Women Leaders in the early Christian Church

[Jo_Stroker]

Can anybody tell me more about the place of women following the Resurrection? Im not a strong Femenist but I would like a balanced view. There were no women present at the Last Supper but neither was there Gentiles or Slaves. Of course Slaves might have been serving but they were not counted among the Twelve. Please comment

 

[COPLAND_3]

I am not qualified to give any good information on this, though I should do a good study on this, but here is a link that might get you started. newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm

 

[Carolinagirl411]

There were women present in the upper room at the time of the Pentecost with the other apostles. Mary at least was among them. Also Mary Magdalene was considered a follower who also spread the word with the many other followers. People like to paint her in a very negative light but she was a very important player in those times. Granted I do NOT believe she was married to Jesus or carried his child, however I do believe she spread the word.

 

[jimmy]

There were women present in the upper room at the time of the Pentecost with the other apostles. Mary at least was among them. Also Mary Magdalene was considered a follower who also spread the word with the many other followers. People like to paint her in a very negative light but she was a very important player in those times. Granted I do NOT believe she was married to Jesus or carried his child, however I do believe she spread the word.

Yes, St. Mary Magdalene is one of the greatest saints of the Church in my opinion. I don’t think she is painted in a negative light. She is seen as a great example for us to repent. She was a great sinner who repented and became one of the great saints. St. Gregory the Great praises her in a homily on the scene from Luke7 where she wipes(It is Gregory’s interpretation that this is Mary Magdalene) the feet of Christ.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

As far as I can tll there were no women leaders in the early church. There were Deaconess’s. I believed they helped the widows and the needy and the younger christian women within their congregation.

I also have not done a study on women in the bible but I do not believe there are any women leaders. This is why the CC and many NCC churches do not believe in women being pastors/priests, because the bible does seem to back this up.

This does not mean women cannot run ministries in the church at all-just not be in charge of an entire congregation. I run a homeless ministry and Im a woman

Honestly, IMHO i believe women wanting to be pastors came about with the feminist movement.

Im not staunchly for one side or the other but I do lean towards keeping men as head of churches. Besides ministers/preists will be held to a higher standard on judgement day

Plus I tend to think since God set up the man as head of his household that He would also set the church up like that as well

 

[ALLFORHIM]

There were women present in the upper room at the time of the Pentecost with the other apostles. Mary at least was among them. Also Mary Magdalene was considered a follower who also spread the word with the many other followers. People like to paint her in a very negative light but she was a very important player in those times. Granted I do NOT believe she was married to Jesus or carried his child, however I do believe she spread the word.

Hi,

I agree with you but she was not considered a leader like the apostles. She was definitely a disciple of Christ and absolutely spread the gospel Im sure, but so do I, but Im not in a leadership role.

 

[Mintaka]

There are all different kinds of leaders. The major problem that feminist historians have, is that they often try to fit women in the Church into some sort of power and hierarchy box. Either you’re Officially A Leader or you’re a Crawling Oppressed Victim, in their view of the world. Which is silly.

Women were right in there from the beginning of the Church, which is why so many early churches are named after women – often, the church used to be the home of a wealthy and generous woman.

The consecrated widows and virgins were supposed to provide an example, and were generally seated in the front.That’s leadership. They also provided a center of learning and a tradition of scholarship and prayer for women.

Married women seem to have been responsible for converting huge numbers of pagans. (Generally by marrying them, or by being such good people they converted their neighbors.)

You might also be very interested in looking into the history of canonesses. They were originally assistants to the deaconesses, but unlike the consecrated widows and virgins, they took no vows restricting them from marriage. (Though if they did marry, they left their office.) They sometimes lived in community, sometimes not, but met together to pray. Eventually canonesses peeled off from the deaconesses and became an important type of religious order. But their tradition pretty much died out in the 19th century, as their orders were pressured either to become normal nuns or the new active sisters. (Although some orders of sisters still retain the idea of only making promises and not vows, and being able to leave without any rigmarole, and many of them come from territory where historically there were canonesses.)

Anyway, they were tremendously important during the Middle Ages for running schools for girls, and for running hospitals/hospices.

Hope this helped.

 

[Jo_Stroker]

There are all different kinds of leaders. The major problem that feminist historians have, is that they often try to fit women in the Church into some sort of power and hierarchy box. Either you’re Officially A Leader or you’re a Crawling Oppressed Victim, in their view of the world. Which is silly.

