I think Paul is applying Genesis 2 to a problem in Corinth. Paul sees a rather linear progression of creation but inserts Christ in the story. God created Adam first but for Paul Adam was created from Christ. Then God created Eve from Adam. In Paul’s thinking we bring honor to the one we are created from. Paul wants to the make the point that there is an interdepence between men & women. What we do in worship impacts one another.
I am not so sure I would limit Paul’s discussion to simply husbands and wives.

Christopher,
As Michael Kruse has pointed out, the order of Paul’s statement is unusual in 1 Cor 11:3:
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Man-Christ
Woman-Man
Christ-God
Interdependence here is very clear and important.

In doing premarital counseling for many years, the idea that a woman is not created in the image of God and needs a husband to complete her in this regard has never come up. Not once. Added to that there has been an increased mutuality in the thought that they both bring qualities to the relationship that other lacked, but there is no sense of incompleteness from the woman or the man.

Scot,
In concise answer to the question – in a direct sense I do not think that the church teaches that women as individuals are not “in the image of God” and many would point to Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:26-29 in support.
In an indirect sense the culture is one of paternal protectionism and the attitude (among women) is rampant that a woman is not complete without a man. Even more troubling are the frequent comments regarding women as “less rational” that I hear amongst those of approximately my generation, and the fact that the men are not as a rule teaching the teenage boys to respect the girls as their equals. Actions speak much louder than words here.

Do you run into women who think they are incomplete without a man? Do you know experiences/conversation where women don’t think they are the “image of God”?
I am having a hard time deciding if this is in essence one question or two. I know many married women who I believe would say that they are not complete without their husbands. I consider myself incomplete in many ways without my wife. Yet my “incompleteness” does not impede my approach to God. If the above is one question in essence then it would imply that the Church has bundled a barrier to God along with God-given husband-wife relationships. Yet the barrier only gets packed up on the female side, not the male. Scot, am I overthinking this or did you really ask two separate questions there?

Interesting question, Scot. I concur with RJS. I also think this plays out with singles as they seek the Lord for their future.

I do think it is verses like this one that, when not fully thought through, leave many in the church with a vague, but persistent, sense that women are somehow “inferior” to men and need men to “cover” them with authority and leadership. It has been so helpful for me to read Sumner’s book in order to see how critical it is to peer very closely at these verses, at historical understanding, and then at our current misunderstanding in order to gain a broad perspective as to how we’ve ended up where we have. I look forward to reading other folks’ reactions to her thought …
I do know that we as a society often treat unmarried women as if they are somehow incomplete … both in and out of the church.

“I do know that we as a society often treat unmarried women as if they are somehow incomplete … both in and out of the church.”
Yes. I agree.

I agree with Matthew in #5 about the question(s).
I have never heard a woman say she is “incomplete” without a man, however, their actions speak otherwise.
In my own marriage my husband doesn’t complete me as much as he enriches my life. I was complete before him, but he brought a richness that didn’t exist before. I don’t doubt who I was before him anymore than I doubt my same abilities/talents WITH him.

I agree with Matthew in #5 about the question(s).
I have never heard a woman say she is “incomplete” without a man, however, their actions sometimes speak otherwise.
In my own marriage my husband doesn’t complete me as much as he enriches my life. I was complete before him, but he brought a richness that didn’t exist before. I don’t doubt who I was before him anymore than I doubt my same abilities/talents WITH him.

You know … the more I think about it, don’t we also treat unmarried men as somehow incomplete, both within the church and outside it? I think we do. But, I wonder if our sense of male “incompleteness” without marriage is different from female “incompleteness?”
It’s interesting, isn’t it, how learned cultural notions get tangled up with biblical verses and our interpretations thereof to form our loosely thought-through beliefs about men and women? I’d imagine we are all some kind of permutation of personal history, cultural norms and biblical interpretation. The problem arises when we call our particular permutation “God’s truth.”

Alice #11,
I’m in agreement with you, again. I think we do. I do think though there are different ways in which we treat the single man and the single woman as uncomplete–precisely because past stereotypical assumptions.

Alice (comment #7)
You wrote “…and need men to “cover” them with authority and leadership.” I think that it has been pointed out that the popular idea of “covering” popped into theology in the 1970s. It is a relatively recent innovation that keeps women in an inferior place, i.e, “under” the covering. It assumes hierarchy.

John (#13) – You’re right … this is the comment I’ve heard on occasion when I teach at church … “Well, it’s okay she’s teaching, as long as she has the ‘covering’ of one of the male teachers ‘over’her.”
Well, doesn’t that just sound all biblical and spiritual? But, what did it really mean? And, why did I need it?

Its interesting that it has only been churches and my conservative Christian college that refer to me as Mrs. Michael Clawson as if I have no identity apart from him. (or at least my college did until I wrote them a letter saying how I wouldn’t give to the alumni fund if they didn’t start refering to me as a distinct human being…). Is it just the church being hopelessly behind the times, or is it a theological undercurrent that assumes that women are inferior or incomplete without a man? Its not like such opinions no longer exist – the comments here on this blog (by men who discuss these questions abstractly with no regard to the fact that women read them and are hurt by them) give testimony to that fact.

