Top topics
Wikis
 Christianity
and Gender |
| Theology |
|
Women in Christianity |
| 4 Major Positions |
|
Christian Egalitarianism |
| Church and Society |
|
Christianity and homosexuality |
| Organizations |
|
Christians for Biblical Equality |
| Theologians and authors |
| Feminist: Letha Dawson Scanzoni · Anne Eggebroten · Virginia Ramey Mollenkott Egalitarian: William J. Webb · Kenneth E. Hagin · Gordon Fee · Frank Stagg · Paul Jewett · Stanley Grenz · Roger Nicole Complementarian: Don Carson · John Frame · Wayne Grudem · Douglas Moo · Paige Patterson · Vern Poythress |
Beliefs about the roles and responsibilities of women in Christianity vary considerably today as they have during the last two millennia. This is especially true for women in both marriage and ministry.
Christianity has traditionally given men the position of authority in marriage, society and government. This position places women in submissive roles, and usually excludes women from church leadership, especially from positions requiring any form of ordination. The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and many conservative Protestants today assert that only men can be ordained as clergy.
Many modern Christians disagree with the traditional male-authority and female-submission paradigm. They take an egalitarian or feminist view, holding that the overarching message of Christianity provides positional equality for women in marriage and in ministry. Accordingly, many Protestant denominations are now ordaining women to positions of ecclesiastical leadership.
Despite these emerging theological differences, Christianity has universally regarded women with dignity and respect, as having been created alongside men in the Imago Dei (Gen 1:27). The Bible is seen by many as elevating and honoring women, especially as compared with certain other religions or societies.[1] Women have played prominent roles in the Church historically, and continue to do so today.
Contents |
Beyond generally accepted social standards which are continually shifting, Christianity is seen as setting a moral standard, including regarding attitudes toward and treatment of women, such as was personally exampled by Jesus.[2]
Jesus always showed the greatest esteem and the greatest respect for woman, for every woman, and in particular He was sensitive to female suffering. Going beyond the social and religious barriers of the time, Jesus reestablished woman in her full dignity as a human person before God and before men ... Christ’s way of acting, the Gospel of his words and deeds, is a consistent protest against whatever offends the dignity of women.
– John Paul II, "Thoughts on Women─Address to Italian Maids," April 1979
From the beginning of the early Christian church, starting with Jesus, women were important members of the movement. The examples of the manner of Jesus reveal his attitudes toward women and show repeatedly how he liberated and affirmed women. The gospels of the New Testament often mention Jesus speaking to women publicly and openly against the social norms of the time. He reached out to the marginalized in his society and thus, his appeal was great.[2] He had female followers who were his sponsors and Mary Magdalene is recorded to be the first person to have the privilege of seeing Jesus after resurrection. As time went on and the disciples continued to spread Jesus' message by word of mouth, groups of Christians organized within the homes of believers. Those who could offer their home for meetings were considered important within the movement and assumed leadership roles.[3]
Both complementarians and egalitarians see Jesus as treating women with compassion, grace and dignity. The gospels of the New Testament, especially Luke, often mention Jesus speaking to or helping women publicly and openly, contrary to the social norms of the time.[4] He reached out to the marginalized in his society and thus, his appeal was great.[2] Martha's sister Mary sat at Jesus feet being taught, a privilege reserved for men in Judaism. Jesus had female followers who were his sponsors,[Lu 8:1-3] and he stopped to express concern for the women of Jerusalem on his way to be crucified, [Luke 23:26-31] while Mary Magdalene is recorded to be the first person to have the privilege of seeing Jesus after resurrection.[Mark 16:9]
The letters of Paul—dated to the middle of the first century CE—and his casual greetings to acquaintances offer information about Jewish and Gentile women who were prominent in the movement. His letters provide clues about the kind of activities in which women engaged more generally.[5]
Some theologians believe that these biblical reports provide evidence of women leaders active in the earliest work of spreading the Christian message,[8][9] while others reject that understanding.[10] The evidence also indicates that these women "ministered" in supporting roles of the church much as the women who followed Christ supported his ministry.
From the very beginning of the early Christian church, women were important members of the movement, although some complain that much of the information in the New Testament on the work of women has been overlooked.[11] Some also argue that many assumed that it had been a "man's church" because sources of information stemming from the New Testament church were written and interpreted by men. Recently, scholars have begun looking in mosaics, frescoes, and inscriptions of that period for information about women's roles in the early church.[11]
From the early patristic age, the offices of teacher and sacramental minister were reserved for men throughout most of the church in the East and West.[12] Tertullian, the second century Latin father, wrote that "It is not permitted to a woman to speak in church. Neither may she teach, baptize, offer, nor claim for herself any function proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal office" ("On the Veiling of Virgins").
