As we enter dialogue on gender, or rather, as I’ve proposed, moving past using gender to decide privilege in the church, it’s important to first realize the troubling influence from the (male) leadership in the early church. Their ideas continue to heavily impact the attitudes and practices of the contemporary church, and cause confusion.
Doctrine based on secular thought and culture:
When reading the thoughts of the early church fathers, we notice the heavy influence of secular Greek thought that disparaged women, and valued the spiritual far and above the physical/material, as well as and male over female. (see a bit on Dualism)
The Incarnation trumps cultural assumptions:
The Incarnation, however, fully appreciated the spiritual and the material, both. God reaffirms the dignity of the physicality and spirituality of the human being, and all of his physical Creation. A materialistic/dualistic approach (which still can be found subtly in Christianity, even today), undercuts what God has done in the life, ministry, and sacrifice of Jesus, the Christ.
Worldview Askew:
The ministry of Jesus, the Son of God, and the first generation of the Christian church was most scandalous in its progressive exercise of women in positions of influence and leadership (i.e. apostles, prophetesses, deacons, teachers, etc.). This thoroughly counter-cultural new sect and off-shoot of Judaism, who affirmed that Jesus of Nazareth, was and is divine, soon succumbed to typical male-dominated power and authority, and instead, mirrored the secular cultural worldview.
Most influential church fathers who articulated the earliest of Christine doctrine and practice, were much like their academic or secular peers in their misogyny. Typical (and secular) morays resumed.
Swiss Cheese Foundation Walls (Holey not Holy):
It seems that conversations and debates about men and women, and their roles in the church have only ever built on the thoughts of these errant church fathers, or, contrastingly, openly revolted against them (i.e. feminist theology). But, these are both tired and worn out arguments and vantage points that now have limited usefulness. We continue to merely speak past each other.
Eve Hating:
The man known in Christianity as, “The founder of Western Theology” is Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, best known in English as Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220 AD).
He covered apologetics, heresy, morals, church discipline, baptism, soteriology, and made a huge impact on one of Christianity’s most influential leaders, Augustine of Hippo.
Though Tertullian was well know for elucidating important issues of church life, as well as the gracious treatment of widows, his thoughts and comments about females are truly shocking to our contemporary ears. Read some for yourself: De Cultu Feminarum Book I. Chapter I.—-Introduction. Modesty in Apparel Becoming to Women, in Memory of the Introduction of Sin into the World Through a Woman.
Here are some Tertullian highlights:
• Man, not woman, is created in the image of God.
• Woman was and is the source of temptation.
• Like Eve, each woman is also:
- the devil’s gateway
- the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree.
- the first deserter of the divine law.
- the one who persuaded him (Adam) whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack.
- the one who destroyed so easily God’s image, man.
- the reason the Son of God had to die.
Admittedly, this glimpse is just that–a glimpse. A careful study of his ideas would be wise.
BUT-Is it really any wonder that women were relegated to inferior status ontologically, and within the community of believers? It’s not a surprise that women still are, only a disappointment.
Yes, Christianity has a sordid past. Humans are flawed. Yet, God’s plan is to use us (all) to bring about his ongoing redemption. I venture that we likely got off on the wrong track long ago. Many of the church fathers’ thoughts were wrong, in the first place. The time is ripe to begin afresh. Big improvements don’t really happen through recycling old methods, but rather by re-creating them from different commencement points.
Moving forward:
Defining “Capacitarian” (now pushed to a future post) will have everything to do with seeing things anew, from the vantage point of a gracious Creator, as much as possible. Our dignity and worth is truly sourced in God, not on the cultural bias of early church leaders.
We must jettison malformed doctrine.
Now, I ask you, if we are to re-envision and redefine the role of citizens in God’s Kingdom (versus deciding “men and women’s roles in the church” based predominantly on body parts) than what should be our foundation as we go forward?
What do you propose to re-shape our thinking? Submit your thoughts and ideas here, please. Please, help and enlist the contribution of others as well. A tweet or link is a great place to start.
UPDATE: Here is a link from Dan, I had to pass along. It’s by Ben Witherington.