Scot #2
“…the head of every man is Christ, and the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” 1 Cor 11:3b
As noted, Paul did not put his dyads in the proper order to indicate a Father-Son-Man-Woman hierarchy.
Also, interesting is that Paul employs the first two dyads in the following discourse but the third is never mentioned again. Some suspect Paul my have been reciting a familiar creed. Was Paul truly making a theological doctrinal point? (Then what happened to the third dyad?) Was a he shaming them for engaging in activity that was dishonorable in the culture? I suspect the latter (but I’m not certain.) If it is the latter, then how does this even apply to our circumstances? That is what I struggle with?

In addition to #16, I would also point to the last two verses of Chapter 10 that precede this discourse:
1 Cor 10:32-33
32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God- 33 even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. (NIV)

In answer to the initial question, YES, if you come from the patriarchal background. Women are under their father’s covering, and then, if they marry, move into and under their husband’s covering. If widowed, they are covered by the church elders. Women are never without a covering. They are incomplete on their own, in danger without that male protection (because of some inherant female weakness?), not enough somehow. Whereas in patriachal manhood, a young man grows *out* of his father’s covering–he was made to, and a good godly man can stand on his own two feet.
So yes, in that system, we see that she is always dependant, a state of dependancy that she can’t ever grow out of. And men aren’t. Which does lead a person to feel that men are made in God’s image, whereas women were made in mens. Men were made to serve God directly, women were made to serve men (and that is how they will serve God, indirectly).

Alice (#14),
Hey, the church wouldn’t want you to be “usurping authority” over men in your teaching. You had their “covering.” Whew!

She’s just wrong about Augustine. I have to leave for a meeting and this is my first chance today even to read this thread (so, Scot, no worry here that I’ll write a long post). Richard J. McGowan, “Augustine’s Spiritual Equality: The Allegory of Man and Woman with Regard to the Imago Dei,” Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes 33 (1987), 255-264, works through the relevent passages. For Augustine imago Dei is a matter of mind not body and sexes are distinguished on their bodies, not minds. De trinitate XII.8.13: “Ergo in eorum mentibus communis natura cognoscitur” and “XII.7.12: “ut non maneat imago Dei, nisi ex qua parte mens homninis aeternis rationibus conspiciendis vel consulendis adhaerescit, quam non solum masculos, sed etiam feminas habere manifestum est.” I don’t have time to work through this here, but basically the last passage quoted explicitly says that the imago Dei is not only manifest in men but also (sed etiam) in women.
Perhaps I can post more later, but McGowan has worked through it all and shows where Tavard erred on this. The Sumner/Tavard interpretation is understandable–there are things that might lead one to think Augustine thought women did not equally manifest the image of God, but in fact he does not teach that.

Dennis, thank you first of all for the brevity of your post. Helpful to me. The untranslated Latin … well, that’s another story.
Second of all … what if we all just conceded the Augustine thing. What if we just all agreed he didn’t think men were the only gender made in the image of God? We concede the point.
The question still remains … what do we do with the concept still played out in our churches (and just as often, in our society) … that women are somehow inferior to men, that they need the “covering” of a man’s authority, that they are somehow incomplete without certain types of relationship to a man?
We could argue forever about the Augustine thing. Still leaves us all right where we are … at least in the Protestant church.
Scot, could you say more then about this “glory” issue? Why does a man bring glory to God and a woman to her husband? What’s that about? I could just read Sumner’s chapter, but would rather hear your thoughts.

Alice,
Sarah doesn’t address that issue in this chp. I doubt we know “why” it is; but it has to do with creation and creation order. I’m off to the airport.

A few minutes between meeetings. McGowan goes on to cite a different section of De trinitate XII.7.12: “Sed quia ibi renovantur ad imaginem Dei, ubi sexus nullus est, ibi factus est homo ad imaginem Dei, ubi sexus nullus est, hoc est in spiritu mentis suae.” “But because they are there renewed to the image of God where no sex[ual distinction] is, there man is made to the image of God where no sex[ual] distinction is, that is, in the spirit of his mind [mens].
This is reiterated in De genesi ad litteram: the imago Dei does not have to do with the body and it is in the body that we are sexed, not in the mind. De gen. III.22.34: “sic et in ipsa prima conditiones hominis, secundum id quod et femina homo erat, habebat utique mentem suam eamdemque rationalem, secundum quam ispa quoque facta est ad imaginem Dei.” “thus in the first condition of being human, according to that which a woman was a human being, she also had a rational mind, according to which she too was made to the image of God.” (McGowan’s translation).
The claim that we are sexed in the body, not the mind (we might want to take issue with Augustine on this but this is his premise paired with his limiting of imago Dei to the mind–which we also might want to take issue with) comes from De Gen. III.22.34: “Nec attendunt masculum et feminam nonnisi secundum corpus fieri potuisse.” For masculine and feminine cannot be adduced [brought to bear] except according to the body.”
Finally, De Gen. III.22.34 (same section): “tamen et femina quae est corpore femina, renovatur etiam ipsa in spiritu mentis suae in agnitione Dei secundum imaginem eius qui creavit, ubi non est masculus et femina.” “Nevertheless a woman, for all her physical qualities as a woman, is actually renewed in the spirit of her mind in the knowledge of God according to the image of her Creator, and therein there is no male or female.” (Taylor translation from ACW, via McGowan).
“De trinitate XII.7.10 is not a discussion of the relative ways a man and a woman image God,” McGowan says but an allegory about the relation between action and reason. Augustine explicitly says that the statement in De Gen III.22.34 about “man alone is said to be the image and glory of God” (1 Cor 11:7) is metaphorical, “figuratum”–what Sumner and other have done here is to take literally what Augustine tells us Paul meant figuratively, while Augstine explicitly and literallly tells us that man and woman equally bear the image of God.
My next meeting has arrived.

