In previous posts I reflected on early Christians' passion to keep in touch with one another and on the diversity of early Christian communities. In this final entry I shall reflect on women's contributions to the movement.
Some readers may find it surprising to learn that a woman shortage blighted the ancient world, with about 130-140 men for every 100 women. This is so because many female infants were left to die of exposure and because of the mortal risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth. Yet both Christians and their critics observed a marked overrepresentation of women in the early churches, a fact the critics used to their advantage: "What respectable group caters to women?" Why, one wonders, did so many women find the churches appealing if women's contributions were not valued?
The answer is, simply, that the early churches did value women's contributions. Not only did women show their strength in numbers, they did so in leadership positions as well. Both Acts and the Pauline tradition refer to the missionary couple Priscilla and Aquila, with Priscilla's name preceding her husband's in four of six instances (Acts 18:18, 26; Romans 16:3; 2 Timothy 4:19). Since the husband's name usually figures first in ancient pairings, this pattern suggests Prisca's prominence. In Romans 16 Paul refers to women and men alike as partners in the gospel. The only named deacon in the New Testament is Phoebe, a patron of the movement -- she seems to be Paul's representative to the church in Rome (Romans 16:1-2). Paul also refers to Junia as an apostle, a fact most English translations covered up until 1989 (Romans 16:7). His letters refer to several other prominent women, including Euodia and Synthyche, who likely led the church in Philippi (Philippians 4:2) and Chloe, whose "people" maintained communication with Paul in his absence (1 Corinthians 1:11). And though the prophet John condemns her teachings, Revelation's indictment of "Jezebel" (no way that was her real name) indicates the influence of a woman prophet in Thyatira (Revelation 2:20-24). Moreover, both Acts and Paul refer to women who hosted church gatherings in their homes (12:12; 16:40; Romans 16:3-5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Philemon 1-2; see Colossians 4:15), a service that must have implied some level of status.
Let's not claim too much or too little for those early churches. I hear many people blithely assert that women were "just property" in the ancient world. Overwhelming and oppressive patriarchy did characterize ancient cultures, but we also have many examples of powerful, creative, literate and accomplished women -- some in roles of patronage and community leadership. (The work of Ross Shepard Kraemer has proven invaluable in this respect). As we have seen, some women of this class contributed to the early churches.
On the other hand, early Christianity was no oasis of feminist liberty. While we observe some egalitarian impulses in the movement, it is impossible to quantify gender roles in the early churches. Moreover, women's leadership quickly emerged as a point of controversy among the Christians. It appears that the Apostle Paul recognized women as full partners in ministry -- though one imagines women who did not need or wait for Paul's permission. Paul certainly wasn't spiritualizing when he said that in Christ there "is neither Jew nor Greek;" he probably meant it when he ruled out the distinctions between slave or free and male and female as well (Galatians 3:27-29). Some later Christians remembered Paul as an advocate for women's authority, as we see in the Acts of Paul and Thecla. But some of his other admirers turned the tradition against women. A scribe added a harsh prohibition against women's speech in worship to 1 Corinthians (14:34-35); meanwhile, later Christians writing in Paul's name advocated women's subordination in Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy and Titus.
Assessing women's contributions can pose a complicated task. For example, interpreters have long noticed that that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, which share a common author, prominently feature female characters. Luke's Gospel emphasizes the experience of Jesus' mother Mary and her relative Elizabeth, introduces the prophet Anna, names three women who support Jesus and his disciples as they travel (8:2-3), and provides the scene in which Mary sits at Jesus' feet while Martha performs service or ministry (Greek: diakonia). In Acts we meet Dorcas, Mary the mother of John Mark, Lydia, Philip's daughters and Priscilla. Yet while Luke and Acts call attention to these significant women, they do not fulfill roles of authorized leadership in the movement. Do we emphasize how Luke and Acts compare favorably to most literature from their patriarchal culture, or do we suspect that the author is reducing women's role to safely domestic contributions?
Our best evidence indicates that women played a relatively prominent role in the early Christian communities, compared to their larger social contexts, but the evidence is mixed. For one thing, the first century was a period of gender experimentation, as people debated whether women could study philosophy or join men at public meals. Moreover, while some early Christian women and men functioned as equals in leadership and authority, practices varied from one Christian community to another. Eventually the role of women constituted a point of vigorous debate among the churches, eventually leading to women's subordination as official policy in almost all churches.
Follow Greg Carey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GregC666
Greg Carey: Paul Did Not 'Invent' Christianity
At the birth of Jesus, If the Wise-men were Wise-women;
They would have arrived on time
Helped deliver the baby
Cleaned up
And given useful gifts.
Diapers, diapers and MORE diapers!
what about all the stuff where woman are deemed less equal as men. Told they must be silent in church. What about all the stuff where woman must be submissive and be ruled over by their husbands?
I dont believe that. I am not saying it's right. I am honestly and sincerely curious. If it's written in the holy books, how can woman have had any roles in the early churches.
I am honestly curious. Were they sinning, then, by not following the scriptures to their absolute letter of the law? I read the article. perhaps I just didn't see and understand.
There's the problem with how the Bible is read.
