Women have been put in a subservient role within Christian Churches because of Male dominance, fear/prejudice, and a misunderstanding/misuse of the Bible.
Why is it that the Bible seems so unfriendly to women? After all it would appear that most of the members and committee volunteers in a congregation are female. Yet holding office, being ordained, serving in any real capacity is pretty much forbidden. Some congregations even hold up the marital status of a woman (i.e., divorced or not) as to whether or not a woman can truly advance within the denomination’s hierarchy.
Other than male dominance, prejudiced tradition, and/or a misunderstanding of the scriptures, why is that? The short answer is: male dominance, prejudiced tradition, and a misuse of the Bible. This short article cannot discuss male dominance or prejudiced tradition. We’ll focus on the misuse of the scriptures.
To read and digest the Bible we must understand several things: the mind and situation of the writer; the mind and situation of the audience; and the message the writer was trying to communicate. Having understood that, we can begin to strip away the external “trappings” of the writer (e.g., those elements of the Old Testament texts that clearly belong in the late Bronze Age or of the New Testament texts that clearly belong to the culture of the early first century) and concentrate on the true underlying message.
In short, just like us, the writers of biblical scripture were people of their times and their cultures. It shows.
In the Old Testament the whole concept of eternal life – important in any religious system – was understood as the growth and survival of one’s clan or progeny. Similar to the early cultures of our Native Americans, it was the tribe or clan that was the integral unit of society – not the individual. Preservation of the tribe was paramount. This was most certainly the case in the Bronze and Iron Ages of the nomadic tribes/clans of the Fertile Crescent in the mid-East – known as the cradle of western civilization.
Cultural norms followed and supported that critical concept. Since men were the fighters and could impregnate more than one woman at a time, men were more expendable. For a man to have multiple wives was a sanctioned practice – provided he could financially take care of them. The use of a dowry in exchange for a daughter was an integral foundation of the nomadic economy. Underlying all of this was the preeminent notion of preserving the tribe or clan.
This religious/social/economic concept worked. It was successful for a long time – over 3,000 years (from 3,500 BCE to the rise of city-states under Alexander the Great’s rule about 350 BCE, when urban dwelling began the slow process of breaking this down). It was not unique to the Old Testament Israelites. It was true throughout the Mesopotamian Region: Sumerians, Akkadians, Philistines, Amorites, Hittites, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc.
This patriarchal social structure is evident throughout the Old Testament and was, by our standards, very demeaning for women. Women were not much better than chattel property. Abraham had his wife Sarah’s handmaiden, Hagar, after Sarah could not get pregnant. Once Sarah did get pregnant, Abraham banished Hagar and their son, Ishmael. Legend has it that mother and son are buried in Mecca and Ishmael is generally considered to be the patriarchal father of Islam. (cf. Genesis 21:8-21)
During the time of the New Testament, the role of women was denigrated during the first 100 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. We can only speculate about how and why that happened. The earliest writer in the New Testament was the Apostle Paul, who wrote between 45-55 CE. We have eight of his original letters: Galatians; I-II Thessalonians; I-II Corinthians; Philemon, Philippians; and Romans. In these letters Paul routinely praises local female parishioners in his epistles. For example, in Romans 16:1-15, he praises Phoebe, who holds office in the congregation of Cenchreae, as well as quite a few other women.
However, when he begins discussing specific congregational issues, he lets the cultural values of his Jewish upbringing show through (I Cor. 11:2-16). Yes, Paul admonishes his congregations to have women’s head covered or to remain subservient to men. Yet, even so, he concludes by saying, “If push comes to shove, however, we have none of these customs in a Christian congregation” (I Cor 11:16). Why the confusion? I can only speculate that in the early beginnings, when congregations were meeting informally in homes, the role of the women in making that happen and in spreading the word was much more significant and critical for success. Although Paul was aware of his Jewish customs and could recommend them, it was really no big deal to him.
As these congregations grew and became more organized, the male-dominated culture took sway and women began getting pushed out. Compare Paul’s letter to the Galatians (his earliest, c. 45) or his epistle to the Romans (his latest, c. 55/60) with passages like I Timothy 2:8-15, written (c.110/120) in Paul’s name but decades after his death. You can see the difference. The denigration of women is even more pronounced.
However, we have to keep in mind that all of Paul ‘s letters were written in his firm belief that the end of the world and the permanent coming of the kingdom of heaven was – literally – just around the corner. “What I mean, my friends, is this. The time we live in will not last long. While it lasts, married men should be as if they had no wives; mourners should be as if they had nothing to grieve them, the joyful as if they did not rejoice; buyers must not count on keeping what they buy, nor those who use the world’s wealth on using it to the full. For the whole frame of this world is passing away.” I Cor. 7: 29-31. Understanding this puts the onus on us to interpret all the cultural trappings of Paul’s writings within the context of being intended by him as very “short-term” advice.
By the time of the beginning of the second century, there was a formal church organization in place. The organization consisted of various offices: Bishops (episcopoi) or overseers; elders (presbyteroi) or leaders; and deacons (diaconoi) or trusted servers of the Lord. Together these offices formed the backbone and structure of the embryonic Christian church. They were generally all male. The secondary role of women became more and more pronounced as time went by. Culturally, we can understand this. We can understand this when it’s reflected in scripture because we know that biblical writers reflected their times. But to ascribe this as God’s will is to misread the scripture by refusing to winnow away the cultural bias of the writer’s times.
We continue to maintain a second-class role for women in many of our congregations today. We refuse ordination for them as ministers or the priesthood. We maintain the subservient role they are to fill in the household. We do this by erroneously holding onto literal interpretations of the scripture when it suits us.
What can we conclude from this? Those today proclaiming the lower role for women in the church structure and citing biblical references to buttress their position are doing so more as an act of their machismo than as an exposition of biblical knowledge. Paul felt fully free to restate the accepted narrative of Israel’s history as he wrestled with deriving an answer to the question: “Who was Jesus and why did he die?” If Paul felt confident enough to reconstruct his scriptural heritage, we should have the courage to do the same. For us it simply means to strip the New Testament of the cultural trappings of the accepted male dominance and let Spirit, not sexual traditions, reign in our ecclesiastical organizations.
No comments:
Post a Comment