Ok, ok, largely sympathetic. Just one thought, though:
I’m no fan of Pat Robertson, but it seems like his anti-abortion quote should be seen as pro-woman because both girls and boys are aborted. Insofar as feminism is pro-abortion, it is also anti-woman. That unfairness left a sour taste in my mouth.
Perhaps the makers of the video decided to take a very unnuanced view of what Robertson might have meant by “feminism”; not as much fun to carefully listen as to take someone’s words out of context, as the previous post on NTW’s trinitarian views makes clear.
Anyway, yes, I agree with the overall thrust of the video; just perceive the Robertson thing to be worryingly unnuanced.
Ok, just a couple quick (and hopefully less grumpy) comments:
1. Perhaps what Buchanan meant was just that men are more hard-headed…
2. The title of the clip is “Women in Christianity.” And the quotes by Plato because, well…
Let me try to head off what I anticipate may be a pile on of criticisms of the many imperfections of this video:
1) The intent of this video, as I understand it from its creator and my intention for posting it, is its overall impression, not its details. I post it as a reminder to myself and other men of the impact our words have had on our sisters in Christ.
2) Plato wasn’t a Christian?? Someone send a text message to the ancient Church Fathers! (just kidding!)
3) i will not accept comparisons with the Fesko slur of Wright. Fesko is supposed to be a scholar and should have known the abundance of evidence that his insinuation was without any justification.
Again, what Robertson or Buchanan or Calvin (or Mark Driscoll) or whoever “meant” by what they said is not the issue. The issue the video is presenting is the cumulative impact of those words on our sisters over the centuries. I present it here also because I have a deep suspicion that–while there are certainly many complimentarians who hold their view sincerely out of what they believe to be a scriptural mandate–there is (in my opinion) a deep, dark stain of mysoginism running across church history.
For my readers who might think “David” is schizophrenic, let me assure you that there are two very different Davids in this thread. You can distinguish them by the fact that one has his name linked to a blog and the other doesn’t.
Also, neither of them is this David (not even close):
Sorry, Mark, I’m not to favorable impressed. And as far as being sympathetic goes, I was enraged past reason by the column where Driscoll wrote his garbage. Yuck.
But I want to know how many of the Early Church Father quotations were about woman in general or about single women offering themselves to men. And, in any case, the Plato quotations make a point about what happens when the Church buys into the culture (so actually, I think the video could be very good if applied rightly). The Luther quotation was inexcusable, though we can of course find that Luther learned and said otherwise I think (quoting Luther is almost like having a lifetime blogger whose archives you can search).
I think the Pat Robertson quoation might actually be an argument that women are superior.
And why the summary statements rather than direct quotations?
In the end, the reference to other cultures really gave things away. Name one culture where women have been better off socially than in Christian cultures. A few post-Christian enlightenment cultures might make the claim, but they usually are just as or more expoitative.
I don’t doubt the Church needs to repent of sins, but the video seemed less than reasonable.
“Plato wasn’t a Christian?? Someone send a text message to the ancient Church Fathers! (just kidding!)” Love that one, Mark.
So what does text messaging look like in Greek or Latin?
As for the quotes and by way of adding clarity (hopefully), I think it is easy to make a quote the substance of the church fathers and miss the full picture. I love the church fathers, so when I read these things on occasion, even by figures like Chrysostom, I’m perplexed. I’m also disturbed by the unacceptable damage of misogyny in Christian history. But it is important to note that, Christianity, while operating out of its cutlure and the failings of its culture—interpreting Scripture through its culture—did, nevertheless, appeal to women due to its many freedoms and respect (that is, in contrast to the kind of respect found in Roman society). I’m thinking of the kind of study done by Rodney Stark in The Rise of Christianity.
Jerome had a high regard for Paula and spent much of his time talking to women. Chrysostom’s best friend was perhaps Olympias, the deaconess of St. Sophia Church. And as for Luther, well, he’s Luther, the king of outlandish and offensive quotes. I hope, given the kind of take-no-crap person Kate seemed to be, that he got a regular reminder of how wrong he was. All of that to say, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
On the other side of things, doing good in one area doesn’t make the bad stuff better. To make sweeping judgments about an entire gender causes serious damage to the soul of another person and to the cause of the gospel. And the Driscoll quote…I mean…really…it’s not like pastors have a better reputation for keeping that youthful physique.
All valid criticisms no doubt. As pduggie wryly observed above, it is “excellent propaganda” of the best kind. I present it, I hope, in the same spirit in which its creator intended it (as best I can glean from her blog): a “taste” for those of us who aren’t women what it can feel like to be a woman in the church.
As you concluded, Mark, Christianity when it has been properly understood and presented has been the greatest liberating force for women in history. We already see abundant evidence of that in the New Testament. The more we understand of the cultural milieu of those days, the more we appreciate how radical the presentation of women in the NT was.
All the more reason then that the church should be ruthless in repenting of its sins in the many places where it has participated in the devaluing of women.
Again, I don’t think this video was meant to be “reasonable.” It is not a term paper or a journal article. It is “propaganda” that does its work: it forces us to walk in the shoes of our sisters in terms of the overall impression many of them carry both from their present-day churches and as they look back through the church’s history.
Quotations like Roberts, Driscoll, and others may indeed have another sense or intention in their original context and/or in the mind of the person who said them. Nevertheless, having them thrown at us as this video does is a reminder that we must be more thoughtful about our speech and how it might affect those who hear it.
