Women in Ministry: Luther
and John Calvin
Kurt Dahlin September 18,
2005
LUTHER
For Martin Luther the Church was an essential element of the
Christian message. The Christian life is to be led within a community of
believers (Gonzalez 33). In the On Line Lecture
The Theology of Luther,
Section I it is stated, “one of the emphases of the Reformation in Luther’s
work was the priesthood of all believers.” However, it is also noted, “Though
all are priests and have their duties, Luther believed in a called and
consecrated ministry.” The priesthood of believers is to be expressed within the
context of church, “each member is a priest for the rest and feed the rest”
(Gonzalez 33-34). We would add to his theology of priesthood the concept of
spiritual gifts which are distributed to each believer for our mutual benefit.
Nevertheless, for Luther the priesthood of the believer did not extend to women.
Here is Martin Luther's commentary on 1 Timothy 2:11-12,
'Let a woman learn in silence with all
submissiveness'. I believe that Paul
is still speaking about public matters.
I also want it to refer to the
public ministry, which occurs in the public assembly of the church.
There a woman must be completely quiet, because she should remain a
hearer and not become a teacher. She
is not to be the spokesman among the people.
She should refrain from teaching, from praying in public.
She has the command to speak at home.
This passage makes a woman subject.
It takes from her all public
office and authority (Luther 276).
Concerning the "exceptional"
examples of Huldah, Deborah, Jael and the daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9),
Luther opens a small crack in the door to women only to lock it securely again,
He (Paul) forbids teaching contrary to a man or
to the authority of a man. Where
there is a man, there no woman should
teach or have authority. Where
there is no man, Paul allowed that they can do this, because it happens by a
man's command....Where there are men, she
should neither teach nor rule....Then comes the teaching, and Paul does not
entrust the ministry of the word to her....There
would be a disturbance if some woman wished to argue against the doctrine that
is being taught by a man....If she wishes to be wise, let her argue with her
husband at home (Luther 277).
So Luther concluded that a woman
should have no public ministry. She
should be completely quiet in the assembly.
She is forbidden to teach or pray in public.
She is to have no public church office or authority.
She is subject to man. Luther wrote, “There would be a disturbance if
some woman wished to argue against the doctrine that is being taught by a man.”
However, which man in particular does he mean? In other words which system or
doctrine should a woman submit to: Zwingli, Grebel, Sattler, Luther, Calvin,
Henry VIII, Charles V, Erasmus, Pope Leo X? The list of differing male teachers
is endless. Should a woman simply submit to any teaching that any male proposes?
Luther’s model for the church is
pre-Christ and pre-Pentecost Judaism.
This OT paradigm forms the basis of Luther’s interpretation of scripture
and thereby the organization of the church. Luther ignores the life of Christ
and the radical inclusion of women at Pentecost. I would also imagine that his
view of women is a reflection of medieval culture. Regardless, his hermeneutical
methodology prohibiting, restricting and limiting godly women in ministry
continues to influence the protestant evangelical community today (Fee 44). We
are free to disagree with Luther on this important issue. As Pentecostals we
believe that godly, gifted women can be valuable tools of the Holy Spirit.
I think as Pentecostals we would feel more at home with an
egalitarian Sola Scriptura rather than
a restrictive and limiting medieval Sola
Scriptura.
JOHN CALVIN: On Women
John Calvin wrote concerning 1 Timothy 2:12:
“But I suffer not a woman to teach.”
Not that he takes from them the charge of instructing their family, but
only excludes them from the office of teaching, which God has committed to men
only (Commentaries 67).
Calvin taught that the office of teaching was male only. Women
can teach their families yet are excluded by God from the office of teaching.
How did he determine that women could teach at home but not at church?
I contend that a medieval bias about women is the controlling paradigm
for his exclusion of women from any teaching in the church. A cultural
interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 guided his understanding of the ecclesiology of
the Reformed church and still influences churches today. If we study the
interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 over the next 450 years we discover very
little change in the outcome regarding women. Women are not to have any teaching
office in the church. However, Calvin understood that in NT times women held
high positions of authority and ministry in the church. How does he explain the
inclusion of women in the New Testament?