Women were right in there from the beginning of the Church, which is why so many early churches are named after women – often, the church used to be the home of a wealthy and generous woman.

The consecrated widows and virgins were supposed to provide an example, and were generally seated in the front.That’s leadership. They also provided a center of learning and a tradition of scholarship and prayer for women.

Married women seem to have been responsible for converting huge numbers of pagans. (Generally by marrying them, or by being such good people they converted their neighbors.)

You might also be very interested in looking into the history of canonesses. They were originally assistants to the deaconesses, but unlike the consecrated widows and virgins, they took no vows restricting them from marriage. (Though if they did marry, they left their office.) They sometimes lived in community, sometimes not, but met together to pray. Eventually canonesses peeled off from the deaconesses and became an important type of religious order. But their tradition pretty much died out in the 19th century, as their orders were pressured either to become normal nuns or the new active sisters. (Although some orders of sisters still retain the idea of only making promises and not vows, and being able to leave without any rigmarole, and many of them come from territory where historically there were canonesses.)

Anyway, they were tremendously important during the Middle Ages for running schools for girls, and for running hospitals/hospices.

Hope this helped.

Yes, thank you, that was very informative. It is unfortunate that we think in terms of power structures. Jesus is our greatest example when he bacame as a slave and washed the feet of his deciples and stated that leaders must be the servants.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There are a number of women scholars who have spent their professional careers digging out the role of women in the NT and other sacred texts. Check out books by Dr. Eliz. Schussler Fiorenza, Reuther, Johnson and quite a number of others. I’d google women and the bible, feminism and the bible, stuff like that. Women were in most ways preachers and teachers during the early years and certainly evangelists.

 

[YADA]

Can anybody tell me more about the place of women following the Resurrection? Im not a strong Femenist but I would like a balanced view. There were no women present at the Last Supper but neither was there Gentiles or Slaves. Of course Slaves might have been serving but they were not counted among the Twelve. Please comment

I think it would be more correct to say that scripture does not record any ‘women’ present during the Last Supper, however, the Paschal Meal was a ‘family affair’ … it was and is centered in and on family meals … in that respect it would be totally out of the ordinary for there to not be any women and or children present. Afterall, it was to a “household” that Jesus sent his representative … there must have been a family there…

Scripture records what Jesus did at the Last Supper that pertains to the 12 Apostles … this does not exclude the presence of others, those who prepared and served the meal and others who may have been present …

Mary was in Jerusalem, one would find it hard to believe that an observant Jewish son [and only son] would celebrate the Passover meal without his mother … and no where does the scripture stte that Jesus was in the company of the Twelve and ONLY the Twelve …

 

[Zenas]

Lydia opened her house to Paul and Silas as they set up the Philippian church. Acts 16.

Mary, the mother of Mark, owned a house that was the gathering place for many Christians in Jerusalem. This was the house where Peter went when he was mircaculously released from prison. Acts 12. She may also have found her way to Rome with Peter. Romans 16:16.

Priscilla, wife of Aquila, is always mentioned when her husband is mentioned. These two people had enough clout in the Ephesian church to correct Apollos of some errors concerning the Way. Acts 18.

Phoebe was a deaconess in the church at Cenchrea. Romans 16:1.

Philip of Caesarea had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses. Acts 21:9.

The nearest thing to a woman holding a church office of which we have record is Phoebe the deaconess.

 

[Jo_Stroker]

I think it would be more correct to say that scripture does not record any ‘women’ present during the Last Supper, however, the Paschal Meal was a ‘family affair’ … it was and is centered in and on family meals … in that respect it would be totally out of the ordinary for there to not be any women and or children present. Afterall, it was to a “household” that Jesus sent his representative … there must have been a family there…

Scripture records what Jesus did at the Last Supper that pertains to the 12 Apostles … this does not exclude the presence of others, those who prepared and served the meal and others who may have been present …

Mary was in Jerusalem, one would find it hard to believe that an observant Jewish son [and only son] would celebrate the Passover meal without his mother … and no where does the scripture stte that Jesus was in the company of the Twelve and ONLY the Twelve …

I love your answer, very well put and very observant of the facts based on the reality of the time. The people who recorded the Scriptures at least 40 years after the events naturally would have recorded what they felt was important for the the Church of the day, that may at times have been a little subjective. I don’t think we need to loose our heads about that and I don’t think it takes away from the importance of praying with the Scriptures and reflecting on them in the light of our own day.