I don’t have any way of checking whether or not my comment below should apply to you or not, Jonathan. Check the shoe size, though….
If someone sees this and doesn’t see the point….then that’s exactly why such videos need to be made. It’s because we don’t see that we need things that open our eyes. And you know what, sometimes when the morning sun breaks into my room and stings my freshly-opened eyes, I get a little pissed, too. But that’s a small price to pay for getting brought into another day of life.
I too have a love for the church fathers, and I agree it is hard to understand what they really mean sometimes.
Jerome is a perfect example.
You said : Jerome had a high regard for Paula and spent much of his time talking to women.
And yeah, Jerome DID have a high regard for her, but he also is essentially held responsible for the death of her daughter due to an over-encouragement of ascetic practices. After Jerome convinced her (the daughter) to become an ascetic, she was dead in 3 months. And when Paula cried at her daughter’s funeral Jerome told her she was being blasphemous because it was more important that the daughter had been a faithful ascetic, than that Paula lost a daughter. Also, Jerome enjoyed Paula’s financial support. It was her money that funded him while he fifinishedhe Vulgate. He would never have been able to do it without her money, but when it came to actually supporting her in her grief, (nevermind teteachinghings that led to her daughter’s death…) he totally blew it.
So, did he love women, or didnt he. Hard to tell.
But, we do know that he made statements that have deeply influenced the people who came after him. And maybe those people didn’t understand him either, but still took his statements and built more theology on them. Do you see how quickly those kind of statements get us into trouble? And how they have all filtered down to us today?
Jonathan,
Actually, the point in making this video was that I wanted a way for my friends to understand the grief I was experiencing as I have been taking a class on the history of Christianity. I wanted to share my emotional experience with them of what its like to realize how all these quotes (and soooo many others I left out!) affect me today.
I made it for me, and thought a handful of people who love me would be willing to watch it too. But, as things go on the internet, it got bigger than that, and here we are. I had no intention of making anyone angry. I just wanted others to share my grief with me.
Nevertheless, having them thrown at us as this video does is a reminder that we must be more thoughtful about our speech and how it might affect those who hear it.
Or that perhaps we need to be more charitable to those being quoted rather than presumptuous and reactionary to such pot-shot quotations.
In fact, I’m inclined to think that this kind of lack of charity is precisely the root of a far broader spectrum of problems these days. We can’t relate to each other and, in fact, are afraid to relate to each other.
And I don’t buy the whole “where are our role models.” There are plenty of saintly women, and, of those among the Church Triumphant, lots of material on their lives.
I can understand that women have been objectified throughout history and how enslaving that must be. But to say (and misquote!) that the Church’s primary message is such is just all manner of wrong. Women are persons and accorded all dignity as such. That is not to say that women are the same as men - nor should they want to be. And the difference marks the difference in the manner of the dignity we receive. Why people don’t understand how that difference can cause all manner of confusion (and thus misunderstanding, frustration, and hurt) even under the best of our current circumstances is beyond me.
>And I don’t buy the whole “where are our role models.†There are plenty of saintly women, and, of those among the Church Triumphant, lots of material on their lives.
You know, the interesting thing is that I would have said that until I started taking a class on the history of Women in Christianity. Did you know there were women publishing on the subject of “woman preachers” back in 1666 (not 1966, 1666)! Growing up in the conservative church I was always told that women who wanted to be in the ministry were a result of the “women’s lib” movement of the 70’s.
I think the average person (and in this video I was focused on young women) have much to learn about the Christian women who have come before them.
I’m not sure there is much disagreement here. My point is not that Jerome was perfect or consistent. My frustration comes when reading the fathers and realizing the blatant inconsistencies.
As to the ascetic behavior, death due to living in what was considered a right manner for the ascetic was something considered virtuous no matter one’s gender. I’m not sure he wouldn’t have said that same thing to someone male. As to not comforting her, this was without a doubt a failure. It is also something, unfortunately, that I’ve seen regularly in church history. Katherine Parr in her letter to Lady Wriothesley does essentially the same thing (a little less harshly). It often has something to do with the idea that God determines death, to be against it, is to question God.
Again, I agree, as I say above, that these kinds of words are both harmful to the soul and the gospel. And people should be taken to task for the words they say and the ideas they promote. I simply wanted to avoid boiling an historical and complex figure down to a single quote. That is probably the historian in me not letting the egalitarian have his way. Hearing these statements are valuable tools for raising awareness, so I’m not sure what the real balance is. It, at the very least, forces people to ask questions. All I know is that I’ve seen complimentarians who have seriously misconstrued egalitarians by single quotes, and I don’t appreciate that.
At any rate, no one should take for granted the power of words to hurt. Even more, when you are a part of a group that is oppressed, these words hurt even more.
As to the role of women in church history, figures like Christine de Pisan show that women’s lib was hardly the first time the important gender questions were raised.
On the other hand, is this quote from athanasius also part of the hostility-towards-women milieu
But now that the Saviour has raised His body, death is no longer terrible, but all those who believe in Christ tread it underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ, knowing full well that when they die they do not perish, but live indeed, and become incorruptible through the resurrection. But that devil who of old wickedly exulted in death, now that the pains of death are loosed, he alone it is who remains truly dead. There is proof of this too ; for men who, before they believe in Christ, think death horrible and are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so completely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Saviour’s resurrection from it. Even children hasten thus to die, and not men only, but women train themselves by bodily discipline to meet it. So weak has death become that even women, who used to be taken in by it, mock at it now as a dead thing robbed of all its strength. Death has become like a tyrant who has been completely conquered’ by the legitimate monarch; bound hand and foot the passers-by jeer at him, hitting him and abusing him, no longer afraid of his cruelty and rage, because of the king who has conquered him.
