What did the Church Fathers think of women preachers or teachers?

[Lik3]

I would like to recall my points on women teachers and women preachers. I think that there would be a difference between a woman teaching the true gospel and a woman preaching the true gospel. Here is the link:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...d-preaching-the-gospel.8040037/#post-72081541

I admit that this is a subject that I have very strong views on. I have a question however. I know that there are many people, including here that have their views on women preachers especially. However, I believed that provided if a woman was actually called to preach, and provided that preached the true gospel, where or how would be judged? What did the Church Fathers believe in females who preached the true gospel, not a false gospel? How would she be judged according to them?

Would she be judged by Jesus in the Judgement seat of Christ like all believers? Or, would she be judged in the Great White Throne anyways? Personally, if she were to preach a true gospel from the pulpit, provided that she was truly called, I don't believe that she would be judged at the Great White Throne. It would make Jesus' words seem contrary to scripture.

I believe that all believers including the women preachers that I have described earlier will not take park in the Great White Throne. Jesus was no sexist; He treated women with the utmost dignity and respect. I have my doubts about anyone who preaches or teaches the true gospel and lived and obeyed by the true gospel will be judged like those who are not. There are many males as well who are false prophets that will obviously take part in the Great White Throne of Judgment because of their unrepentant deeds.

I believe that if she has no business preaching the gospel because she is a woman, then could it be possible that though her work will be burned up, though she will enter Heaven, but scarcely. Was that what the Church Fathers taught, or are women teaching provided that she does not overstep her bounds by usurping the man's authority. However, I would think that there is or would be a difference between a teacher or a preacher.

I am not so sure how many would agree or disagree what I have written, but as a woman who is a Baptist, it would be an unpopular view. So what is your view on women teachers and teachers? What would the Church Fathers' opinion be? Would they be opposed to both women who teach and women who teach? It means that they may or may not have divided women who teach gospel differently from women who preached the gospel. Or would a woman who preaches is doing the same thing as teachers?

 

[Angeldove97]

Many women teachers bear good fruit. In the Catholic Church, while women can't become priests and administer the Sacraments, we can teach about the faith.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

OP: why ask what some people's opinions are, when it looks like you already know what Scripture says ?

 

[Kevin Snow]

If you want to be a bible believing Christian, not going beyond what is written then you would obey this word which was written for our sakes:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. ~1 Timothy 2:11-14

In a group of just women then obviously the woman can preach and teach to her heart's content. But if even one man enters that room, then the man should be the one to lead the bible study.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I would like to recall my points on women teachers and women preachers. I think that there would be a difference between a woman teaching the true gospel and a woman preaching the true gospel. Here is the link:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...d-preaching-the-gospel.8040037/#post-72081541

I admit that this is a subject that I have very strong views on. I have a question however. I know that there are many people, including here that have their views on women preachers especially. However, I believed that provided if a woman was actually called to preach, and provided that preached the true gospel, where or how would be judged? What did the Church Fathers believe in females who preached the true gospel, not a false gospel? How would she be judged according to them?

Would she be judged by Jesus in the Judgement seat of Christ like all believers? Or, would she be judged in the Great White Throne anyways? Personally, if she were to preach a true gospel from the pulpit, provided that she was truly called, I don't believe that she would be judged at the Great White Throne. It would make Jesus' words seem contrary to scripture.

I believe that all believers including the women preachers that I have described earlier will not take park in the Great White Throne. Jesus was no sexist; He treated women with the utmost dignity and respect. I have my doubts about anyone who preaches or teaches the true gospel and lived and obeyed by the true gospel will be judged like those who are not. There are many males as well who are false prophets that will obviously take part in the Great White Throne of Judgment because of their unrepentant deeds.

I believe that if she has no business preaching the gospel because she is a woman, then could it be possible that though her work will be burned up, though she will enter Heaven, but scarcely. Was that what the Church Fathers taught, or are women teaching provided that she does not overstep her bounds by usurping the man's authority. However, I would think that there is or would be a difference between a teacher or a preacher.