Alice, because if a key component of Sumner’s argument is based on a misreading (inverted) reading of Augustine, then what else might she or others have misread?
To be blunt about it, as I’ve said over and over again, instead of reinventing the wheel, I believe that already in the tradition is to be found solutions to these issues that could actually meet the perceived needs of Evangelical women who think that the tradition has been unfair or unsympathetic etc. to them. But to know that one has to read the tradition fairly and carefully, yes, including some Latin.
So much of the male-female debating, so much of the entire feminist movement has been based on straw-women, shadowboxing, knocking down targets that never really existed.
The untranslated Latin in the first post was because I ran out of time. I’m late now. More later.

Dennis, I truly hesitate to get into this directly with you, because I fear (though this may be wrong) that we are truly coming at this from completely different perspectives.
To summarize this whole women/men/husband/wife/ministry/headship/leadership thing as “the perceived needs of Evangelical women who think the tradition has been unfair or unsympathetic to them …” is a bit condescending, and, really misses the point. There are many, many women throughout history, and in this day and age … who have been deeply wounded, damaged and limited in their God-given ministry by misconceptions, wrong theology and a male-centered focus within the church.
I am in no way saying that history doesn’t matter. But, for you to continue to say that if we would all just get a better handle on “accurate” theological history then we’d all be okay and any woundedness or wrong limiting of women would no longer exist … Well, it seems highly out of touch with where most of us live and minister. And frankly, I just don’t think it is true.
And, I wish you would stop calling this a “feminist debate.” It is not. This is about real people who have been told by the church that they are somehow unable to live into the spiritual gifts given to them by God because of their gender. This is about women and men who have been spiritually stunted by buying into a hierarchical understanding of gender relations that often leave men feeling unduly burdened and women feeling devalued. This has nothing to do with pushing a “female-centered” agenda. I am not a feminist. I am a follower of Jesus.
To say that many of us have been swinging at “targets that never really existed” is to devalue our experiences, and I’m just not going to let you do that without a challenge.
Listen, I can’t go head to head with you on history, Latin, or medieval theology. Not gonna’ even try. You win. But, you can’t take away the experiences I’ve had in the church over the last 22 years by simplistically stating that I just don’t have a strong enough grasp of accurate church history.
I don’t mean to sound defensive, but I must tell you that, at times, your comments come across as very dismissive of real experience.
I’ll read them, though … as long as you translate that Latin.

Well, I say let’s move this discussion into the 21st century and add a little biological fact to the conversation. First, Augustine was intelligent but not knowledgable in the same ways that today’s science can reveal. We (scientists of which I am or was one) know that (chromosomally) male embryos that are not exposed to testosterone in the womb at the proper times or that are physically resistant to the male hormone testosterone become “feminized.” That is to say, they develop female characteristics, including in some extreme cases, outwardly female bodies (the androgen resistant types have no testosterone receptors and therefore XY chromosomes develop into a “perfect” female body — except for no ovaries. These people don’t even discover they are genetically male until they can’t get pregnant and get chromosomal tests that show they are XY (genetically male). Others with less extreme conditions often grow up to feel that they are “in the wrong body” and some become transsexuals (male to female). Scientists hypothesize that this is because their brains have not been fully “masculinized” during gestation through testosterone exposure.
So as much as I believe there is equality before God of both males and females, there likely is *some* differences in male and female “minds” and sense of self identity. I believe there is definitely mystery here and cannot myself describe the distinctions entirely. What I don’t believe is that there is any kind of inferiority or superiority of either sex — physically, mentally or spiritually.
And as to “covering,” what happens to someone like me — a single, female minister/chaplain whom God has not led into marriage (well at least not since my divorce). According to patriarchalists, who “covers” me? Isn’t God a good enough covering for me — and all of us? I would argue so!!
Oops, oozing again… *smile*

And amen to Alice in #25. Dennis, you really are being more than a bit condescending (and forgive me, even a bit *dense*) in your last comments. And if just knowing classical theology better could correct all the “wrongs” that have been done to women (and others), then you must not have a very accurate picture of history or the Bible. Both tell us that human mistreatment of other humans does not have its basis in lack of knowledge but in the state of the human heart (i.e., sin). Just a reminder from the apostle Paul that may be helpful to you: “Knowledge puffs up but love builds up.”
Also, if knowledge were the answer, then Eve would have been right to eat from the “tree of knowledge of good and evil.” But thinking we could know and therefore do it all on our own was the very beginning of humanity’s downfall. I think you (like Eve) are being deceived by the evil one if you think otherwise.
Respectfully,

#25
Ditto for me; especially that persistent charge of being a feminist. You are totally destroying my reputation as a Religious Right, homophobic, Neanderthal in my own denominational (PCUSA) circles.

I am curious if this language of “one person being the glory of another” is in other Greco-Roman literature. It seems to me that might shed some light on the present passage.

