1 of 7

Scholars have long wrangled over the meaning of New Testament statements about the relative roles of women and men, and always central to the debate are the Apostle Paul’s outspoken declarations. Was he a pragmatic libertarian, or an imposing legalist, or something in between?

The issue of women in church history bristles with controversy. Two groups fight it out. One holds that women have always, until recent years, had subordinate roles in the church. This was proper, these scholars say, because Paul clearly stipulated that women should be silent and submissive. Obviously, they say, the early church followed his instructions.

But the other group presents an impressive collection of women in leadership roles in the church’s early centuries. It’s surprising, they say, that any women could have such prominence in a maledominated society. They cite Jesus’ tradition-breaking acceptance of women and assume that Priscilla, Phoebe, Lydia, et al., followed in that spirit.

Christianity’s unique “servant-language” doesn’t help much. Following Christ’s example, the church avoided terms and titles that would suggest domination. Its leaders were simply “elders” and “deacons” (servants). That makes it confusing for modern-day detectives. When Paul calls Phoebe a “deacon,” is he referring to a church office she holds? Most other uses of this word in the New Testament indicate church office. But some conservatives say this cannot be, in Phoebe’s case, because Paul elsewhere limits the diaconate to men. We have similar confusion with the two ministrae arrested by Pliny in the 2nd century. Were these just helpers, as some historians assert, or were they “ministers”? The language could mean either.

The two positions thus have radically different views of history, both supported, to some degree, by the evidence. Traditionalists see the church adopting a certain order, based on apostolic teaching. Feminist scholars generally see the free exercise of ministry gifts by men and women in the first century or two.

The debate often sets up as Jesus vs. Paul. The traditionalists often underestimate how radically Jesus broke with the tradition of his day in his treatment of women. The feminists often discount or disparage Paul. And many, many in between wonder why it has to be “either/or.” Doesn’t Paul preach the gospel of Jesus? Is there no continuity?

Paul stands at the start of church history. An understanding of his writings and how they were read is foundational to a good understanding of early-church practice regarding women in leadership and ministry.

Several major questions loom: Was Paul restricting women for pragmatic or theological reasons? He uses theology, but does he use it as proof or merely as illustration? If he is being pragmatic, do his practical reasons continue today, or did they fade in subsequent generations? Was Paul declaring a new order for the church or was he mitigating the effect of a sexist society? Was he placing restraints on believers coming from a libertine culture or was he adapting Christian freedom so that it would not be misunderstood, by those within the church or without?

Wait! say the traditionalists. Why all these questions? Can’t we just take Paul at face value?

The problem is that face value doesn’t work. Paul’s commands are strong and specific, but their very specificity may limit them. There are seeming contradictions, strange allusions, rabbinic reasoning. The pertinent texts, taken together, cry out for a second look.

next page... |  1 of 7

share this page

RSS Feed   RSS Help