I am not so sure how many would agree or disagree what I have written, but as a woman who is a Baptist, it would be an unpopular view. So what is your view on women teachers and teachers? What would the Church Fathers' opinion be? Would they be opposed to both women who teach and women who teach? It means that they may or may not have divided women who teach gospel differently from women who preached the gospel. Or would a woman who preaches is doing the same thing as teachers?

I'll point you to Catherine Clark Kroeger, who spent her career asking a similar set of questions and did delve into the Church Fathers as well as early Christian art for evidences. I'm not sure I totally agree with her, but she did analyse 1Tim 2:12 to show that it's interpretation was hardened over the centuries over a likely original meaning. She gives a summary of early Christian history on women here, although I do think it is more complex than that: https://christiandailyjournal.com/2017/12/19/the-neglected-history-of-women-in-the-early-church/

Aside from the Montanist heresy, there wouldn't be women bishops or priests, so aside from refutations of the Montanists by the Church Fathers there probably would be almost no extensive treateses by the Fathers on women teachers or preachers.

Here's my hunch. The leadership of the Church was by men, by the intent of Jesus Himself. The confection of the Eucharist was by men, by the intent of Jesus Himself. And yet by the same intent of Jesus there were many opportunities for women to minister. Not bishops, not priests, not deacons, but sometimes notable teachers of the faith, founders of hospitals, prayer warriors, often ministering to other women but sometimes to men and women together. Some would be considered worthy of the honor of an apostle or bishop or priest or deacon even if they were not ordained in those roles or exercising those exact roles. I suspect that the role of women in the Church was wider than Hellenistic culture would have allowed. To some degree those roles were reduced a bit over the centuries, but still available into the middle ages and beyond. Witness Catherine of Siena, Hildegard of Bingen, and many other examples of women with large roles in the Church. Catherine of Siena, for example, told the pope to his face that he should leave Avignon and go back to Rome, and he did. Anyhow, I think the advent of Fundamentalism saw the biggest restriction of the role of women in the Church. Before that, at least in the Catholic Church, women could and still can lead communities of women, and could and can teach. I have known women who taught in Catholic seminaries, teaching those who were to become priests. After that, among the Fundamentalists and those influenced by them, women had little opportunity. Among Pentecostals they had more opportunity, but that might be due to a certain Pentecostal ungluedness.

Mine is a confirmational bias, because I accept Catholic teaching that bishops and priests and deacons are by necessity all men. But also that women can be even 'Doctors of the Church', the highest rank of teachers. It seems to make sense of the historical data and not to be as hard as the Fundamentalists would like to have it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

With all due respect, in some points you are overlaying modern ecclesiology and theology onto the ancient Church, so the question can't really be easily answered.

The early Church had clerical offices - which men were ordained to by the laying on of hands. Women were not eligible for these roles.

However - women did hold many important positions and were not muzzled as some might imagine. There are women that have been regarded with titles such as "equal to the Apostles" because they held such important roles. And yes, women who were capable could teach and preach. Those don't require ordination. They would not have been ordained to be leader over a local Church or overseer though. But that doesn't represent a lessening of their importance or their fittingness to serve God in whatever ministry He empowers them to do. The same remains true in the Orthodox Church today.

I would like to recall my points on women teachers and women preachers. I think that there would be a difference between a woman teaching the true gospel and a woman preaching the true gospel. Here is the link:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...d-preaching-the-gospel.8040037/#post-72081541

I admit that this is a subject that I have very strong views on. I have a question however. I know that there are many people, including here that have their views on women preachers especially. However, I believed that provided if a woman was actually called to preach, and provided that preached the true gospel, where or how would be judged? What did the Church Fathers believe in females who preached the true gospel, not a false gospel? How would she be judged according to them?

Would she be judged by Jesus in the Judgement seat of Christ like all believers? Or, would she be judged in the Great White Throne anyways? Personally, if she were to preach a true gospel from the pulpit, provided that she was truly called, I don't believe that she would be judged at the Great White Throne. It would make Jesus' words seem contrary to scripture.

I believe that all believers including the women preachers that I have described earlier will not take park in the Great White Throne. Jesus was no sexist; He treated women with the utmost dignity and respect. I have my doubts about anyone who preaches or teaches the true gospel and lived and obeyed by the true gospel will be judged like those who are not. There are many males as well who are false prophets that will obviously take part in the Great White Throne of Judgment because of their unrepentant deeds.

