country concerning the equality of black and white people, I nevertheless find it dangerous to allow cultural trends to have the final say in how we interpret and understand scripture.

However, we must look at the other side of the argument as well. There is a danger in asserting such an ontological difference between men and women, a danger that is raised by feminists who think that Christ is either insufficient or irrelevant.

The most significant piece to open up the debate is Rosemary Radford Ruether’s essay “Can a Male Savior Save Women?” Ruether raises the… question that Jesus-as-man precipitates: If salvation comes through the assumption of human nature by the divine, can one who is female be saved by one who is male? Or is the uterus an insurmountable blockade between women and eternal life? Clearly, for orthodox Christianity, the salvation of women has never been in question, at least not in the practice of the faith (Wilson)

Here we are led back to the question of women leadership as ordination. If only men are the bearers of the specific image of Christ, given the scriptural assertion and its common understanding that Christ leads man who leads woman, then only men have some essential characteristic through which they bear that image of Christ as redeemer and savior. Given its supposedly male basis and orientation, if not reinforcement, is such a redeemer even relevant to women? Can He save them at all? As Wilson points out, the answer throughout the centuries is an indubitable “yes,” at least in practice of the Christian faith. Indeed, even the Greek of the first chapter of John backs up the perspective that Jesus came to save both men and women for, as the apostle wrote, “the word became flesh (sarx),” not “the word became man (andros).”

Wilson goes on to argue that arguing for the differences between men and women, ontologically, are riddled with problems. For “the moment we say “women are gentle” we instantly think of men who are more so and women who are not at all; as soon as we assert “men are aggressive” contrary examples come to mind (Wilson).” We say that men enjoy camping and roughhousing, and counter to that runs the stereotype of the tomboy. We say that women are gentle and more emotional, and we immediately think of the image of a male guidance counselor or guru, someone who is a man yet deeply in touch with his feelings. Furthermore, in speaking of the differences between men and women we do not want to simply refer to mere biological differences either because we are speaking of the supposed difference of the soul, and not merely the body, although the latter may be shaped by God in accordance with the former that He has given us. Wilson asserts, therefore, that ultimately the argument for the ontological difference between men and women fails, although there may certainly be an existential difference between the two; they are essentially the same by existentially different.

The conclusion to be drawn is that all human beings, males and females alike, bear the same image of God and the same human nature. Jesus Christ took the flesh of human nature and made it wholly his own. In the unity of the Church, a Gentile is as much an image of the Jewish Christ as a Jew; a slave is as much the image of the freeborn Christ as a citizen; a woman is as much the image of the male Christ as a man. It is arbitrary to slice up the unities in one way and not in the other. It is a bizarre fixation on gender that requires male body parts to represent Christ. In fact, it is a denial of Jesus’ incarnation and resurrection alike to say that women cannot stand in persona Christi (Wilson).

Having just written a short paper on the difference between worldly knowledge, such as that garnered by science and philosophy, over and against revelation as given by God, we cannot conclude purely on the basis of philosophy that the case is closed. But it does stand to reason that there is not also a scriptural basis for the allowance of women as leaders in the church. Having met Ferrara’s challenge with Wilson’s assertions about the impossibility of discerning the ontological difference between men and women, and the problems in making such a claim, we can move back to deal with the far stronger claims of the patristic fathers.

Although Irenaeus seems distinctly concerned with women in his work “Against Heresies,” it is worth noting a few other items that might prove to be the point of his ire. First and foremost, he is writing concerning the “ministry” of one Marcus the Gnostic, who, because of his identity as a Gnostic, marks him as a heretic who has adopted scriptural teaching and is using it for his own purposes. He also refers to the “Charis,” as a female, and offers some sort of prayer for the hope that this Charis will provide her secret knowledge to those who participate in his services. This emphasis of secret knowledge is a Gnostic belief, and any knowledge prized over and above the saving grace of Jesus Christ is idolatrous, if not heretical. However, it seems fairly obvious that it is Marcus who is receiving the brunt of Irenaeus’ critique, and not those women in his service, although they certainly are not helping matters any.