Here is a comment I posted over on Mark Horne’s blog under a post where he expressed some of his reservations about this video and our suspicions toward the early church fathers:
I think a good balance is to be careful not to go anachronistic on the church fathers. While I don’t want to let them off the hook in every way–some of what they did or said was just plain outrageous by any standard–I do want to recognize that they were in a different time and place. Some implications of the Gospel have taken centuries to work out (slavery comes to mind).
I happen to think that mutual respect between gender groups in the church is the next area the Holy Spirit is working on in the church. For 2000 years it has been largely assumed that the (relatively few) passages in the NT seeming to restrict or subordinate women were “timeless truths†based in a “creation order†or some such nonsense. Many of us are waking up now and realizing that just doesn’t make sense. For both slavery and female subordination, Paul was saying “you are free, you are equal….but don’t go grasping that freedom and equality just yet. Bigger things are at stake. The Gospel must go out to the Gentiles. Be willing to limit your freedom so that the Gospel will not be hindered. But wherever you can, and whenever you can, begin to assert that freedom as a display of the eschaton to the lost world.
As a complementarian, I really saw no reason to get pissed off, and my thought was not only that it’s good propaganda, but *of course* those quotations are yanked out of context. Yeah, the Luther quote too.
I would think that exactly none of those quotes from the Fathers would disturb anybody familiar with the literature. The Fathers, hung up on sex? Shockers!
“The point of the video was to share the emotional experience of how those quotes affected me.”
Yes, but you have to understand: we’re men, and can only assume soemthing like that is a confrotation making an argument towards a particular point of view, challenging us to *do* something in response.
Well Paul says that women should not exercise authority over men because it was woman who was decieved (1 Tim. 2:14). That sounds a lot like those mean old church fathers to me. Sure they could have taken things too far, but certainly we see why they were using that rhetoric. Peter goes so far as to say that women are the weaker partner. That is as offensive as Aquinas or Calvin don’t you think?
Sure I want women to be “liberated” from abuse. I just don’t want them liberated from the Bible.
Your conclusion on 1 Tim 2:14 is based on a whole pack of assumptions about that passage (as reflected in most of our modern translations) that aren’t necessarily so.
For an alternative view of the context, translation, and application of that passage, see here. You may decide that you do not buy Witherington’s alternative, but at least you should know that there is an alternative. His ideas and those of other theologians & exegetes examining that passage have at least planted enough doubt in my mind that I would proceed with great caution to use that one passage to silence women in the church everywhere and for all time.
wow, this is a bit crankier of a discussion than i anticipated. Mark, thank you for posting this. Jennifer, thank you for making it.
I appreciate that it can be frustrating to see quotations taken out of context. But i have to disagree with AnotherCoward’s statement: “I can understand that women have been objectified throughout history and how enslaving that must be. But to say (and misquote!) that the Church’s primary message is such is just all manner of wrong.”
in fact, i think it is quite accurate that this has been the church’s primary message regarding women. i do not think the Bible reflects this same characteristic, but if we are going to be honest with ourselves, the trajectory of the conservative church throughout history is to treat women as second-best at best and as a necessary evil at worst. i’ve spent 28 years living in that reality and i have spent 10 years studying the previous 19-thousand-something years. And it seems to be that as soon as a person attempts to acknowledge women as more than just children’s sunday school teachers or child-bearers, the words “liberal” and “feminist” get thrown around.
these are human beings we are dealing with here. and we make up more than 50% of your (generalized ‘you’) congregations. it is beyond painful to watch the men debate back and forth for centuries about what women are and are not good for while we stand in the wings, waiting for the answer.
i hope that most who view this can take it as the (emotionally charged, yes; propaganda-filled, yes) warning that it is. men of the church, do not treat the women this way or you will confuse their understanding of who they are in Christ and stifle their gifts that God has given them to work within the church.
Oh, I’m not actually arguing for any application of the passage. I’m simply showing that the Bible uses rhetoric that could easily be quoted in peices like this to show how offensive it is.
Thanks, Mel. It would be nice to have more women chiming in here, but then it occurs to me that commentors on theological blogs like mine tend to be overwhelmingly male. That might either mean that we are intimidating the females away (like usual)….or that females really are wiser than we are!
Steven: thanks for the clarification. I think I get your point now. If it’s to say that when we hear things that sound misogynistic from past leaders in the church, it may be that they were only echoing what they thought the Biblical writers were saying.
I guess thought that I’m still puzzled by your final statement in the first comment, that you “wouldn’t want women to be liberated from the Bible.” That sounds like you are agreeing with the interpretation we’ve been discussing. My hope is not to liberate women from the Bible but to help all of us see that women can be liberated by the Bible.
Well, I was going to comment and then I wasn’t and then I read Mark’s last comment about wanting more female voices, so I’m throwing my two penn’orth in after all.
Mark, I think it was you who characterised the video as ‘a “taste†for those of us who aren’t women what it can feel like to be a woman in the church.’ And I appreciate, Jennifer, that you made this video as an expression of your own experience and feelings and I don’t deny their validity, nor that they may have good cause. But I do want to sound a different note. Your video, with one exception I’ll come to in a moment, bore no relation to my experience of being a woman in the church over the past 20 years.