Origen (AD 185-254) stated that,
Even if it is granted to a woman to show the sign of prophecy, she is nevertheless not permitted to speak in an assembly. When Miriam the prophetess spoke, she was leading a choir of women ... For [as Paul declares] "I do not permit a woman to teach," and even less "to tell a man what to do." [13]
Christian historian Philip Schaff records early church fathers of the third and fourth centuries as teaching, regarding 1 Cor. 14: 34,35,
From the early patristic age, the offices of teacher and sacramental minister were reserved for men throughout most of the church in the East and West.[12] Tertullian, the second century Latin father, wrote that "It is not permitted to a woman to speak in church. Neither may she teach, baptize, offer, nor claim for herself any function proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal office" ("On the Veiling of Virgins").
In early centuries, the Eastern church allowed women to participate to a limited extent in ecclesiastical office by ordaining deaconesses.[12]
In the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church, the priesthood and the ministries dependent upon it such as Bishop, Patriarch and Pope, were restricted to men.[12] The first Council of Orange (441) forbade the ordination of women to the diaconate.[12]
With the establishment of Christian monasticism, other influential roles became available to women. From the 5th century onward, Christian convents provided opportunities for some women to escape the path of marriage and child-rearing, acquire literacy and learning, and play a more active religious role. In the later Middle Ages women such as Saint Catherine of Siena and Saint Teresa of Avila, played significant roles in the development of theological ideas and discussion within the church, and were later declared Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Protestant Reformation did not perpetuate female convents, which had existed within Roman Catholicism, and which the Reformers saw as bondage.[14] By shutting down female convents within the movement, Protestantism effectively closed off the option of a full-time religious role for Protestant women.[15] A notable example was that of Katherine von Bora who along with many other nuns abandoned the monastic life to marry Martin Luther.
The majority of Protestant churches upheld the traditional position,[16] and restricted ruling and preaching roles within the Church to men until the twentieth century, although there were early exceptions among some groups such as the Quakers and within some Pentecostal holiness movements.[17]
John Knox (1510 - 1572) also denied women the right to rule in the civic sphere, as he asserted in his famous First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.
Baptist theologian Dr. John Gill (1690–1771) comments on 1 Corinthians 14:34,35, stating
In Gen_3:16, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men. The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be drawn into a rule or example in such cases.[18]
Methodist founder John Wesley (1703–1791) and Methodist theologian Adam Clarke (1762–1832) both upheld male headship, but allowed that spiritual Christian women could publicly speak in church meetings if they "are under an extraordinary impulse of the Spirit" (Wesley),[19] and that such were to obey that influence, and that "the apostle lays down directions in chap. 11 for regulating her personal appearance when thus employed.” (Clarke)[20] Puritan theologian Matthew Poole (1624–1679) concurred with Wesley, adding,
But setting aside that extraordinary case of a special afflatus, [strong Divine influence] it was, doubtless, unlawful for a woman to speak in the church.[21]
Matthew Henry (1662–1714) in his commentary, entertains allowing “praying, and uttering hymns inspired” by women, as such “were not teaching”.[22]
Some 19th century Christian authors[23] began codifying challenges to the centuries-old traditional views toward women both in the church and in society. Only since the 1970s have more diverse views become formalized.
There are four main viewpoints in the modern debate. They are known respectively as Christian Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, Biblical patriarchy and Christian feminism. The first two of these—Christian Egalitarianism and Complementarianism—represent conservative Christianity. Each holds a high view of scripture. Their point of divergence is a different theological framework that has direct bearing on how each group interprets the Bible.
Christian Egalitarians' interpretation of Scripture brings them to the conclusion that the manner and teachings of Jesus, affirmed by the Apostle Paul, abolished gender-specific roles in both the church and in marriage.
Men, Women and Biblical Equality[24] was prepared in 1989 by several evangelical leaders to become the official statement of Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE). The statement lays out their biblical rationale for equality as well as its application in the community of believers and in the family. They advocate ability-based, rather than gender-based, ministry of Christians of all ages, ethnicities and socio-economic classes.[25] Egalitarians support the ordination of women and equal roles in marriage, and are more conservative both theologically and morally than Christian feminists.