I believe that if she has no business preaching the gospel because she is a woman, then could it be possible that though her work will be burned up, though she will enter Heaven, but scarcely. Was that what the Church Fathers taught, or are women teaching provided that she does not overstep her bounds by usurping the man's authority. However, I would think that there is or would be a difference between a teacher or a preacher.

I am not so sure how many would agree or disagree what I have written, but as a woman who is a Baptist, it would be an unpopular view. So what is your view on women teachers and teachers? What would the Church Fathers' opinion be? Would they be opposed to both women who teach and women who teach? It means that they may or may not have divided women who teach gospel differently from women who preached the gospel. Or would a woman who preaches is doing the same thing as teachers?

 

[RDKirk]

What did the word "teacher" mean to Paul? What did "preacher" mean to Paul? What, exactly, was he forbidding women to do, and what wasn't really in his mind at all?

What we know is that a "teacher" in Paul's culture (both Graeco-Roman and Jewish) was someone who had extremely authoritative control over his disciples. Disciples were practically servants to their teacher (or, some translations, "master"). Moreover, the teacher was also the doctrinal authority to the disciple. What the teacher taught as right was what the disciple learned as right.

The teacher didn't just teach a lesson, the teacher taught life. Paul's teacher Gamaliel didn't just teach Paul what was written in the Torah, Gamaliel also taught Paul how to be a Godly Jewish man.

The closest concept modern people may have to that kind of teacher might be the sensei of a dojo (and even then, we have to refer to a non-Western concept because we just don't do that kind of thing in the West). "Wax on wax off, grasshopper!"

Or, to be more scriptural: "You all--all y'all-- go into town and find a donkey for me to ride into Jerusalem. I'll sit down and wait here. Walk the donkey back to me here. I'll ride the donkey while you all--all y'all--walk behind me. And don't dawdle, because I can see you. Right, Nathaniel?"

That was the kind of relationship that Paul was forbidding as "co-educational." A man should not be discipled under a woman. Nor, for that matter, vice-versa: Women were to be discipled under women.

We know that Priscilla "expounded" the gospel to Apollos. "Expounding" the gospel--a one-time thing involving no level of authority--was not "teaching" as Paul understood it.

Standing in front of a class reading a prepared lesson would not be "teaching" as Paul understood it. No authority involved.

Recording a lesson and selling CDs would not be "teaching" as Paul understood it. No authority involved.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

....
The teacher didn't just teach a lesson, the teacher taught life. Paul's teacher Gamaliel didn't just teach Paul what was written in the Torah, Gamaliel also taught Paul how to be a Godly Jewish man.
....

Your analogy falls apart when it's realized that Paul departed from his teacher's path of leaving it to God if it is from God or not. Saul's departure into independence.

 

[Jn8:32]

Many women teachers bear good fruit. In the Catholic Church, while women can't become priests and administer the Sacraments, we can teach about the faith.

Hold fast to that which is good

 

[Paidiske]

You realise, of course, OP, that I completely disagree with you, and hold that any role in the church ought to be open to men and women whom God calls.

That said, I think the idea of "preaching" as we tend to think of it in the contemporary Christian west - an exposition of or reflection on Scripture taking place within a particular type of formal worship context - would not have been something the early church thought of as being a category of activity distinct from other types of teaching or exercise of authority. In the 1st century or so, the question "Does God allow women to teach but not preach?" would have made no sense.

Also, I'd note that what RDKirk says about the role of an ancient teacher is true; but that that is not a ministry role as generally exercised today; and indeed if it were, we would likely take issue with the ethics of it.

 

[Jn8:32]

Where in the Bible does God ever give authority to women?

The governance of the church the new covenant, the teaching of Christian doctrine, and administering the sacraments are given only to men, to women He gave another role, in the home the domestic church the man is the head, the provider, & the protector, the woman & mother is the center of the home! And an example to her children of obedience and reverence for her husband and their father!

 

[RDKirk]

Your analogy falls apart when it's realized that Paul departed from his teacher's path of leaving it to God if it is from God or not. Saul's departure into independence.