I think that Chrysostom’s writings, and others like it, are far more problematic as they are distinctly blunt and plain. There is no “wiggle room,” such as it is, in interpreting Chrysostom as there may be with Irenaeus. I would like to add that I don’t mean “wiggle room” in any negative fashion, I am not trying to purposefully misinterpret him, but rather trying to determine if his words are, truly, a warning against women in leadership. It is significant to note that although Chrysostom includes all women from the role of “presiding over the church,” although he rules out women de facto, he also rules out a large number of men. As he is also writing in 387 C.E., I wonder as to how much he and other patristic fathers are influenced more by a desire to divide the laity from the clergy, then men from women. When we examine 1 Timothy, we find that Paul lists all three of the offices of bishop, presbyter, and deacon and sets the criteria for these positions as being a strong Christian character. In I Clement, we then see that leaders are to be appointed and later on, in the Didache, the leaders (Deacons and Bishops) are elected. Ignatius, circa 117 CE, identifies the offices by the officers’ names, and draws the parallels between the bishop and God, the presbyters and apostles, and the deacons with the ministry of Christ. Furthermore, he also claims that “without these officers, no group can be called a church.” Finally Irenaeus, writing in the late second century, writes of an increasingly bishop-centered church, asserts that all churches should follow the roman model, which replicated the rule of Imperial Rome, and claims the Roman church has the authority and the tradition of Peter and Paul as founders to back up their own authority (Rosell). Here, we see the steady move towards the reverence of a strong apostolic tradition and the rising divide between clergy and laity, perhaps strongest when Ignatius claims that without church officers, there is no church; a rather cavalier statement that dismisses the laity out-of-hand, however ennobling he may have tried to sound. While the calcification of the ascendancy of clergy may explain Irenaeus’ assertions, Chrysostom is not so easily side-stepped. Though we may have helped set the context of his argument, we still cannot ignore that he does dismiss all women from positions of leadership within the church. We must then turn back to the Bible itself.

We must first take the Genesis creation story into account, and see if the root of male leadership is inherent to how we were made. Considering Genesis 1:26-27, Spencer writes,

’The Adam’ is a ‘they.’ The clause ‘he created him’ is parallel to the following clause ‘he created them.’ ‘The Adam’ is a ‘male and female,’ By having the one ‘Adam’ represent the two ‘male and female,’ the writer has emphasized the essential unity and diversity of Adam and Eve. Thus, if ‘Adam’ is made in the image of God then ‘male and female’ have been made in the image of God… in order to understand God’s nature, males and females together are needed to reflect God’s image. The image of God is a double image (Spencer, p. 21).

Women in the Early Church and What it Means for Us - Part I

I have noticed a tendency in myself, and in others, to merely drift along in the realm of ideas, to take what we like and dismiss what we don’t, and to be at peace with whatever we decide. Very often we do this concerning issues that we have no particular or vested interest in, but we find to be of at least mild significance. We buy wholesale into the party line, or status quo, or whatever, without considerable thought or even any thought at all. Upon reflection, I find that I readily believed that men should be the only leaders in the church because of the supposedly “obvious” interpretation of various passages in the Bible, most notably the Pauline epistles. Now having said that, I am not going to take up the cause of radical feminism and declare that my research has opened my eyes to a world I never knew existed. I do want to point out, however, that sometimes, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. It is unfortunate that the church is only reacting to the truth of the essential equality of men and women as put forward by (sometimes even atheist) feminists, rather than purposefully seeking out the truth already within the scriptures and applying it to our lives. That such has occurred, however, is surely a reminder of God’s omnipotence; for I see a parallel between those Jews who rejected God in Christ and how the Gentiles came to dominate the church and, how the church has neglected the truth of essential equality given by God, only to have feminism come along to remind us. In the face of the civil rights movement, feminism, and other ideologies, the church has been forced to re-evaluate its stance on what role women should play in the church body. As we consider this question, we ought to look back to the person of Christ, and the early church itself, to see what Jesus told us (if anything) concerning the subject and how the early church understood that teaching.

Firstly, we ought to examine the cultural background that Jesus invaded with his message of the Kingdom of God, and from that basis we can move on to evaluate both sides of the issue at hand. Insofar as women were concerned, women were neither required nor encouraged to pursue education about scripture. Indeed, women earned merit by sending their children to the synagogue and their husbands to advanced Mishnah school. The Jews of first century Palestine certainly understood God to be the “highest good,” as the Greek philosophers of antiquity often spoke about. Women attended synagogue, but that is where their responsibility, concerning their own education, ended. Interestingly enough, men were discouraged from speaking with women “because women were not trained in the Torah. There was no more edifying topic then the law. For instance, Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradion… said, ‘if two sit together and no words of the Law [are spoken] between them, there is the seat of the scornful… But if two sit together and words of the Law [are spoken] between them, the Divine Presence rests between them (Spencer, p. 55-56).” Thus, men should speak more with men, who know the Torah, as opposed to women, but they are not taught it in the first place. Hindsight is often more perceptive however and, not to engage in chronological snobbery, I am perfectly willing to admit that were I to live in that time and culture, I probably would not have believed any differently. Women were not taught the law in order to encourage them to remain as homemakers. Jewish culture at the time also saw women with a predisposition towards unchastely behavior and sexual immorality.