Extraordinary acts
done by God do not overturn the
ordinary rules of government, by
which he intended that we should be bound.
Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that
too when they were supernaturally called
to it by the Spirit of God, he who is above all law might do this; but,
being a peculiar case, this is not
opposed to the constant and ordinary
system of government (Commentaries 67).
Calvin admitted that in the biblical record during the
apostolic era “women at one time held the
office of prophets and teachers.” He even understood that the women were
legitimately appointed by charismatic gifting of the Spirit of God, “they
were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God.”
Yet he considered these official church positions of leadership and
authority a “one time” event, a “peculiar case” and “extraordinary acts done by
God.” However, the New Testament
practice of allowing women to hold the offices of prophet and teacher reflected
a brand new last days ecclesiology impacted by Jesus and Pentecost.
Pentecost did indeed overturn the old order and inaugurated a new
Charismatic system of church structure. If we edited out the
not in the above quote from Calvin’s
Commentaries we would have the correct
interpretation of God’s new plan to organize the church.
Extraordinary acts
done by God do overturn the
ordinary rules of government.
Accordingly, women held the office of
prophets and teachers, and that too when
they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, he who is
above all law might do this; this is opposed to
the constant and ordinary
system of government (Commentaries 67).
The ordinary system
which excluded women represents medieval culture and a polytheistic, secular
world view. Calvin accommodated his interpretation of Scripture to world culture
and human tradition not the new spiritual system of Pentecost. Calvin believed
that what the Spirit of God did in calling women to serve violated “the constant
and ordinary system of government.” The “ordinary system of government” embodies
the common pre-Pentecost, Judaistic practices and polytheistic “Lord Over”
attitudes concerning women. Calvin could see that God did an unusual thing by
the Spirit after Pentecost in the full incorporation of women into all forms of
authoritative ministry. However, Calvin chose
sola culture over
sola scripture. His hermeneutical bias resulted in an erosion of the
radical inclusion of all people at Pentecost (Acts 2:17f; Gal. 2:11f). Calvin
noted that Sola Scriptura clearly
shows women in prophetic and teaching ministries. Nevertheless, in stark
contrast to the sacred record he stated that God only intended such positions
for men. What God allows Calvin disallows. Calvin did not allow any woman to
teach or occupy any church office of authority based on a cultural bias not on
Sola Scriptura.
In this discussion we can think back and appreciate how
difficult it must have been for the Pharisees to accept the full inclusion of
Gentiles proclaimed by Peter. The Pharisees had every historical and theological
argument on their side. What they didn’t have was God. God did a new thing at
Pentecost that included full spiritual access to all flesh; genders; ages and
social ranks. Pentecost overturned the old structures and instituted new
directives for the church. The Reformation made great strides in scriptural
recovery. However, we must wait for William Seymour and the Great Awakening of
the Pentecostal Revival to champion the radical, revolutionary principles of
Jesus and Pentecost.
Supposedly, women were excluded from such ministries by their
subordinate gender. Calvin added:
“Why they are forbidden to teach, is, that it is not permitted by their
condition. They are subject, and to
teach implies the rank of power or authority” (Commentaries 63). What is
“their condition” that renders them incapable of accessing the ranks of power or
authority? Their condition is that they are female. Women are subject to men.
They are the subjects of men. As subjects they rank lower than men and therefore
cannot usurp the higher ranks. According to Calvin only men can access the high
and important positions of social and religious rank. However, all his rhetoric
about ranks of power and authority is the opposite of the Jesus model of servant
leadership. Calvin’s argument against the inclusion of women is based on
commonly held social ranking. His entire erudite chest pounding about male
position and rank is more reflective of the absolutism, elitism and classism of
the medieval age rather than scripture. In the NT scriptures women could be
prophets, teachers, evangelists, missionaries, apostles, pastors, even
martyrs—despite their female condition—called to these male-only positions by
the Spirit of God. Why would God violate his own supposedly male-only divine
principle? Wouldn’t it be better to view the inclusion of Gentiles, women, youth
and slaves as a wonderful change of direction and not a violation? Apparently
Calvin forgot that as a Gentile under the ordinary government he would have been
excluded from ministry. If it were not for the vision of Peter and his tireless
efforts to include Gentiles, Christianity would not have become a global
religion. Calvin enjoyed the changes brought about at Pentecost but he won’t
extend them to others. For Calvin and many others the old obsolete system still
applies to women.
