Just as feminists began to
question the roles of women in secular culture, Christian feminists began to
question the roles of women within the church.
As I’ve read about these early discussions about church theology and
polity, I find myself feeling tense. I
believe there is a fine line to walk between a correct and an incorrect interpretation
of scripture on this matter.
Katherine Bliss, a prominent
Christian feminist in the 1950s, argued that women could not exercise their
tremendous spiritual gifts because they could not be church leaders. She
advocated for the reexamination of men’s and women’s roles within the church: “…we
must begin to ask seriously what the will of God is concerning the diversity of
gifts of men and women and concerning the spirit in which they are to serve
together their common Lord.” I’ll agree
with her initial point – the church should examine this issue. The church sets itself apart from a lot of
secular thinking by holding a high view of women. However, as I think Bliss’ aim was to
redefine church polity to allow women to be ordained, I’ll disagree with her
conclusions. More on that later.
Bliss and others made valid
points about the interpretation of scripture – many important and influential
theologians worked during a time when society’s view of women was rather
low. Even Martin Luther, I’m sad to say,
wrote this about women:
“Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children.”
Ugh… That’s awful.
I think it’s fair to point out that people reflect the thinking of their
time. We should be careful to interpret
the teaching of even the most famous theologians through the lens of
scripture. Culture does not validate our
beliefs; the Bible does.
Feminists during this time did
well to point out the high view of women held forth in scripture. Kassian lists a few examples:
“The example of Mary learning at the feet of Jesus; of Phoebe being sent out as an ambassador to the churches; of the five daughters of Philip who moved into prophetic ministry; of Priscilla, who instructed and disciple Apollos together with Aquila – all the passages that demonstrated God’s high regard for women – were presented as evidence of the essential equality of women.” (Kassian 30)
I absolutely agree. In one of my entries, I’ve already quote from
Galatians 3:28, “In Christ there is neither male nor female.”
I agree with one of the
presuppositions of the Christian feminists at this time: women were being
mistreated within Christian society as much as they were within secular
society. However, I do not believe that
being denied the right to ordination is part of that mistreatment.
Rosemary Lauer translated and
expounded on the work of Gertrud Heinzelmann (excellent name). Lauer articulated the goal for women by
saying, “…woman’s soul does not differ from man’s and therefore can receive the
sacramental character of ordination as well as his.” I agree that men’s and women’s souls are the
same, equal in God’s sight and valuable to our creator. I disagree that the logical conclusion is that
women should be ordained.
I’ll use the principle of the
Trinity to explain how I can accept the premise and reject the conclusion. The Trinity is the Godhead. It is made up of three persons – Father, Son,
Holy Spirit – but is a single being – God.
These three persons have
different functions. The Father created
the world, through the Son and in the presence of the Holy Spirit. The Son became a man, lived a perfect human life,
died to fulfill the punishment for sin, and rose again to conquer death. The Holy Spirit was sent to earth after Jesus’
ministry as a constant presence and Helper for Christians; He is the presence
of God in our lives today.
In the same way, men and women
are equal in their creation, in their dignity, in their worth as human beings
with souls that God wants to save from sin.
However, they are different in function.
That difference is reflected to some extent in physical design – e.g. women
have the ability to bear children, men do not.
We must look to scripture to determine
what differences are ordained by God and what differences have been created by
culture (which is a victim of the presence of sin).
The passage I must use to
address this is highly controversial. I
come back to that tension of wanting to interpret scripture correctly –
stepping too far on either side is detrimental.
1 Timothy 2:8-15 – Paul is writing
to Timothy to help him pastor the church at Ephesus. He
gives some instruction for the way the church should conduct worship.
8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
This passage is often
criticized for its instruction to women to be submissive. Lots of women I know hate that word. Lots of men I know hate it too. Do we like to submit to authority? Any authority! No, we question it, we criticize it, we
dismiss it. But this command is given
directly to women in scripture. This
doesn’t happen often. It cannot be
ignored.
So what is Paul really saying
here? He is explicitly telling women not
to teach. What does that mean? The interpretations that I trust say that
this means women are not to be ordained ministers charged with the task of the
public preaching of the gospel. That
task is reserved for men based on the principle of male headship (another
buzzword). That concept derives from the
reference made here: Adam was created first.
Does it seem arbitrary?
Maybe. But God could have created
Adam and Eve in any order that He wanted to.
There must be a reason He did things in this particular order. (Also, I’ve recently studied Genesis again –
there was a good bit of time between the creation of Adam and the creation of
Eve. Adam really looked through all the creatures
while he was naming them before God said that there wasn’t a suitable
helper. The creation order is
distinct.)
So women shouldn’t be
pastors. That’s it. That’s the only restriction put on women in
ministry. Go back to the litany of women
in the New Testament (that list didn’t even touch the women in the OT who
demonstrate strength, character, and a clear place in God’s plan). They were taught, they were teachers, they discipled
(even other men!), but they did not preach.
I can understand that
historically and culturally, women have been put in a box, told to sit in the
corner and shut up. That’s not what Paul
is saying here. He is saying that women
have a single limitation on their ministry – ordination. That limitation cannot be ignore because it
is distasteful to some women. God gives
all kinds of commands that might seem to limit us, but they don’t. Because scripture teaches that God wants what
is best for us. (Sound cheesy?) God created us, loves us, sustains us, and
gives us limitations because they benefit us.
A small tangent to conclude my
post today. Valerie Saiving Goldstein
wrote “The Human Situation – A Feminist Viewpoint.” In it, she discussed how a person’s gender
might affect his/her theology: a man
interprets scripture differently from a woman.
She cited two male theologians (Anders Nygren and Reinhold Niebuhr) who stated
that men and women have different primary sins – man’s was pride, and woman’s
was sacrificial love. Goldstein believed
sacrificial love was not a woman’s primary sin; rather, it was the “underdevelopment
or negation of the self…triviality, distractibility, diffuseness, dependence on
others for one’s own self-definition.”
So she believed that women had too much sacrificial love and not enough
pride in themselves because they were always being defined by somebody else.
I’ve heard several sermons on
Genesis that indicate the opposite. Eve’s
sin was ambition; Adam’s sin in Genesis was abdication. Adam stood by while Eve made the decision to
eat the fruit that God had forbidden them to eat. Eve desire the knowledge of good and evil
that God had, supposedly, prevented them from having. She was willing to disobey God in order to
acquire it. She should not have eaten;
Adam should have stopped her. I’ve
continued to reflect on that idea – culturally, women are viewed as unfeminine
if they are ambitious; it’s considered to be a fault. Men
are considered less masculine when they don’t “take charge” of a
situation. I think those cultural norms
are shifting. But if so much of our
history has shown evidence of those tensions, I think there’s something to
it.
In conclusion, I agree with the
early Christian feminists who wanted to challenge church culture alongside
secular culture. Have women often been
relegated to the world of potlucks and nursery duty? Yes.
But is the solution to that giving women permission to be ordained? I don’t think so. I think scripture is very clear on that
issue.