On Men and Women with a little History Thrown In
Dan Trabue, liberal God-blogger at Payne Hollow, notes some Scriptural references on relations between the sexes. His conclusion:
Now, this is not a topic that I’ve studied a lot, but just from what I’ve read, I’m willing to accept that the Bible is a document of its patriarchal, pre-modern times and realize that, yes, back then, women weren’t treated right. But even in that context, we see hints of God’s more egalitarian ways shining through. In Christ, there is no “male” or “female,” we see Jesus talking to and treating women as equals, we see women leadership in OT and NT stories.
So, my answer to the larger question – is God sexist? – an absolute No. But the Bible does tell stories that reflect the mores of the day. As long as we don’t try to take those sexist/misogynistic attitudes as literally applying to how we interact as humans today (ie, women remain silent in church, the man is the “head” or master of women, selling our daughters, etc), and embrace the God-given liberty and equality for all, then I think we’re okay.
Now, I’m not going to jump on his “not a topic I’ve studied a lot, but …” which should throw up red flags. It is a good question how the verses he quotes support his conclusions. However, it might be interesting to note some history.
Until about a century (or give or take a few decades) there was no argument about “differences” in between the sexes. Radical feminization of men has occurred with the advent of technology and other social trends. The sheer physical effort involved in every day life combined with the anabolic effects of testosterone as well as other gross physical differences between men and women led to far greater differences then than today between men and women. 1000 years ago, the question of fitness of women for given tasks versus men was not questioned like they are today. A strong woman today is stronger than many otherwise fit and healthy men. A strong women “back in the day” was stronger than far fewer men, and those men she was stronger than were obviously different, being scholars, monks, or crippled in some way. To put numbers to illustrate, one might suppose a woman in the 95% percentile of strength/endurance today would be in the 80% or better competing with men. Three ore more centuries ago, she would have been in the 25% (these numbers are like the global warming simulations, “numbers” used for story-telling and are not based on actual data). We are better fed and nourished today, but few men, products of modern comforts, could endure the physical labor casually required in every walk of life before the industrial revolution.
It is an assumption held by many, that the level of technology and comfort we sustain today is going to last indefinitely. That this technological shift in history will outlast those practices held earlier. Once before there was a highly technological civilization, that is Rome. It fell, and in falling much of its territory fell back to pre-Iron age practices, standards of living, and technological advancement. Ceramics, for example, created by Roman craftsman in early to middle antiquity were not equalled in Europe until perhaps the 18th century.
The point is that in those ages we casually regard as sexist … the physical differences between the sexes were far far greater than they are today. To argue a woman is “interchangeable” in her roles, except for child-bearing, with men then was errant nonsense. It was obviously there were vast differences between men and woman.
So to the question, is God sexist? What does that mean? Does it mean that there are differences between the sexes. I absolutely hope so and would note that an recent arguument against Mr Trabue’s general point would be this essay by Mr Lewis:
The innovators are really implying that sex is something superficial, irrelevant to the spiritual life. To say that men and women are equally eligible for a certain profession is to say that for the purposes of that profession their sex is irrelevant. We are, within that context, treating both as neuters.
As the State grows more like a hive or an ant-hill it needs an increasing number of workers who can be treated as neuters. This may be inevitable for our secular life. But in our Christian life we must return to reality. There we are not homogeneous units, but different and complementary organs of a mystical body. Lady Nunburnholme has claimed that the equality of men and women is a Christian principle. I do not remember the text in scripture nor the Fathers, nor Hooker, nor the Prayer Book which asserts it; but that is not here my point. The point is that unless “equal” means “interchangeable”, equality makes nothing for the priesthood of women. And the kind of equality which implies that the equals are interchangeable (like counters or identical machines) is, among humans, a legal fiction. It may be a useful legal fiction. But in church we turn our back on fictions. One of the ends for which sex was created was to symbolize to us the hidden things of God. One of the functions of human marriage is to express the nature of the union between Christ and the Church. We have no authority to take the living and semitive figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were mere geometrical figures.
As is shown by the Trinity, equality does not abolish heirarchy but can co-exist.
Filed under: Christianity • Conservative • Ethics & Morality • Mark O. • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Thanks for the link.
So, do you think women can be deacons? Do you think women can be prophets in the church? If not, then what do you do with scriptures that specifically mention women prophets and deacons? How about the Apostle Junia, mentioned in Romans 16:7?
Do you think they actually ought to remain silent during church and, if so, what does that look like? Literally silent during worship time? Not asking questions in business meetings (or do they get to come to business meetings)?
These are sincere questions – I’m wondering what exactly it is you’re saying and what that looks like in your church (or your ideal church, if your church isn’t acting rightly).
Dan,
That’s a lot of questions.
In Orthodoxy, women cannot be priest or bishop or serve during service behind the iconostasis (at the alter). A woman can be a deacon, reader, speak in church, for example we’ve had the head of a nearby convent give the homily at our church.
Additinally, the wife of the priest has a official title, Matushka (for mother) in the slavonic Orthodox, Presbytera in Greek and other titles in other languages. Her position is one of no little authority in the parish community.
There later tradition that is still in force today was that Bishops are chosen from the ranks of the monastic communities and so they are unmarried and celibate. Priests are strongly encouraged to marry prior to ordination and thereby every parish has a Matushka. I believe priests are forbidden to marry after ordination, but I don’t know the reason.
