Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Apostles Thecla and Paul

It is usually attested that there are very few records of women teaching both men and women in the church prior to the twentieth century and that the absence of such proves that women have never been allowed to teach in the orthodox part of the church. If we for a moment ignore the fact that much of what was written has been lost, we do have a remarkable account of a woman who was both a virgin and an apostle, Thecla.  Apocrypha cannot replace Scripture, but as a secondary witness it testifies to the general beliefs of the era of its creation; the same is true of all theological literature, whether ancient or modern. In Acts  of Paul and Thecla we find Paul urging Thecla to teach.

"And Thecla kept seeking Paul; and it was told her that he was in Myra of Lycia. And taking young men and maidens, she girded herself; and having sewed the tunic so as to make a man’s cloak, she came to Myra, and found Paul speaking the word of God. And Paul was astonished at seeing her, and the crowd with her, thinking that some new trial was coming upon her. And when she saw him, she said: I have received the baptism, Paul; for He that wrought along with thee for the Gospel has wrought in me also for baptism. And Paul, taking her, led her to the house of Hermaeus, and hears everything from her, so that those that heard greatly wondered, and were comforted, and prayed over Tryphaena. And she rose up, and said: I am going to Iconium. And Paul said: Go, and teach the word of God. And Tryphaena sent her much clothing and gold, so that she left to Paul many things for the service of the poor. And she went to Iconium. And she goes into the house of Onesiphorus, and fell upon the pavement where Paul used to sit and teach her, and wept, saying: God of myself and of this house, where Thou didst make the light to shine upon me, O Christ Jesus, the Son of the living God, my help in the fire, my help among the wild beasts, Thou art glorified for ever. Amen. And she found Thamyris dead, but her mother alive. And having sent for her mother, she said: Theocleia, my mother, canst thou believe that the Lord liveth in the heavens? For whether thou desirest wealth, God gives it to thee through me; or thy child, I am standing beside thee. And having thus testified, she departed to Seleucia, and dwelt in a cave seventy-two years, living upon herbs and water. And she enlightened many by the word of God. And certain men of the city, being Greeks by religion, and physicians by profession, sent to her insolent young men to destroy [corrupt] her. For they said: She is a virgin, and serves Artemis, and from this she has virtue in healing. And by the providence of God she entered into the rock alive, and went under ground. And she departed to Rome to see Paul, and found that he had fallen asleep. And after staying there no long time, she rested in a glorious sleep; and she is buried about two or three stadia from the tomb of her master Paul."

One fascinating aspect of the story are the young men who are sent to corrupt Thecla from her virignal purity which is a clear testimony that women and men mingled with more freedom than is usually attested. Even Jerome would lament later on that some men sought the diaconate for the sole purpose of visiting married women in private.  The young men had a less than honorable motive for visiting Thecla, but the fact that they knew they could visit her reveals that both men and women came to Thecla in order to hear her teach. 


The story could be easily dismissed as fiction if it wasn't for Tertullian, who felt compelled to explain why Thecla was not a legitimate example of a female teacher. 


"For concluding our brief subject, it remains to put you in mind also of the due observance of giving and receiving baptism. Of giving it, the chief priest (who is the bishop) has the right: in the next place, the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the bishop’s authority, on account of the honour of the Church, which being preserved, peace is preserved. Beside these, even laymen have the right; for what is equally received can be equally given. Unless bishops, or priests, or deacons, be on the spot, other disciples are called i.e. to the work. The word of the Lord ought not to be hidden by any: in like manner, too, baptism, which is equally God’s property, can be administered by all. But how much more is the rule of reverence and modesty incumbent on laymen—seeing that these powers  belong to their superiors—lest they assume to themselves the specific  function of the bishop! Emulation of the episcopal office is the mother of schisms. The most holy apostle has said, that “all things are lawful, but not all expedient.” Let it suffice assuredly, in cases of necessity, to avail yourself (of that rule , if at any time circumstance either of place, or of time, or of person compels you (so to do); for then the stedfast courage of the succourer, when the situation of the endangered one is urgent, is exceptionally admissible; inasmuch as he will be guilty of a human creature’s loss if he shall refrain from bestowing what he had free liberty to bestow. But the woman of pertness, who has usurped the power to teach, will of course not give birth for herself likewise to a right of baptizing, unless some new beast shall arise like the former; so that, just as the one abolished baptism, so some other should in her own right confer it! But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul’s name, claim Thecla’s example as a licence for women’s teaching and baptizing, let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing,  as if he were augmenting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed from his office. For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a woman even to learn with over-boldness, should give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing! “Let them be silent,” he says, “and at home consult their own husbands.”  (On Baptism, Ch XVII)
  