A scripture passage they consider key to the advocacy of full equality of responsibility and authority for both women and men is contained in a Pauline polemic containing three antitheses:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
– Galatians 3:28
Christian Egalitarians interpret this passage as expressing that the overarching teaching of the New Testament is that all are "one in Christ." The three distinctions, important for Jewish life, are declared by Paul to be invalid in Christ. Therefore, among those "in Christ" there must be no discrimination based on race or national origin, social level, or gender. They respect the natural biological uniqueness of each gender, not seeing it as requiring any dominant/submissive applications of gender to either marriage or church leadership.
David Scholer, prominent New Testament scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary, affirms this view. He believes that Galatians 3:28 is “the fundamental Pauline theological basis for the inclusion of women and men as equal and mutual partners in all of the ministries of the church.”[27] Galatians 3:28 represents "the summation of Paul's theological vision," according to Pamela Eisenbaum, professor at Iliff School of Theology, who is one of four Jewish New Testament scholars teaching in Christian theological schools.[28][29]
Christian Egalitarianism holds that the submission of the woman in marriage and womanly restrictions in Christian ministry are inconsistent with the true picture of biblical equality. The equal-yet-different doctrine taught by Complementarians is considered by them to be a contradiction in terms.[30]
Conservative theologian Roger Nicole, a Baptist considered an expert in Calvinism and regarded as one of the preeminent theologians in America, is a Christian Egalitarian and also a Biblical Inerrantist. He recognizes that biblical egalitarianism is still viewed by many as inconsistent with biblical inerrancy, although he disagrees. He writes that "the matter of the place of women in the home, in society, and in the church is not an issue that can be conclusively determined by a few apparently restrictive passages that are often advanced by those who think that subordination represents God’s will for women."[31]
I believe that most, if not all, of the restrictions on women in society have no basis in Scripture, and that those maintained in the Church are based on an inadequate interpretation of a few restrictive passages, which put them in contradiction with the manifest special concern and love of God for women articulated from Genesis to Revelation.
– Roger Nicole, 2006
A limited notion of gender complementarity is held and is known as "complementarity without hierarchy."[32]
Complementarians believe God made men and women to be equal in personhood and value but different in roles. They understand the Bible as teaching that God created men and women to serve different roles in the church and the home.[33] In the 1991 book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, leading Complementarian theologians outlined what they consider to be biblically sanctioned definitions of masculinity and femininity:
The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood[35] was prepared by several evangelical leaders at a Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) meeting in Danvers, Massachusetts, in December 1987. The statement lays out their biblical rationale for male priority and female submission in the community of believers and in the family. Additionally it cites a set of concerns shared by complementarians over other contemporary philosophies about gender:
They attribute these ills to the "apparent accommodation of some within the church to the spirit of the age at the expense of winsome, radical Biblical authenticity which…may reform rather than reflect our ailing culture."[35]
Complementarians tend to be biblical inerrantists who take a more literal view of biblical interpretation. They disagree with Christian Egalitarians on theological positions related to gender,[36] such as in holding that:
Primary texts in the New Testament which are understood to support male headship include 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:12 and Ephesians 5:22ff:
In Galatians 3:28, complementarians believe that the Apostle Paul is establishing that all believers, no matter what their racial, social, or gender status, share the same spiritual status in their union with Christ. However, they do not believe that or any other scriptures put an end to positional and functional distinctions based on gender, which they see as being clearly stated and upheld in the New Testament, as a matter of Christian principle.
Complementarians' understanding is that both Old and New Testaments do prescribe a male-priority based hierarchy and gender roles in the church and in marriage, where women have equal dignity with men but subordinate roles.
Biblical patriarchy as expressed by the Vision Forum is similar to Complementarianism in that it affirms the equality of men and women, but goes further in its expression of the different gender roles. It asserts that "a husband and father is the head of his household, a family leader, provider, and protector" and that the "God-ordained and proper sphere of dominion for a wife is the household and that which is connected with the home".[37]
Biblical patriarchy maintains that women do not have authority over men in the church and in the home, but also deny that women should rule in the civic sphere.[38] Thus, William Einwechter calls the Complementarian view referred to above, "two point complementarianism", and regards the biblical patriarchy view as "full complementarianism". [39]
Christian Feminists take an actively feminist position from a Christian perspective.[40] Recent generations have experienced the rise of what has been labeled by some as "Christian feminism" —a movement that has had a profound impact on all of life, challenging some traditional basic Christian interpretations of Scripture with respect to roles for women.[34]
However, Christian feminism represents the views of the more theologically liberal end of the spectrum within Christianity. In contrast to the more socially conservative Christian egalitarians, Christian feminists tend to support homosexual rights and a pro-choice stance on abortion.[41][42] The Evangelical and Ecumenical Women’s Caucus, a major international Christian feminist organization, values "inclusive images and language for God."[43]
Although much of the contemporary literature settles on the terms Complementarianism and Christian Egalitarianism, a number of other more pejorative terms are frequently encountered.