 

[Jo_Stroker]

Lydia opened her house to Paul and Silas as they set up the Philippian church. Acts 16.

Mary, the mother of Mark, owned a house that was the gathering place for many Christians in Jerusalem. This was the house where Peter went when he was mircaculously released from prison. Acts 12. She may also have found her way to Rome with Peter. Romans 16:16.

Priscilla, wife of Aquila, is always mentioned when her husband is mentioned. These two people had enough clout in the Ephesian church to correct Apollos of some errors concerning the Way. Acts 18.

Phoebe was a deaconess in the church at Cenchrea. Romans 16:1.

Philip of Caesarea had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses. Acts 21:9.

The nearest thing to a woman holding a church office of which we have record is Phoebe the deaconess.

Indeed! But what were the “church Offices” then? I think we can take it that the Apostles were the forerunners of Bishops. I don’t think there were Priests as we know them now in the Catholic Church until the 3rd of 4th centuary. I would appreciate it if you would say more. Your background has give you an excellent knowledge of the Scriptures, something which the majority of Roman Catholics like myself lack.

 

[Zenas]

Indeed! But what were the “church Offices” then? I think we can take it that the Apostles were the forerunners of Bishops. I don’t think there were Priests as we know them now in the Catholic Church until the 3rd of 4th centuary. I would appreciate it if you would say more. Your background has give you an excellent knowledge of the Scriptures, something which the majority of Roman Catholics like myself lack.

I don’t know enough Church history to say just when priests entered the picture, but I expect it was from the beginning. Ignatius often refers to the offices of bishop, presbyter (priest) and deacon. * E. g., *“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of Apostles.” Letter to the Trallians 3,1 (Jurgens). The scriptural model, although not entirely clear, also seems to contemplate three orders.

The most obvious order in scripture is that of deacon. In Acts 6, there arose a discord in the Jerusalem church, a complaint by the Helenistic Jews that their widows were being overlooked by the native Hebrews. The apostles were called in to settle the matter, and they in turn announced that they should not neglect the word of God to serve tables. So they directed the church to select seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom for this task. Thus were ordained the first deacons. They are not called “deacons” in Acts 6, but there was clearly an ordination service. “And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.” Acts 6:6. In 1 Timothy 3:8-13, St. Paul sets forth the qualifications of a deacon. It is clear that he never considers women for this office. I fact, the only place we have any hint of a woman serving as a deacon (deaconess) is Romans 16:1 where there is mention of Phoebe. Not all translations say “deaconess”. For example, the NAB calls her a “minister” and the New American Standard Bible calls her a “servant”.

Priests are not expressly mentioned in most translations of the Bible. However, the Douay-Rheims translates Titus 1:5 as follows: “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee.” A more accurate literal translation would probably be “elder” but the context has to mean priest. It is most unlikely that Titus would ordain a bishop in all of the many small cities of Crete. Also it is unlikely that St. Paul would give a single bishop like Titus, acting alone, that much authority. Titus 1:6-9 sets forth the qualifications for the office for which Titus was to ordain men throughout Crete. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 contains a similar list of qualifications. However this list may actually apply to bishops. Several translations use the term bishop here and the context is not as clear as it is in Titus. It is absolutely clear in both 1 Timothy and in Titus that only men were qualified for these offices.

I agree that the apostles were the forerunners of the bishops. In addition to the thirteen apostles (the 12 plus Paul), there are relatively few bishops mentioned in the New Testament. They would include Timothy and Titus, and probably Apollos, Barnabas, Silas, Mark, Luke and Linus (the second Bishop of Rome).

 

[Jo_Stroker]

ZENAS. Thank you for that reply. I always feel it is good to get back to the root of things!

 

[Joe_5859]

I would recommend Pope Benedict XVI’s audience Women at the Service of the Gospel.

If you’re truly looking for a balanced view, I would recommend against reading any of the authors that Spirit Meadow recommended (no offense, Spirit Meadow ). They’re more concerned with feminism than catholicism (at least this has been my observation of Fiorenza and Reuther…I’m not sure which “Johnson” Spirit Meadow is refering to). You’d be better off looking elsewhere.