One of the signs of modern, fallen Christianity is the practice
of women teaching men and ordaining women to leadership roles. Historically,
very few churches practiced this until the last century and a half. The
Bible is quite plain in these points, so I usually do not spend a lot of
time reading materials that try their best to make the Scriptures say the
opposite of their plain meaning. So when someone recently showed me an
issue of a magazine that was dedicated to proving that it was scriptural
for women to be ordained as ministers (in the official sense of the word)
and to teach men, I didn’t pay a lot of attention. I grew up around churches
that took that stance and know the
arguments.
But one section caught my eye. It was the claim that the early
Anabaptists had ordained women preachers. Although the article is careful
to not actually call them “ordained ministers,” the inference is clearly
there.
During the last several years I have spent a good bit of time
reading Anabaptist thought and history ... and knew that even some of the
foremost “liberal” Mennonite historians (who seem to have gone looking
for some proof of it to support their own current practice) had concluded
after long research that there were simply no ordained women ministers
in early Anabaptism.
Were there zealous women, women who boldly stood their ground
when asked in court trials (sometimes accompanied by torture) about their
faith? Absolutely! About 1/3 of all Anabaptist martyrs were women. But
the bottom line was simple: no recorded case has been found of an early
Anabaptist woman being ordained to the ministry in the official sense of
the word. The word “minister” means serve (verb), or servant (noun). In
that sense, every Anabaptist was considered a “minister.”
So what do we do with the following, taken from page 1120 of the
Herald Press edition of the Martyrs Mirror?
The Gospel Trumpet had the following to say about the above section:
Here is an image from Martyrs
Mirror (Page 1122, Herald Press,
1950 edition), in which two women are clearly listed with men in the ministry.
Ruth Kunstel was “a minister in the word of the Lord” at Muchem, in the
Berne jurisdiction, while Ruth Hagen was listed as “an elder” from the
Zurich area.
These women followed their New Testament forebears Phebe, the
four daughters of Philip, Junia, etc., in ministering the Word of God along
with men. This cannot be gainsaid, as it is in plain black-and-white recorded
for posterity. Let all who claim the Anabaptist heritage know their history.
At first glance, it does seem to indicate that there were indeed
women ordained as a minister and an elder in early Anabaptism. But right
away I suspected something: Ruth was probably also a man’s name in that
time period. A quick check to the German version would clear up the question,
since the German language has a different article (meaning a different
form of “the” and “a”) depending on whether the noun is a male noun or
a female noun.
The German text of the two Ruths
For those who do not read German (probably the majority of our
readers), you will notice the article “einem.” Now take a look at whether
that is a male or female article:
So, “einem diener” translates to English as “a male servant or
minister.” In the same way, “einem aeltesten” translates to “a male
elder.”
Now let’s take another closer look at the English again. Does
the English say “Ruth Hagen, an elder,” or does it say “Ruth Hagen, an
eldress”?
Obviously, the situation here is that Ruth was a man. Ruth is
certainly not a common male name; in fact it is the first time I
have run across it myself. Another possibility in this case is a
misspelling, since
during that time period spelling consistency was basically an every-man-for-himself
sort of thing.
To be sure, at first glance it can easily look like the early
Anabaptists may have had “women in the ministry.” A closer look proves
that the “proof” was bad proof.
For the other “proof” of “women in the ministry,” a little clip
of page 481 of Martyrs Mirror was presented:
Let me ask you: Just how much proof does the above clipping give
to prove that the early Anabaptists had women ordained as teachers to men?
To be honest, it provides exactly 0% proof. Elizabeth was
accused
of being a teacher. But she was also (falsely) accused of being Menno Simons’
wife. Or perhaps the authorities were mocking her. But there is no admission
on Elizabeth’s part of being a “teacher.” Or, if she did teach, whom did
she teach? Children? Other women? Men?
No proof of being a “teacher” is found. Much less whom she taught
if she was indeed an ordained “teacher.”
This thing called integrity
All this moved my mind to think of integrity. Integrity has to
do with “wholeness.” When speaking of a person’s or a group’s integrity,
it carries the idea of being totally honest. For myself, when dealing with
Anabaptist history it means admitting—for as much that I admire the Anabaptist
movement—that there were some things I cannot agree with. Some of them
held wrong ideas about divorce/remarriage. Some of them had really—I mean
really—funny ideas about eschatology.
Back to history
But before we talk more about integrity, let’s look at the same
magazine and one of the “proofs” (shown below) that it gives of the early
church having “women in the
ministry.”