Alice, it was Sumner who adduced Augustine as relevant to the issue. I responded. Your quarrel is with her. If Evangelical women feel mistreated by Evangelical Churches then they need to adduce Evangelical instances. If Augustine (representing the ancient tradition) is to be adduced as evidence that women have not been denied the image of God and Augustine did not do that, it needs to be corrected.
Augustine might actually provide a third way, on neither side of the Evangelical egalitarian or complementarian divide. But we wouldn’t know unless he is understood accurately. I honestly thought that you might wish to know that Sumner’s Augustine is inverted 180 degrees.
You know, condescension cuts both ways. For 30 years I have heard confident statements about how this or that Church Father had it in for women. Indeed, when I have protested that this simply is not true I am met with confident, dare I say, condescending, disbelief–my defense cannot be right because everyone already knows (feels?) the simple truth that the Church has historically been bad to women.
And when, as I just did, I replied with chapter and verse to try to head off the disbelieving, confident assertion that my defense of the Fathers is special pleading (since I’m on the other side of most of these debates about women and the Church), I become condescending for offering specific, direct quotations. (A few threads back I was scolded for merely citing bibliography at people. This time I checked my initial inclination mere to cite McGowan and instead gave a precis of it with precise citations. Now I’m told that that was too much, overwhelming, and condescending.)
So, Ellyn, please do move it into the twenty-first century. Just make sure Sarah Sumner gets with the program.

Correction in first paragraph, no. 30 : “evidence that women have been denied the image of God” rather than “not been denied.”

Dennis #30,
I find your clarifications about what the church taught to be very helpful. The grating part is statements like:
“So much of the male-female debating, so much of the entire feminist movement has been based on straw-women, shadowboxing, knocking down targets that never really existed.” (From #24)
I sense frustration about people not having carefully considering the facts. Fair enough. But with the “feminist movement” and “feminist” lingo, you keep assigning motives to people who repeatedly tell you that they are not coming from that agenda. Persisting in this communicates that you think we are lying or duped idiots. I think this is where all the “warm fuzzies” are coming from.

Dennis, (or anyone else) as you note Augustine believed that they were “sexed in body, not in mind.” Sumner cites Augustine’s frequently cited discoruse that ends with:
“I cannot think of any reason for woman’s being made as man’s helper, if we dismiss the reason of procreation.”
How do you think he resolved these views in his mind?
(I’m not looking for documentation. Just a thumbnail of he might have processed this.)

Michael, the statement you quote was not directed at you but at exactly what it says it was directed at: the feminist agenda. Since you or Alice or Ellyn are not part of the feminist agenda then you should have realized it was not directed at you. It was not a personal statement at all. I did not have you or Alice or Ellyn in mind as I wrote it. Indeed, I feel a bit condescended toward because some people who are not part of the feminist agenda thought that it was directed at them rather than at what it said it was directed at, the feminist agenda.
It was a statement of fact about the initial wave of feminist writing about church history in the 1970s and following. That was when the myths about the evil church fathers were created. They are perpetuated to this day, fortunately not on this blog, since people here are not part of the feminist agenda, though they might perhaps know some people who are.
I am glad to have been corrected on these points.

I label myself a feminist. If people want to make assumptions about what my agenda therefore is and hence dismiss me entirely that’s their problem.
Alice and Ellyn – thank you so much for your words here. All the abstract talk and labeling that dismisses women as liars and uneducated fools doesn’t do much to increase my faith in the future of women in the church. If the guys refuse to admit that there is a problem or take the stance of denying history and experience, what hope is there of things ever improving?

I’m at O’Hare on what has to be the world’s slowest connection (with Boingo), and I hesitate to write anything for fear that I’ll have to board before it passes through cyberspace to this blog. But, here goes…
We’re committed to civility on this blog, and I’m not convinced we’ve been at our best behavior today. I don’t care if Dennis thinks Sarah got Augustine wrong; what Sarah quoted Augustine said; if she needs to consider other comments that balance those comments out, that’s worth talking about. But, accusations today have been a little too strong — from all directions. (Dennis, your comments were too harsh at times.)
The post today is about 1 Cor 11:7 — as understood by Augustine and by Sumner. Oddly enough, what Sumner says at the end seems to be what most do think is right. Odd that we can skip her conclusions.
Julie, it is unkind to blame this on “guys” and to say that “the guys refuse to admit that there is a problem.” C’mon, you’re far too aware of males who are strong advocates for women in ministry and for correcting the impact of views on women throughout history.
We all have to speak charitably and respectfully of one another, even if we have sharp disagreements on various items.

Dennis #34
Thanks for the clarification. The fact is that some of us have stated our case in comments to posts leading to this posts only to have are positions labeled and critiqued as a femenist ploy to erase all differences between the sexes. Open the comments section on some of the previous posts and do a search on “feminist” and you will see what I mean. I think you can see why things get a little touchy when the topic keeps coming back around to what feminists think when there aren’t any here.
So all that aside, I am curious about my question in #33. Augustine had some influence on the church. How he reconciled this might tell us more about how the Church dealt with similar assessments of the theology and women.

I wrote #37
“…back around to what feminists think when there aren’t any here.”
Julie #35
“I label myself a feminist.”
Okay. One feminist here.

Michael,
I’m not so sure we want to start labeling ourselves, but I’ll stand for what is called “evangelical feminism.” But, until each of us defines what we mean, we probably aren’t going to do anything but give one another stereotypes.

