When the WHY behind the WHAT changed Part 2

Let's quote some old dead guys!

Last week, I spent most of the time unpacking what I had found in my study from Dr. Daniel Doriani. In short, he admitted that the reasons behind the practice of male-only leadership, or male headship, had changed over the last century or so.

This week, I want to continue writing about that historic position, particularly quoting some church fathers to illustrate the change. This is more of a collection, and I am sure there are plenty more. Either way, let’s jump into it!

Origen (184-253 AD) wrote,

“It is shameful for a woman to speak in church, whatever she says, even if she says something excellent or holy, because it comes from the mouth of a woman.”

This statement acknowledges a long-held belief that no matter what is said, a woman should not speak in church. It does not matter if it is something good or holy. No one today, at least in the majority of churches, holds to this extreme view. You can find, though, in history some arguing that women should not even sing in church because it is shameful. To show some nuance, though, in Origen’s thought, he did argue for women to serve as deacons. While not the purpose here, there is abundant historical evidence that women were allowed to serve in the ordained office of deacon. This nuance was held because the office was viewed not as one of rule or authority. The issue was not ordination in and of itself but rather authority and ruling.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) wrote,

“The mark of the man, the beard, by which he is seen to be a man, is older than Eve, and is the token of the superior nature.”

Clement is making a gender hierarchy argument based on the creation order. What is of note is the use of the term “superior.” This is a consistent argument noting that things that come first are often superior to those that come later. There is a consistent argument made in using the creation order as a basis for female subordination. What has shifted is the concepts and words of subordination, superiority, and inferiority. In other places, he also argues that rationality and gullibility are also at play in the inferiority of women.

John Chrysostom (347-407 AD), in writing about women not being allowed to teach anything, wrote,

“She taught Adam once and taught him badly…Therefore let her descend from the professor’s chair! She is now subjected to the man, because of sin.”

In another passage, he wrote,

“To women is assigned the presidency of the household; to man all the business of the state, the marketplace, the administration of government…She cannot handle state business well, but she can raise children correctly.”

Why, you might ask, are these places assigned as such? His reason is that man is “skilled at greater things” but useless “at less important ones.”

You can also study the historical transition from a less formal, more home-based church structure to a more formal, political body, what we might call the institutional church. The church moved from a more private sphere in Christians' homes to a more public sphere similar to Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholicism.

Chrysostom did, however, hold a unique view regarding equality in the garden prior to the fall. He believed that Adam and Eve were created equal in the garden, a shared authority. However, because of the fall (and because of the weak and fickle nature of the gender), the whole gender transgressed, and the whole gender is put under the subjection of the man to rule over her now.

Chrysostom does acknowledge a path forward. God has granted another opportunity for salvation by bringing up children so she can be saved. You can read this in his sermons of 1 Timothy, specifically referring to 1 Timothy 2:15 as his basis for this belief. Here is a great example of how the current interpretations have changed. Most, if not all, of the serious scholars do NOT hold that 1 Timothy 2:15 is actually about a woman earning her salvation by having and raising children.

Moving on, St. Augustine (354-430 AD) writes,

“The woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that the whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman is joined with him in one.”

This comes from his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:7, which says, “…man is the image AND glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.” Since the scriptures do not explicitly say she is the image of God, she must not be unless she is married.

You may ask, what about Genesis 1:27, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Some complementarians will make the argument that the Hebrew word for “Them” is masculine/singular and so should be translated as “Him.” Yes, it is a masculine, singular word. However, there are strong arguments for understanding how, in Hebrew, “Ha’adam” can and does mean humanity, mankind, and not one specific gender. Another topic for another time. However, can you see how the overall shift in interpretation has moved away from what Augustine argues? The typical complementarian catchphrase illustrates it: “Equal in being, different in function.” I have come to see this phrase as a logical fallacy. Yet again, it is something to write at a future time. But let’s just leave that hand grenade on the table.

Augustine draws his conclusion from Genesis,

“That a man endowed with a spiritual mind could have believed this [the lie of the serpent] is astonishing. And just because it is impossible to believe it, woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by the superior reason. Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her?”

Others could be quoted through the ages. To move closer to our own heritage, here are a few quotes from the reformers like Luther (1483-1546) and Calvin (1509-1564).

Luther writes in his lectures on Genesis,

“The woman, although she was a most beautiful work of God, nevertheless was not the equal of the man in glory and prestige…this sex…is inferior to the male sex.”

In his commentary on Ecclesiastes, he writes,

“She was created to be around the man, to care for children and to bring them up…and to be subject to the man. Men, on the other hand, are commanded to govern and have the rule over women and the rest of the household. But if a woman forsakes her office and assumes authority over her husband, she is doing a work that comes from her own fault and from evil. For God did not create this gender for ruling, and therefore they never rule successfully.”