Not only did Tertullian remove women from the laity with his insitence that women could not perform what "all" could, his reasoning why Thecla was an illigetimate example is very revealing in itself. He wrote that the presbyter who had created the apocrypha had done so out of love for Paul. What kind of love is it which makes the object of the affection - the apostle -act in a manner which clearly contradicted everything he ever wrote? If the presbyter had wished to make a joke out of Paul and his teaching, Tertullian's argument would make sense. But if the presbyter truly loved Paul and had wished to perpetuate the memory of the great apostle, the argument becomes a strange one. Why would he write Paul encouraged women to teach if he never did so and if everyone knew it to be the case? The most readily available explanation is that tradition - and the Bible - clearly portrayed Paul as the great champion of egalitarianism, and that Tertullian wished to change the apostolic tradition by excluding women from teaching in the church, which he accomplished when he introduced ius, the Roman legal code into his theology. Thecla and Paul's encouragement of her teaching abilities did not fit into the new world of legal ecclesiastical offices which were only available for the freeborn males. Rome had infiltrated the church and would continue to do so until Rome would cease from being divine and the church humane.
 

Servant-Leadership?

We all ought to serve one another through love. In other words, all humans ought to be servants. Yet, some must lead the way, for it is an unavoidable truth that without a common goal society as we know it would not last very long. But if all ought to serve, how is it possible for some to lead? The answer has been sought in the concept of a servant-leader.

The original idea of a servant-leader, created by Robert K. Greenleaf, was a brilliant concept which affirmed the need of genuine servanthood in all realms of life, even in leadership.[1] The servant-leader was to be first of all a servant, who was intimately concerned with the welfare of those whom he or she was leading, and only secondarily a leader. But alas, when the church got hold of the concept in an effort to polish its tarnished image, the servant-leader was to be first of all a leader and only secondarily a servant, for the Christian servant-leader was seen as serving when leading instead of leading when serving. And that was the beginning of the end for the transformation of Christian leadership, for instead of motivating people to become genuine servants, people became motivated to find a servant whom they could lead. Come to think of it, we should not use the word “people” for the Christian servant-leadership is reserved exclusively to men. Women have never been encouraged to become servant-leaders; instead they have been expected to remain servants, for the leaders of the servants need servants to lead.

The theological namesake of Greenleaf’s bold and demanding vision follows the same logic as Dr. Eggenrichs’s treatment of Dr. Gottman’s groundbreaking research on why marriages succeed or fail.[2] Although Dr. Gottman concluded that men and women need love and respect equally, Eggenrichs depicts men as needing, and deserving, unconditional respect from women while women need love from men.[3] As a result, in the complementarian world all men are considered servant-leaders who are to be respected, whereas all women are servants who are to be loved. Neither Gottman nor Greenleaf envisioned a society in which women and men are gender segregated into such categories, but then again, neither did they feel an overwhelming need to maintain the old status quo. Instead, Greenleaf recognized that the desire among those whose leadership skills were inadequate was to preserve the system which insured their power instead of seeking and embracing change.[4] Change is precisely what is needed if people are to become genuine servants, led by genuine servant-leaders. Greenleaf envisioned a society in which the best possible candidates would serve as leaders to ensure the most efficient use of common resources.

Traditionally the church has considered the man the best possible candidate for leadership, the woman having been disqualified from such a position firstly due to Eve’s sin, and later by her assumed subjection to the man as a created order. The facts are however not flattering for the man’s ability to govern, as much of church history is a rather sordid tale of bloodshed and corruption. Neither is the church doing all that well in the twenty-first century and the lack of leadership is often blamed for its sorry state. But what if the problem is not the lack of leadership per se but the lack of female leadership? Cannot be, says the complementarian, for God does not call women into ecclesiastical leadership. But wait, replies the egalitarian, women are responding to such a call, wherefore God must be calling them. Because of the latter argument it has been suggested that the modern secular society has infiltrated the church and liberalized it to such an extent that people no longer recognize biblical truth. The proponents of the suggestion point to the marriage of Rome and the church as the prime example of such infiltration. But what if the church never divorced Rome despite all the reformations and attempts to return to the original model? What if the church is still modeling the ideal Roman society in which male authority and female submission are considered absolutely essential for the preservation of good order? If this is the case, egalitarians are correct and the change that is sought is a return to the original model of the early church.

