From the very beginning of human history, the male of mankind has sought to control, defame and suppress the woman. Many religious leaders have pointed to the Genesis record and consistently blamed Eve for the Fall. However, it was actually Adam who set her up, because he lied to her, saying, if she touched the fruit, she would die! Moreover, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Adam touched the forbidden fruit to prove to the woman that touching wouldn’t kill her. We forget, sometimes, that Adam was with Eve, at her side, as she ate the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6). He neither forbade her from eating nor corrected her false understanding of what God had said about the trees in the garden. Was he encouraging her? The fact is, the New Covenant text actually points the finger at Adam, saying he, not the woman, is responsible for the Fall (Romans 5:12, 14, 17).
So, if it is true that Adam, not Eve, was the responsible party for the rebellion in the Garden of Eden, how is it that the male has been traditionally considered the leader of the home, religion and the nation? Moreover, if male leadership is a Christian point of view, how is it that the doctrine is virtually believed throughout the world among unbelievers? We seem to be preaching to the choir! Therefore, if Eve’s rebellion resulted from Adam’s deception, shouldn’t the doctrines about patriarchy and complementarianism be reconsidered? To begin, let’s define our terms:
Complementarianism is a theological view in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious leadership… Some Christians …adhere to gender-specific roles that preclude women from specific functions of ministry within the community. Though women may be precluded from certain roles and ministries, they are held to be equal in moral value and of equal status… Complementarians assign primary headship roles to men and support roles to women based on their interpretation of certain biblical passages. One of the precepts of complementarianism is that, while women may assist in the decision-making process, the ultimate authority for the decision is the purview of the male in marriage, courtship, and in the polity of churches subscribing to this view.
Biblical patriarchy, also known as Christian patriarchy, is a set of beliefs …concerning gender relations and their manifestations in institutions, including marriage, the family, and the home. It sees the father as the head of the home, responsible for the conduct of his family… (It) is similar to complementarianism, and many of their differences are only ones of degree and emphasis. While complementarianism holds to exclusively male leadership in the church and in the home, biblical patriarchy extends that exclusion to the civic sphere as well, so that women should not be civil leaders and indeed should not have careers outside the home.
So, this is what is passed off as Biblical truth by many Christian leaders, especially evangelical leaders. Nevertheless, we need to ask, if their understanding of the Bible is accurate. I don’t think it is, and something tells me there is an elephant in the room! If biblical patriarchy or complementarianism is true, why do so many non-Christian societies (civil or religious) embrace these ideas without their ever having heard them from Christian preachers? Is male supremacy the **only** truth handed down from Eden that has never been corrupted? Also, has patriarchy/complementarianism always been practiced in the Church, especially the early church? How were early Christian families and churches perceived by non-Christians? According to Pliny the Younger in a letter to Trajan, the Roman Emperor:
Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses.[1] But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition (Epistulae X.96).[2]
A slave had no rights in Roman society, so torture was the only method used to obtain truth from them. Yet, these women, who were also slaves, held positions of honor and authority in the Church. Pliny isn’t trying to prove or disprove a “Christian” doctrine. He only recorded what he had observed, as understood through his worldview. Thus, the Christian (not Roman) practice was “…depraved, excessive superstition.”
If neither patriarchy nor complementarianism was something embraced and taught by the early church, why do we do so today? If the ancient Christian community read Paul differently than do modern Christian leaders, why are modern Christians so adamant that they understand the word of God better than their ancient brethren, who were nearer to the times of Christ and the Apostles than we are? While I don’t mean to imply that the nearness of folks to the time of Christ and the Apostles is proof that they understood the Gospel better than we do, I am saying, if we do understand the Gospel differently, what is our reason for doing so? Can we prove our position reflects Biblical truth and disprove theirs? If they misunderstood the Gospel, what reason can we show for their ignorance?
___________________________________________________________________
[1] There is no word for deaconess in the New Covenant text. The office of deacon probably has to do with ministering the word of God. The meaning of deacon is “minister,” and a “minister” in modern churches is most often understood to be a preacher. Thus, there is nothing in Pliny’s letter to Caesar that would deny that these women slaves were ministers of the word of God in the church or churches where they served.
[2] According to World History Encyclopedia: “Under Roman law, slave testimony could only be obtained through torture. This is evidence that the earliest Christian communities had elevated both slaves and women in leadership roles.”
Smoodock's Blog 