Hi … found you via twitter, I think, sometimes I forget where I clicked from. (darn middle age!)
Interesting piece … will take me awhile to read all the links and process it all. This line caught my attention “moving past using gender to decide privilege … “Totally agree!
And actually I’m in the middle of a doubting/questioning time in my life … and when I read about the many mistakes the church fathers made, I begin to wonder if there’s any of it that I can believe …
btw … just found the Schuylkill-Berks News page on Facebook… hope to pick up a copy somewhere … I’m near Reading, PA.
Surely the totality of church history as well as cultural assumptions have shaped our views. However, for me, what the ‘church fathers’ believed or didn’t believe carries no authority. I think we should listen to the ‘voice’ of church history, but the Bible is the place where much of the debate lies.
Those who would limit the roles of women do not appeal to the ‘Fathers’ but to the Bible itself – a certain way of understanding the Bible.
So, moving forward, my thoughts would be to begin with the major movement of salvation history (creation, fall, redemption, restoration) which themes are derived from the scripture itself. Into that larger narrative framework can be placed specific passages of Scripture, viewed over against the prevailing cultural assumptions of the time.
I believe that your interested of ‘kingdom’ in this discussion fits well within that narrative biblical framework and would speak to the issue without needing to prooftext.
You will never build consensus without an adequate view of Scripture on the issue.
Then there are the issues of spiritual gifts and roles…
Scripture is my grounding as well. It’s a hurdle too in the argument, b/c so many have used it to promote whatever they want to. Interpretation! murky stuff.
The bigger picture of what God is doing (seen in Scripture) and now, in the Kingdom (redemption) is the pivot point.
as i think more about this our focus needs to be almost entirely the discernment of Kingdom gifts (and not restricted to those outline by Paul) and specific training and support of those gifts. John Armstrong has announced a training institute for the missional church. My cousin Jane Bozarth is a nationally known author and presenter on training systems and technologies and is passionately concerned with the restrictions placed on learners by conventional methodologies. the church promotes stereotypes because they are ingrained in the very systems of program design and delivery. The language of hierarch resides in the structures. i think there are traditions of spiritual direction that have been present for centuries may provide some clean connection to tradition but we really must begin to see where God is in the present and where that trajectory should lead us to the future. Ladies and Gentlemen, Elvis has left the building and we need to also!
It’s not just specific interpretation, but a larger interpretive framework.
For example: The Letters in the N.T. are ‘occasional’ in nature – meaning they were addressed to specific churches going through particular issues. Of course there is so much deep truth that applies to all of us throughout them, but if we fail to see what was going on behind the scenes, we will never adequately understand what is said about women in the N.T.
Creation and fall are important as well because we’re told that the man/woman relationship has been strained as a result of sin.
What I think complementarians have right is that men and women are different. We do complement one another. However, this does not necessarily mean that only men can serve in certain roles, ministries, etc.
For me, one place where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, is in the giftings of the Holy Spirit. If the spirit has gifted you for something, I have no right to bar you from using that gift merely because of gender. That puts ME against GOD. Don’t want to go there!
What do you mean by kingdom gifts? Are you referring to what we often call spiritual gifts or something else?
I’m still not quite sure where to “jump in”. :)
I can see where/how people have misinterpreted scripture to oppress women and women’s roles….but what I struggle with is the very argument. I just don’t see an argument – it’s wrong to suggest that women are in any way inferior or less qualified than men in any role of ministry….
For every verse in scripture that would (albeit incorrectly) allude to women not being minsters – there are dozens that would support women.
Thank you Lisa for digging out such a seemingly controversial subject. You are a blessing and a catalyst.
Yes, and yes. I refer to the Spirit giving us gifts (some of them go with our personalities, or talents, and some are just…boom, given. Fruits of the Spirit + gifts of the Spirit enliven and prosper Kingdom life. “Kingdom gifts” is a conflation. I’m trying to get away from defining God’s gifts as gender or solely gender role based (ontological & cultural)…rather they are Kingdom based…transcend cultural norms and gender specifics.