William J. Webb describes himself as a "complementary egalitarian." He defines this as "full interdependence and 'mutual submission' within marriage, and the only differences in roles are 'based upon biological differences between men and women'." He uses "Complementarianism" to describe what he calls "a milder form of the historical hierarchical view."[45]
Complementarian scholar Wayne A. Grudem objects to Webb's use of "complementary" and "egalitarian" together to describe a thoroughly egalitarian position. Calling the terminology "offensive and confusing," he reasons that doing so simply confuses the issues by using the term "complementary" for a position totally antithetical to what complementarians hold. Grudem finds Webb's use of the term "patriarchy" to be especially pejorative because of its connotations in modern society. He also rejects the term "hierarchicalist" because he says it overemphasizes structured authority while giving no suggestion of equality or the beauty of mutual interdependence.[46]
In general, all evangelicals involved in the gender debate claim to adhere to the authority of the Bible. Egalitarians typically argue that the dispute has arisen because of differences in interpretation of specific passages.[47] Nevertheless, Wayne Grudem and other complementarians have accused egalitarians of adopting positions which deny the authority, sufficiency and inerrancy of scripture.[10][48]
…I believe that ultimately the effective authority of Scripture to govern our lives is at stake in this controversy. The issue is not whether we say we believe the Bible is the Word of God or that we believe it is without error, but the issue is whether we actually obey it when its teachings are unpopular and conflict with the dominant viewpoints in our culture. If we do not obey it, then the effective authority of God to govern His people and His church through His Word has been eroded.
– Wayne Grudem (emphases original), Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth[10]
The egalitarian and complementarian positions differ significantly in their approach to hermeneutics, and specifically in their interpretation of biblical history. Christian egalitarians believe that male and female were created equally[Gen. 1-2] without any hierarchy of roles.[49] God created both woman and man in His own image and likeness. God made the first couple equal partners in leadership over the earth. Both were jointly commissioned to “be fruitful and multiply...to fill the earth...subdue the earth...and rule over it.”[Gen. 1:28] At the Fall, God prophesied to Eve that one result of sin entering the human race would be that her husband would "rule over" her.[Gen. 3:16] [50][51] Conservative Christian theologian Gilbert Bilezikian points out that throughout the Old Testament era and beyond, just as God had prophesied, men continued to rule over women in a patriarchal system which he sees as being a "compromise" or "accommodation" between sinful reality and the divine ideal.[50] The coming of Jesus is understood as moving forward from Old Testament patriarchy, re-instituting full equality of gender roles, as succinctly articulated in Galatians 3:28.[50][52] New Testament passages such as Ephesians 5:22-24 which teach submission of wives to husbands are typically understood by egalitarians as a temporary accommodation to a harsh first century culture.
The Christian egalitarian hermeneutic has received a highly systematic treatment from William J. Webb, professor of New Testament at Heritage Theological Seminary, Ontario, Canada. Webb argues that a major challenge is determining which biblical commands are "transcultural" and therefore applicable today, versus those which are "cultural" and therefore only applicable to the original (first century) recipients of the text.[45] His "redemptive movement" hermeneutic is justified using the example of slavery, which Webb sees as analogous to the subordination of women. Christians today largely perceive that slavery was "cultural" in biblical times and not something that should be re-introduced or justified, although slavery was (a) found in the Bible and (b) not explicitly banned there.[45] Webb recommends that biblical commands be examined in light of the cultural context in which they were originally written. According to the "redemptive approach", slavery and women's subordination are found in the Bible; however, the same Scriptures also contain ideas and principles which, if developed and taken to their logical conclusion, would bring about the abolition of these institutions.[45] According to that ideal, biblical patriarchy should be replaced by the "all one in Christ Jesus" proclamation of Galatians 3:28 which says "There is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Some other New Testament instructions that are almost universally considered "cultural" and therefore only applicable to the original (first century) recipients of the text are for women to wear veils when praying or prophesying,[1 Cor 11:5-6] Christians to wash each other's feet (a direct command from Jesus in the Upper Room discourse,[Jn. 13:14-15] the instruction, appearing five times in the New Testament, to greet one another with a holy kiss[53]—among others.