I’m a British, conservative evangelical Anglican. I’ve mainly attended churches where women are not permitted to preach, administer the sacraments, nor take overall leadership roles. This reflects, in general terms, my own view of the biblical position too. I’ve struggled with this at times, because I do have teaching gifts and it’s been hard to know how best to use them (specially because I don’t really like children!) But along the way I’ve been encouraged by many men and women and I’m now studying for my PhD at Westminster and I hope to use my gifts, for the benefit of God’s people, by training others for ministry. I attend a PCA church here, where I am scholar in residence and I teach a women’s Sunday school class. My pastor has been nothing other than supportive of me and my studies since I came here and has sought to find appropriate ways for me to serve the church. The comments in the video just do not resonate with the experience I have had in the church. Maybe I’ve been particularly lucky. Or maybe Jennifer has been particularly unlucky. And certainly we all need to be careful that we’re hearing the real lesson - the power of words to harm not just in the moment but even more in their echoes throughout history.
The one thing that I did feel rang true for me was the comment about role models. It’s hard to think of any female role models for women gifted and called to do other ministry than that of wife and mother. Which is not to say that those aren’t important roles, just that they are not the only things women can and should be doing in the church. I’ve personally struggled with this, and I know that a lot of what I do is modelled after the men who’ve been influential in my Christian life and probably there are elements of that which aren’t ideal. There are very few good female scholars, for instance. And in the UK, at least, very, very few good female bible teachers. And I can think of only a handful of women who merited a mention in all the church history classes I’ve taken, and those mainly only in passing.
I don’t know how we change this quickly or easily. But it’s one of my prayers that I might be a faithful servant in my life and become a role model for some who come after me.
“Wherever the Christian gospel has gone and triumphed, it has brought in its wake a new concern for education, a new willingness to listen to dissidents, new standards of impartiality in the administration of justice, a new stewardship of the natural environment, new attitudes to marriage and sex, a new respect for women and children, and a new compassionate resolve to relieve the poor, heal the sick, rehabilitate prisoners, and care for the aged and dying. Moreover, these new values become expressed, as Christian influence grows, not only in philanthropic enterprise but also in humane legislation.” –From “I Believe in Preaching” John R. W. Stott
I thought I’d just make one comment about something I actually know about. The 1 Tim verse that Steven quoted. In the past I’ve always been puzzled by how much effort needs to be exerted to get around what the text really seems to be saying (which Steven explained). The truth is that in historical context (cuz that’s what I do, I’m a historian now I guess), that sense of the text is entirely explicable: there are many Jewish sources before and after Paul (or the author of 1 Tim) that very plainly blame Eve for the Fall and give a corresponding value judgment to all women–some harder, some softer. And of course there are plenty of non-Jewish sources that at least express these sentiments. Personally, reading 1 Tim as a historical document, I have a hard time seeing how this sort of view is not behind the author’s intentions in 1 Tim.
The question I wrestle with is, if that is what he meant, and noting that it does sit uncomfortably near other NT texts, then what does that mean for how I conceptualize biblical authority and theological diversity, specifically as it applies to women’s roles–which, of course, is a kind of problem that extends well beyond women’s roles. That is, it’s not simply “can women preach or not.” That blunts the evidence, in my opinion. Something bigger is going on in the bible.
And in case anybody’s wondering what my stance is on women’s roles: I’m quite ambivalent. You can see why.
As a woman and christian for three decades I have come from AG backgrounds, so for me women in teaching/preaching is no big deal I’ve seen it my whole life and men have no problems with it.(that I’ve observed.)
However personally I don’t sing,play an instrument or work in childrens church and have no particular ambition to teach in large groups. ( small groups yes) And I certainly have no ambition to earn a salary in ministry,besides the way my theology has changed I would change positions every 7- 10 years and would be broke financially alot of the time anyway. I do have a year of seminary but just my own studies and interests, missions related and culture.
I like the ‘action’ in the public sector. I am more of a Wilberforce Forum type person.There I have NO women role models in that setting and wish I did. I am also single. I can relate to the above though as I am now in PCA and can see through their eyes and other denominations which are too extremly patriarchal in my opinion and it is not healthy.
Mark, Karyn & I worshiped together in Charlottesville and I am always intrigued by the discussions on this blog. It reminds me of a deeper version of our conversations over Sunday lunch in your basement apartment! Although, we are missing the calming affect of a delicious meal…
Anyway, as a woman, my heart is pricked by the words in this video and I am tempted to be angry as well. However, as a believer in Christ, I would be denying His atonement if I base my faith on the perfection of his saints. The church will not be the perfect Bride until He returns and our hearts should be overflowing with thankfulness that our own sin is covered while constantly loving those around us, especially when they sin.
ROS said: “The one thing that I did feel rang true for me was the comment about role models. It’s hard to think of any female role models for women gifted and called to do other ministry than that of wife and mother. Which is not to say that those aren’t important roles, just that they are not the only things women can and should be doing in the church.”
Share on Facebook
Share on FriendFeed
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:49 am
Excellent, Mark. Thanks for posting this…it’s likely I would have never seen it otherwise.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:21 am
Ok, ok, largely sympathetic. Just one thought, though:
I’m no fan of Pat Robertson, but it seems like his anti-abortion quote should be seen as pro-woman because both girls and boys are aborted. Insofar as feminism is pro-abortion, it is also anti-woman. That unfairness left a sour taste in my mouth.
