‘Heretics’ and Creation of Christian Theology and Church Structure
Organizational equality is maintained by shifting and alternating authority and leadership among members of a group, all of whom in principle have equal access to authority, leadership, and power. This was the case in the early Christian movement, insofar as all members of the community were Spirit-gifted people of God who had received the power and endowment of the Holy Spirit for the building up of the community. In the NT period it was believed, in which the apostle was superior to other Christians, and in the second century, the distinction between clergy and laity became clearer. The local leadership-seems to have developed similar to the administrative offices of Greco-roman private associations and Jewish synagogue organizations.
The shift, which took place in the second century, was from charismatic and communal authority to an authority vested in local officers, who in time took up not only the teaching authority of the prophet and apostle but also the decision-making power of the community. This shift is, at the same time, a shift from alternating leadership available to all the baptized members to patriarchal leadership restricted to male heads of households.
The Greco-Roman patronage system gave them influence and power over the members. Thus, insofar as they provided both legal and financial to the Christian association, wealthy members of the Christian community, especially those who presided over a house church had great influence and power in the church from its very beginnings. In the second century, the shifts of authority and influence from wealthy members of the community to the administrative local officers of the church become visible. This had a consequence that affected the leadership of women, since, in Greco-Roman society and in private associations in particular, wealth gave women great influence and authority. The superiority of local officers thus created three changes: (1) the patriarchalization of local church and leadership; (2) the merger of prophetic and apostolic leadership with the patriarchally defined office of bishop; and (3) the reduction of women’s leadership to marginal positions and its restriction to the sphere of women. The leadership and behavior of women and slaves became restricted and defined according to the patriarchal standards of Greco-Roman society so that outsiders will not take offense at their insubordinate behavior. The patriarchal order of the house, when applied to the order of the church, it restricted the leadership of wealthy women even within the Christian household community.
The Teaching Authority of the Bishop
Early Christian prophecy included the element of ecstasy and of speaking in tongues, as Paul, Acts, Revelation, and hermas documented. Prophets evidently exercise great authority and influence in the first centuries as spokespersons for the resurrected Lord. Women as wells men received such prophetic gifts.
The Didache, a church order probably written in Syria toward the end of the first century, proves that prophets and prophecy continued to have authority. People were reluctant to judge on the prophets’ words and revelations for fear of committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Fourth gospel asserts that the Paraclete was sent to all the disciples and its community. It is thus no accident that the Fourth Gospel contains very powerful stories about women disciples like Martha, Mary, and Mary of Magdala. The shepherd of Hermas, probably written at Rome in the mid-second century, documents the continuing importance of prophecy. The valentinians say that the spirit, which each of the prophets received specially for his or her ministry, is poured out upon all in the church.
Whenever the congregation met, its members drew lots, a traditional Jewish and early Christian practice used to know the will of God. By means of these lots, they were selected for the role of the presbyter, for celebrating the eucharist as bishop, for reading and expounding the Scriptures, or for teaching or addressing the group as a prophet. All members, women and men, were eligible to act as bishop, presbyter, teacher and prophet. Because these functions changed from meeting to meeting, they never became the exclusive right of particular members.
Women were among the prophetic leaders of the Pauline communities. Luke characterizes Mary and Elizabeth, as well as Anna, as prophets. Women prophets are acknowledged as transmitters of apostolic tradition. John, the author of revelation, knows of a woman who was a prophet-teacher and the head of a prophetic school or house church in Thyatira. Thyatira later became a center of the Montanist movement. Asia Minor continued to recognize women prophets even into the second and third centuries.
In the second century, the Montanists attempted to legitimize their prophecy and apostolic origin by establishing a prophetic line of succession. Maxilla and Priscilla were the leading prophets in Montanism. They had equal spiritual gifts and leadership in the Montanist movement. Like Montanus, the woman prophets claimed that the Holy Spirit spoke directly to and through them. This claim was based on faith in the revelations given by the Holy Spirit to women and men in prophetic ecstasy. The movement expected a speedy coming of the Lord and showed a passionate contempt for this world by advocating sexual asceticism, fasting, and martyrdom.
Since the Montainsts’ opponents could not refute the movement on doctrinal grounds, they attacked it by slandering its leading prophets. Charges of immorality and of abandoning their husbands were brought against the women. It was claimed that Monanist leaders committed suicide, and that, in their mysteries, they slaughtered children and mingled their blood in the sacrifices, charges originally made by pagans against all Christians. The Montanists were reviled and finally driven out of the monepiscopal church. The struggle against Montanism, however, indicates that what was at stake was not a doctrinal issue but a competition between radically different church structure and Christian self-understandings. The Montanists, as well as many other groups, stressed the authority of the Spirit, that is, the authority of the prophets or ascetics, over and against the authority of noncharismatic local officers.
It is the Episcopal hierarchy which replaced early Christian prophecy. It seems, in the second century, that the gift of prophecy was claimed first to strengthen the authority of the local bishop then it was occasionally assumed that the bishop possessed the gift of prophecy, and then finally the authority of the bishop came to replace that of the prophet. In later centuries only the official hierarchy could claim to speak “with God’s own voice.”