In contrast to egalitarian teaching, complementarians teach that male priority and headship (positional leadership) were instituted prior to the Fall[Gen. 1-2] and that the decree in Genesis 3:16 merely distorted this leadership by introducing "ungodly domination."[34] Complementarians teach that the male leadership seen throughout the Old Testament (i.e., the patriarchs, priesthood and monarchy) was an expression of the creation ideal, as was Jesus' selection of 12 male apostles and New Testament restrictions on church leadership to men only.[1 Tim. 2:11-14] [34]
Complementarians criticize Webb's hermeneutic. Grudem argues that Webb expects Christians to pursue a "superior ethic" to that found in the New Testament, therefore undermining the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. He claims that Webb and some other evangelicals misconstrue the biblical teaching about both slavery and women, and inappropriately confuse the two. He writes that slavery is tolerated in Scripture but never commanded but in some cases is criticized, whereas wives are explicitly commanded to submit to their husbands and male leadership is never criticized. Additionally, Grudem believes that Webb's "redemptive-movement" hermeneutic (itself a variation of the "trajectory" hermeneutic commonly employed by egalitarians) ultimately relies on subjective judgments that are incapable of producing certainty about ethical views.[10]
Complementarians have traditionally held that Christian ministers ought to be men, because of the need to represent Jesus Christ, who was the "Son" of God, and incarnate as a male human being.[54][55] A related position is that while both male and female were made in the image of God, the woman shares in the divine image through the man because she was created out of him, and is his "glory."[1 Cor 11:7-8][56]
To us a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents us to God and God to us... We have no objection to a woman doing the first: the whole difficulty is with the second. But why? ... Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to 'Our Mother which art in Heaven' as to 'Our Father'. Suppose he says that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.
– C. S. Lewis, Priestesses in the Church? 1948
Christian egalitarians respond by arguing that God is not gendered, and that males and females image God equally and without any differences.[57] In addition, terms such as "Father" and "Son", used in reference to God, should be understood as analogies or metaphors used by the biblical authors to communicate attributes about God in a culture where men had social privilege.[57][58][59] Similarly, Christ became a male not because it was theologically necessary, but because first century Jewish culture would not have accepted a female Messiah.[57][58][59] Wayne Grudem takes exception to these egalitarian arguments, insisting that Christ's maleness was theologically necessary; he also alleges that egalitarians are increasingly advocating that God should be thought of as "Mother" as well as "Father", a move which he sees as theologically liberal.[10]
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has become a major focus of the contemporary gender debate, specifically in relation to 1 Cor. 11:13, NIV. In 1977, George W. Knight III argued in a book about gender roles that the subordination of women to men is theologically analogous to the subordination of the Son to the Father in the Trinity.[60] Australian theologian Kevin Giles has more recently responded that complementarians have "reinvented" the doctrine of the Trinity to support their views of men and women, suggesting that some complementarians have adopted a heretical view of the Trinity similar to Arianism.[61] A vigorous debate has ensued, with some egalitarians moving towards the idea that there is "mutual dependence" within the Trinity, including "subordination of the Father to the Son", which must be reflected in gender role relations.[58] Wayne Grudem has countered this by asserting that mutual submission in the Trinity cannot be supported by scripture and church history.[10]
Modern complementarians argue that Genesis 1:26-28 and Galatians 3:28 establish the full equality of males and females in terms of status, worth and dignity.[34] Complementary roles in marriage and church leadership, including the primary authority of men and the submission of wives, are not thought to contradict this principle of ontological equality. The equation of role or functional subordination and ontological inferiority is considered to be a category confusion.[10]
Egalitarian author Rebecca Merrill Groothuis has objected to this position. She argues that "woman’s spiritual and ontological equality with man rules out the sort of subordination prescribed by gender traditionalists…. It is not logically possible for woman to be essentially equal to man, yet universally subordinate to man on the basis of an essential attribute (i.e., femaleness)."[62]
In general, the issues have been what the proper role of women is (a) in marriage; (b) in the church; (c) in society at large. Among the denominations, movements, and organizations that express or have previously expressed a view, there are four main views:
The above lists are examples and are obviously not exhaustive. It is not always clear which category a church or movement falls into.
The Wesleyan tradition and the Holiness and Pentecostal movements, as well as a growing number of contemporary Charismatic churches which draw from them, have increasingly accepted women as leaders on an equal footing with men.
|
|
Search