The women who did take part in public life was in danger of a charge of promiscuity… A woman who knew the law would become active in public thereby indirectly inviting sexual advances. Even women and unmarried men were not desirable as teachers of children because then the rabbis feared that the teacher and the parent of the child might resort to promiscuous behavior! Any man whose business was with women was told that he should not remain alone with women (Spencer, p.52-53).

Now, while we might understand this passage as venturing towards misogamy with our present-day perspective on gender and equality, we must also remember that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were strongly concerned with the holiness of the nation of Israel. However, it does seem fair to point out that while men are also undesirable to teach children because of the potential temptation to behave promiscuously, it is only unmarried men. Evidently women, whether married or single, were perceived as having a distinct weakness in their ability to stumble into and resist sexual temptation.

Having said that, let us address the conventional position of claiming that only men are called to be leaders in the church. Robbins, in his work “Scripture Twisting in the Seminaries,” is attempting to hold back what he perceives as a flood of feminist ideology invading Christian thought. And he may very well have been right about seminaries accepting too much of the feminist agenda wholesale without bothering to distinguish between what truths and falsehoods it endorses. He makes the bold assertion that “no Christian church allowed women to speak publicly (Robbins, p.6),” and furthermore that although women may prophecy, that they may not do so publicly either.

Firstly we should note what Paul wrote in 1st Timothy 2:11-12, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." To "Usurp authority "(Greek authentein) is to assert one’s own authority, instead of remaining subject to a higher one. This is the opposite from "learning in silence with all subjection," as women are instructed to do. The word "Silence" (Greek hesuchia) means giving calm subdued attention as in Acts 22:2 "And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence:" So for women to keep silence, it requires their calm subdued attention to what the men are teaching (http://www.bibleweb.org/TruthAbout/ta37.htm).

This theme of a woman’s silence is also supported in the Bible, as Robbins makes reference to how Paul teaches that although a woman may learn and their desire for knowledge ought not to be dismissed, she is not to publicly learn. Indeed, “women praise God by remaining silent in church meetings (Robbins, p.17).” The key theme in Robbins interpretation of the role of women in the church is that of silence, at least vis-à-vis men.

Those who defend the position that women should not function as leaders in the church, whether that entails ordination or not, find a similar exhortation, on Paul’s part, prescribing silence for women once again. Among the many problems facing the Corinthian church, one problem was the disorderliness of worship and the exercise of spiritual gifts. Concerning the latter, Paul ends his instruction on orderly worship with a command, “women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church (NIV, 1 Corinthians, 14:33-35).” The point seems fairly obvious, perhaps painfully so, for someone wishing to defend that women may also be called to positions of leadership in the early church.

It is important to point out, however, that no one maintains that women may never speak, at all, during church (at least, not that I have encountered). Indeed, “there is no restriction given when singing or reciting Psalms or prayers as a community, with one combined voice (http://www.bibleweb.org).” The question at hand is not one of perpetual silence, but of authority, and if women are allowed to hold any over men. Thus it seems to me that in those instances where there is no opportunity for a woman to act in such a way as to assume authority over a man, then she is allowed to speak, pray and sing as she pleases.

But how did the early church fathers understand the role of women in the church? As we will see, there is still much to be said concerning the aforementioned epistles and others as well, but the comments of the patristic fathers seem rather distinct and plain, if not condemnatory, towards those who believe that women may have any position in church leadership. Irenaeus, in his work “Against Heresies,” cites the following problem with Gnostic heretics,

Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, [Marcus the Gnostic heretic] contrives to give them a purple and reddish color. . . . [H]anding mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence.
"When this has been done, he himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated, and pouring from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same time pronounces these words: ‘May that Charis who is before all things and who transcends all knowledge and speech fill your inner man and multiply in you her own knowledge, by sowing the grain of mustard seed in you as in good soil.’
"Repeating certain other similar words, and thus goading on the wretched woman [to madness], he then appears a worker of wonders when the large cup is seen to have been filled out of the small one, so as even to overflow by what has been obtained from it. By accomplishing several other similar things, he has completely deceived many and drawn them away after him (Against Heresies 1:13:2, http://www.catholic.com/).

As the Catholic Church relies both on scripture and the tradition of the early church fathers in the forging of its doctrine, Irenaeus’ writings, among others, are used to defend their stance against the leadership of women in the church. There are many such passages written by the patristic fathers that are used by the Catholic Church to support their position, of which at least one other is worth mentioning, although I think all of them are significant, they would be beyond the scope of this paper.

[W]hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature (The Priesthood 2:2, http://www.catholic.com).

These passages, and other patristic writings, do seem to point out a significant difference between men and women; namely the issue of authority, and that men are to hold such over women concerning the leadership of the church. The epistles 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians seem to show such a claim to be a fairly bold and plain assertion on Paul’s part as well. Fundamental to any doctrinal and scriptural difference between the roles of men and