It lay terms, “…God doesn’t check to see if you have a ding dong before he calls you or gifts you to take his message of redemption to the unreconciled, and/or to build up believers. He graces us. The heart/mind is what matters most. (It’s old school Jesus’ stuff)”
Not sure if I want to be quoted on that…cause I said ding dong. lol.
I’m with you on that. Getting in God’s way is in our worst interest.
This is why I see the terms egalitarian and complementation as limiting. To say that men and women in general (or specific) terms are the same is foolish or obtuse. Sadly, equal gets equated with same.
But male and female termed language have been poisoned by our culture (marred by our sin nature). They are in the *process* of being redeemed by God. (God’s point from the beginning, and healed through our Savior, Jesus)
See, If you call a man a “lampshade” he will laugh it off as silliness and humor. If you call him a “women” he will feel degraded. Culturally we can’t easily get over or get past this, because the terms “male” and “female” or “man” and “woman” are loaded with history and baggage, past and current misconstructions, and various abuses.
To say, just skip it, and say the blanket term “egalitarian” is rife with confusion too. For one, many conservatives will dismiss you immediately as “liberal” (read: whacky and wrong). So, I want to reject both descriptions, and the usual terms by which we engage in getting a better understanding of who we are and what we do in the Kingdom of God. I don’t want to be imprisoned by the same sorry language, and play the same old game. God is up to bigger things. Immanuel has come to set the captives free.
You are going to need to show me how this is different than an egalitarian model. I see it as a different approach, but much the same result.
“Most influential church fathers who articulated the earliest of Christian doctrine and practice, were much like their academic or secular peers in their misogyny. ”
I don’t think this is a fair statement that is reflected in history.
“When reading the thoughts of the early church fathers, we notice the heavy influence of secular Greek thought that disparaged women, and valued the spiritual far and above the physical/material, as well as and male over female. ”
True, there are inroads of dualism in the Fathers; but not to the degree you argue. Neoplatonism was transformed, not merely adopted wholesale. Perhaps we are projecting medieval latin philosophy back into the Fathers which isn’t inherently there.
“the ministry of Jesus, the Son of God, and the first generation of the Christian church was most scandalous in its progressive exercise of women in positions of influence and leadership (i.e. apostles, prophetesses, deacons, teachers, etc.)”
It never really went away. Why do you think there are so many extra-biblical women apostles?
And finally, Tertullian is a declared heretic and is not considered a Church Father outside of the West.
My first thought is that our foundation needs to be Christ. Maybe that’s obvious, but bound to mean different things to different people.
I think it would be helpful to emphasize “servanthood” over “servant-leadership,” for one thing. Jesus never called anyone to be “servant-leaders.” I think for many, tacking “-leader” onto the end subtly warps the focus. We should strive to be servants.
Interesting, do you have any idea why Origen and Tertullian might be the most quoted church fathers I’ve seen in the blogosphere (except for maybe Augustine)
And whoch ones do you recommend. And what can you say about church mothers?
I completely agree that we need new, better terms to describe our views on gender. Complementarians continue to insist that they regard men and women as equal; and Egalitarians freely acknowledge the obvious complimentarity of the sexes so “Complementarianism” and “Egalitarianism” are ambiguous terms.
I call myself a Christian Egalitarian (rather than a Biblical Egalitarian). I avoid using the adjective “Biblical” because I find it disturbing that the Bible is used as a weapon in the gender debates. I also have a real problem with Complementarians who describe their views as amounting to “Biblical manhood and womanhood.” (I completely disagree with their views even though I read and treasure the Bible.) Furthermore, gender equality is a direct result of Jesus Christ’s redemptive ministry, hence “Christian” Egalitarianism.
I have been trying out the term “Casteless Christianity” recently instead of “Biblical Egalitarianism” and seeing how that works.
Origen and Tertullian were very influential and wrote a good deal. This could be why. I’ve learned good things by reading their material. Check this site to read some of their things, and other important church leaders in Christian history. As far as recommendations, read everything you can. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with it, but I think it will enrich your life to see their faithful devotion. http://www.ccel.org/
Church mothers I have read were of the Desert Elder variety (i.e. Ammas). (Egypt, 3rd century) Much harder material to find!!! Here’s the wikilink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Mothers for starters.