But, is “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Man-Christ
Woman-Man
Christ-God”
mean husband/wife, and if so, how does one make that conclusion. Which, is crucial to this question of feeling whole or not outside of marital relationship.
I initially thought, in humor : if a woman has no man, she has no head! ahhhh! They could come out on halloween.
Then stone cold serious : for married couples, have a spouse die, and the reality of them in us is billboard sized evident. I don’t know that he completes me, but he’s woven into the fiber of my being. Were he to die, I would feel incomplete without him.

Scot #39
Agreed. Nonhierarchical Complimenatarian is the most descriptive label I have for myself. It is just too cumbersome and I am not sure it communicates anything to anyone else. I’m not personally interested in labels. More interested in dialog.

I do apologize for the extremes of my language. I fully realize that there are many men who advotcate for and support women in the church and in life in general as well as there being many women who uphold hierarchical opinions of a woman’s place in society, the home, and the church. I was responding out of an increasing frustration with and depression resulting from reading this ongoing series. While I respect everyone’s rights to their own opinions, the constant discussion of a woman’s place/humanity/equality without regard for how such language is actually heard by women has become overwhelming. But of course I still read…

Sorry if I got a bit “cheeky” on some of my posts. I know Sumner brought up Augustine and pins some of our modern misunderstandings on his interpretation of key verses. I’m actually kind of glad to know (per Dennis) that this insinuation Sumner made about Augustine and his view of women is simply not true. Really. It’s kind of hard to read theological writing of a person who you assume thinks you are kind of a worm. So, Augustine is redeemed. Thank you, Dennis. I’ll read him with a bit more delight.
However, I guess my beef was with the fact that there still exists within the church a HUGE issue with women, and how they have been labeled, treated, and mistreated. And a HUGE issue with how we read, interpret and then apply critical verses … and how they have been read, interpreted and applied throughout history, at least from what I understand.
This one verse, regardless of how Augustine interpreted it, has played a prominent role in our gross misunderstanding (I believe) of how God views both men and women and desires that we view men and women. So, can we talk about that without getting fixated on Augustine? If not, then lets just move on. I, however, think we must.
So … if not from Augustine, where did this misinterpretation come from? And, if it simply came from the church’s misreading of Augustine and others throughout history with the result being the same as if Augustine had interpreted it in a demeaning way to women, then, what do we do now?
I guess, Dennis, that it felt to me like you thought if you could just correct all our misunderstanding of church history then we would submit to you that there must be no problem in the church related to women and that it is somehow all in our heads. Does that make sense? I didn’t mean to come off as mean toward you. I really didn’t.
I guess I just felt like you weren’t really listening to what I was trying to say. You assumed I didn’t know my church history and therefore I was just misguided and blaming folks for a situation that didn’t really exist. So, I got crabby. It sounds like you feel the same level of not being listened to. I’m sorry. I will try. I really will.
Off to get take-out Chinese for my hungry crew.

Alice #43
I haven’t read as much of the early church fathers as I would like but I get a sense that Augustine was not unique. At some abstract theological level the church fathers seem to hold to the image of God as fully in male and female, yet the same theologians make these deprecating remarks about women; then they turn around and praise some particularly notable woman. From the distance of several centuries and across cultures it all seems a bit schizo. I haven’t done as much digging as I would like on this issue but it is one I want to learn more about.

Dennis,
I don’t buy at face value most of these pronouncements that are provided from the church fathers – especially the inflammatory ones. Instead I go and look them up, at least in translation since I read only a little Greek and essentially no Latin. The ready availability of searchable electronic files makes this fairly easy even when exact references are not provided. Most, but not all, are out of context or misinterpreted.
However, there is a clear condescending, sexist and patriarchal tone throughout many of the writings, including Augustine. I gave an example a while back from Tertullian. Regarding Augustine, in the Confessions he extols the virtues of his mother, her piety, her faithfulness and her godliness. On the other hand in one example he describes her as “constantly with us in her women’s clothing, but with her masculine faith …” or as another translator puts it “cleaving to us – in woman’s garb truly, but with a man’s faith…” (Book 9 Chapter 4). This attitude of male as better permeates his writing, and always makes me a bit uncomfortable quite frankly. Perhaps it is this very really tone that causes the problem to begin with, leading people to search for “smoking gun” type quotes.
(Two paragraphs so I’ll stop here.)

Thinking when I was eating my Mongolian Beef that maybe Dennis Martin should write a book helping us Evangelicals (oh, I don’t like that word anymore …), I guess I mean Protestants … understand the church fathers and their views on women. It could have a profound impact. You (Dennis) could simply flat out name some of the misperceptions and then spell out (as you’ve done on this blog) why we’ve misinterpreted them for so long.
Kind of like the “new” stuff that is being written to help us understand the heresy of assuming the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father … and therefore, that wives are called to be subordinate to husbands.
My two cents from Iowa …
I agree, Michael (#44) that the fathers probably did represent some of the views of their culture in their theology … but I need to read more. When to find time? That is the eternal question …

I would also observe that Sumner has more or less equated “rationality” with being in the image of God. Genesis 1:26-28 says God created them male and female and gave them dominion over the earth. To exercise dominion would certainly require rationality but it seems to me to imply much more. Spiritual discernment, wisdom, the ability to bear authority. There is no differentiation between the dominion men and women nor is woman described as junior partner in the dominion enterprise. If a woman is categorically restricted from exercising these capacities or only exercising these capacities under the “covering” of a man is she not a lesser image bearer?