Proof of the early church ordaining women as preachers?
The question here is not so much the interpretation that Chrysostom
gave of the passage of Scripture, but the question is about the integrity
of using one quote of his to support the idea of women preaching in the
church. There are several points that could be argued on his interpretation
of Romans 16:7. 1. Whether listing both of them together is meant as a
husband/wife team, and only Andronicus was officially the apostle. 2. Whether
being called an apostle was an indication that Junia taught men. Many women
have been sent as apostles (we call them missionaries in our day ... “one
sent out”) and yet never taught men. If we read the rest of the writings
of John Chrysostom, it is quite clear that he felt women should not teach
men, nor speak in the church. There are a number of things we could quote
from him, but this one suffices:
To such a degree should women be silent, that they are not allowed
to speak not only about worldly matters, but not even about spiritual things,
in the church. This is order, this is modesty, this will adorn her more
than any garments. Thus clothed, she will be able to offer her prayers
in the manner most becoming. ... [Paul] says, let them not teach, but occupy
the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence.
(Early Church Fathers, Vol. XXII)
Back to integrity
But let’s look at the integrity of pulling one ambiguous quote
out of early church history to prove a point, when there are plenty of
other quotes that clearly refute the idea that is trying to be proven.
For example:
![Antoinette Louisa [Brown] Blackwell](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tJETf1Mw9fPIJ28cPRtrOsZkF1QP13N1cV-_Yti5WBw6HpYAPX2R3v_csMb2mV8MG-3EtJxTwF4xwOaMXHBZay7cXgHg7nZRJfaFDChJNHpViRVxUEL-N3nxdPSdJXJ17TlDiJ=s0-d)
Antoinette Louisa [Brown] Blackwell
is generally recognized as the first woman to be ordained in the USA,
in 1853. She was a fervent feminist, as well as an evolutionist, writing,
“[Women] will become indispensable to the religious evolution of the human
race.”
Their [the married Apostles’] spouses went with them [on their
mission trips], not as wives, but as sisters, in order to minister to housewives.
It was through them that the Lord’s teaching penetrated also the women’s
quarters without any scandal being aroused. Clement of Alexandria (ANF
2.391-Translated from the Latin)
If the daughters of Philip prophesied, at least they did not speak
in the assemblies; for we do not find this fact in evidence in the Acts
of the Apostles. Much less in the Old Testament. It is said that Deborah
was a prophetess ... There is no evidence that Deborah delivered speeches
to the people, as did Jeremiah and Isaiah. Huldah, who was a prophetess,
did not speak to the people, but only to a man, who consulted her at home.
The gospel itself mentions a prophetess Anna ... but she did not speak
publicly. Even if it is granted to a woman to show the sign of prophecy,
she is nevertheless not permitted to speak in an assembly. When Miriam
the prophetess spoke, she was leading a choir of women ... For [as Paul
declares] “I do not permit a woman to teach,” and even less “to tell a
man what to do.” Origen
And these verses (Romans 16:1-2) teach with apostolic authority
that females were appointed to aid the church. Phoebe of Cenchrea was placed
in this service, and Paul with great praise and recommendation follows
by enumerating her beautiful deeds, saying, “She helped everyone so much,
by being close at hand when needed, that she even helped me in my needs
and apostolic labors, with a total dedication of her mind.” I would compare
her work to that of Lot, who while he always took in strangers, one time
even merited practicing hospitality on angels. In the same way Abraham
also, who was always practicing hospitality, once merited having the Lord
with his angels to be entertained in his tent. So this devout Phoebe, continually
assisting and obeying everyone, was once merited with assisting and obeying
the Apostle as well. This verse teaches us two things at the same time:
There are, as was said, female aides in the church, and such should be
considered as part of the service of the church. Those who have assisted
many, and by good service have attained to apostolic praise, should be counted
as part of that ministry. He also exhorts that those who seek to do good
works in the churches, whether in spiritual or fleshly aid, should receive
in return the reward and honor from the brethren.
This verse (Romans 16:6) teaches that women should labor for the churches of
God. For they labor when they teach the young ladies to be modest,
to love their husbands, to raise children, to be pure and chaste,
to guide their
homes, to be hospitable, to wash the saints’ feet, and everything
else that is written concerning the service of women. ~Origen
This verse (Romans 16:6) teaches that women should labor for the
churches of God. For they labor when they teach the young ladies to be
modest, to love their husbands, to raise children, to be pure and chaste,
to guide their homes, to be hospitable, to wash the saints’ feet, and everything
else that is written concerning the service of women, all of which should
be done with chaste conduct. Origen, Commentary on the Book of Romans (translated
from the Latin)
For how credible would it seem, that he [the Apostle Paul] who
has not permitted a woman even to learn with overboldness, should
give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing! “Let them be silent,”
he says, “and at home consult their own husbands.” Tertullian (ANF
3.677)
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, nor to stay (in any) sacerdotal
office. Tertullian (ANF 4.33)
That a woman ought to be silent in the church: In the first Epistle
of Paul to the Corinthians: “Let women be silent in the church. But if
any wish to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.” Also
to Timothy: “Let a woman learn with silence, in all subjection. But I permit
not a woman to teach, nor to be set over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not seduced, but the
woman was seduced.” Cyprian (ANF 5:546)
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 lack [women candidates
to do this]. 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 [would have] 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.
Apostolic Constitutions (ANF 7.427, 428)
But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted [women]
to teach, how will any one 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. Apostolic Constitutions (ANF 7.429)
The mass of early church quotes are clearly against the idea of women teaching
men and against ordaining women to leadership roles (over men) in the church.
Ok, you probably get the point. The mass of early church quotes
are clearly against the idea of women teaching men and against ordaining
women to leadership roles in the church (unless, like the early Moravian
Brethren,
the Eldresses only taught or counseled other women or children).
These quotes from the early church neither prove nor disprove
if the Bible itself teaches for or against women teaching men or speaking
in public assemblies. They do, however, give us a clear indication of how
the Ante-Nicene church interpreted Paul’s teachings. The bottom line is,
as far as I know, there is no straightforward evidence in early church
writings that women (excepting heretical groups like the Montanists) ever
taught in a public assembly. I say that with integrity. I say it after
having read thousands of pages of church history.
I could be wrong, of course; I don’t know everything there is
to know about church history. But my integrity will not let me say otherwise.
Do I say that because I happen to believe that Paul’s writings clearly
forbid women to be ordained as elders? And that women are not to teach
men, or speak in the public assembly?
No, I am being honest with history. I cannot say the same about
the Quakers. As much as I like what the Quakers stood for in some areas,
my integrity will not permit me to make the Quakers appear as if they forbade
women speaking publically in the assemblies. It simply was not so. But
the early church and the Anabaptists forbade women to speak in the public
assemblies and to teach men. Integrity demands that I say that.
And if we lack integrity in history ...
So what do you do with a person or a group who does not seem to
have integrity with history? Personally, I find it hard to swallow the
same person’s (or group’s) handling of the Holy Scriptures. If they pull
an ambiguous quote from Martyrs Mirror and make it appear that the early
Anabaptists had ordained women eldresses, or if they use one ambiguous
early church quote, but ignore a dozen plain ones ... how will they handle
the Bible?
Perhaps some of you readers are wondering why I do not take up
here an exposition of the Scriptures that touch women preachers. Well,
my main point in this short article is not about women preachers, but about
integrity. But let us look at one biblical point, again mainly considering
integrity.
In the same issue of
The Gospel Trumpet, there is a small box
concerning Phoebe, the διάκονον [transliterated, “deaconess”] of the church
at Cenchrea mentioned in Romans 16:1. The article states:
Many have thought the word
servant (diakonos) here means deacon or deaconess, but when the same word
is used elsewhere by Paul, it denotes
ministers of the gospel:
“Jesus Christ was a minister” (diakonos). Rom. 15:8.
“Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers” (diakonos).
1 Cor. 3:5.
“Epaphras our dear fellowservant…a faithful minister” (diakonos).
Col. 1:7.
“Thou [Timothy] shalt be a good minister (diakonos) of Jesus Christ.”
1 Tim. 4:6.
“Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister” (diakonos).
Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7.
“Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers (diakonos)
by whom ye believed.” 1 Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23, 25.
From the Scriptures selected by
The Gospel Trumpet, it could easily
be deduced that the Greek word διάκονον always refers to what we think
of when we think of an ordained preacher. However ... the word “minister”
simply means “to aid” (verb) or “one who aids” (noun). Are the quoted texts
saying that all those mentioned were ordained preachers? Or is it simply
calling them aides, or more specifically “one who executes the commands
of another” (Thayer’s Lexicon)? But let’s get down to the integrity of
the matter ... why was not Romans 13:4 added in the list selected by
The
Gospel Trumpet?
For he is the minister of God to thee for good ...