Apparently God had forgotten that women were unusable and
prohibited as a divine principle. Calvin will not allow any scriptural example
to balance his low opinion of women. Deborah (Judges 4:4) has been put forth as
an objection to his rule. Yet, Calvin will not permit Deborah to be viewed as a
prototype for women in charismatic ministry.
Calvin uniformly overlaid this method of interpretation to other examples
of women in New Testament ministry.
Notice his commentary concerning Philip's daughters in Acts 21:9:
It is uncertain how these maids did
execute the office of prophesying,
saving that the Spirit of God did not guide and govern them, that
He did not overthrow the order which He
Himself set down and for as much as he doth not suffer women to bear any
public office in the church, it is to be
thought that they did prophesy at home, or in some private place without common
assembly (Commentaries 271).
Calvin had already concluded that it was “God's divine order”
to exclude women from “any public office.” Therefore, these prophetic ladies,
even though guided by the Spirit of God, were limited in their gifting to “some
private place.” To whom they would
prophesy apart from the church setting he does not state.
Instead of this scripture informing, correcting and instructing his view
of women in the new era of Pentecost—it is interpreted away. Calvin admits that
“these maids did execute the office of prophesying.”
So how is it impossible for them to hold such an office? Calvin clings
desperately to the old order even though God had overthrown and rendered the old
order obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). Calvin applied his cultural restriction of women
to any scriptural display of women in NT ministry which ultimately yields a
result very similar to his medieval world view.
For example Calvin wrote:
Apollos
suffered himself to be taught and
instructed not only by a handy-craftsman but also
by a woman...we see that one
of the chief teachers of the church was instructed by a woman.
Not withstanding, we must remember that
Priscilla did execute this function of
teaching at home in her own house, that she might
not overthrow the order prescribed by God and
nature (Acts 18:26) (Commentaries 202-203).
Calvin stated that God’s order and nature prohibited a woman
of God from teaching. Yet Pastor Priscilla taught one of the chief teachers of
the church as recorded in scripture for our instruction, correction and reproof.
The way Calvin circumvents scripture is to minimize Priscilla. She taught
Apollos at home not in a church. So Priscilla could teach the way of God to a
man at home and not overthrow the system prescribed by God and nature. Yet
Calvin failed to remember that all churches were in the home at this time. In
fact Aquila and Priscilla had a church in their home in
1 Cor
16:19
The
churches of
There weren’t great Cathedrals and an ornately dressed
all-male priesthood. In other words the teaching by Priscilla was in a church to
an educated man by the Spirit of God. The
new paradigm of Pentecost does indeed
overthrow the old system and initiates a spiritual system based on the gifts
and callings of the Holy Spirit. Apollos a chief teacher in the Christian
movement was instructed in the way of God more adequately by a greater teacher.
Apparently the only place that Priscilla would be forbidden to teach would be
within the four walls of a building called a church. Priscilla was commended for
her pastoral ministry as a fellow worker by Paul—the very one who supposedly
prohibited such ministry. How can Paul extol Priscilla and prohibit her at the
same time?
Rom 16:3
3 Greet
Priscilla and
NIV
So during the formative years of reformed protestant thinking
a cultural presupposition about the inferiority of women based on the old
pre-Pentecost order informed the ecclesiology of the new Christian movement.
Calvin stated that the apostolic model concerning women was not a new
order indicative of God's will and reign but an aberration or “peculiar case.”
Now, since we are done with that abnormal and temporary whim of God we
can return to the age old way of viewing women as created subordinate, inferior,
inadequate and unsuited for ministry.