Alice #46
“Thinking when I was eating my Mongolian Beef…”
It isn’t polite to eat and blog if you didn’t bring enough for the rest of us.

Scott, #36:
That was a well-deserved rebuke for me. Sorry my apology didn’t come earlier but I signed off after I wrote to do some other work and just got back.
Scott, let me be the first to admit that when it comes to speaking the truth in love that I tend to go more heavily on the truth part when I feel offended. I still have a lot to learn about how to balance those two issues well. Thanks for being such a good role model for me.
Dennis, please accept my apology for coming down so hard on you. I myself wrote in a condescending and disrespectful manner toward you and I was wrong. Please forgive me. Like some of the others here, I am easily angered by comments that imply my “issues” are false ones or a result of misunderstandings or lack of knowledge. But no matter what you write or how I feel, I do not have the right to imply anything negative about you personally.
Thanks for the feedback.

Michael Kruse (and others): Thank you for your sense of humor here!! It relieves a lot of stress for me and helps me keep my sense of perspective ~

Ellyn – (post #50) It is hard to not get wound up on an issue like this that is personal. Whenever our teaching team at church (5 men and me) heads into theological discussion about men and women or about marriage … some of them sometimes say, “This is fun!” I laugh, too … and I love ‘em all … but I want to say to them, “Fun for you, but your worth as a human being, your ability to use your spiritual gift, your ability to lead … none of those things are at risk here!”
It is hard sometimes to not feel a surge of righteous (I hope) anger in the midst of all this … I relate.
Bottom line is, you gotta’ keep a sense of humor or this topic will eat you for lunch. So … let’s all engage the topic ferociously, but lovingly … and then, let’s drop a few jokes or something. I must say, I do think God laughs when he sees all our pontificating, don’t you?
Sorry, Michael Kruse (post #48), my two teenage daughters and my son and I snarfed the Mongolian Beef. No eating disorders in this house. My poor husband, who is teaching a class at church, will get the leftovers.

If anyone wants to look – translations of Augustine (I admit probably not perfect Dennis, but accessible and searchable) are available online at CCEL. The text Sumners seems to refer to is in “On the Holy Trinity” Book 12 Ch. 7 in Volume 3 of the first set of the Nicene and Postnicene Fathers. The whole text seems to me not quite so inflammatory as Augustine ends with the conclusion that … “not men only, but also women have”.

Alice, I agree that God must have a *marvelous* sense of humor and one *heck* of a lot of patience to put up with all my righteous huffing and “puffing” and pontificating!! Good thing too or I’d be in big trouble!!
Actually, just last night I sensed God was talking to me about the difference between God’s anger and mine. Mine is not only puny and ineffective, it also doesn’t accomplish anything truly righteous but it sure does alienates others and squelch the dialogue ~
About the Mongolian beef … could that a case of the “first being last and the last being first?” Hey, there could be some advantages to being “last” at times, eh? And at least you’re leaving your husband some!! LOL

By the way, Augustine brings Galatians 3:26-28 into his discussion and his reasoning – which leads to his conclusion in this chapter. I may only be making points Dennis already made, but I didn’t read every word of the comments above, and couldn’t understand the Latin anyway.

At the risk of turning a sharp corner from Mongolian Beef to Augustine … Are we all kind of just saying that Sumner (and others) are just dead wrong on Augustine’s views of women? Just dead wrong?
Are the church fathers just constantly misquoted? Or, is there, within their writing and thinking, lots of culturally based views on women that got mixed into their theology? Can we simply just NOT point to them and their writing as part of the source of the church’s struggle to navigate this issue of men and women?
And, if not … from where do the “negative toward women” interpretations flow?

I have to admit though … I still just think Augustine (and even his mother whom I was told used to “advise” other women who were beaten by their husbands to “submit” in such a way as to prevent that) were caught up in the human belief systems of their own historical culture. If I’m wrong about what I remember Monica (Augustine’s mother) saying or doing, perhaps Dennis could offer me some feedback on that. I promise I’ll listen if this is also not a truth or if my memory is incorrect! (I’m getting Old-Timers disease lately anyway).

Alice,
I think that the “smoking gun” quotes are usually misquotes. But within the writing of the church fathers a lot of culturally based views on women were mixed into theology, usually permeating rather than propositional. Unfortunately this culture and tradition is a significant part of the church’s struggle so that they need to be included in the discussion.

Thanks for that RJS (#57). I have to believe that there is some reasoning behind pointing to some of the writing of the church fathers and our understanding of women (or misunderstanding).
In the defence of the writers who use the “smoking gun” quotes … don’t you wonder if they feel they have to use really short “sound bytes” so that people in our “political ad” culture can swallow the thought? You saw how all of us reacted to poor Dennis’s long posts … and we all seem to be Americans who like to read! Imagine trying to write a book in this country, knowing most folks will read just a few lines.
Anyway, I don’t think we can just run away from the discussion Sumner is trying to start because we don’t buy her wholehearted critique of Augustine. Can we?

Ellyn,
You aren’t wrong – Book IX, Chapter 9 of the confessions says exactly this. This is also easily available on line and in print.

Alice #51
“I do think God laughs when he sees all our pontificating, don’t you?”
Old Jewish proverb: “Man thinks. God laughs.”

