The complementarian argument - a survey of history

[Jordan]

Why did the church Fathers not allow women to preach? - a survey

In another thread, Matt has argued that the church has often amended its reasons for not ordaining women; that many of the reasons previously given for not ordaining women would now embarrass complementarians; and that it is not at all clear where the conservative theological voice is sustained.

I threw down the gauntlet and challenged him to substantiate this, and he has responded with a formidable series of quotes from William Webb’s history of interpretation of 1 Tim 2:11-14. These quotes would appear to put it beyond doubt that the church has been quite consistently immoral in its view of women, and that the main reason for not allowing them public office has almost uniformly been that they are incompetent, easily deceived, and generally inferior to men.

Let me say from the outset that I condemn such an attitude toward women. And to whatever extent I am guilty of a similar attitude I trust God will convict me and bring me to repentance.

However, I am not at all persuaded, as yet, that Matt has the high ground on this question, as his posts would seem to imply. Neither am I persuaded that merely exposing the darker side of the history of the interpretation of one passage is at all a responsible reading of history, especially when we’re trying to elucidate the historic complementarian position as a whole.

So Matt, I will attempt to outline a comprehensive study of a representative number of views of the Fathers. I hope to cover the early church; Chrysostom; Augustine (if I can find enough information); Luther; Calvin; and one post Reformation divine – Matthew Henry (chosen because he wrote a whole bible commentary so his views will be easy to see).

If I’m proven to be wrong at the end of it all...then I’ll ‘eat my hat’. But not before then!

I’ll begin with the ‘Constitutions of the Holy Apostles’. These are eight books on pastoral and liturgical practice, attributed to Clement of Rome (90-100), but compiled a century or two later. From book III:

‘That women ought not to teach, because it is unseemly; and what women followed our Lord.’

VI. ‘We do not permit our “women to teach in the church”, but only to pray and hear those that teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach, although he did not want such.  For there were with us the mother of our Lord and His sisters; also Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Martha and Mary the sisters of Lazarus; Salome, and certain others.  For, had it been necessary for women to teach, He Himself had first commanded these also to instruct the people with us.  For “if the head of the wife be the man,” it is not reasonable that the rest of the body should govern the head.'

This passage is interesting because it gives us a glimpse of how the Ante Nicene church thought about the issue as a whole. Firstly, the writer(s) allude to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 rather than 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Secondly, we find no overt denigration of women here. Thirdly, the arguments supporting the command are the same as some of the key arguments complementarians use today: the example of Jesus in only commissioning male apostles; the lack of a positive command from Christ (or his apostles) that women should teach in the church; and the argument from male headship.

Several paragraphs down there is another chapter on the same subject:

‘That women ought not to baptize, because it is impious, and contrary to the doctrine of Christ’.

IX. 'Now, as to women’s baptizing, we let you know that there is no small peril to those that undertake it. Therefore we do not advise you to it; for it is dangerous, or rather wicked and impious. For if the “man be the head of the woman,” and he be originally ordained for the priesthood, it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation, and leave the principal to come to the extreme part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side, and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For says He, “He shall rule over thee.” For the principle part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them to teach, how will anyone allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of a priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of the Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ. For if baptism were to be administered by women, certainly our Lord would have been baptized by His own mother, and not by John; or when he sent us to baptize, he would have sent along with us women also for this purpose. But now he has nowhere, either by constitution or by writing, delivered to us any such thing; as knowing the order of nature, and the decency of the action; as being the Creator of nature, and the Legislator of the constitution.'

Again we have a similar way of arguing – this time against women baptizing. Today some complementarians would allow women to baptize, on the grounds that baptism may be distinguished from preaching or exercising authority. Others may not allow it – it depends on how one understands the relationship of the sacraments to the public ministry of the Word, and the exercising of discipline in the church.

But as I said, the argument is similar to the one above, and includes many things complementarians would still argue today: a) male headship is the order of creation and finds expression in the public ministry of the church; b) Eve’s subjection at the fall further demonstrates the order that was already previously established (though at the fall it became troubled); c) Christ never gave the example nor the command, though man and woman were created through Him. Surely he would have not overlooked women in this way if He intended them to hold these positions.

Again, let me emphasise that I am not arguing a particular position here. I am simply making the point, which ought to be obvious, that present day complementarians have much in common theologically with the early church on this issue.    

So I offer these two passages as the first piece of evidence to challenge the claim that today’s complementarians are out on their own limb theologically, and can’t claim strong links with history.

In Christ,
Jordan

[Matt Williams]

Hey Jordan,

Thanks for pointing to this document, I wasn't aware of this reference and it is indeed interesting.

It is probably worth pointing out that the attribution to Clement of Rome is most likely a doubtful grab at authority - at least according to Wikipedia(!) the documents emerged in the late fourth century and were rejected as containing significant heresy in the 5th and 7th Centuries but then endorsed by Pope Hadrian in the 8th. But there is probably some earlier material preserved in them. In any case it would be very optimistic to give this full credit as Clementine.

As you say it is also interesting that all the argument is done from headship within marriage, not 1 Tim 2. It is thought-provoking to see an ancient precedent for the link, but I have always found this argument improbable theologically. It seems a big slide to run from a husband as the 'head' of a wife to all men as the head of all women. A woman who teaches is not the body of all the 'heads' present!