The radical example of Jesus to include women and the charismatic promise
of Pentecost is then buried in the mire of human tradition and culture.
However, the apostolic church in its sweeping liberation of women to
spiritual gifts, authority and ministry is a new model and not an aberration.
The NT is in fact our only authoritative model. The NT inclusion of women
in vital ministry is not a fleeting deviation from the old order but an entirely
new direction.
Calvin stated:
“God did not create two chiefs of equal power, but added to the man an inferior
aid....Woman was created afterwards, in order that she might be a kind of
appendage to the man...joined to man...to render obedience to him (Gen. 2:21)” (Commentaries
69). Calvin considered women to be
an inferior appendage, adjunct or accessory created afterwards to aid and obey
men. He added: “the woman is a distinguished ornament of the man...” (Corinthians
357). Women were considered to be a mere decoration for the enrichment of men.
Calvin routinely ignored Jesus and Pentecost as an archetype and used the
Judaistic model of the synagogue and pagan culture as the basis for his
interpretation of Scripture which continues to impact ecclesiology and to
restrict a woman's place in ministry. We must agree with scripture that God can
work through anyone yielded to his will.
Acts 11:9
9 But the
voice answered me again from heaven, 'What God has cleansed you must not call
common.' NKJV
Calvin's stated in his Commentary
on the First Epistle to the Corinthians concerning 1 Corinthians 14:34,
“Hence Paul forbids them to speak in public either for the purpose of
teaching or of prophesying” (467).
Yet the mere act of teaching does not imply usurpation of authority or
noncompliance with ordinary Christian submission.
One can be in authority and yet in proper submission to authority.
If this is the case, then, denying women authority simply because they
were born women is the creation of a religious caste system which regards women
as the new untouchables. Calvin
stated:
And
unquestionably, wherever even natural propriety has been maintained,
women have in all ages been excluded from
the public management of affairs.
It is the dictate of common sense, that
female government is improper and
unseemly (Corinthians 468).
Calvin argues that women in all ages, in all governments by
nature and common sense have been excluded from any leadership. Who would
disagree with him? It is a universal fact that women were oppressed, inferior
and subjected to men. Yet, his basis for the complete exclusion of women from
Christian leadership is not based in scripture but in world culture. Here Calvin
used culture and “that is the way it has always been” as the divine model for
women in post-Pentecost ministry. On the other hand, Calvin contends that the
human heart is desperately wicked and all humanity is a fallen mass of totally
corrupt depravity. So help me understand his formidable support of the exclusion
of women. Apparently, since corrupt, pagan, polytheistic, idol worshipping,
depraved governments of the world in all ages have limited, restricted,
oppressed and subordinated women—it is proper for the church to do the same? Why
should the Gentile “Lord Over” model condemned by Jesus be used as an authority
for the church? Wouldn’t it be better to do the opposite of the world,
everywhere and in all ages? Wouldn’t it be better to follow the pattern
established by God in the NT rather than oppressive regimes? According to Calvin
the pagan “Lord Over” model is the divine order approved and established by God.
Mark
10:42-43
42 Jesus
called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers
of the Gentiles lord it over them,
and their high officials exercise
authority over them. 43 Not so with
you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,
NIV
Since it is historically verifiable that women were considered
inferior to men, it must be noted that any attempt to interpret Scripture and
its response to women would naturally reflect this historical and deeply rooted
bias. It is not surprising that Luther and Calvin use a cultural bias as the
lens to read scripture. It is not an
accommodation of culture to allow gifted women to minister.
It is an accommodation of Jesus of Nazareth and Pentecost.
To restrict women simply on the basis of gender and the “old rules” is an
accommodation of polytheistic culture.
Calvin’s argument that “women
have in all ages been excluded” collapses in the glorious proclamation of
Acts 2:17,18. We are now in the last
days, which means things are no longer the way they always have been in all
ages.
God included women in ministry even though worldly culture
would not. The new prophetic age begun at Pentecost is one of Holy Spirit
organized ministry. Pentecost is the
new
As the doctrines of salvation and spiritual gifts eroded over
time so did the full incorporation of women as seen in Calvin's statements.