Who is this “minister”? None other than the civil authority that
is over the believer. Yes, the civil authorities are “deacons” of God!
In John 2:5, “His mother saith unto the διακόνοις, Whatsoever he saith
unto you, do it.” Were those wedding helpers “ordained ministers”?
Obviously my point is that the Greek word διάκονον can refer specifically
to an ordained servant of the church (1 Ti. 3:8), or it can simply be the
men responsible for filling the waterpots at a marriage, or your town mayor,
or the girl who wipes the tables after a meal.
In what sense was Phebe a διάκονον: an aide of the church, or
a “minister of the gospel”?
From the isolated text of Romans 16:1, nothing
can be concluded. We have to take into account the whole NT use of the
word, as well as the teachings concerning women and public ministry.
My conclusion—based on the whole of the NT teaching—is that she
was simply a woman of the church at Cenchrea who aided the church by carrying
Paul’s letter and perhaps taking care of some other unspecified “business”
while there. It appears that she had been busy succouring many people in
the past, so maybe she was simply on a mission to Rome to bless some needy
person or family there. Maybe some expectant mother needed an extra hand
for a few months. Maybe a sick sister needed some help. Maybe she taught
the younger sisters how to love their husbands.
There are myriads of opportunities
to aid the church without being an “ordained minister of the gospel.”
But the bottom line is that we really don’t know, from the text
of that one verse, in what sense Paul intended the word. But to quote only
the verses that tend to use diakonon in a sense of a “minister of the gospel,”
and act as if that is the only way to interpret the word diakonon ... is
that integrity?
I quote the article again:
... but when the same word is used elsewhere by Paul, it denotes
ministers of the gospel.
Does integrity ignore obvious evidence to the contrary? That said,
simple, honest ignorance can also be involved. Innocent ignorance does
not mean a lack of integrity. The difference is when truth is revealed,
innocent ignorance will acknowledge its former error. A lack of integrity
will just make excuses or ignore the truth.
Agendas and integrity
One of integrity’s mightiest foes is having an agenda. For example,
concerning church history, it is common (and I have found myself doing
it as well) to go looking in history to find support for a position, instead
of to go looking for what position the historical evidence provides. And
the same, of course, applies to looking in the Bible to find evidence to
support an agenda. We see it all the time in today’s apostate churches
with the “gay” agenda. It “blows me away” that people read the Bible and
come away saying that sodomite “marriages” are not sin. My integrity simply
will not let me say such a thing (and I am not claiming my integrity is
perfect). If I felt sodomy was righteous, then I would have to abandon
the Bible. Gay “marriage” is the epitome of self-righteousness. I simply
do not have any desire to twist Scripture and history that hard. I have
very little respect for the integrity of anyone who claims the Bible supports
homosexual “marriages.” Scripture is too plain on that subject.
Yet, I realize that sometimes when I read—be it the Bible or history—I
sense that an agenda lurks in the shadows, trying to get
me to ignore evidence
that may contradict my current understanding of an issue. May God help
us all to flee from all agendas except the “agenda” to be honest seekers
of truth. If the truth of the matter is that the early church and the Anabaptists
did ordain women to be preachers to men, then may we have enough integrity
to say so. If not, then may we just have enough integrity to not twist
and hide evidence so as to support an agenda.
Pray for me!
~Mike Atnip
I am referring to
The Gospel Trumpet, published by the
Church
of God, Restoration. I grew up in churches very similar to this group and
have had close contact in the past with it. I wrote a historical overview
of the movement, which can be found at
www.primitivechristianity.org or
by writing to the
address in the front of this magazine.
Also to be noted is that the German word for minister itself
has both a male and a female form. For a lady, it would have to be “einer
aeltesterin” and for an eldress, “einer dienerin” (the -in suffix making
it feminine).
While the phrase “women in the ministry” is perfectly valid
in the sense of women who served and blessed others, the underlying thought
is of ordained women as elders, pastors, or teachers of men.
Origen, Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i
ad Corinthios (in catenis), Greek text published in Claude Jenkins, “Documents: Origen
on I Corinthians. IV,” Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909), p. 41.
English translation from Roger Gryson, The Ministry of Women in the Early
Church (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1976), p. 28.
Technically the phrase “minister of the gospel” does not specifically
refer to preaching. An “aide of the gospel” is simply someone who helps
in the cause of the kingdom of God, be it in preaching/teaching, or in
helping in physical needs. For that reason I use quotes, since the phrase
has come to mean a “preacher of the gospel.”
Click the icon to download or print this article.