If it is objected that a woman's own husband would be present, I might point out that preacher's wives (at least educated wives today) usually listen differently to the teaching of their husbands than other men - more critically, thinking of feedback and advice and questions - in a word, as partners. Likewise husbands would maintain such a disposition regarding their wives while they taught. This is why I think Doug's position - that maintains male headship in marriage but supports women teaching in church - is theologically defensible; though I also think that Christian headship ought to look basically egalitarian anyway.

(I would get stuck into the "Jesus would have been baptized by his mother" argument but it's just too cute, like the arguments you get from seven-year olds in Sunday School!)

In any case, I agree that this is an ancient precedent for an argument about headship and relating it to women teaching in church, which at least adds something to your theological case. But it is not an ancient precedent for understanding 1 Timothy 2 in terms of headship; and the crucial point is that it is not an exegesis of 1 Timothy 2 at all.

Blessings
Matt

[Jordan]

Hi Matt, thanks for your reply,

I don't think your last point is crucial; I guess I should have made it more clear that I didn't intend to limit discussion to 1 Tim 2, the reason being that the complementarian argument has usually embraced both that text and 1 Cor 14. So in the following posts, I'll be attempting to paint a picture of the overall theology of complementarianism through history (of course it will have to be selective, but I won't hide anything nasty, I promise).

In Christ,
Jordan

 

[Matt Williams]

Hey Jordan,

Okay then, but in that case I should say upfront that the case for linking 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 is, for me, not a foregone conclusion.

Neither 1 Tim 2 nor 1 Cor 14 refer to notions of 'head' (1 Cor 11 and Eph 5 do, but only within marriage contexts.) 1 Cor 14 does not refer to women teaching but to 'speaking' - which appears a more general term but the context, that clearly endorses women praying and prophesying in the assembly, suggests it is not that general. It is suggested that they "ask their husbands at home", which suggests a more limited problem of wives undermining their husbands in critiquing their prophecies, per the preceding context.

I would have to be convinced that the two texts should be related, and that 1 Cor 14 has anything to do with the question of women teaching.

But I will await the historical data you are plumbing with interest.

Blessings
Matt

[Jordan]

Hi Matt,

Also keep in mind that this thread is not intended primarily as an apologetic for a particular interpretation and understanding, but mainly to outline the relationship between the historic and modern complementarian positions; whether those positions are biblically sound in the end or not.

In Christ,
Jordan

[Jordan]

Now for a look at Chrysostom.

There is quite a lot to digest in his homilies on this subject, so it may take several posts to get down.

The first observation I would like to make concerns ontology. Did Chrysostom consider women ontologically inferior to men? He certainly made some statements that we would consider to be intolerably sexist, but can we infer his actual theology from these alone? I would suggest that we shouldn't draw definite conclusions on his views before looking at places where he actually commented on that subject from Scripture. Read the following from his exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:2:

'"But the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." Here the heretics rush upon us with a certain declaration of inferiority, which out of these words they contrive against the Son. But they stumble against themselves. For if "the man be the head of the woman," and the head be of the same substance with the body, and "the head of Christ is God", the Son is of the same substance with the Father.'

This is an extraordinary passage. The heretics he refers to are the Arians, who argued that Christ the Son was an inferior being to the Father. They couldn't separate the idea of 'headship' from the idea of 'worth' or being. From this passage in Corinthians the Arians argued the inferiority of Christ, because he is said to be under the Father's headship.

Now, if Chrysostom believed that women were ontologically inferior to men, he wouldn't have been able to argue against the Arians from this passage. But, rightly convinced that the man and the woman are equal in 'substance' or being though the woman is under the headship of the man, he argued from the smaller to the greater, infering that the same must apply to the relationship between Christ and the Father.

So here we have an insight into his actual views on the ontology of woman. Being the body, she is of the same substance with the head.

Often it is said that we cannot argue from the relationship between man and woman to the relationship between the Father and the Son. Chrysostom shows his awareness of this problem, and while he seeks to expound the analogy as far as Scripture permits, he also warns against 'straining it to all particulars'. He compares the relationships further:

'But dost thou understand the the term "head" differently in the case of the man and the woman, from what thou dost in the case of Christ? Therefore in the case of the Father and the Son, must we understand it differently also. "How understand it differently?" saith the objector. According to the occasion. For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as thou sayest, he would not have brought forward the instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and a master. For what if the wife be under subjection to us? It is as a wife, as free, as equal in honor. And the Son also, though he did become obedient to the Father, it was as the Son of God, it was as God.'

Note again: he allows that the wife is subject to the husband; not as a slave, but as a wife, free and equal.

I would suggest that we need to keep these passages in mind as we read Chrysostom's view on women in ministry. For it is clear from this homily that he has affirmed their ontological equality. I don't mean to imply that Chrysostom was a man who was entirely consistent with himself; perhaps he did slip into error when speaking of the ontology of women at times. But we need to be careful. At the least, we shouldn't be dismissive of him as a theologian when we read something which we find objectionable.

In the next post we'll explore Chrysostom's understanding of 1 Tim 2:12-14.

In Christ,
Jordan

P.S. You'll notice that I've changed the title of this thread to something a bit more amiable. I think there's been a general feeling on the forum that we could simmer down a bit, so I've renamed it to reflect these sentiments.