The first Christians believed in the natural equality of all humans as imaging God and being sharers of one blood. This belief was in total opposition to the Aristotelian concept of the natural inferiority of slaves and women which was the foundation of the rule of the freeborn males in the Athenian polis. As Romans conquered Greece, they adopted Solon’s laws and Greek philosophy but modified them to appeal to their more disciplined and austere outlook on life. Although Roman women were not isolated quite as strictly, they paid for the little freedom they had gained through strict chastity by being blamed for every misstep and moral failure - even if the guilty party was the man.[5] Hence, as soon as Romans became theologians, they viewed Eve as solely guilty for the fall of humankind and as a fitting punishment she was subjected to the man, who was to rule over her as her lord. However, although the sole guilt of Eve became an accepted part of traditional theology, several hundred years passed until women were permanently removed from leadership, for it wasn’t until the Latin crusaders resurrected Aristotle’s philosophy by bringing it back to Europe from their tour to the Orient that the woman, who had been considered the man’s equal from creation, became inferior by God’s original design. Through a fusion of Aristotelian logic and theology, the woman was believed to have been created without the man’s reason, which provided the reason needed to exclude women from all ecclesiastical leadership.[6]

Seven hundred years after Thomas Aquinas argued for the woman’s subjection as a created order due to his synthesis of Aristotle’s philosophy and medieval theology, complementarists still claim it to be God’s original design for all humankind. But because not every man is designed to lead, the woman must acknowledge his sometimes inadequate leadership with a “joyful submission,” i.e. no complaining about his shortcomings is allowed. The same is true of all the mediocre preachers who keep their jobs only because the flock is warned not to criticize God’s spokesman, regardless of what he says or does. Such nonsensical attitudes would not be necessary if only those who were truly called and qualified were appointed into leadership - including women. Although it may make eminent sense for society and church to appoint someone to leadership due to human weakness and tendency to discord, the same does not apply to marriage. For where two have come together to make a unity of one flesh, there is also a bond that is stronger and more enduring than that which exists between citizens and congregants. The biblical model of marriage is a partnership sustained though love, such as exists between Christ and the church, not that which exists between a governor and subject, which is impersonal and ever-changing. Jesus called us his friends, and the need for leadership in marriage is the same as it is in friendship: it does not exist, for love and respect causes the two to seek a solution which is satisfactory to both parties and that is what leadership is ultimately about.        

[1] Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership, A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate power & Greatness, Paulist Press, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1977
[2] John Gottman with Nan Silver, Why Marriages Succeed or Fail… And How You Can Make Yours Last, A Fireside Book, New York, 1994, 67
[3] Dr. Emerson Eggerichs, Love and Respect, Integrity Publishers, Brentwood, Tennessee, 2004, 48
[4] Greenleaf, 29
[5] Edith Hamilton, The Roman Way, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1964, 149-150
[6] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First part, Question 92

Tertullian and Women in Ecclesiastical Orders

Tertullian (160-220) is well known for his less than favorable opinion of women which can perhaps be attributed to his North-African origin (Carthage, modern day Tunis). But although he advocated for the exclusion of women from ecclesiastical leadership later in life, we find the following statement in his brief book On Exhortation to Chastity.

"How many men, therefore, and how many women, in Ecclesiastical Orders, owe their position to continence, who have preferred to be wedded to God; who have restored the honour of their flesh, and who have already dedicated themselves as sons of that (future) age, by slaying in themselves the concupiscence of lust, and that whole (propensity) which could not be admitted within Paradise! Whence it is presumable that such as shall wish to be received within Paradise, ought at last to begin to cease from that thing from which Paradise is intact."  (On Exhortation to Chastity, XIII)

The original Latin text supports the above reading:
"Quanti (how many men) igitur (therefore) et quantae (how many women) in ecclesiasticis ordinibus (in ecclesiastical order) de (concerning) continentia (continence) censentur (judge/recommend), qui (who) deo (to God) nubere (married) maluerunt (prefer), qui (who) carnis (flesh) suae (theirs) honorem (honor) restituere (restore). (revive)." (http://www.tertullian.org/latin/de_exhortatione_castitatis.htm)

In the same book we find also that Tertullian supported the individual priesthood of all believers.

"Vain shall we be if we think that what is not lawful for priests is lawful for laics. Are not even we laics priests? It is written: “A kingdom also, and priests to His God and Father, hath He made us.” It is the authority of the Church, and the honour which has acquired sanctity through the joint session of the Order, which has established the difference between the Order and the laity. Accordingly, where there is no joint session of the ecclesiastical Order, you offer, and baptize, and are priest, alone for yourself. But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics. For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says. Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behoves you to have likewise the discipline of a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the fight of a priest. If you are a digamist, do you baptize? If you are a digamist, do you offer? How much more capital (a crime) is it for a digamist laic to act as a priest, when the priest himself, if he turn digamist, is deprived of the power of acting the priest! " (Ch VII)

A "digamist" was a person who after widowhood had married a second time and Tertullian was adamant that second marriages were forbidden although the argument in favor of his position leaves much to be desired.

If the traditional chronogly of his writings is to be trusted, Tertullian changed his mind about the general priesthood and the right for all laics to baptize, teach and offer the Eucharist, for the prohibition for women to to perform these functions is found in his book On the Veiling of Virgins (ca. 213) which is of a later date than On Exhortation to Chastity (ca. 204-212).

“It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office.” (On the Veiling of Virgins, Ch IX)

What caused the change? His desire to transform the church into a hierarchial institution in which authority and submission are the guiding principles. Karen Jo Torjesen describes Tertullian’s vision of the church as an essentially Roman institution.

"Tertullian’s description of the Christian community dramatically marks the transition of the model of the church from the household or private association to the body politic. With him the church became a legal body (corpus or societas, the term the Romans used for the body politic) unified by a common law (lex fidei, “the law of faith”) and a common discipline (disciplina, Christian morality). For Tertullian the church, like Roman society, united a diversity of ethic groups into one body under the rule of one law… Tertullian conceived the society of the church as analogous to Roman society, divided into distinct classes or ranks, which were distinguished from one another in terms of honor and authority."  (Karen Jo Torjesen, When women were priests (Harper San Francisco, New York, 1993) 162-3)

Only those who were full members of the political body could possess ius docendi (the legal right to teach) and ius baptizandi (legal right to baptize); women could not be full members and therefore they were excluded from the clergy- and laity.

Complementarist theologian William Weinrich considers Tertullian “a representative voice” of the universal church of the second century,  (John Piper and Wayne Grudem, ed. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Crossway, Wheaton Illinois, 1994,  273) but he cannot do so without excluding women from the church altogether. It is vitally important that we recognize that the early church theologians were as likely to change their minds as are modern theologians and that their views did not always adhere to biblical principles, but that they often used contemporary practices and beliefs in their biblical interpretation.

Augustine on the Creation of Man and Woman

Theologically Augustine was of the Alexandrian school which favored allegory as a means to interpret the Bible. The Antiochian school, of which Chrysostom was the most illustrious example, relied rather on the historic-grammatical method which strived to remain faithful to context and language. Although the Alexandrian school used allegory, it recognized also that the text had a literal meaning. Hence, when writing about the creation of the first man and woman, Augustine sought to find both the literal and spiritual meaning which caused his overall view to become internally contradictory. In his literal interpretation of the creation of the man and woman Augustine wrote:

"But we, for our part, have no manner of doubt that to increase and multiply and replenish the earth in virtue of the blessing of God, is a gift of marriage as God instituted it from the beginning before man sinned, when He created them male and female,—in other words, two sexes manifestly distinct. And it was this work of God on which His blessing was pronounced. For no sooner had Scripture said, “Male and female created He them,” than it immediately continues, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Increase, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it,” etc.  And though all these things may not unsuitably be interpreted in a spiritual sense, yet “male and female” cannot be understood of two things in one man, as if there were in him one thing which rules, another which is ruled; but it is quite clear that they were created male and female, with bodies of different sexes, for the very purpose of begetting offspring, and so increasing, multiplying, and replenishing the earth; and it is great folly to oppose so plain a fact. It was not of the spirit which commands and the body which obeys, nor of the rational soul which rules and the irrational desire which is ruled, nor of the contemplative virtue which is supreme and the active which is subject, nor of the understanding of the mind and the sense of the body, but plainly of the matrimonial union by which the sexes are mutually bound together, that our Lord, when asked whether it were lawful for any cause to put away one’s wife (for on account of the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites Moses permitted a bill of divorcement to be given), answered and said, “Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” It is certain, then, that from the first men were created, as we see and know them to be now, of two sexes, male and female, and that they are called one, either on account of the matrimonial union, or on account of the origin of the woman, who was created from the side of the man. And it is by this original example, which God Himself instituted that the apostle admonishes all husbands to love their own wives in particular. " (The City of God, Book XIV, Ch 22)

Although Augustine writes that it is not possible to understand “male and female” as two entities in one individual - one ruling, the other ruled – we find the argument in his allegorical interpretation of the same text.

"Who can doubt that this renewing takes place in the mind? But and if any doubt, let him hear a more open sentence. For, giving the same admonition, he thus saith in another place: “As is the truth in Jesus, that ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, him which is corrupt according to the lust of deception; but be ye renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, him which after God is created.” What then? Have women not this renewal of mind in which is the image of God? Who would say this? But in the sex of their body they do not signify this; therefore they are bidden to be veiled. The part, namely, which they signify in the very fact of their being women, is that which may be called the concupiscential part, over which the mind bears rule, itself also subjected to its God, when life is most rightly and orderly conducted. What, therefore, in a single individual human being is the mind and the concupiscence, (that ruling, this ruled; that lord, this subject,) the same in two human beings, man and woman, is in regard of the sex of the body exhibited in a figure." (Of the Work of Monks, 40)

“Mind and concupiscence (irrational desire)” are changed into “reason and appetite” in his book Confessions. "We behold the face of the earth furnished with terrestrial creatures, and man, created after Thy image and likeness, in that very image and likeness of Thee (that is, the power of reason and understanding) on account of which he was set over all irrational creatures. And as in his soul there is one power which rules by directing, another made subject that it might obey, so also for the man was corporeally made a woman, who, in the mind of her rational understanding should also have a like nature, in the sex, however, of her body should be in like manner subject to the sex of her husband, as the appetite of action is subjected by reason of the mind, to conceive the skill of acting rightly. These things we behold, and they are severally good, and all very good." (Confessions, Book VIII, Chapter XXXII, 47)

Although Augustine affirmed that also the woman has a rational understanding, in the same book, in a later chapter, he again changes the metaphor; this time from “reason and appetite” to “understanding and action.”

"Next didst Thou form the living soul of the faithful, through affections ordered by the vigour of continency; and afterwards, the mind subjected to Thee alone, and needing to imitate no human authority, Thou didst renew after Thine image and likeness; didst subject its rational action to the excellency of the understanding, as the woman to the man; and to all Thy ministries, necessary for the perfecting of the faithful in this life, Thou didst will that, for their temporal uses, good things, fruitful in the future time, should be given by the same faithful." (Confessions, Book VIII, Ch XXXIV)

When we return to The City of God, we find yet another metaphor - that of “soul and body” – in Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis 3.16.

"Yet He does not dismiss him without counsel, holy, just, and good. “Fret not thyself,” He says, “for unto thee shall be his turning, and thou shall rule over him.” Over his brother, does He mean? Most certainly not. Over what, then, but sin? For He had said, “Thou hast sinned,” and then He added, “Fret not thyself, for to thee shall be its turning, and thou shall rule over it.” And the “turning” of sin to the man can be understood of his conviction that the guilt of sin can be laid at no other man’s door but his own. For this is the health-giving medicine of penitence, and the fit plea for pardon; so that, when it is said, “To thee its turning,” we must not supply “shall be,” but we must read, “To thee let its turning be,” understanding it as a command, not as a prediction. For then shall a man rule over his sin when he does not prefer it to himself and defend it, but subjects it by repentance; otherwise he that becomes protector of it shall surely become its prisoner. But if we understand this sin to be that carnal concupiscence of which the apostle says, “The flesh lusteth against the spirit,” among the fruits of which lust he names envy, by which assuredly Cain was stung and excited to destroy his brother, then we may properly supply the words “shall be,” and read, “To thee shall be its turning, and thou shalt rule over it.” For when the carnal part which the apostle calls sin, in that place where he says, “It is not I who do it, but sin that dwelleth in me,” that part which the philosophers also call vicious, and which ought not to lead the mind, but which the mind ought to rule and restrain by reason from illicit motions,—when, then, this part has been moved to perpetrate any wickedness, if it be curbed and if it obey the word of the apostle, “Yield not your members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin,” it is turned towards the mind and subdued and conquered by it, so that reason rules over it as a subject. It was this which God enjoined on him who was kindled with the fire of envy against his brother, so that he sought to put out of the way him whom he should have set as an example. “Fret not thyself,” or compose thyself, He says: withhold thy hand from crime; let not sin reign in your mortal body to fulfill it in the lusts thereof, nor yield your members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin. “For to thee shall be its turning,” so long as you do not encourage it by giving it the rein, but bridle it by quenching its fire. “And thou shall rule over it;” for when it is not allowed any external actings, it yields itself to the rule of the governing mind and righteous will, and ceases from even internal motions. There is something similar said in the same divine book of the woman, when God questioned and judged them after their sin, and pronounced sentence on them all,—the devil in the form of the serpent, the woman and her husband in their own persons. For when He had said to her, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shall thou bring forth children,” then He added, “and thy turning shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” What is said to Cain about his sin, or about the vicious concupiscence of his flesh, is here said of the woman who had sinned; and we are to understand that the husband is to rule his wife as the soul rules the flesh. And therefore, says the apostle, “He that loveth his wife, loveth himself; for no man ever yet hated his own flesh.” This flesh, then, is to be healed, because it belongs to ourselves: is not to be abandoned to destruction as if it were alien to our nature." (The city of God, Book XV, Ch 7)

Augustine sees the “turning” as a command, not a consequence (which was also Jerome’s understanding, wherefore he changed the meaning of Genesis 3.16 in the Vulgate). I.e. Cain must allow sin to turn to him in order that he might subject it to his control. The same is true of the man, who must allow the woman to turn to him in order to subject her to his control as the soul rules over the flesh – a Platonic concept. The woman is pictured as a “vicious concupiscence,” an evil desire, which must be subdued by the soul. Because the body is considered decidedly inferior to the soul, the inferiority of the woman becomes part of Augustine’s theology.

"For whether all souls are derived by propagation from the first, or are in the case of each individual specially created, or being created apart from the body are sent into it, or introduce themselves into it of their own accord, without doubt this creature endowed with reason, namely, the human soul—appointed to occupy an inferior, that is, an earthly body—after the entrance of sin, does not govern its own body absolutely according to its free will. For I did not say, “after his sin,” or “after he sinned,” but after the entrance of sin, that whatever might afterwards, if possible, be determined by reason as to the question whether the sin was his own or the sin of the first parent of mankind, it might be perceived that in saying that “the soul, appointed, after the entrance of sin, to occupy an inferior body, does not govern its body absolutely according to its own free will,” I stated what is true; for “the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and in this we groan, being burdened,” and “the corruptible body weighs down the soul,”—in short, who can enumerate all the evils arising from the infirmity of the flesh, which shall assuredly cease when “this corruptible shall have put on incorruption,” so that “that which is mortal shall be swallowed up of life”?" (Letter CXLIII, 6)

Augustine understands the relationship between the man and the woman in the post-fallen world as a struggle between the flesh and the soul in which the soul is never able to completely govern the body.

"Did not Cicero, in discussing the difference of governments in his De Republica, adopt a simile from human nature, and say that we command our bodily members as children, they are so obedient; but that the vicious parts of the soul must be treated as slaves, and be coerced with a more stringent authority? And no doubt, in the order of nature, the soul is more excellent than the body; and yet the soul commands the body more easily than itself. Nevertheless this lust, of which we at present speak, is the more shameful on this account, because the soul is therein neither master of itself, so as not to lust at all, nor of the body, so as to keep the members under the control of the will; for if they were thus ruled, there should be no shame. But now the soul is ashamed that the body, which by nature is inferior and subject to it, should resist its authority. For in the resistance experienced by the soul in the other emotions there is less shame, because the resistance is from itself, and thus, when it is conquered by itself, itself is the conqueror, although the conquest is inordinate and vicious, because accomplished by those parts of the soul which ought to be subject to reason, yet, being accomplished by its own parts and energies, the conquest is, as I say, its own. For when the soul conquers itself to a due subordination, so that its unreasonable motions are controlled by reason, while it again is subject to God, this is a conquest virtuous and praiseworthy. Yet there is less shame when the soul is resisted by its own vicious parts than when its will and order are resisted by the body, which is distinct from and inferior to it, and dependent on it for life itself. (The City of God, Book XIV 23)

Here the inherent contradiction in Augustine’s theology becomes clear for although he depicts the woman as part of the soul in Confessions, albeit as irrational desire, he now removes her completely from the realm of reason into the realm of the “animal body,” which is entirely distinct from the soul, but not alien by nature.

"And a man is in this life spiritual in such a way, that he is yet carnal with respect to his body, and sees another law in his members warring against the law of his mind; but even in his body he will be spiritual when the same flesh shall have had that resurrection of which these words speak, “It is sown an animal body, it shall rise a spiritual body.” (The City of God, Book XXII, Ch 21)

Yet, Augustine contradicts himself once more when writing about Ephesians 5.

"And yet the woman [in Eph 5] received not pattern from the body, or flesh, to be so subject to the husband as the flesh to the spirit; but either the Apostle would have understood by consequence, what he omitted to state: or haply because the flesh lusteth against the spirit in the mortal and sick estate of this life, therefore he would not set the woman a pattern of subjection from it." (On Continence, 23)

And again.

"The apostle puts flesh for woman; because, when she was made of his rib, Adam said, “This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.” And the apostle saith, “He that loveth his wife loveth himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh.” Flesh, then, is put for woman, in the same manner that spirit is sometimes put for husband. Wherefore? Because the one rules, the other is ruled; the one ought to command, the other to serve. For where the flesh commands and the spirit serves, the house is turned the wrong way. What can be worse than a house where the woman has the mastery over the man? But that house is rightly ordered where the man commands and the woman obeys. In like manner that man is rightly ordered where the spirit commands and the flesh serves." (Tractates on John, Tractate II, 14)

The man is never called a “spirit,” in the New Testament. He is called a “head.” Neither is the woman called “flesh,” she is likened unto a body, which together with the man - the “head” - creates one flesh. Augustine failed to make the distinction because of his wish to incorporate Plato’s concept of the soul ruling over the sinful flesh. It is noteworthy that Augustine did not see the man’s prior creation as a reason for the man’s rule; instead he understood it as creating a unity of one flesh in marriage, and the unity of humankind as originating from one beginning - the first man.

"[E]ven as it is written in the book of Ecclesiasticus: “Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.” Now whether it be said of the woman or of Adam, both statements pertain to the first man; since (as we know) the woman is of the man, and the two are one flesh. Whence also it is written: “And they twain shall be one flesh; wherefore,” the Lord says, “they are no more twain, but one flesh.” (On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book I, Ch 21)

"The woman, therefore, is a creature of God even as the man; but by her creation from man unity is commended; and the manner of her creation prefigured, as has been said, Christ and the Church." (The city of God, Book XII, Ch 17)

"And indeed He did not even create the woman that was to be given him as his wife, as he created the man, but created her out of the man, that the whole human race might derive from one man." (The city of God, Book XII, Ch 21)

"With good cause, therefore, does the true religion recognize and proclaim that the same God who created the universal cosmos, created also all the animals, souls as well as bodies. Among the terrestrial animals man was made by Him in His own image, and, for the reason I have given, was made one individual, though he was not left solitary. For there is nothing so social by nature, so unsocial by its corruption, as this race. And human nature has nothing more appropriate, either for the prevention of discord, or for the healing of it, where it exists, than the remembrance of that first parent of us all, whom God was pleased to create alone, that all men might be derived from one, and that they might thus be admonished to preserve unity among their whole multitude. But from the fact that the woman was made for him from his side, it was plainly meant that we should learn how dear the bond between man and wife should be." (The City of God, Book XII, Ch 27)

Even the woman being called “help” was interpreted as signifying marriage by Augustine. "There was, however, undoubtedly marriage, even when sin had no prior existence; and for no other reason was it that woman, and not a second man, was created as a help for the man." (A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, on Original Sin, Book II, Ch 40)

Yet, again Augustine changes his mind:

"Whereas, too, he made the woman to be an helpmeet for him: not for carnal concupiscence,—since, indeed, they had not corruptible bodies at that period, before the punishment of sin invaded them in the form of mortality,—but for this purpose, that the man might at once have glory of the woman in so far as he went before her to God, and present in himself an example to her for imitation in holiness and piety, even as he himself was to be the glory of God in so far as he followed his wisdom."  (On the Catechising Of the Uninstructed, Ch 18)

Augustine did not derive his belief in the man’s rule from the man’s prior creation; instead his beliefs about domestic harmony were clearly of Roman origin.

"Since, then, the house ought to be the beginning or element of the city, and every beginning bears reference to some end of its own kind, and every element to the integrity of the whole of which it is an element, it follows plainly enough that domestic peace has a relation to civic peace,—in other words, that the well-ordered concord of domestic obedience and domestic rule has a relation to the well-ordered concord of civic obedience and civic rule. And therefore it follows, further, that the father of the family ought to frame his domestic rule in accordance with the law of the city, so that the household may be in harmony with the civic order." (The City of God, Book XIX Ch 16)

As a Roman, his concern was for the “order of nature” and the preservation of justice, wherefore in the following text we find why Augustine had to liken the woman to the irrational appetite in order to avoid the implication of equality.

"This is prescribed by the order of nature: it is thus that God has created man. For “let them,” He says, “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every creeping thing which creepeth on the earth.” He did not intend that His rational creature, who was made in His image, should have dominion over anything but the irrational creation,—not man over man, but man over the beasts. And hence the righteous men in primitive times were made shepherds of cattle rather than kings of men, God intending thus to teach us what the relative position of the creatures is, and what the desert of sin; for it is with justice, we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin. And this is why we do not find the word “slave” in any part of Scripture until righteous Noah branded the sin of his son with this name. It is a name, therefore, introduced by sin and not by nature. The origin of the Latin word for slave is supposed to be found in the circumstance that those who by the law of war were liable to be killed were sometimes preserved by their victors, and were hence called servants. And these circumstances could never have arisen save through sin. For even when we wage a just war, our adversaries must be sinning; and every victory, even though gained by wicked men, is a result of the first judgment of God, who humbles the vanquished either for the sake of removing or of punishing their sins. Witness that man of God, Daniel, who, when he was in captivity, confessed to God his own sins and the sins of his people, and declares with pious grief that these were the cause of the captivity. The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow,—that which does not happen save by the judgment of God, with whom is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to award fit punishments to every variety of offence. But our Master in heaven says, “Every one who doeth sin is the servant of sin.” And thus there are many wicked masters who have religious men as their slaves, and who are yet themselves in bondage; “for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” And beyond question it is a happier thing to be the slave of a man than of a lust; for even this very lust of ruling, to mention no others, lays waste men’s hearts with the most ruthless dominion. Moreover, when men are subjected to one another in a peaceful order, the lowly position does as much good to the servant as the proud position does harm to the master. But by nature, as God first created us, no one is the slave either of man or of sin. This servitude is, however, penal, and is appointed by that law which enjoins the preservation of the natural order and forbids its disturbance; for if nothing had been done in violation of that law, there would have been nothing to restrain by penal servitude. And therefore the apostle admonishes slaves to be subject to their masters, and to serve them heartily and with good-will, so that, if they cannot be freed by their masters, they may themselves make their slavery in some sort free, by serving not in crafty fear, but in faithful love, until all unrighteousness pass away, and all principality and every human power be brought to nothing, and God be all in all." (The City of God, Book XIX, Ch 15)