Thanks RJS, #59, for the affirmation. You know, we women have to admit that other females throughout history have contributed to the ongoing belief and culture that treats women as inferior or unequal to men.
In fact, my own experience has taught me that women who are patriarchalists or *hierarchical complementarians* are often as resistant as men (and sometimes even more so) to changing their views of how women can and should contribute to the church and community at large.
Not all women, but enough to make me sit up and notice. Any others here ever notice that too?

“I do think God laughs when he sees all our pontificating, don’t you?
Old Jewish proverb: “Man thinks. God laughs.”
Except, I think, when he sees how our academic pontificating actually hurts other people – when someone’s worth as a human being is called into question.
Oh – but that gets us back to interdependence and relationship as an essential part of the Gospel.

Some of the people who were the most mean to me when I began to use my teaching gift at our church … were women. They stopped talking to me and even left the church.
My husband has said that if a woman has put her whole heart into the “hierarchical complementarian” model of life and marriage, it must appear incredibly threatening when a woman comes along and lives outside of that model with freedom and joy, and when her husband does the same. He helped me understand why the simple act of me using my gift to serve the church appeared so threatening that women turned their back on me as a friend.
There is a lot at stake for men and women when we base our life choices on what we believe is “God’s truth.” It is one thing to feel as if the world devalues what we believe … but what to do when another God-fearing Christian does the same? I can see why labeling happens. It is just too personally threatening.

So where’s Dennis? I’m getting nervous he’s left us for good. Dennis, you forgive me?
See, I don’t like losing relationships even with those with whom I disagree or get upset at times. Re: #62, good point, RJS.

Alice, that makes sense. Imagine if you have invested your whole life (decades even) to being a “good, submissive wife” telling yourself that even when you suffer for it, that at least God is pleased with you.
Then someone else comes along and implies that all your “sacrifice” wasn’t really necessary in the first place. It’s so hard when we have to realize that our best intentions and beliefs were misled and our suffering was unnecessary. We feel so stupid. Easier to say the ones who are advocating for change are wrong…
But maybe we can help those women too by letting them know that God doesn’t judge us by our knowledge or lack of it but rather by the intentions of our heart. Whenever we suffer out of love for God or others (even if we are misled about the “required” behavior to prove our obedience to God), it all counts in God’s book.
In some ways, I think it might be harder for some women to accept the changes we’re advocating than for many men.

Sorry for posting so many times in a row but I’ve really enjoyed this conversation tonight. I have to go soon because tomorrow I go for my ministry licensing interview with the Covenant Church in Chicago. A big day for me and I’m a bit nervous. I still have to prepare a “reflection” on my “life verse” for them.
I’d appreciate your prayers!
Blessings to all,
Ellyn

Blessings to you, Ellyn (post 66) in your big day tomorrow. Trust that God will speak through you.
I must go and eat Mongolian beef with my husband! He laughed when I told him about this whole line of posts. He is the kind of husband who will gratefully eat leftovers and is most happy when I just hang out with him and make him laugh.
Yea … I’m wondering where Dennis went, too.
Dennis, we’re trying! Come back! Even in Latin …
alice

Alice #63
“Some of the people who were the most mean to me when I began to use my teaching gift at our church … were women. They stopped talking to me and even left the church.”
I had a women pastor for nine years in a denom. where we have had women pastors for a few decades now. Overwhelmingly, compliants about her ministry came from older women.

I am guessing that “where it comes from” is found in Genesis 3 itself.
Would not the natural bent of male/female relationships be toward patriarchy – and if men rule (and women accept it), then would not that rule come from a sense of female inferiority, or at least an easy time believing that woman might be inferior [in the Fallen world, different, especially if it appears weak, equals a lesser status].
And so, if men and women feel that God smiles on this view, that God has ordained it and blessed it, then…there we have it, worked right into the structure of Christianity itself, just as it is in practically every other structure on the earth.
? Just wondering these things myself…

Molly #69
I think I am in a similar place. Sociologists talk about plausibility structures: institutions and values that give organization to our lives and make sense out of them. We look to them for confirmation or refutation of our perception of reality. I sense the early church fathers inherited a theology that had both Genesis 1:26-28, and plausibility structures that “clearly” showed women were not men’s equals. How should they reconcile the two?
Over the centuries, I think we see improvement in the status of women where ever the Church has touched culture, although it has come in like the ebbs and flows of a tide, not in a linear progression. Up until the nineteenth century, I think you can find virtually universal acceptance inside and outside the church that women are simply too inferior to (less rational, too emotional, gullible, physically frail, etc.) to lead and do the work a man does. Therefore, what impetus would there be in doubting the plausibility structures? What changed?
I think the Industrial Revolution happened and Abolition happened in England in America. The first broke up the existing “plausibility structures.” The second created opportunities for women to exercise leadership. As abolition hermeneutics emerged, they began to be applied to the issue of women. By the Twentieth Century, it has become apparent to most (not all) in the West that women are just as capable as men.
Mid-19th Century, evangelical Protestant hierarchicalist Charles Hodge argued that women are subordinate in all ways to men just as the Son is to the Father, but in the subordinationism among evangelical Protestant hierarchialists (starting c. 1980) created the novel formulation of “Equal in being, unequal in function.” Meanwhile, nonhierarchicalists (like me), starting in the 19th Century have reached the novel conclusion that women are not subordinate to men. There are varying mixtures in between. No plausibility structure has yet claimed the day, thus the chaos. I want to avoid attributing sinister motives to historic figures based on our present understandings even as I recoil from their assessments.