By the mid-third century, the teaching authority of the bishop was so well developed that it seems to have become the rule. Now the ability to transfer Christian teaching to paper either belonged to the bishop or pointed a man toward consecration as a bishop. Patristic writers, therefore, insist that women cannot teach, have intellectual leadership, or write books. Nevertheless, it took centuries to gradually eliminate or suppress women’s authority as official prophets and teachers in the church. This process was not completely successful, since, throughout the centuries, women have claimed mystic-prophetic teaching authority and have preached even to bishops and popes.
The Apostolic Constitutions of the fourth century declare firmly, “We do not permit our women to teach in the church, but only to pray and listen to those who teach.” Furthermore, they limit the functions of the deaconesses to keeping the doors and assisting the presbyters in the baptism of women for reasons of decency. Thus Montanism, Gnosticism, and the patristic church all appealed to apostolic revelation and tradition to justify their own church orders and theologies.
The Didascalia Apostolorum argues that women were not appointed to teach and to preach. It does, however, acknowledge that women were disciples of Jesus. However, the Lord did not send them “to instruct the people” together with the male disciple. The Dialogue Between a Montanist and an Orthodox highlights the debate around the ecclesial leadership of women, clearly indicating that it centers around questions of public teaching and intellectual theological leadership even in the middle of the fourth century. The orthodox do not permit women to speak in the assemblies, nor to have authority over men, to the point of writing books in their own name: since, such is, indeed, the implication for them of praying with uncovered head.
Conclusion
In many of the churches today believe women are inferior to men on the basis of many biblical references which places women subordinate to men. Having seen the theological and sociological shift from gender unconscious to gender biased in the society that had an impact on the ecclesial realm ultimately, should open our minds to the reality of God who embraces all genders in his ministry. We see in the New Testament history that the stress on sociological and theological submission and patriarchal superordination succeeded over the sociological and theological stress on unselfish love and ministerial service. However, this cannot be justified theologically, since it cannot claim the authority of Jesus for its Christian praxis. The post-Pauline and post-Petrine writers seek to limit women’s leadership roles in the Christian community to roles that are culturally and religiously acceptable. Therefore, it is quite obvious that part of the biblical theology is conformed to the social and religious realities of its time. Our task as future minister is to untwine the calcified truth by bringing women back to its lost position as an active leaders and prophets of our church today. We have hope by the fact that wherever the gospel is preached and heard, the service of women are not totally forgotten because the Gospel story remembers that the discipleship and apostolic leadership of women are important parts of Jesus’ “alternative” praxis of agape and service.
Organizational equality is maintained by shifting and alternating authority and leadership among members of a group, all of whom in principle have equal access to authority, leadership, and power. This was the case in the early Christian movement, insofar as all members of the community were Spirit-gifted people of God who had received the power and endowment of the Holy Spirit for the building up of the community. In the NT period it was believed, in which the apostle was superior to other Christians, and in the second century, the distinction between clergy and laity became clearer. The local leadership-seems to have developed similar to the administrative offices of Greco-roman private associations and Jewish synagogue organizations.
The shift, which took place in the second century, was from charismatic and communal authority to an authority vested in local officers, who in time took up not only the teaching authority of the prophet and apostle but also the decision-making power of the community. This shift is, at the same time, a shift from alternating leadership available to all the baptized members to patriarchal leadership restricted to male heads of households.
The Greco-Roman patronage system gave them influence and power over the members. Thus, insofar as they provided both legal and financial to the Christian association, wealthy members of the Christian community, especially those who presided over a house church had great influence and power in the church from its very beginnings. In the second century, the shifts of authority and influence from wealthy members of the community to the administrative local officers of the church become visible. This had a consequence that affected the leadership of women, since, in Greco-Roman society and in private associations in particular, wealth gave women great influence and authority. The superiority of local officers thus created three changes: (1) the patriarchalization of local church and leadership; (2) the merger of prophetic and apostolic leadership with the patriarchally defined office of bishop; and (3) the reduction of women’s leadership to marginal positions and its restriction to the sphere of women. The leadership and behavior of women and slaves became restricted and defined according to the patriarchal standards of Greco-Roman society so that outsiders will not take offense at their insubordinate behavior. The patriarchal order of the house, when applied to the order of the church, it restricted the leadership of wealthy women even within the Christian household community.
The Teaching Authority of the Bishop
Early Christian prophecy included the element of ecstasy and of speaking in tongues, as Paul, Acts, Revelation, and hermas documented. Prophets evidently exercise great authority and influence in the first centuries as spokespersons for the resurrected Lord. Women as wells men received such prophetic gifts.
The Didache, a church order probably written in Syria toward the end of the first century, proves that prophets and prophecy continued to have authority. People were reluctant to judge on the prophets’ words and revelations for fear of committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Fourth gospel asserts that the Paraclete was sent to all the disciples and its community. It is thus no accident that the Fourth Gospel contains very powerful stories about women disciples like Martha, Mary, and Mary of Magdala. The shepherd of Hermas, probably written at Rome in the mid-second century, documents the continuing importance of prophecy. The valentinians say that the spirit, which each of the prophets received specially for his or her ministry, is poured out upon all in the church.