Not just the Apostle Junia, there is of course veneration of the Theotokos (Mary) who is seen as the pinnacle what it means to be human. Also for example St. Photina who carries the title “Equal-to-the-Apostles” in the Orthodox tradition (in the Bible she is known as the Samaritan woman at the well) for her evangelism in the Samaritan community. There is in the Chicago area, a church called St. Sophia (which is noted as evidence that many woman saints are remembered and are important).
Roles are different between men and woman, because sex is important. Hierarchy is not incompatible with equality.
Well, being from the anabaptist tradition, we have less use for that sort of hierarchy, but if it works for you, I won’t expel you from the faith…
As to roles, I think roles are different between people, but there’s no reason whatsoever from a biblical point of view that women can’t be preachers or pastors. In fact, my pastor is the best, most Godly, Spirit-filled, wise and challenging preacher and pastor I’ve EVER met or heard or read – and I’ve heard/read from hundreds if not thousands of pastors and preachers in my days.
I disagree with the notion of not having women speakers/preachers/pastors in the church, as I don’t think the Bible has such a proscription, but rather that is a church tradition among some faiths. If these faiths want to say, “This is what we’re comfortable with,” well, I guess that’s okay for you.
I just wouldn’t be surprised to see such a tradition to become further and further removed from relevancy, as they cling to traditions that aren’t very apt for today’s world.
It’s a fine tradition if you and your women are comfortable with it. As long as you’re not claiming “This is how God wants it to be.” That’s when I start having a problem with it.
Thanks for the info.
Dan,
When you write:
in response to my writing
It seems to me we’re talking past each other. What do imagine that a woman cannot do given what I’ve written?
In Orthodoxy, women cannot be priest or bishop or serve during service behind the iconostasis (at the alter).
There is no convincing biblical reason for women not to be preachers and “serve at the altar.” Now, if your church wants to have some rules that disallow it for your tradition’s sake, I guess that’s up to your church. I would not belong to such a church, but to each their own.
My thing is, as long as this is merely your tradition and not something you’re claiming “God says” to, then it is all yours to believe as you will.
I guess I’m also wondering why you would allow women speakers and such, but not have women bishops or priests?
Clearly, you don’t embrace as literal the verse that says, “Don’t let women speak in church,” or the verse that says, “a deacon should be a man…” but you do seem to take literally the verse that says, “An overseer (I think that’s where you get the term, ‘bishop’ should be the husband of one wife…” (indicating a man, I guess).
Why take one literally and not the others? Or what is the explanation for Bishops and Priests only being men?
As to this comment:
Now, I’m not going to jump on his “not a topic I’ve studied a lot, but …” which should throw up red flags.
The topic was raised in a previous post on a different topic and I promised someone I would give folk a chance to talk about it in a post dedicated to the topic. This is why I posted the topic.
And even then, when I say I’ve “not studied it a lot,” I should probably qualify that to say that I don’t have a whole lot of info in my skull about the Greek meanings of the words in question, nor about the specifics of, for instance, Paul’s writing to Timothy or the Corinthians (what he was writing in response to, etc).
Nonetheless, I am and have been a frequent reader of the Bible for many years now and am generally familiar with what the Bible has to say about women’s roles – I’d wager I’m as familiar with biblical teachings on this point as most church folk who read the Bible a lot. I’m just not as well-studied on the background data – language, settings, etc.
Just to clarify what I meant by that.
I do wonder about this line of thought you started:
A strong woman today is stronger than many otherwise fit and healthy men. A strong women “back in the day” was stronger than far fewer men, and those men she was stronger than were obviously different, being scholars, monks, or crippled in some way. To put numbers to illustrate, one might suppose a woman in the 95% percentile of strength/endurance today would be in the 80% or better competing with men.
? I know you stated that these numbers are based on nothing, but is this whole line of thinking based on nothing or have you read something somewhere to support this?
I would think that women of more than a century ago would have been quite strong due to the nature of the work they had to do. (I’m speaking here of “normal” women, not pampered ladies of wealth, but farm wives and normal “working” women of 100+ years ago).
Is this total guesswork on your part or do you have some reason to think that women were significantly weaker back in the day?
Dan,
On the last, I’d agree on the fact that the “non-pampered” ladies of wealth were significantly stronger than women (and men) of today. However, the anabolic effects of testosterone are significant. The “non-pampered” men would be far far stronger than the women of similar state.
There was also a medieval academic blog recently noting the difficulties that a “time traveller” of today would have if transported in to a medieval setting. Physical strength would be a significant issue for the traveller (in that modern men are much weaker and possess less endurance than our ancestors) … according to him.
That is one reason the problem of assigning the attitudes between the sexes regarding different roles in the past was so much easier. Men and women were physically far more different than they are today, due to the feminization of today’s man (you don’t get the anabolic effects unless you’re working your muscles).
Have you ever worked out in a gym for a period of time with a woman of similar (starting) physical condition. Men add muscle mass and strength (and lose fat for the same reason) far quicker than women for the same time put in the gym … because of testosterone.
I haven’t read substantial textual material on the treatment of differentiating roles in the early church. However, for a development of the episcopate and presbytery John Zizioulas has a book, Eucharist, Bishop, Church which I recommend. I’d quote from it, but I’ve lent it to a friend who is looking into the development of the ideas of Church.
BTW, “Bishop” is a notion which arises from Scripture, the term the Greek root “episcop” occurs several times (in Acts and elsewhere in the Epistles).
I’d also recommend this short article by an Antiochan Matuschka (actually there’s a different word for her role, that is not Matuschka, in the Syrian church, but I don’t remember it). A key point: