“‘What,’ men have asked distractedly from the beginning of time, ‘what on earth do women want?’ I do not know that women, as women, want anything in particular, but as human beings they want, my good men, exactly what you want yourselves: interesting occupation, reasonable freedom for their pleasures, and a sufficient emotional outlet.”[1]
Christianity is a religion that’s been around for just over two thousand years. Men and women as distinct sexes of the same species have been around much longer. Looking at humanity scientifically we see that this distinction is necessary for the process of procreation to occur and human life, as we know it, to continue. Looking at humanity sociologically it would appear that the relationships between males and females, and the families that they create, are the basic building blocks for any society. A society’s political, economic, and religious structures are affected by the way women and men relate to each other. And the nature of this relationship, which is such a fundamental aspect of humanity and has such significant implications, is determined by what humans, both men and women, believe about the opposite sex as well as their own. We must seek to know, therefore, what right belief on this subject is. In this paper, however, I will not answer that question; rather my intent is to provide greater depth of knowledge about what Christians have thought. I will also focus the discussion on the topic of gender equality. My conclusion is that throughout its history Christianity has expressed ambivalence about whether or not women are equal to men.
Looking back as early as the New Testament, the beginning of Christianity, we see that people are already asking this question. The gospels tell us that Jesus had both male and female followers (Mark 15:40). But at the same time the male disciples don’t seem to take the women very seriously (Luke: 24:10-11).[2] Moving ahead a few years, Paul, the founding Christian theologian, also seems to be ambivalent about this topic. In Galatians he says, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female: for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).[3] Yet Paul also tells the Church in Corinth, “As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says.” (1 Cor. 14:34).[4] If the inspired texts which guide, if not determine, the Christian faith express conflicting views on women, then it should be no surprise to see the same views throughout Christian history.
In the 3rd century Christians were being Martyred left and right. One of the female martyrs was named Blandina. She was killed similarly to Christ and was a source of much inspiration in the Christian community. Her death was seen as, “an image of human nature at its highest.”[5] Despite many powerful stories such as this one, key figures such as Irenaeus were obtusely opposed to women being granted the same status as men.[6]
A century or two later (late 4th through early 5th centuries) the Church fathers, namely Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome, had much debate about the role of women in the Church. They all held the same basic assumption, however, that women were actually created inferior to men. Their debates focused on what God had in mind for women as the inferior sex.[7] During that time, however, there were significant numbers of women who lived radical and devout lives as ascetics. Marcella became a leader of a group of these women and they “occupied a central place in the life of the Roman Church.”[8] The Church father Jerome, despite many writings which ridiculed women, developed a friendship with Marcella and appears to have been significantly influenced by her. He even taught some of the ascetic women to exegete Scripture on their own.[9]
The views of women throughout the medieval era were crystallized into two models, namely, Mary the Mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalen. The ideas that these models became associated with went far beyond the women in the Bible that they are named after. Mother Mary was a “Virgin, Queen, Bride, and Advocate.” Mary Magdalen was a “Repentant Prostitute, life-long Hermit Penitent, Apostolic Preacher in southern France, and Model of prayerful meditation.” They show the “multi-faceted clerical reflection on the roles, both religious and social, of medieval women.”[10] I’ll look briefly at these two models, as well as some comments that Christian leaders made about women in that time.
As the Catholic Church grew into a larger organization people felt it become less personal. The Clergy studied at an exclusive level with universities and began to have more control over people’s lives. The sacrament of penance was developed and people began to see God as judgmental and distant. In this setting, ideas of the Virgin Mary grew as people sought to fill the gaps left by this view of a remote God. She was seen as merciful, accessible, and close to the human experience, even being involved in small details of life.[11]
The image of Mary Magdalen used stories of a few different women in the Gospels, and became popular mostly because of monastic rivalries regarding her body. She was also appealing because she was a more realistic model for women in that she was a penitent sinner, unlike the Virgin Mary whose perfection was unattainable. “Her story helped to make the lives of real prostitutes a little more bearable throughout the middle ages.” She was also portrayed quite erotically in art-work.[12] This model, however, presented extreme ambivalence, especially in contrast with the positive views of the Virgin Mary. Medieval clerics wrote a lot about the failings of women. “Albert the Great warned all to look on a woman only as a ‘venomous serpent and horned devil’.” The picture of Mary sitting silently at Jesus’ feet was used to enforce the separation of men and women and the silencing of women in Church. Mary Malone ends her chapter on these women by noting how religious traditions are very creative in the models they propose as a means of male control of women.[13] So, despite many positive ideas associated with women, there was no shortage of negative views.
There continued to be much debate about women, mostly by men, in the 16th century, during the reformation. Martin Luther wrote a lot on women and seems to be in disagreement with himself. There are plenty of writings in which Luther seems to consider women as inferior to men.[14] For example, “Indeed, stupid women try not to submit to their husbands, but they are not able to govern cities and territories, etc.”[15] At the same time, when speaking about women more theologically, Luther comes across as very egalitarian. He talks about Adam and Eve as being equal in bearing the image of God. He points out that God took delight in creating women and distances himself from Aristotelian thought which ridiculed women.[16] In expanding upon the idea of being one flesh Luther says that married people should share everything in common, home, family, land, education of children, money, etc.[17]
It would seem wrong to write an essay looking over the History of Christian Thought without mentioning John Calvin, a key character in the reformation who came a bit after Luther, at least briefly. Almost all earlier studies on Calvin’s views on women saw him to be ambivalent, or possibly even inconsistent. He taught the equality of women and men, but he also taught the subordination of women to men. Calvin didn’t allow women to preach or baptize, but in the Institutes and other writings he argues that the idea of women being silent in Church is an indifferent aspect of the way Church needs to be run.[18]
If Luther and Calvin here represent the magisterial reformers, then we must also give ear to the radical reformers. The Anabaptists also express ambivalence towards the equality of women. In the earlier years both women and men had authority in their communities. Both men and women martyrs were seen as heroes and people to be emulated. But as these communities grew and developed structures they leaned more on the patriarchal models found in Paul’s writings and in other Scripture. Wives were expected to be submissive and obedient to their husbands, and weren’t put in positions of authority.[19] Scholars have also noted, however, that in some of these groups women were able to negotiate with men in authority, sometimes being quite assertive.[20] Lastly, a quote from Anabaptist J.A. Comenius, “Nor is it possible to give a sufficient reason why the inferior sex… should be entirely excluded from studies of wisdom.”[21] This quote is significant because we see an assumption that women are inferior, but the overall purpose of the statement is to promote a more egalitarian approach to education.
After the initial reformation period, Protestantism continued to reform itself, causing division and allowing for more perspectives on women. In the late seventeenth century was the emergence of pietistic movements which stressed personal devotion and seemed to attract more significant amounts of women. There were even a number of female leaders such as, Jane Leade, Madame Guyon, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, Antoinette Bourignon, and Anna Maria van Schurman. There are a variety of theories as to why women were drawn to this form of Christianity more so than others. Perhaps the more practical approach was more appealing to women’s nature. More radical forms of pietism had non-traditional views on sexuality which may have been appealing to women. Regardless, there is still some tension within pietistic views on women. Gottfried Arnold, a Radical Pietist, supported women prophesying, and wrote of many examples to defend it. This caused another Pietist scholar, Johann Heinrich Feustking, to respond with critical accounts of those same women in order to show that prophesying women can be dangerous.[22]
Another distinct camp of thought and practice was the puritans. Despite their name’s implication of single-mindedness, they were not in total agreement when it came to their thoughts on women. First we’ll look at John Brinsley’s examination of 1 Tim. 2:14 – a verse which alludes to the Genesis account of the fall. Brinsley does a step by step analysis of the verse, and two key points stick out. Firstly, Satan chose to deceive the woman because she was the weaker vessel, and more likely to succumb to temptations. Secondly, Eve became “the author and original of transgression” and proceeded to seduce her husband and bring him into transgression.[23] Jumping ahead a couple hundred years to puritan scholar John Owen, we find a more positive view of women in his analysis of Hebrews 11:11, which references Sarah of the Older Testament. He notes that the writer of Hebrews decided to mention Sarah as in conjunction with Abraham in the context of talking about Abraham’s faith. Owen says that, “as Abraham was the father of the faithful, or the church, so she (Sarah) was the mother of it.”[24]
A new age dawned in the 18th century, known as the enlightenment, in which human reason and rationality, defined by the scientific process, were elevated above all other sources of truth. Christianity responded to this huge paradigm shift in a variety of ways. Here we will look at three branches of Christianity – Liberal, Conservative, and Neo-Orthodox – and see ambivalence within and between these different streams of thought. Liberal Christians openly embraced enlightenment thought which promoted freedom and individuality because it saw humans as creatures of reason whose autonomy should be protected by the law. This rationale was primarily used for men, but various people, such as Mary Wollstonecraft, extended the logic to include women. She argued that women, as humans, are also creatures of reason and should therefore have the same freedom and autonomy provided by the protection of the law. She was using the same rationality to promote equality that many others were using to promote distinct societal roles for men and women. Her thoughts may not have been widely accepted at the time, but they opened doors for later feminists.[25]
Fundamentalism claimed to reject enlightenment thought and made Scripture its primary authority instead of reason. On the topic of women, fundamentalists reacted to emerging feminists and “reasserted a masculine Christianity.” They believed women needed to be subordinate to men and dependent on them at home and church, and in society. Fundamentalists wrote a lot about human sexuality. They often looked to the story of the fall where Eve’s decision to sin is the main factor, instead of looking at the creation story which gives a more egalitarian picture of Adam and Eve. They used the curse that was placed on Eve as justification for keeping women under man’s dominion.[26] Despite this accurate generalization of fundamentalism there were people who thought differently, such as John Roach Straton. Straton was a famous Baptist fundamentalist preacher in the 1920’s. The thing which makes him stick out is that he supported Uldine Utley, a touring preacher, and helped her become a prominent evangelist. This endorsement of a female preacher went against standard fundamentalist doctrine.[27]
Neo-Orthodoxy responded to the extremes of liberal theology and fundamentalism by taking somewhat of a middle road. The main voice for Neo-Orthodoxy was Karl Barth. Joan Arnold Romero has said that Barth's "theology is basically a theology of domination and oppression primarily along male-female lines.” Clifford Green, however, sees themes of liberation in Barth’s theology of the sexes. This “breakthrough,” is compromised, however, “because of weaknesses in his exegetical and theological methods.”[28]
Lastly, we must return to the Catholic Church, which was also greatly affected by the enlightenment, and hear a story of their modern theological tensions in regards to gender equality. Feminismo Cristiano (Italian for Christian feminism), was developed in the early 1900’s, primarily by the Italian Radini Tedeschi. A form of secular feminism was already present during this time, but this new Christian movement was adamant about their distinctness from it. In the minds of many Christians the term feminism held negative connotation for ruining feminine qualities, marriage, and family. Feminismo Cristiano originally split off from a Christian political movement and was mostly focused on welfare issues; unlike secular feminism which sought a higher level of equality. As it progressed, however, it adopted more extreme demands such as total equality in civil and political rights for women and men. These demands challenged the society’s patriarchal values as well as its unequal distribution of power and wealth. It looked far too much like secular feminism and conservatives felt that it needed to be silenced. The conservative Catholic press began campaigning relentlessly against the movement’s leaders and the periodical that promoted it. Ultimately, they succeeded, and the early Catholic feminist movement ended in 1908.[29]
The history of Christian thought, overall, presents us with very ambivalent views on the equality of women to men. It shows up as early as Jesus’ day, as well as in Paul’s letters just after that. The post-Biblical early Church wrestled with it, as did the Church Fathers and Mothers. The medieval era gives us some pretty intense pictures of women, but no clear conclusion about their equality to men. Luther contradicts himself on the matter, and Calvin can be interpreted in contradicting ways. Anabaptist women were expected to be submissive, yet seemed to have a significant level of influence. Peitists debated with each other, puritans interpreted Scripture differently, Liberals used rationality in contradictory ways. Fundamentalists were actually fairly consistent, but there are at least some examples of ambivalence. Barth is tough to interpret, and modern Catholics had a big wrestling match about the whole thing. With all these conflicting perspectives before us it is awfully tempting to say that Christianity isn’t going to be helpful in the quest for true belief about gender. But my hope is that we can follow in our predecessors’ footsteps and continue to wrestle with such an important question.
[1] Dorothy L. Sayers, Are Women Human? (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), 32.
[2] Mary T. Malone, Women and Christianity Volume 1: The First Thousand years (Ottowa: Novalis, 2000), 55.
[3] Ibid, 75.
[4] Ibid, 76.
[5] Malone, 105.
[6] Ibid, 113.
[7] Ibid, 144-145.
[8] Ibid, 138.
[9] Malone, 135-8.
[10]Mary T. Malone, Women and Christianity Volume II: From 1000 to the Reformation (Ottowa: Novalis, 2001), 254.
[11]Ibid, 256.
[12] Malone (Vol II), 269.
[13] Ibid, 270.
[14] Else Marie Wiberg Pederson, “A Man Caught Between Bad Anthropology and Good Theology? Martin Luther’s View of Women Generally and of Mary Specifically,” Dialog 49, no 3, Fall 2010 192
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 21, 2011).
[15] Susan C. Karant-Nunn and Merry e. Wiesner-Hanks, Luther on Women: A Sourcebook (Cabridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 93.
[16] Pederson, 192
[17] Karant-Nunn, 93
[18] Barbara Pitkin, "John Calvin and the Daughters of Sarah: Women in Regular and Exceptional Roles in the Exegesis of Calvin, His Predecessors, and His Contemporaries," Calvin Theological Journal 31, no. 1 (1996), 209,
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 21, 2011).
[19]Adam Darlage, "Double honor: elite Hutterite women in the sixteenth century," Church History 79, no. 4 (2010), 754-755,
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 21, 2011).
[20] Darlage, 759.
[21] Joyce L. Irwin Womanhood in Radical Protestantism: 1525-1675 (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1979), 133-134.
[22] Joyce L Irwin, "Anna Maria van Schurman and Antoinette Bourignon : contrasting examples of seventeenth-century pietism," Church History 60, no. 3 (1991), 301-302,
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 21, 2011).
[23] Irwin (1979), 37-39.
[24] Irwin (1979), 40 (parenthesis mine).
[25] Mary Stewart Van Leeuwan, After Eden: Facing the Challenge of Gender Reconciliation (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), 29-30.
Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (London: Penguin Books, 1792), 100-103.
[26] James H. Smylie, "Ungodly Women: Gender and the First Wave of American Fundamentalism," Interpretation 49, no. 3 (1995), 324-22,
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 21, 2011).
[27] Lee Canipe, "The unlikely argument of a Baptist Fundamentalist: John Roach Straton's defense of women in the pulpit," Baptist History and Heritage 40, no. 2 (2005) 64-76,
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 21, 2011).
[28] Clifford James Green, "Liberation theology : Karl Barth on women and men." Union Seminary Quarterly Review 29, no. 3-4 (1974), 221-231,
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 21, 2011).
[29]Helena Dawes, "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE WOMAN QUESTION: CATHOLIC FEMINISM IN ITALY IN THE EARLY 1900S," Catholic Historical Review 97, no. 3 (July 2011), 525-526, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 22, 2011).
0 comments:
Post a Comment