Misogyny to our sensibilities. . . . I’m not sure what women in 2011 wouldn’t feel insulted being termed “a gateway to hell” …or maybe it’s just me. It hurts my feelings. Augustine was hardly nicer…(Albeit, here you have to permit me to dissent on Immaculate conception and perpetual virginity doctrines)
And you’re right, I’ve been too general. So, generally unfair, as you assert. I haven’t skimmed for baggage, but I do see shortcomings. My catholic sympathies are huge. Probably 10x that of an typical or lay Evangelical. A blog format forces me into this abbreviated situation. I welcome a (your) guest post for more elucidation on the role or ideas about women in the year following the Apostolic period.
I would imagine we (and I) am projecting a degree of Latin philosophy back onto them. I realize we can’t know many specifics for certain. However, I think it’s wise to view Christianity first through Jewish theology to best understand the 1st century church. Outside influences added to our understanding as Christianity went forward, and I question some of those conclusions and ideas.
I’m not sure I believe there were loads of women apostles, but the church culture was different, and allowed for them to lead. A good number of (rich) women in the Greek areas held/hosted church, and surely this gave them a big sway in church polity…okay …not polity…um…”goings on” let’s say. Church was held in homes. I think Paul addresses some powerful women who were becoming increasingly harmful in the Corinth area.
The estacitc female stuff is really intriguing timing-wise yes. God find a way, doesn’t she? …er…. oops.
Thank you for your help in this.
I like to say that the word “Biblical” isn’t. This makes me laugh. (The word “bible isn’t in the bible.) Still, I hold the word of God in very high esteem. I’m rather conservative.
I think you’re spot on to say christians use the bible (and what they see as their correct interruption of it) as a weapon.
“Casteless Christianity” …hmmm. That sounds about right, except in my book, it’s redundant :) Good luck using that. I hope you have some flame retardant outfits. You might be deemed a witch.
Thank you, sister for commenting. The men folk here, outnumber us greatly. I’ve been needed (other) female voices to participate.
*I must add, to anybody reading this comment area, that I’m terribly proud of the men, my brothers, that leave comments here. To me, they are cream of the crop individuals, and invaluable. We are fortunate at this blog!
Thank you, Lord Jesus.
“Misogyny to our sensibilities. . . . I’m not sure what women in 2011 wouldn’t feel insulted being termed “a gateway to hell” …or maybe it’s just me. It hurts my feelings. Augustine was hardly nicer…(Albeit, here you have to permit me to dissent on Immaculate conception and perpetual virginity doctrines)”But see, you’ve cited two Western Fathers, Augustine and Tertullian, admitting that Tertullian influenced Augustine. I’m right with you in condemning statements of women as “a gateway to hell”. But Tertullian was declared a heretic by the Church, and Augustine had serious Manichean gnostic baggage; just look at his views on celibacy, the Fall, and the Trinity. It’s wrong to see Western Fathers as representing any sort of consensus or typical view in the ancient church; after all, how many western bishops were at the Ecumenical Councils? (hint: they never made up the majority ;P). On another note, I don’t view the Immaculate Conception as necessary, and I’m not with the Vatican.“However, I think it’s wise to view Christianity first through Jewish theology to best understand the 1st century church. Outside influences added to our understanding as Christianity went forward, and I question some of those conclusions and ideas.”This train of thought has been popular since the 1800’s, and has spawned several attempts at “early Jewish church reconstruction”. I think this view is, however, seriously flawed. First of all, the Jewish tradition was not perfect; if it was, God would not have needed progressive revelation to demonstrate his Truth. The Jews were taken from among the Ba’al-worshipping pagans and to think that a mere two thousand or fifteen-hundred years would strip all that away from them is too much to ask of any people. Second, The Jews of 1st Century Israel were already extremely Hellenized. Are we to discard the Gospel of John, the ‘theological Gospel’ itself, with its rampant borrowings from Pagan Greek thought? Are we to view the ancient Jewish synagogues containing Greco-Roman artistic style iconography as traitors and sell-outs to Big Pagan co.? I guarantee that if you attempt to Judaize, you will end up with more Platonism than you started with. Look what happened to the Mormons, the Seventh-Day Adventists, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses who tried before.