Simply because something always was,
does not mean it should always be so
(Jer. 31:31). Longevity and
tradition do not establish or substantiate truth.
If that was the case then let us reinstitute slavery and remove Gentiles
from the church's ministry because that is the way it always was!
Pentecost is an advancement not an aberration.
It is God's will to include Gentiles, women, youth and slaves in Spirit
gifted ministry, not a “peculiar” tampering.
It is the new standard for the
church not an “extraordinary act.”
Pentecost should form a new basis for hermeneutics and ecclesiology. Calvin, however,
regarded Pentecost as dispensational, abnormal and temporary. However, Pentecost
should form a new permanent basis for
hermeneutics and ecclesiology not the old order of things.
Therefore, the age old cultural attitude which viewed women as inferior,
subordinate, deceived and incapable of ministry no longer forms the basis for
hermeneutics or ecclesiology.
It is interesting to note how Calvin interpreted 1 Corinthians
11:5. Instead of allowing this
scripture to contribute to his overall understanding of Pauline theology, he
exegeted away its authority. Why?
Because his model for church structure is a convoluted blend of Old
Testament, pre-Christ, pre-Pentecost Judaism and paganism.
Calvin believed in the subjugation of women to preserve moral order.
He comments on 1 Corinthians 11:5,
It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul
to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he
wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church.
(1 Tim. ii 12.)
It would not, therefore, be allowable for
them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that
it is to no purpose that he argues here
as to a covering. It may be
replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the
other. For
when he reproves them for prophesying
with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to
prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to
another passage, namely in chapter xiv. In
this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit
sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty--not merely in a
place in which the whole
Church is assembled, but
also in any more
dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such
as are sometimes convened
in private houses (Corinthians
356).
Notice that Calvin was not able to effectively balance this
Scripture with 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
He made 1 Corinthians 11:5 read as if it were 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, “Paul… wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church.” However,
scripture allowed women to pray and prophesy if their heads were covered. Paul
does not prohibit women from meaningful contribution in the Christian assembly.
1 Cor
11:5
5 But every woman who prays or prophesies
with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if
her head were shaved. NKJV
Calvin does not need to strike a balance, because his paradigm
for church order is drawn from selective aspects of medieval culture and the
pre-Pentecost synagogue. He called 1
Corinthians 11:5 “superfluous...to no purpose.”
Can we imagine that a sola scriptura advocate would decree scripture to be superfluous and
to no purpose? Calvin interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:5, which clearly stated that
women can pray and prophesy in the Christian assembly, to condemn not only
female prophecy but the mere act of women
speaking even in private homes.
Calvin condemned as a “vice” what Paul condones and commends.
Even though Calvin may believe that all Scripture is authoritative and
fully inspired, he rejected 1 Corinthians 11:5 as useless, unnecessary and void,
thereby granting 1 Corinthians 14:34 greater and complete authority.
Instead of viewing these verses of
Sola Scriptura as equal counter balances he removed 1 Corinthians 11:5 from
the scale. The results are lopsided
and out of balance (cf. Fee 40). In
so doing Calvin restricted the authority of Scripture to those passages which
seem to agree with his point of view.
Calvin understood that these Pauline verses in 1 Corinthians were in
conflict concerning women. He
resolved this dilemma by rejecting 1 Corinthians 11:5 as “superfluous.”
Furthermore, he extended his prohibition against women speaking in the
church to private houses with meetings of either gender.
Calvin’s bottom line, “Paul… wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church.” He did not
ever allow women to speak and therefore to teach other women would be an
impossibility. He interpreted 1
Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 through the world view of his culture
and Judaism to negate any positive statements Paul made about women in ministry.
The example of Christ, the standard of Pentecost, and Paul's complete
theology on women were ignored in favor of pre-Pentecost Judaism and Gentile
“Lord Over” social theory. Paul was
then selectively interpreted by Calvin to agree with his old medieval beliefs
about women.