To quote one more passage from Luther, he writes,

“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, and keep house, and bear and bring up children.”

If you have read any of Luther, you might be aware he often had a tone of writing that could be described as inflammatory…and that is putting it mildly. Of course, such words could be dismissed and downplayed by saying, “He didn’t really mean that.” Or perhaps, “What he really meant was…” This, however, I would argue, is a tactic to misdirect troubling words.¹ Rather, I think they reveal a truth he held about the relationship and order between men and women.

We also see an interesting aspect unfolding in the reformation. Even as they elevate the value of women and, more importantly, marriage for priests, there is still the use of ontological or natural differences to discuss the topic of male leadership.

Calvin, in his commentary on John, when Jesus first appeared after the resurrection to a woman and commands her to go and tell the disciples, writes,

“I consider this was done by way of reproach, because they [the disciples] had been so tardy and sluggish to believe. And indeed, they deserve not only to have women for their teachers, but even oxen and asses…Yes it pleased the Lord, by means of those weak and contemptible vessels, to give display to his power.”

According to Calvin’s argument, and sadly, some modern authors, God used a woman because there were no men who stepped up and took responsibility and leadership. If only men were stronger, more responsible, and more willing to follow God in leadership in their design.

I see this as the weak and empty argument it has become. Moreover, it adds interpretation and commentary to scripture that is not found in the text. It says nowhere that this is why Jesus chose to reveal himself first to a woman. It goes back to my earlier post about hermeneutics. Calvin is making a choice to see that moment the way he does! This is an interpretive choice, not the only interpretation of the text. I believe this interpretation does a disservice to our sisters in Christ. Not only that, it creates and fosters a false dichotomy of responsibility and leadership. It approaches leadership in a binary fashion, as an either/or, rather than possibly seeing that leadership can be expanded.² The more leaders, the better! In the coming weeks, I want to draw attention to this presumption behind some of these types of claims.

Right now, let’s continue by looking at Calvin’s commentary on 1 Corinthians. He writes,

“On this account, all women are born that they may acknowledge themselves as inferior in consequence to the superiority of the male sex.”

In another passage from 1 Corinthians, he writes,

“Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is made inferior to the more distinguished sex.”

In his commentary for 1 Timothy 2:12, he writes,

“There is no absurdity in man’s commanding and obeying at the same time in different relationships with other men. But this does not apply to women, who by nature (that is, by the ordinary law of God) are born only to obey, for all wise men have always rejected gynaikokratian [The government of women], as an unnatural monstrosity.”

I think it is important to note a distinction in much of what Calvin writes regarding submission. Often, in soft complementarian circles, there is an interpretative nuance added that Paul is not saying all women are to submit to all men. The argument goes that Paul is referring only to the relationship between a husband and wife. As you can see in the summary of Calvin’s thought, this was not the common understanding of these passages.

Not only that, but in most thought, you can see how these concepts are linked to the nature or being of a woman. It would seem the saying, “Equal in being…” would not have been agreed upon throughout most of church history. Now, as I said last week, this movement is definitely for the better! The church is better for this acknowledgment. However, I still think the conclusion it is coming to is flawed. To try and claim male-only leadership based upon gender but also claim the genders are equal sure seems like the old proverbial saying about having your cake and eating it too.

Moving on, I will not take time to quote Enlightenment thinkers, besides stating that philosophers like Rousseau and Kant all say similar things about women. Women are viewed for the purpose of supporting the man. They are inferior to men.

Dr. William G. Witt, author of Icons of Christ, summarizes in the same vein as Dr. Doriani in writing,

“There has been a major shift from this position in recent decades. Somewhere around the mid-twentieth century, the historical claims about women’s essential inferiority and intellectual incapacity for leadership simply disappeared. Instead, all mainline churches—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Anglican—recognized the essential equality between men and women, including fundamental intellectual and moral equality. The kinds of negative rhetoric about women’s incapacities that is summarized above disappeared. Arguably, this is a good thing, and a real advance.”

There has been a fundamental shift for the better in how we view men and women. Yet, one side is still looking for the same conclusion of male-only leadership.

Interestingly, J.I. Packer, a complementarian, in a collection of essays titled Women, Authority, and the Bible (1986), wrote,

“The burden of proof regarding the exclusion of women from the office of teaching and ruling within the congregation now lies on those who maintain the exclusion rather than on those who challenge it.”

Packer was willing to admit that the burden had to shift to the complementarian position because of the new interpretations theologically and biblically. I do not think he ever changed his position. Yet, he was willing to admit there was a shift, and with that comes a shift in where the burden of proof rests.

As I stated earlier, this was an eye-opening study for me. I imagine anyone reading these quotes at this point would agree that such understandings of women's value, worth, dignity, and abilities were truly misinterpretations of scripture. We know, in regard to ontological equality, that we are not arguing against scripture or truth here, but the interpretation of the scriptures.