“I’m not sure I believe there were loads of women apostles, but the church culture was different, and allowed for them to lead.”What does it mean to lead? To teach? Amma St. Syncletica, St. Kassiani the Hymnographer, countless Eldresses, have done this. To be a secular ruler? That’s not really within the power of the Church, but Equal-to-the-Apostles Sts. Helena of Constantinople, Olga of Kiev, the two Empresses Theodora of Rome, they were secular rulers. And not always nice ones! ;)To Evangelize? the Apostles St. Nino of Georgia, St. Mary Magdalene, St. Thekla, and others have done this.To hold the sacerdotal office? Ah. This is the one thing that women can’t do, and it’s something that Evangelicals don’t even acknowledge exists. I’ll not be obtuse here. I know that women have far more often than not gotten the short end of the societal stick for the past 14,000 years or so. I just don’t think you can blame that on a particularly Greek influence. “The estacitc female stuff is really intriguing timing-wise yes. God find a way, doesn’t she? …er…. oops.”Trust me. If you knew what these “oracles” did, you wouldn’t want any part of it and wouldn’t associate it with God. :P
Origen was a freakin’ genius. He went a little crazy with the Neoplatonism, and his followers went a lot crazy with the Neoplatonism. That’s why Origenism was anathematized at the 5th Ecumenical Council.
Tertullian is popular because he was a lawyer and espoused things in a law-court manner that a lot of Protestants identify with. He was also smart.
I pity anyone to read all that in the format here with little leading and no paragraphs.
I wouldn’t say Jewish theology was correct, only that is was the working paradigm and experience of the first Christians, and can’t be overlooked in favor of early Western church influencers. How can anyone hope to understand Hebrews without having some grasp of Jewish theology?
I guess I don’t know to whom you refer when you say “oracles”. You said, oracles, and my mind went to the Mystics. So I probably wasn’t following you well there. However, oracle sounds really cool. It sounds like a super keen word. I could say it all day…oracle. oracle…
Sounds like you have some material to sink you teeth into and unwrap on your own blog. Maybe you can flesh out what you are saying some more, and I can supply readers here with a link.
I’m getting the sense that you are referring to your esoteric studies, and probably speaking over or past quite a lot of readers (and me), at this point….but thanks for engaging this topic.
I’m not intending to speak over anyone.
These are my current main points:
1. Where does your Jewish Theology come from? The Old Testament? The Fathers had that too. Modern Rabbinic Jews? They’re not like 1st Century Jews. Archaeology? How much theology can you get from that?
2. 1st Century Jews were Hellenistic Jews, and the 1st Century Church was a Hellenistic Jewish Church. It’s just as wrong to take out Greek elements (the Logos [Word became flesh], Christ as the Icon of God) as it is to take out Jewish elements.
Nothing wrong with a bit of crazy neo-platonism… In the end we’ll all resurrect as platonic spheres anyway….
And maybe you could translate some church mothers if you have some spare time…
Do you have anything about manicheism and the influence it had on Augustine? I know a lot of people (protestantst and catholcs) seem to find him the most important church father in history. (Maybe it was just an obsession of my church history teacher?) To the point of me finding the guy completely over-rated…
I’ve never seen a good description of the manichean worldview, so I don’t know what comes from weird platonic influences and what from manicheism.
Nic…Can you help out Brambonis?
I don’t know more than you do, Bram. I’d only be as powerful/knowledgable as my google search on this one.
My good sir, if I knew how to read post-Classical Greek (or any Greek), I’d get right on it! ;)
Brambonius: I was poking around your blog and noticed you have an extra About page that I can use to leave comments. I’ll give my response there so as not to clutter this page.
I wasn’t aware of that extra about page, but if you want to use it to post info about augustine and Manicheism it won’t be deleted…
do you think there is manichean influence in Western christianity then?
replied on the same page :P