Whenever the congregation met, its members drew lots, a traditional Jewish and early Christian practice used to know the will of God. By means of these lots, they were selected for the role of the presbyter, for celebrating the eucharist as bishop, for reading and expounding the Scriptures, or for teaching or addressing the group as a prophet. All members, women and men, were eligible to act as bishop, presbyter, teacher and prophet. Because these functions changed from meeting to meeting, they never became the exclusive right of particular members.
Women were among the prophetic leaders of the Pauline communities. Luke characterizes Mary and Elizabeth, as well as Anna, as prophets. Women prophets are acknowledged as transmitters of apostolic tradition. John, the author of revelation, knows of a woman who was a prophet-teacher and the head of a prophetic school or house church in Thyatira. Thyatira later became a center of the Montanist movement. Asia Minor continued to recognize women prophets even into the second and third centuries.
In the second century, the Montanists attempted to legitimize their prophecy and apostolic origin by establishing a prophetic line of succession. Maxilla and Priscilla were the leading prophets in Montanism. They had equal spiritual gifts and leadership in the Montanist movement. Like Montanus, the woman prophets claimed that the Holy Spirit spoke directly to and through them. This claim was based on faith in the revelations given by the Holy Spirit to women and men in prophetic ecstasy. The movement expected a speedy coming of the Lord and showed a passionate contempt for this world by advocating sexual asceticism, fasting, and martyrdom.
Since the Montainsts’ opponents could not refute the movement on doctrinal grounds, they attacked it by slandering its leading prophets. Charges of immorality and of abandoning their husbands were brought against the women. It was claimed that Monanist leaders committed suicide, and that, in their mysteries, they slaughtered children and mingled their blood in the sacrifices, charges originally made by pagans against all Christians. The Montanists were reviled and finally driven out of the monepiscopal church. The struggle against Montanism, however, indicates that what was at stake was not a doctrinal issue but a competition between radically different church structure and Christian self-understandings. The Montanists, as well as many other groups, stressed the authority of the Spirit, that is, the authority of the prophets or ascetics, over and against the authority of noncharismatic local officers.
It is the Episcopal hierarchy which replaced early Christian prophecy. It seems, in the second century, that the gift of prophecy was claimed first to strengthen the authority of the local bishop then it was occasionally assumed that the bishop possessed the gift of prophecy, and then finally the authority of the bishop came to replace that of the prophet. In later centuries only the official hierarchy could claim to speak “with God’s own voice.”
By the mid-third century, the teaching authority of the bishop was so well developed that it seems to have become the rule. Now the ability to transfer Christian teaching to paper either belonged to the bishop or pointed a man toward consecration as a bishop. Patristic writers, therefore, insist that women cannot teach, have intellectual leadership, or write books. Nevertheless, it took centuries to gradually eliminate or suppress women’s authority as official prophets and teachers in the church. This process was not completely successful, since, throughout the centuries, women have claimed mystic-prophetic teaching authority and have preached even to bishops and popes.
The Apostolic Constitutions of the fourth century declare firmly, “We do not permit our women to teach in the church, but only to pray and listen to those who teach.” Furthermore, they limit the functions of the deaconesses to keeping the doors and assisting the presbyters in the baptism of women for reasons of decency. Thus Montanism, Gnosticism, and the patristic church all appealed to apostolic revelation and tradition to justify their own church orders and theologies.
The Didascalia Apostolorum argues that women were not appointed to teach and to preach. It does, however, acknowledge that women were disciples of Jesus. However, the Lord did not send them “to instruct the people” together with the male disciple. The Dialogue Between a Montanist and an Orthodox highlights the debate around the ecclesial leadership of women, clearly indicating that it centers around questions of public teaching and intellectual theological leadership even in the middle of the fourth century. The orthodox do not permit women to speak in the assemblies, nor to have authority over men, to the point of writing books in their own name: since, such is, indeed, the implication for them of praying with uncovered head.
Conclusion
In many of the churches today believe women are inferior to men on the basis of many biblical references which places women subordinate to men. Having seen the theological and sociological shift from gender unconscious to gender biased in the society that had an impact on the ecclesial realm ultimately, should open our minds to the reality of God who embraces all genders in his ministry. We see in the New Testament history that the stress on sociological and theological submission and patriarchal superordination succeeded over the sociological and theological stress on unselfish love and ministerial service. However, this cannot be justified theologically, since it cannot claim the authority of Jesus for its Christian praxis. The post-Pauline and post-Petrine writers seek to limit women’s leadership roles in the Christian community to roles that are culturally and religiously acceptable. Therefore, it is quite obvious that part of the biblical theology is conformed to the social and religious realities of its time. Our task as future minister is to untwine the calcified truth by bringing women back to its lost position as an active leaders and prophets of our church today. We have hope by the fact that wherever the gospel is preached and heard, the service of women are not totally forgotten because the Gospel story remembers that the discipleship and apostolic leadership of women are important parts of Jesus’ “alternative” praxis of agape and service.
No comments:
Post a Comment