There are those who would no longer forbid the gospel or
church leadership to Gentiles, though this was prohibited prior to Pentecost.
There are those who would no longer forbid the gospel or church
leadership to slaves. And yet,
somehow, we continue with the long accepted and historical rejection of women.
It seems that the time has come to abolish the final frontier which
rejects women simply on the basis of their birth.
The church must maintain the banner of Jesus and Pentecost and reject the
darkness of the former ages; the darkness that has from the dawn of history,
rejected women as inferior, inadequate and despised.
Pentecost teaches us that Gentiles, slaves, youth and women can be, and
should be fully incorporated by the Spirit into the present aspect of the
eschatological reality of the
Male supremacy is non-biblical. Subjugation of anyone is a
non-biblical leadership model. Servanthood is the biblical model. It is
impossible to imagine that good Christian theologians would argue for the
subjugation of the lowly substandard, weak woman. However, subjection,
subordination and subjugation have to do with “lord over” and not “servant of”
leadership models. Male superiority has to do with the Lord Over Model of
leadership rejected by Jesus as Gentile, pagan and polytheistic.
Calvin’s Contradictions On Women
Calvin said that women are
excluded by God from the office of teaching. God has committed teaching to men
only (Commentaries 67).
Yet Calvin notes in
scripture that women in the NT held the office of prophets and teachers by the
extraordinary calling of the Spirit of God (Commentaries 67).
Calvin said that women are
forbidden to teach and not permitted positions of authority by their subordinate
condition to men, the rules of nature, their secondary order in creation, common
sense, ordinary rules of government in all ages.
Yet Calvin notes in
scripture that Priscilla taught Apollos the way of God (Commentaries
202-203).
Calvin said that since women
are subject to men, God would not allow women to occupy the office of prophet
and violate his divine order.
Yet Calvin notes in
scripture that Philip had four daughters that occupied the office of prophet by
the calling of the Holy Spirit.
Calvin said that women
should be silent even in Christian meetings in private homes (Corinthians
356).
Yet Calvin notes in
scripture that Priscilla taught scripture in the home.
Calvin said that women are
inferior, not equal to men, created as an appendage to aid, enrich and obey men.
Yet the scripture declares
that we are all the sons and daughters of God with equal access to the Spirit of
God (Acts 2:17-20).
It seems that scripture
contradicts Calvin at every point on this issue.
WORKS CITED
Calvin, John.
Commentaries on the Epistles to
Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.
Trans. William Pringle,
Calvin, John.
Commentary on the First Epistle to
the Corinthians, V. I. Trans.
Pringle, William.
Fee, Gordon D.
Gospel and Spirit Issues in New
Testament Hermeneutics.
González, Justo.
The Story of Christianity,
Volume II.
Luther, Martin.
Luther's Works, V. 28.
Ed. Hilton Oswald. St.
Impact of the Reformation on Women
A.Protestant Women
1.
Luther believed that a woman's occupation was in the home taking care of the
family
2.
Calvin believed in the subjugation of women to preserve moral order.
3.
Anabaptists were egalitarian including women.
4.
Protestant churches had greater official control over marriage than did the
Catholic church
a.
Suppressed common law marriages (which had been very common in Catholic
countries)
b.
Catholic governments followed the Protestant example
4.
Marriage became more companionate emphasizing the love relationship between man
and wife. Martin Luther and his wife. Katerina von Bora were good
examples of this view
.
·
Luther: sex was an act to be enjoyed by a husband and wife; not just an act of
procreation
5.
Increased emphasis on teaching people to read the Bible resulted in an increase
in women's literacy.
a.
Mothers were often expected to teach their children
b.
Schools for girls were developed
c.
Philip Melanchthon
became an important figure in education for girls in the Protestant German
states.
6.
Protestant women, however, lost opportunities in church service that many
Catholic women pursued (e.g. becoming nuns).
7.
Women gradually lost rights to manage their own property or to make legal
transactions in their own name.
B.
Catholic women:
1.
Women continued to benefit from opportunities in the Church through religious
orders.