women and leadership
The ‘coming out of the closet’ thread is still bubbling away.. over 100 comments now. This is an interesting essay on the topic by Linda McKinnish Bridges, Professor of New Testament and Greek, Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, Richmond, Virginia.
I thought this bit was particularly good:
The “Lydia Phase” in the New Testament: From Lydia to Clement
Jesus elevated women. This fact cannot be denied. When one reads the gospel stories of Jesus and women in light of the first-century patriarchal context, Jesus’ acts toward women are seen as culturally subversive responses of personal redemption and social change. Jesus opposed the gender constructions of the first-century world. First-century culture denounced women; women announced Jesus’ resurrection ( Luke 24:10). First century-culture mandated that women could not converse with men in public; Jesus meets a Samaritan woman at a well for deep theological discourse (John 4). Menstruating women were considered unclean; Jesus was touched by a bleeding woman and healed (Mark 5:25-34). Stories abound in the Gospels of Jesus’ willingness to deviate from cultural conventions and values women.9
The early Christian missionary movement was led by women and men.10 Fiorenza states that “we recognize that the Pauline and the post-Pauline literature know of women not merely as rich patronesses of the Christian missionary movement but as prominent leaders and missionaries whoCin their own rightCtoiled for the gospel.”11 The Hellenistic Christians gather in the house of a woman named Mary in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12-17). Lydia is the first convert in Europe and serves the church in Philippi (16:14). Many prominent women listen to the missionaries and are converted in Thessalonica (17:4). The Acts of Paul and Thecla, written in the second century, reveal that Thecla had definite authority to preach, teach, and baptize as an early missionary in the beginning of the Christian movement.
The house church and the theological understanding reflected in Galatians 3:28 foster women’s leadership in the early missionary movement. The church meets in private spaceCthe home. The first-century woman is at home here, less comfortable in public arenas. She can lead the church because the movement bears the imprint of family. The physical architecture of the first-century church is domestic, familiar, and closely related to life and family. Furthermore, the theological energy for the movement is summarized by Paul: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female.” The impetus for women’s leadership comes from the very heart of the movementCwhich is to create a comfortable setting where people can hear the gospel of freedom and be saved. And women could do that extremely well.
The goals would soon change. Soon fear of heresy imposed another structure on the walls of the early Church. The comfortable, familiar surroundings of hymns and prayers of the Christian house church were surrounded by thick, organizational walls of orthodoxy. Read some of the new understandings of church as reflected in the early second century in 1 Timothy 3:1-13: “Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife , . . . he must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way , . . . he must not be a recent convert, . . . .” Even Paul and Jesus, much less Lydia, could not have been leaders in this church, if marital status, gender, and years spent as Christian were to be requirements for the job. The landscape changed. It was inevitable. The demands of the opposition forced a clearer, tighter vision of the faith as the words, “guard,” “hold fast,” “command,” “doctrine,” dot the literary landscape of 1-2 Timothy and Titus. Authority originally invested in the community by the Holy Spirit was exchanged for power vested by a few local officers, “whoCin timeCabsorb not only the teaching authority of the prophet and apostle but also the decision-making power of the community.”12 The early Church becomes stratified according to the standards of the culture. Gender divisions, never intended to belong to the movement, became codifed in the leader descriptions of the early second-century Church. Traces of the feminine were erased.
When we do our exegesis - this sort of contextualisation must also be taken into account. Discerning God’s word is more than simply reading the text.
If you want to comment on this article, it would be helpful if you could comment in the original thread - you will see the link on the sidebar.
February 14th, 2004 at 2:34 pm
Whilst this woman has some good points to make she is well a bit dotty in a few areas.
It is almost Sociology (left wing of course) meets the bible.
I would like to make some positive comments but I find it hard to take the whole thing seriously and give the time limits I think some of the other topics are more fruitful.
February 14th, 2004 at 4:29 pm
Homer: Isn’t sociological and culture reflections on the Bible critical to understand Scripture? You make sociology sound like a bad word. Is that what you mean?
February 14th, 2004 at 10:38 pm
Oy vey.
If the church doesn’t want women as absolutely full members - all orders - laity, deacons, priests, bishops, ministers - then get honest and just stop baptizing us.
There is certainly precedent for an all-boys’ spiritual club: look at the Masons. Perhaps the conservatives would like to take a page from their book and simply follow that model.
I have a lot of respect for the Masons’ teachings, but nevertheless, a Boyz Club is a Boyz Club.
The fact that one segment of the sacramental Christian church began ordaining and consecrating us was long overdue anyhow - by about 2,000 years. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and you can’t turn back the clock.
Long Live the Episcopal Church. As crazy as it may appear to outsiders right now, future generations shall call it blessed. And visionary.