Perhaps the makers of the video decided to take a very unnuanced view of what Robertson might have meant by “feminism”; not as much fun to carefully listen as to take someone’s words out of context, as the previous post on NTW’s trinitarian views makes clear.
Anyway, yes, I agree with the overall thrust of the video; just perceive the Robertson thing to be worryingly unnuanced.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 am
Ok, just a couple quick (and hopefully less grumpy) comments:
1. Perhaps what Buchanan meant was just that men are more hard-headed…
2. The title of the clip is “Women in Christianity.” And the quotes by Plato because, well…
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:47 am
Let me try to head off what I anticipate may be a pile on of criticisms of the many imperfections of this video:
1) The intent of this video, as I understand it from its creator and my intention for posting it, is its overall impression, not its details. I post it as a reminder to myself and other men of the impact our words have had on our sisters in Christ.
2) Plato wasn’t a Christian?? Someone send a text message to the ancient Church Fathers! (just kidding!)
3) i will not accept comparisons with the Fesko slur of Wright. Fesko is supposed to be a scholar and should have known the abundance of evidence that his insinuation was without any justification.
Again, what Robertson or Buchanan or Calvin (or Mark Driscoll) or whoever “meant” by what they said is not the issue. The issue the video is presenting is the cumulative impact of those words on our sisters over the centuries. I present it here also because I have a deep suspicion that–while there are certainly many complimentarians who hold their view sincerely out of what they believe to be a scriptural mandate–there is (in my opinion) a deep, dark stain of mysoginism running across church history.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:52 am
Mark, I thought the video was very powerful.
David, stop nitpicking.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:39 am
Thanks, I needed that!
Don’t want to miss the forest for the trees.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 am
For my readers who might think “David” is schizophrenic, let me assure you that there are two very different Davids in this thread. You can distinguish them by the fact that one has his name linked to a blog and the other doesn’t.
Also, neither of them is this David (not even close):
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:07 am
Sorry, Mark, I’m not to favorable impressed. And as far as being sympathetic goes, I was enraged past reason by the column where Driscoll wrote his garbage. Yuck.
But I want to know how many of the Early Church Father quotations were about woman in general or about single women offering themselves to men. And, in any case, the Plato quotations make a point about what happens when the Church buys into the culture (so actually, I think the video could be very good if applied rightly). The Luther quotation was inexcusable, though we can of course find that Luther learned and said otherwise I think (quoting Luther is almost like having a lifetime blogger whose archives you can search).
I think the Pat Robertson quoation might actually be an argument that women are superior.
And why the summary statements rather than direct quotations?
In the end, the reference to other cultures really gave things away. Name one culture where women have been better off socially than in Christian cultures. A few post-Christian enlightenment cultures might make the claim, but they usually are just as or more expoitative.
I don’t doubt the Church needs to repent of sins, but the video seemed less than reasonable.
Sorry!
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:08 am
The video is excellent propaganda. And I mean that in the nicest way possibel
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:31 am
“Plato wasn’t a Christian?? Someone send a text message to the ancient Church Fathers! (just kidding!)” Love that one, Mark.
So what does text messaging look like in Greek or Latin?
As for the quotes and by way of adding clarity (hopefully), I think it is easy to make a quote the substance of the church fathers and miss the full picture. I love the church fathers, so when I read these things on occasion, even by figures like Chrysostom, I’m perplexed. I’m also disturbed by the unacceptable damage of misogyny in Christian history. But it is important to note that, Christianity, while operating out of its cutlure and the failings of its culture—interpreting Scripture through its culture—did, nevertheless, appeal to women due to its many freedoms and respect (that is, in contrast to the kind of respect found in Roman society). I’m thinking of the kind of study done by Rodney Stark in The Rise of Christianity.
Jerome had a high regard for Paula and spent much of his time talking to women. Chrysostom’s best friend was perhaps Olympias, the deaconess of St. Sophia Church. And as for Luther, well, he’s Luther, the king of outlandish and offensive quotes. I hope, given the kind of take-no-crap person Kate seemed to be, that he got a regular reminder of how wrong he was. All of that to say, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
On the other side of things, doing good in one area doesn’t make the bad stuff better. To make sweeping judgments about an entire gender causes serious damage to the soul of another person and to the cause of the gospel. And the Driscoll quote…I mean…really…it’s not like pastors have a better reputation for keeping that youthful physique.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Mark:
All valid criticisms no doubt. As pduggie wryly observed above, it is “excellent propaganda” of the best kind. I present it, I hope, in the same spirit in which its creator intended it (as best I can glean from her blog): a “taste” for those of us who aren’t women what it can feel like to be a woman in the church.
As you concluded, Mark, Christianity when it has been properly understood and presented has been the greatest liberating force for women in history. We already see abundant evidence of that in the New Testament. The more we understand of the cultural milieu of those days, the more we appreciate how radical the presentation of women in the NT was.
All the more reason then that the church should be ruthless in repenting of its sins in the many places where it has participated in the devaluing of women.
Again, I don’t think this video was meant to be “reasonable.” It is not a term paper or a journal article. It is “propaganda” that does its work: it forces us to walk in the shoes of our sisters in terms of the overall impression many of them carry both from their present-day churches and as they look back through the church’s history.
Quotations like Roberts, Driscoll, and others may indeed have another sense or intention in their original context and/or in the mind of the person who said them. Nevertheless, having them thrown at us as this video does is a reminder that we must be more thoughtful about our speech and how it might affect those who hear it.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I don’t see the point. This video just pisses complementarians off and preaches to the feminist choir.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I don’t have any way of checking whether or not my comment below should apply to you or not, Jonathan. Check the shoe size, though….
If someone sees this and doesn’t see the point….then that’s exactly why such videos need to be made. It’s because we don’t see that we need things that open our eyes. And you know what, sometimes when the morning sun breaks into my room and stings my freshly-opened eyes, I get a little pissed, too. But that’s a small price to pay for getting brought into another day of life.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Hi Brandon,
I too have a love for the church fathers, and I agree it is hard to understand what they really mean sometimes.
Jerome is a perfect example.
You said : Jerome had a high regard for Paula and spent much of his time talking to women.
And yeah, Jerome DID have a high regard for her, but he also is essentially held responsible for the death of her daughter due to an over-encouragement of ascetic practices. After Jerome convinced her (the daughter) to become an ascetic, she was dead in 3 months. And when Paula cried at her daughter’s funeral Jerome told her she was being blasphemous because it was more important that the daughter had been a faithful ascetic, than that Paula lost a daughter. Also, Jerome enjoyed Paula’s financial support. It was her money that funded him while he fifinishedhe Vulgate. He would never have been able to do it without her money, but when it came to actually supporting her in her grief, (nevermind teteachinghings that led to her daughter’s death…) he totally blew it.
So, did he love women, or didnt he. Hard to tell.
But, we do know that he made statements that have deeply influenced the people who came after him. And maybe those people didn’t understand him either, but still took his statements and built more theology on them. Do you see how quickly those kind of statements get us into trouble? And how they have all filtered down to us today?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Jonathan,
Actually, the point in making this video was that I wanted a way for my friends to understand the grief I was experiencing as I have been taking a class on the history of Christianity. I wanted to share my emotional experience with them of what its like to realize how all these quotes (and soooo many others I left out!) affect me today.
I made it for me, and thought a handful of people who love me would be willing to watch it too. But, as things go on the internet, it got bigger than that, and here we are. I had no intention of making anyone angry. I just wanted others to share my grief with me.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Nevertheless, having them thrown at us as this video does is a reminder that we must be more thoughtful about our speech and how it might affect those who hear it.
Or that perhaps we need to be more charitable to those being quoted rather than presumptuous and reactionary to such pot-shot quotations.
In fact, I’m inclined to think that this kind of lack of charity is precisely the root of a far broader spectrum of problems these days. We can’t relate to each other and, in fact, are afraid to relate to each other.
And I don’t buy the whole “where are our role models.” There are plenty of saintly women, and, of those among the Church Triumphant, lots of material on their lives.
I can understand that women have been objectified throughout history and how enslaving that must be. But to say (and misquote!) that the Church’s primary message is such is just all manner of wrong. Women are persons and accorded all dignity as such. That is not to say that women are the same as men - nor should they want to be. And the difference marks the difference in the manner of the dignity we receive. Why people don’t understand how that difference can cause all manner of confusion (and thus misunderstanding, frustration, and hurt) even under the best of our current circumstances is beyond me.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Another,
>And I don’t buy the whole “where are our role models.†There are plenty of saintly women, and, of those among the Church Triumphant, lots of material on their lives.
You know, the interesting thing is that I would have said that until I started taking a class on the history of Women in Christianity. Did you know there were women publishing on the subject of “woman preachers” back in 1666 (not 1966, 1666)! Growing up in the conservative church I was always told that women who wanted to be in the ministry were a result of the “women’s lib” movement of the 70’s.
I think the average person (and in this video I was focused on young women) have much to learn about the Christian women who have come before them.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Hi Jennifer,
I’m not sure there is much disagreement here. My point is not that Jerome was perfect or consistent. My frustration comes when reading the fathers and realizing the blatant inconsistencies.
As to the ascetic behavior, death due to living in what was considered a right manner for the ascetic was something considered virtuous no matter one’s gender. I’m not sure he wouldn’t have said that same thing to someone male. As to not comforting her, this was without a doubt a failure. It is also something, unfortunately, that I’ve seen regularly in church history. Katherine Parr in her letter to Lady Wriothesley does essentially the same thing (a little less harshly). It often has something to do with the idea that God determines death, to be against it, is to question God.
Again, I agree, as I say above, that these kinds of words are both harmful to the soul and the gospel. And people should be taken to task for the words they say and the ideas they promote. I simply wanted to avoid boiling an historical and complex figure down to a single quote. That is probably the historian in me not letting the egalitarian have his way. Hearing these statements are valuable tools for raising awareness, so I’m not sure what the real balance is. It, at the very least, forces people to ask questions. All I know is that I’ve seen complimentarians who have seriously misconstrued egalitarians by single quotes, and I don’t appreciate that.
At any rate, no one should take for granted the power of words to hurt. Even more, when you are a part of a group that is oppressed, these words hurt even more.
As to the role of women in church history, figures like Christine de Pisan show that women’s lib was hardly the first time the important gender questions were raised.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:34 pm
On the other hand, is this quote from athanasius also part of the hostility-towards-women milieu
It may also form a context for Jerome’s counsel
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
[...] I mentioned in the comments, this video did not impress me all that [...]
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Here is a comment I posted over on Mark Horne’s blog under a post where he expressed some of his reservations about this video and our suspicions toward the early church fathers:
I think a good balance is to be careful not to go anachronistic on the church fathers. While I don’t want to let them off the hook in every way–some of what they did or said was just plain outrageous by any standard–I do want to recognize that they were in a different time and place. Some implications of the Gospel have taken centuries to work out (slavery comes to mind).
I happen to think that mutual respect between gender groups in the church is the next area the Holy Spirit is working on in the church. For 2000 years it has been largely assumed that the (relatively few) passages in the NT seeming to restrict or subordinate women were “timeless truths†based in a “creation order†or some such nonsense. Many of us are waking up now and realizing that just doesn’t make sense. For both slavery and female subordination, Paul was saying “you are free, you are equal….but don’t go grasping that freedom and equality just yet. Bigger things are at stake. The Gospel must go out to the Gentiles. Be willing to limit your freedom so that the Gospel will not be hindered. But wherever you can, and whenever you can, begin to assert that freedom as a display of the eschaton to the lost world.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 am
Jonathan wrote:
>This video just pisses complementarians off
As a complementarian, I really saw no reason to get pissed off, and my thought was not only that it’s good propaganda, but *of course* those quotations are yanked out of context. Yeah, the Luther quote too.
I would think that exactly none of those quotes from the Fathers would disturb anybody familiar with the literature. The Fathers, hung up on sex? Shockers!
P.S. Driscoll doesn’t enrage me, either.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:33 am
I was half-expecting the apostle Paul to get quoted.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 am
Wyclif,
Yeah…the point wasnt to show a complete catalog of each person’s belief about women, so of course there are there without context.
The point of the video was to share the emotional experience of how those quotes affected me.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:42 am
Steven,
Naw….Paul, properly understood, is for women’s liberation, not oppression.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:11 am
“The point of the video was to share the emotional experience of how those quotes affected me.”
Yes, but you have to understand: we’re men, and can only assume soemthing like that is a confrotation making an argument towards a particular point of view, challenging us to *do* something in response.
We can’t tell its a video poem.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Well Paul says that women should not exercise authority over men because it was woman who was decieved (1 Tim. 2:14). That sounds a lot like those mean old church fathers to me. Sure they could have taken things too far, but certainly we see why they were using that rhetoric. Peter goes so far as to say that women are the weaker partner. That is as offensive as Aquinas or Calvin don’t you think?
Sure I want women to be “liberated” from abuse. I just don’t want them liberated from the Bible.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Steven:
Your conclusion on 1 Tim 2:14 is based on a whole pack of assumptions about that passage (as reflected in most of our modern translations) that aren’t necessarily so.
For an alternative view of the context, translation, and application of that passage, see here. You may decide that you do not buy Witherington’s alternative, but at least you should know that there is an alternative. His ideas and those of other theologians & exegetes examining that passage have at least planted enough doubt in my mind that I would proceed with great caution to use that one passage to silence women in the church everywhere and for all time.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
wow, this is a bit crankier of a discussion than i anticipated. Mark, thank you for posting this. Jennifer, thank you for making it.
I appreciate that it can be frustrating to see quotations taken out of context. But i have to disagree with AnotherCoward’s statement: “I can understand that women have been objectified throughout history and how enslaving that must be. But to say (and misquote!) that the Church’s primary message is such is just all manner of wrong.”
in fact, i think it is quite accurate that this has been the church’s primary message regarding women. i do not think the Bible reflects this same characteristic, but if we are going to be honest with ourselves, the trajectory of the conservative church throughout history is to treat women as second-best at best and as a necessary evil at worst. i’ve spent 28 years living in that reality and i have spent 10 years studying the previous 19-thousand-something years. And it seems to be that as soon as a person attempts to acknowledge women as more than just children’s sunday school teachers or child-bearers, the words “liberal” and “feminist” get thrown around.
these are human beings we are dealing with here. and we make up more than 50% of your (generalized ‘you’) congregations. it is beyond painful to watch the men debate back and forth for centuries about what women are and are not good for while we stand in the wings, waiting for the answer.
i hope that most who view this can take it as the (emotionally charged, yes; propaganda-filled, yes) warning that it is. men of the church, do not treat the women this way or you will confuse their understanding of who they are in Christ and stifle their gifts that God has given them to work within the church.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Oh, I’m not actually arguing for any application of the passage. I’m simply showing that the Bible uses rhetoric that could easily be quoted in peices like this to show how offensive it is.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Thanks, Mel. It would be nice to have more women chiming in here, but then it occurs to me that commentors on theological blogs like mine tend to be overwhelmingly male. That might either mean that we are intimidating the females away (like usual)….or that females really are wiser than we are!
Steven: thanks for the clarification. I think I get your point now. If it’s to say that when we hear things that sound misogynistic from past leaders in the church, it may be that they were only echoing what they thought the Biblical writers were saying.
I guess thought that I’m still puzzled by your final statement in the first comment, that you “wouldn’t want women to be liberated from the Bible.” That sounds like you are agreeing with the interpretation we’ve been discussing. My hope is not to liberate women from the Bible but to help all of us see that women can be liberated by the Bible.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Well, I was going to comment and then I wasn’t and then I read Mark’s last comment about wanting more female voices, so I’m throwing my two penn’orth in after all.
Mark, I think it was you who characterised the video as ‘a “taste†for those of us who aren’t women what it can feel like to be a woman in the church.’ And I appreciate, Jennifer, that you made this video as an expression of your own experience and feelings and I don’t deny their validity, nor that they may have good cause. But I do want to sound a different note. Your video, with one exception I’ll come to in a moment, bore no relation to my experience of being a woman in the church over the past 20 years.
I’m a British, conservative evangelical Anglican. I’ve mainly attended churches where women are not permitted to preach, administer the sacraments, nor take overall leadership roles. This reflects, in general terms, my own view of the biblical position too. I’ve struggled with this at times, because I do have teaching gifts and it’s been hard to know how best to use them (specially because I don’t really like children!) But along the way I’ve been encouraged by many men and women and I’m now studying for my PhD at Westminster and I hope to use my gifts, for the benefit of God’s people, by training others for ministry. I attend a PCA church here, where I am scholar in residence and I teach a women’s Sunday school class. My pastor has been nothing other than supportive of me and my studies since I came here and has sought to find appropriate ways for me to serve the church. The comments in the video just do not resonate with the experience I have had in the church. Maybe I’ve been particularly lucky. Or maybe Jennifer has been particularly unlucky. And certainly we all need to be careful that we’re hearing the real lesson - the power of words to harm not just in the moment but even more in their echoes throughout history.
The one thing that I did feel rang true for me was the comment about role models. It’s hard to think of any female role models for women gifted and called to do other ministry than that of wife and mother. Which is not to say that those aren’t important roles, just that they are not the only things women can and should be doing in the church. I’ve personally struggled with this, and I know that a lot of what I do is modelled after the men who’ve been influential in my Christian life and probably there are elements of that which aren’t ideal. There are very few good female scholars, for instance. And in the UK, at least, very, very few good female bible teachers. And I can think of only a handful of women who merited a mention in all the church history classes I’ve taken, and those mainly only in passing.
I don’t know how we change this quickly or easily. But it’s one of my prayers that I might be a faithful servant in my life and become a role model for some who come after me.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
“Wherever the Christian gospel has gone and triumphed, it has brought in its wake a new concern for education, a new willingness to listen to dissidents, new standards of impartiality in the administration of justice, a new stewardship of the natural environment, new attitudes to marriage and sex, a new respect for women and children, and a new compassionate resolve to relieve the poor, heal the sick, rehabilitate prisoners, and care for the aged and dying. Moreover, these new values become expressed, as Christian influence grows, not only in philanthropic enterprise but also in humane legislation.” –From “I Believe in Preaching” John R. W. Stott
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
And that quote negates the experiences of women represented by the video…how?
May 4th, 2007 at 2:51 am
I thought I’d just make one comment about something I actually know about. The 1 Tim verse that Steven quoted. In the past I’ve always been puzzled by how much effort needs to be exerted to get around what the text really seems to be saying (which Steven explained). The truth is that in historical context (cuz that’s what I do, I’m a historian now I guess), that sense of the text is entirely explicable: there are many Jewish sources before and after Paul (or the author of 1 Tim) that very plainly blame Eve for the Fall and give a corresponding value judgment to all women–some harder, some softer. And of course there are plenty of non-Jewish sources that at least express these sentiments. Personally, reading 1 Tim as a historical document, I have a hard time seeing how this sort of view is not behind the author’s intentions in 1 Tim.
The question I wrestle with is, if that is what he meant, and noting that it does sit uncomfortably near other NT texts, then what does that mean for how I conceptualize biblical authority and theological diversity, specifically as it applies to women’s roles–which, of course, is a kind of problem that extends well beyond women’s roles. That is, it’s not simply “can women preach or not.” That blunts the evidence, in my opinion. Something bigger is going on in the bible.
And in case anybody’s wondering what my stance is on women’s roles: I’m quite ambivalent. You can see why.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
As a woman and christian for three decades I have come from AG backgrounds, so for me women in teaching/preaching is no big deal I’ve seen it my whole life and men have no problems with it.(that I’ve observed.)
However personally I don’t sing,play an instrument or work in childrens church and have no particular ambition to teach in large groups. ( small groups yes) And I certainly have no ambition to earn a salary in ministry,besides the way my theology has changed I would change positions every 7- 10 years and would be broke financially alot of the time anyway. I do have a year of seminary but just my own studies and interests, missions related and culture.
I like the ‘action’ in the public sector. I am more of a Wilberforce Forum type person.There I have NO women role models in that setting and wish I did. I am also single. I can relate to the above though as I am now in PCA and can see through their eyes and other denominations which are too extremly patriarchal in my opinion and it is not healthy.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Mark, Karyn & I worshiped together in Charlottesville and I am always intrigued by the discussions on this blog. It reminds me of a deeper version of our conversations over Sunday lunch in your basement apartment! Although, we are missing the calming affect of a delicious meal…
Anyway, as a woman, my heart is pricked by the words in this video and I am tempted to be angry as well. However, as a believer in Christ, I would be denying His atonement if I base my faith on the perfection of his saints. The church will not be the perfect Bride until He returns and our hearts should be overflowing with thankfulness that our own sin is covered while constantly loving those around us, especially when they sin.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:03 am
ROS said: “The one thing that I did feel rang true for me was the comment about role models. It’s hard to think of any female role models for women gifted and called to do other ministry than that of wife and mother. Which is not to say that those aren’t important roles, just that they are not the only things women can and should be doing in the church.”
I agree.