lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (02/28/85)
<>
After a *long* vacation, a few spare moments and a compelling issue have
conspired to force me to offer a few random comments on the subject of
tradition, women, and the ministry.
Both Catholic and Protestant theologians respect and affirm the traditions of
the early church - especially those confessions and creeds that articulate
the essence of Christian doctrine (Nicea and Chalcedon to name the most
famous).
This does not make tradition the "dead faith of the living" (to employ a very
unoriginal phrase). Rather it gives the church guidance in new situations as
it faces afresh the problems of human existence and salvation. Recent
bishops' letters on the economy and nuclear whepons are excellent examples of
the dialectic between tradition and cultural context in action.
But what of the ordination of women to the priesthood (or as we Protestants
prefer to say, the Ministry)? It has been asserted that Jesus did not ordain
any women to be apostles, and that the early church likewise ordained no
women. Does this constitute the decisive verdict of tradition against the
appointment of women to ecclesiastical office?
First, all sides must confess the modest amount of evidence available. While
a large amount of early Christian literature speaks of bishops (both as
individuals and as an office), there is much less about presbyters/elders, and
very little about deacons. (The use of "priest" as a technical term for an
ecclesiastical office seems rather late - at least Fourth Century).
What is clear from the New Testament and other 1st/2nd Century writings is
that women played a rather active role in the embrionic church. Paul refers
to a certain Junia (common female name in Rome) in Rom. 16.7, who with a man
named Andronicus (her husband??) were notably members of a group called
"apostles" (this is, by the way, a good example of a verse which the RSV
translators have thoroughly botched). In the same chapter Paul mentions a
certain Phoebe who is a "deacon" in the Cenchreaen church. Interestingly, in
the husband-wife team of Aquila and Priscilla, it is the wife (Priscilla) who
is regularly mentioned first, both by Paul and in Acts. Beyond this, it is
obvious from a cursory reading of the New Testament that women acted as
confidants of Christ, as patrons of the apostles, as supporters and hosts of
local congregations, as prophets and as liturgists.
Nor did the prominence of Christian women disappear at the end of the New
Testament. As late as the Fifth Century the official structure and the
popular structure of the church were in a state of flux. Women continued
throughout this period to hold considerable status and influence in the church
as confessors (those who "confessed" Christ before magistrates), martyrs and
saints, patrons, ascetics, and, in some cases, theologians (a good source on
this is Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, esp. books 8-9). If the record
leaves us little evidence to suggest that women were allowed to preside over
tha sacraments during this period, it leaves us almost as little evidence
regarding men (bishops excepted). What is clear is that women were an
important part of all aspects of the church's ministry.
Among groups less concerned with the officially sanctioned ecclesiastical
hierarchy (some of which came to be known as heretics - a label which
reflected their insistence upon outdated and conservative ideas as often as
upon their novel activities) women frequently assumed leading roles among the
congregation. The Montanists (a 2nd Century charismatic movement among whom
the latter Tertullian numbered himself) valued female prophetesses highly.
The Nag Hammadi texts preserve a "Gospel of Mary [Magdelene]" in which the
heroine reveals to the Twelve (male) Apostles words of Jesus they never
received. Works like the Thunder, Perfect Mind, and the Trimorphic Protennoia
appear to have been taught by prophetesses. These facts are not presented to
suggest that the doctrines rejected as heretical in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries
should now be made the basis of ecclesiastical order. Rather, I cite them as
evidence of an older (orthodox) community in which the Apostle's words were
taken seriously: among those who have been baptized into Christ, "there is
neither male nor female" (Gal. 3.28).
It is possible, of course, to argue that because the role of women in the
official Roman bureaucracy of the first five centuries (both civil and
ecclesiastical) is almost entirely undocumented, so today women should be
excluded from the ranks of ordained church leadership. This same appeal to
an argument from silence should be sufficient to debunk arguments for other
undocumented ideas like social justice or the possibility of a nuclear-free
world. Is this how tradition functions in Christian theology? I leave that
question to the reader.
Jeffrey Gillette !duke!phs!lisa
The Divinity School
Duke University