I didn't make an analogy, I described what a "teacher" actually was in the first century. Gamaliel was an example of a teacher mentioned in scripture, Jesus provides another scriptural example, but there was nothing unique about them--"teacher" was a common occupation and there is more than enough information from ancient sources of what "teacher" meant to Paul's audience.

 

[RDKirk]

Y
Also, I'd note that what RDKirk says about the role of an ancient teacher is true; but that that is not a ministry role as generally exercised today; and indeed if it were, we would likely take issue with the ethics of it.

Which would mean that what Paul has to say about a "teacher" is a moot point today because we don't generally have anyone in that specific role.

That doesn't mean there is nothing to gain from his words though. It's still advisable to have older men teach younger men how to be Godly men and older women teaching younger women how to be Godly women.

 

[Paidiske]

Where in the Bible does God ever give authority to women?

Queen Esther exercises authority in establishing Purim (Esther 9:29), a religious observance.

I would note the argument in Romans 13, and point out that where are when women are in authority, then Paul's argument would suggest that we are there because God has instituted it.

There are many other examples which, while not using the word "authority," show women in leadership roles with God's approval.

But as I have argued previously, authority in the church is not personal authority. It is the authority of the church, delegated to particular people who are its instrument; but it does not belong to them. (See more extensive argument here: https://paidiske.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/by-whose-authority/ )

It's still advisable to have older men teach younger men how to be Godly men and older women teaching younger women how to be Godly women.

Only if you think gender is a big deal in how to be Godly. It's a claim which I regard with some skepticism. (Or put it this way, I have no issue having a spiritual director who is a man).

 

[RDKirk]

Only if you think gender is a big deal in how to be Godly. It's a claim which I regard with some skepticism. (Or put it this way, I have no issue having a spiritual director who is a man).

I guarantee you that a young man isn't paying attention to a woman telling him how to make his penis behave...and that is a significant aspect of being a Godly man.

 

[Paidiske]

I guarantee you that a young man isn't paying attention to a woman telling him how to make his penis behave...and that is a significant aspect of being a Godly man.

There are probably particular topics where you need someone of the same sex. But I'd object to making sex and sexuality the be-all and end-all of godliness, and therefore restricting mentoring etc along gender lines.

 

[Loren T.]

I'll tell you what's ironic. Many conservative churches will never have a woman in the pulpit,, but they have no problem sending her to the mission field to teach, even if she's a single woman. And then come back and stand up in the front of the church and tell about her experiences.
I personally have sat and listened to women preachers and have no problem with it whatsoever as a man.

 

[RDKirk]

There are probably particular topics where you need someone of the same sex. But I'd object to making sex and sexuality the be-all and end-all of godliness, and therefore restricting mentoring etc along gender lines.

A Godly life intertwines all aspects when it comes to training young people. The teacher must be prepared to "go there" as training branches into all areas of both sin and Godliness.

In our youth sessions with our boys, practically every session "goes there" to some extent because their world today (at least in the US--I don't know about Austrailia) is so highly sexualized. Once we get boys to honor out judgment, they have questions and we can never let a teaching opportunity pass.

It's the same with the women leading the girls' sessions.

 

[Paidiske]

I'd take a different view, and say that any teacher/mentor needs to realise there will be particular areas that might arise outside his or her own competence, and be willing to refer to others for that.

No one person can be everything to someone else.

Edit: I see you edited your post to add more. I was thinking of adults working with adults, rather than with teenagers. With youth I would argue the primary responsibility is with their parents.

 

[hedrick]

One thing that strikes me in this discussion is that we're looking at different concepts of the clergy. The OP asks about someone with a call to be a preacher. The whole way the OP is worded assumes modern concepts of church leadership.

But there are also differences historically. I agree with RDKirk with respect to Paul's time. The approach discussed in other postings assumes a later model of church leadership.

I think Paul accepted female leaders. But as things moved in the direction of priests, in the OT and Roman sense, I think it changed. You can also see signs of this transition in the Pastorals.

In a sense I have no dog in this hunt, because Protestant leadership doesn't quite act as priests in the Catholic sense. I think the Catholic Church is losing something by restricting the priesthood to men, but in a sense I can't really contribute to that discussion, because our model of leadership has more similarities to Paul's, though it's clearly more institutionalized.