I have come to see that these interpretations are more influenced by Greek-Roman and Jewish thought than the Gospels. In fact, if you read Plato, Socrates, and other Jewish contemporaries like Philo and Josephus, you would hear similar language regarding man’s superiority and woman’s inherent inferiority.

Aristotle writes in Politics,

Of household management we have seen that there are three parts—one is the rule of a master over slaves…another of a father, and the third of a husband. A husband and father rules over wife and children, both free, but the rule differs, the rule over his children being a royal, over his wife a constitutional rule. For although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is by nature fitter for command than the female just as the older and full-grown is superior to the younger and more immature…The freeman rules over the slave after another manner from that in which the male rules over the female, or the man over the child; although the parts of the soul are present in all of them, they are present in different degrees. For the slave has no deliberative faculty at all; the woman has, but it is without authority, and the child has but it is immature. So it must necessarily be with the moral virtues also; all may be supposed to partake of them, but only in such manner and degree as is required by each for the fulfillment of his duty.

The Jewish philosopher Philo writes,

Wives must be in servitude to their husbands, a servitude not imposed by violent ill-treatment but promoting obedience in all things. Parents must have power over their children…the same holds for any other persons over whom [the man] has authority.

The Jewish historian Josephus writes,

The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive, not for her humiliation, but that she may be directed; for the authority has been given by God to the man.

This goes back to my initial point: If we theologically believe (A) and (B) about women, then (C) makes practical sense. But if (A) and (B) have changed, and we recognize and accept that these beliefs represent a misinterpretation of scripture, then we must acknowledge that we do not agree with them anymore. We can confidently assert that those interpretations were incorrect. If this is the case, shouldn't we also consider whether their (and our) application of these passages is misguided? If the reasoning is not biblical, could the conclusions also be unbiblical?

Interestingly enough, we already have at least one case study from within the last 200 years. We now agree that the master-slave relationship described in Ephesians 6:5-8 is not an argument for the continuation of slavery. Rather, it is a clear misinterpretation of the scriptures. We are not arguing to still maintain the practice of slavery (C), but giving new reasons why we should support it (A) & (B). In fact, when preaching or teaching on such passages, it more often than not gets nuanced to refer to the employer/employee relationship. An interpretation, by the way, that Paul does not make. It is not explicit in the text; rather, it is an interpretative choice. Yet again, it is a topic for another time, but it illustrates how we are willing to take some passages and apply the principles of the passage but not the literal, plain interpretation. And even do that within the same passage like Ephesians 5-6!

Of course, I have heard the argument that American slavery was different from 1st century slavery. True. Chattel slavery and bond slavery are not the same thing. But at a bare minimum, who is making that argument? Are you saying we should reinstitute Greco-Roman bond slavery?

Sadly, we know of, and you can read about, brilliant, reformed-presbyterian pastors and scholars who tried to make pro-slavery arguments during the 18th and 19th centuries. While those who were abolitionists were accused of giving into culture and making more complex something that was “plain” in the text. The abolitionists had a challenge before them of making a narrative arc argument from scripture. The pro-slavery Christian scholars tried to claim the straightforward, plain, and grammatical-historical reading.

I wonder why people are averse to applying the same principles learned from this debate to the current topic of men and women in the home, church, and society. I wonder if it is more a fear of losing something rather than seeing the potential. I wonder if it is a misguided and limited understanding of responsibility and leadership and complementing skills and gifts. I also wonder why some are quick to accuse the egalitarian of giving into culture when complementarians could also be accused of giving into culture. Not the modern culture, the Greco-Roman culture, which is still an acquiesence to culture nonetheless.

I think that a quick perusal of some of the writings of history shows that there is a new interpretation in town. A better one at that. So, why not be willing to question if our practice should also change? I believe now that they should. And we will be for the better when we live into the beautiful complementarian nature and gifts of men AND women, side-by-side, for the sake of pointing people to the freedom of Jesus.

1. I was recently listening to an episode of the Sons of Patriarchy podcast where they talk about this very idea. A leader or pastor says something that should be called out, and yet by their followers, it gets downplayed. The examples they were discussing were Douglas Wilson and others in his orbit.

2. To illustrate this, briefly, you could look at how people try and explain the stories of Deborah, Huldah, Esther, Phoebe, Junia, and Priscilla. The conclusion of male headship seems so certain that we then have to go back and see these moments in a different light. As a case study, read the Presbyterian Church in America's position paper on this topic. You will see the interpretative choices that have to be made to continue to maintain the current position. These specific stories, though, do not come with descriptions of how to understand them. That has to be an interpretative choice. But that is just it; the texts do not give us the light to see them in a specific way. We have to make interpretative choices to look at them in a specific way. Calvin is making a choice to see that moment the way he does!