If the subjection of a human to another is the result of sin, the woman must either lack the rational faculty which makes her human, or her subjection began after the entrance of sin. Incidentally, Thomas Aquinas used the assumed lack of the woman’s reason as the foundation for his belief that the woman’s subjection belonged to the created order. Augustine was not as successful as Thomas in his attempt to create a creation-based subjection for not all theologians were willing to embrace Neo-Platonism in the fourth century, although they for the most part heartily agreed with his synthesis of the ideal Roman society and theology. The church continued to appoint women into ecclesiastical leadership for centuries after Augustine’s death and they disappeared from the medieval church only as a result of the resurrection of Aristotle’s philosophy as the crusaders returned his writings to Europe from the Orient where it had been studied for centuries by Muslims and Jews alike.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Divorce - Revoked or Redefined?

In When Dogmas Die I wrote that Jesus revoked the Mosaic permission for men to divorce their wives. This is only partially true, for what Jesus objected to was frivolous divorces.

“The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” (Matt 19:3-10, NKJV)

In Malachi and 1 Peter we find that God hates divorce which is sought only in order to re-marry and does not regard the prayers of those who abuse their wives and break the covenant.

“And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and crying; so He does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. Yet you say, “For what reason?” Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. “For the LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence,” Says the LORD of hosts. “Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.” (Mal 2.13-16, NKJV)

“Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.” (1 Pet 3.7, NKJV)

The Mosaic Law gave permission only for men to divorce, but the New Testament sees both men and women seeking divorce in order to remarry.

“So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10.11-12, NKJV)

Hence it seems that divorce itself is not forbidden, but frivolous divorces with the sole purpose to remarry.

The one legitimate reason given for divorce is adultery as seen in both Matthew 19 and Jeremiah 3.

“Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense,” says the LORD.”  (Jer 3.8-10, NKJV)

But what is meant by Israel’s adultery is idolatry and the same is found in the New Testament.

“Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?” (James 4.4, NKJV)

Hence adultery in the Bible is not strictly sexual in nature, but rather a transferring of one’s love and devotion to another object. Mental and physical abuse follows the same pattern: the transferring of one’s love and devotion from one’s spouse to the illusion of one’s right to hurt, for love doesn’t harm one’s neighbor (Rom 13.10). We may also ask why God would insist that a believer should lack peace if married to another believer since he does not require such from a Christian married to an unbeliever.

“Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”  (1 Cor 7.10-16, NKJV)

Naturally the New Testament assumes and expects that Christians live according to its precepts of loving one’s neighbor and doing unto others as one would have done unto one’s self, but often Christians fail to attain the lofty goal.  The Mosaic law granted permission for Israeli men to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts and as long as both men and women do not allow their hearts to be softened, divorce will remain a reality.


Friday, January 20, 2012

Who Can Represent God?

We are told God is male because the Bible uses the masculine default when talking about God (for example, God is called a Father) and therefore only men can represent God.

However, also the devil is called a father.

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. (John 8:44-45 NKJV)

If only men can represent God because God is male, does this mean that only men can represent the devil, i.e. be evil, since the devil is a male? 

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Growing in Christ


The purpose of pastors and teachers is to help Christians grow in their faith.

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. (Eph 4:11-16 NIV)

However, the hierarchical nature of the modern church leadership ensures that Christians remain perpetual children, dependent of their leaders instead of becoming leaders and teachers themselves – the goal of our growth in Christ.

 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. (Heb 5:11-14 NIV)

Children must shed their dependence of their parents if they wish to become grown-ups themselves. The first step towards growth is critical thinking; instead of obeying without a question, the teenager challenges what is being said, and through that challenge, learns to distinguish good from evil. An untrained mind depends on someone to tell her what is right and wrong; a trained mind no longer needs someone to lead the way: instead she has become someone who can lead others. To become a mature Christian (a “spiritual” person) instead of remaining a child (a “carnal” person) is the goal of our faith. Happy are those Christians whose spiritual leaders recognize this and allow them to grow up instead of forcing them to remain children in order to bolster their own (false) authority over the flock.