The "silence" issue is found in Paul's letter to Timothy (the one called, "1st Timothy") and the word has more of a...quietness of demeanor meaning in the Greek. This isn't a call for absolute silence at all but those unfamiliar with the original langauges will see the best single word choice (silence) and assume it means what we mean silence to mean to us today. Coupled with the "with all submissiveness" in the text, it carries a far different meaning than how we would think of it today. The letter makes mention of some women (not all) asserting authority and not assuming a posture of learning but rather the opposite.
continued
Asherah is found in texts older than the Bible often referred to her with Yahweh (such as on the Kuntillet Ajrud ostraca -- "Yahweh and his Asherah"). Thousands of figurines from before the 4th century BC have been found of her in Israel. In the Bible itself her worship is criticized by monotheists who claim that Yahweh is the only one who should be worshipped (e.g. 1 Kings 18:19, 2 Kings 21:7).
The New Testament is about him and his ramblings, not the vitiated words of Jesus when you really give it a good reading.
IF the Scriptures are God's word then it is the authority and the principles and teachings are al that matter and those who follow do not get to make up the principles as they choose (otherwise one is not following the original are they?). No matter where one stands on the Bible as the word of God, it is the basic starting point to decide whether or not one follows the teachings contained within.
Actually, that is not true. The early Christians only had the Hebrew scriptures as their Bible, and they were more than willing to reject many of its teachings, such as kosher laws, circumcision (which was called an "everlasting covenant" in Hebrew scripture), and Sabbath observance from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown (which was one of the Ten Commandments). Why were they willing to reject scripture? Because they found a new principle.
Carl E. Braaten writes: “Fundamentalist Biblicism is rejected by most theologians and it out of favor in most of the seminaries that train clergy for the parish ministry. They reject Biblicism not merely because historical science and disclosed errors and contradictions in the biblical writings, but rather because the authority of the Bible is elevated at the expense of the authority of Christ and his gospel” (“Christian Dogmatics,” 1984:74-75).
Most Christians for the last two thousand years couldn't read. Christianity is a living faith, one doesn't need to know how to read in order to be a Christian. Christians are not called to blindly obey scripture, but rather to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. And today, the Holy Spirit is leading the mainline Protestant Churches to be progressive, open and welcoming!
As an ELCA Lutheran, I totally agree!
Gives new insight as to what kinds of "demons" this much revered misogynist may have been carrying around, all those self-loathing years.
Secular society tries to downplay the importance of females in the church to discourage them from joining or show no interest. Many people forget about the virtue of humility. For the one who is least among all of you is the one who is the greatest. Luke 9:48
Our society and culture teaches that men and women should have much the same roles in their lives. Modern secular culture treats men and women as if they were meant to be interchangeable parts in society. Men and women are given nearly the same roles in our society today. There are even laws making it illegal to give certain jobs only to men. Such is the teaching of our culture. But it is not the teaching of Christ.
"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (1 Tim 2:11-12)
God did not give women a place, in the Church, the family, or society, to teach men or to have authority over men.
Scripture clearly teaches that God gives men and women different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Men are intended by God to be teachers and leaders in the Church, the family, and society. Women should not have any kind of teaching role over adult men. Women should not have any kind of leadership role over adult men.
Women may teach and lead children, both boys and girls (even into the teenage years). God gave women the ability to become pregnant, to carry and give birth to children. In this way, God gave women also the primary role in teaching and leading children.
Compelling enough belief to make paganism look very appealing.
Women may teach and lead other women. An older and wiser woman may be a leader and teacher over other women, especially if they are younger or less knowledgeable than she. But it is not right for a young woman to take a role teaching or leading much older women, (unless those older women are mentally-disabled).
The teaching that men and women are meant to have different roles clearly indicates that changes are needed in our society today.
Women should not be political leaders. In politics, a woman should not be President or Vice President or Senator or Representative or Governor or a State legislator. A woman should not have any elected or appointed political position with authority over men, because it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. A woman should not be Judge in any court of law, because courts have authority over men.
In general, women should not be law enforcement officers, though some exceptions to this rule can be made when a female is specifically needed for certain tasks (e.g. undercover law enforcement work or work involving women prisoners or involving children). Women should not be military officers with authority over male soldiers.
"Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." (Ephesians 5:22)
Historically the church's position on this matter followed the Biblical texts such as Genesis 3:16 where God tells Eve that her husband will rule over her, and passages where wives are listed along with a man's other goods and chattels. This view is comprehensively confirmed in the New Testament:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
(Colossians 3:18; cf. 1 Peter 3:1 and Ephesians 5:22)
I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Let your women keep silence in churches: for it is not permitted unto them; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also sayeth the law.
(1 Corinthians 14:34,
In line with these statements women were until recent times not permitted to speak in church, and they are still expected to cover their heads in church. As early as the fourth century it was decreed by a synod that women should neither send nor receive letters in their own name.They were also confined to minor Orders and forbidden to sing in church.
As a matter of fact, as a Christian (and not a "Paulist") I follow the ten commandment and the quotes attributed to Jesus. Everything else is suspect, IMO.
But the natural reason is that she is more carnal than a man, as is clear from her many carnal abominations. And it should be noted that there was a defect in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives.