Early Christian Feminists

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.