“Women keep silent in church” was written to one church for one situation. In the Jewish services women were to “keep silent”. The Christian sect did not hold to that, and it appears that a few women in one church went a little overboard with their newfound ability to say *anything*. Thus that bit of advice to one particular group, and even more likely, to one particular subset of those women in one particular church.
Good thing the annoyed males of that church aren’t around to see the Internet. “Keep silent” indeed! LOL
As far as God “always” being referred to as “Father” in the bible… what about the widow seeking her lost coin? What about Ruach hovering over the “waters” in Genesis? That’s a gestation image if ever there was one. What about Jesus mourning over Jerusalem like a mother holding a baby to her breast? What about the same sort of imagery in the OT? What about the faulty translation of YHWH all over the bible as LORD? There are two masculine letters and two feminine gender letters in Tetragrammaton — there’s a clue. What about the Tree of Life from Kabbala, where there are an equal number of “female” and “male” sephira? What about the Shekinah? Sophia? Ruach?
One of the greatest historical ironies ever has been the idea of “patriarchy.” That word was invented by the Romans - the “pagans.” The Christian sect was revolutionary in its day because of the innovation of processes like the “Lydia phase.” Today it’s the rightwing Christians who have taken up pagan Rome’s patriarchial battle cry, and it’s the Neopagans who are doing lots of good work in raising up awareness of the feminine divine with their vision of the Goddess.
Granted the J-C tradition has been interpreted as highly patriarchial, but buried deep within its mystical sides the feminine aspect of God is there. She Who Is is resurrecting now, and you cannot stop it.
Shame on y’all for trying to make the Judeo-Christian God sound like a whiny little girl-hating boy in a treehouse. All little boys go through a “Girls are Yucky!” stage. The tradition itself may have a life cycle similar to a boy’s; but after a time the little boy grows up and begins to appreciate the feminine - and to cherish it, honor it, and give it its proper place in his life: as his beloved companion and equal.
Say three Hail Marys and read “The Handmaid’s Tale” seven times, Homer.
February 16th, 2004 at 10:24 am
Phil, she is all over the place.
Firstly she obviously doesn’t understand the context of Gal 3:28.
Secondly think of what ex-pharisee Paul has built on. women do not sit seperately as they did in the Temple and as 3:28 says all are equal. Try telling that to the Jewish religious establishment!
Why would such a man then go and say women can’t teach after all this if he is just being ‘cultural’.
With respect she is very hard to take seriously.
March 5th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
My understanding is that many of the first Christian converts were Jewish and often adopted the “women sit in one place, men sit in another” tradition of the synagogue. This explains the otherwise bizarre instruction in I Cor 14: 34 - 35 “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says, and if they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home.” This is thought to be an instruction related to the practice of women yelling across the other side of the room for their husbands to explain something, adding to the apparent chaos in the Corinthian church. It cannot be read as an absolute prohibition to do public ministry, as Paul devotes a large chunk of chapter 11 to what women should wear on their heads when praying or prophesying. (yet another bizarre instruction that needs to be understood in its context!)
I’m also surprised by Linda’s assertion that Timothy and Titus are 2nd century documents… I had thought the last 50 years had uncovered compelling documentary evidence that these were indeed Paul’s writings in the first century. Have I missed something?
March 5th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
So if a sexist statement in the Bible does not fit into our modern context, then it is “bizarre”. Janet, I think there are more bizarre statements in the Bible than those two you have mentioned. Do you think anyone really takes the Biblical text seriously in our day and age?
March 11th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Hello Kieran! Excuse the slow reply.
Does anyone take the biblical text seriously?… There are doubtless thousands of theological students around the world plodding away right now at studying the biblical text… learning New Testament Greek and Hebrew, studying ancient near east cultures, researching the world of the New Testament, analysing passages… investing considerable personal time and expense in understanding its message. Approximately 2 billion people are at least nominally Christian around the world… the majority would give at least nominal assent to the bible being a source of authority for their faith. There are an estimated 70 million people in the “unofficial” or underground church in China, willing to risk death, imprisonment, torture, loss of opportunity etc. because they believe in the bible with utter commitment. I could go on… yes, many people take the biblical text seriously!
But back to the topic directly… of course many statements and practices in the bible sound bizarre today… that is precisely why theological students put so much time and effort into understanding the languages and cultures at the time the bible was written. This is our best hope for understanding what a particular statement (or practice) meant at the time… why it’s there… and how the same underlying principle might therefore apply today.
However, I said the prohibition about women speaking is bizarre because in the same letter to the Corinthian church Paul wrote about what women were to wear on their heads while prophesying. So in one place he refers to what women should wear while involved in a public speaking ministry (prophesying) and in the same letter he tells them not to speak. So it’s not just bizarre today… it was bizarrely contradictory then. Some scholars feel it is best understood that the “speaking” he prohibits is yelling across the church for their husbands to explain something.
As a matter of interest… have you actually ever read the New Testament?
I do enjoy your comments, by the way.