how do we understand women in the history of the church?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bpkantor

Puritan Board Freshman
Greetings all, I was interested in your understanding of women in church history.

First of all, before I raise any question I want to say that I do regard scriptures such as 1 Timothy 2 & 3 and Titus 1 as meaning the position of elder/pastor/teacher of the church should be filled by qualified men (the traditional interpretation) although I know I could be wrong about this.

However, as I have had conversations recently I want to reconsider some of the things that I held as reinforcement of that view.

1) Usually myself and those who agree with me say that this has been the continuous interpretation throughout this history of the church.
There are two questions I want to consider regarding this...

-Those on the other side say that this is based on a selective view of church history which ignores and disregards certain women who were in leadership positions in the early church. It was not until later centuries when a more hierarchical structure developed that this ceased. They would refer to primary text sources that detail women in such leadership positions.

-Second, many of the men/theologians we would appeal to as providing this unbroken chain of interpretation (especially the early church fathers) had views of women which we could consider appalling (even from a complimentarian standpoint). So the objection could be, why do we take their interpretation of this passage when we reject their view of women in general (many if not most in the history of the church who spoke on this issue regarded women as inferior, which I would imagine we would disagree with..most complimentarians today as I understand it affirm that men and women are equal in value but have different roles before God).

In any case, these are some of the objections I have been thinking about recently, and I would be interested to hear what you think of them? How would you respond?

Thanks everyone.

God bless,
--Ben
 
God spoke through a donkey, so does that mean that we should listen to donkeys to hear God's word? What I'm saying here, is that there may have been times where God worked through a woman for a specific purpose, but that purpose does not translate into an on-going role or situation. The overall teaching of scripture prevails.

Secondly, the idea that women were treated poorly by the first century church comes out of a perspective that human thought has evolved over time and that we are on a higher intellectual plane than those primitives "back then." The Bible shows that there's nothing new under the sun. The desire for the stronger to exploit the weaker has been around since the beginning of time. In contrast, the women of Israel and of the first century church were placed into a role of much higher esteem than that of the surrounding mid-eastern cultures. This is part of what Paul addresses at Corinth: that women were taking their freedom in Christ too far. And you see both Paul and Jesus holding particular women in high regard because of their service and care. I doubt surrounding cultures would have even thought about making a permanent record (the scriptures) of anything that a woman did.

I am beginning to explore the idea that the distinct roles we see for women in the church and home are not mere organizational/economic designs. (Someone has to be in charge and God has given that role to men.) But rather that it goes to the very heart of what God is teaching us about his relationship to his beloved church and to us as individual believers. Beyond the "mystery" that Paul mentions of marriage portraying Christ love for his church, you have the incredibly romantic language of the Song of Solomon and the marriage relationship being at the heart of Hosea's prophecy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top