Thanks for the sociological nod Michael. As a social scientist, first in communication and then in linguistics (literacy and education), I have found that it is a dynamic in this conversation/dialog that is sadly lacking.
Since this is not really a forum for folks who are social scientist and I don’t want to bore everyone, I have abstained. I think you have hit a good sociological issue related to gender issues and the topic, and kept it succint, thanks.

Ryan (post #71) – Why abstain from this dialogue? I think hearing from a social scientist could be really helpful to many of us. Blog on!

Michael,
I think that your analysis in #70 is essentially correct. Although I don’t think the evidence for a centuries old consensus opinion on inferiority are as solid as they appear at first glance.
I enjoy reading translations of ancient literature – anything and everything I can get my hands on, from Mesopotamian myths through the literature of the 1500′s or so. One of the features that strikes me is a realization that there is a strong undercurrent that portrays women as being as capable as men, although the examples may be considered exceptions. This is true in the early church fathers and in a wide range of other literature.

Ryan #71
Ditto #72. I think your background could add some real insight.
(Disclaimer: I have a MA in sociology (demograhics and social change) but there is not bias on my part.)

It seems to me that the notion of women not fully bearing the image of God hasn’t really resonated with people in this discussion. I asked two ladies last night at our fairly conservative church (one of the ladies was my wife, the other our assistant pastor’s wife) if they identified with this at all. I had a hard time framing the question so that it would make sense. It’s a strange question coming out of the blue. But the response seemed to be something like, “No – I have some issues with how the Church treats women but I have never felt inferior as an image-bearer.” That seems in line with what I think I am reading here. However, I would guess that Sumner’s analysis will become progressively more relevant to modern concerns.

#73
Fair enough RJS. I think there have been glimpeses of other possiblities throughout the years but not plausibility structures in which to take root until recently. In four paragraphs I am making very very broad generalizations.
I think we can also see a decline in the status of Jewish women from at least the fall of Israel until NT era as Greek infuence took over. Not linear channge at all. Ebbs and flows. That is my take.

Matthew #75
I think an interesting starting point is asking what it means to be in the image of God. I find that most of us have a very fuzzy notion of what that might mean.

Yesterday was a 12-hour day with a few minutes between meeting with student and committees besides classes. That’s where I was.
I do not think that correcting errors in quoting the Fathers fixes everything. Nor do I think the Fathers were right about everything (they disagreed with each other). I am as hermeneutical as any of the rest of you–everyone must be read in context, including contemporaries.
But when people build a case for whatever position they take in today’s controversies from this or that ancient or medieval or early modern authority, it matters if the case is built on a fallacious reading of the authority.
One cannot dip into and out of historical texts. Understanding them requires “going native” in ancient cultures, as much as that is possible. I can never fully go native in New Guinea or Surinam. Likewise I bring my own baggage with me when I read Augustine or Gregory of Nyssa.
But there is a difference between approaching them like a quarry from which I hew chuncks of rock to build my edifice, on the one hand, and approaching them as a disciple, sitting at the feet, trying to hear what they are saying and why. The very sensitivity that many of you are asking of me is the sort of sensitivity some are reluctant to give to dead white Catholic or Orthodox men.
Obviously the energy and time and languages needed to go native in the past not everyone possesses. I do not have even half of the languages I wish I had in order to understand these folks fully. So we are all dependent on hermeneuts, interpreters, of these ancient sources. The challenge is to find trustworthy ones rather than untrustworthy ones.
I was fortunate in that, as a young grad student in history 30 years ago I saw in front of me two hermeneuts of medieval monasticism: one a Baptist who with the best of intentions nonetheless “read” medieval monks through Baptist eyes, the other an Amish-Mennonite who had had a thorough training in classics and medieval literature and history at Toronto and, though himself not Catholic, had learned to read Catholic authors through Catholic eyes.
I was neither of these but I could see the difference it made in reading medieval monastics and I chose to follow the second of these two mentors at least in hermeneutics. I am grateful to both.
As it happens, I long ago wrote just the sort of book Alice describes in no. 46. It was never published because I could never finish it and bring it up to date. It consists of 12 or 13 short chapters each dealing with one common misunderstandings (not discrete points but fallacious ways of looking at things) that modern Evangelicals (at the time it was Mennonites I intended it for) bring to bear on pre-modern Christian life and texts. It was designed for a 13-week adult education curriculum. It’s probably the sort the thing Paraclete would like, but I can’t find the few weeks needed to bring it up to date. Perhaps Scot would want to put a chapter or two on this blog at some point.
Now I’ve exceeded the appropriate length for a posting. So I’ll stop, except to say that I am very impressed at the way everyone came back from the brink on this thread and I apologize for my own contribution to pushing things to the edge. I wrote in haste, in choppy segments rather than not writing at all, fearing that if I waited until today when I had more time, the thread would basically be at it’s petering out point.

To Michael’s point in # 47. Augustine places the imago Dei in rationality, as does Sumner. Here’s a good illustration of how context works in reading ancient texts. For the ancients, “rationality” was not the same as it has been for us since Descartes or Kant. “Understanding” (intelligentia in Latin) is the more inclusive term. Ratio means comparing and is an analytical, more linear kind of process. But the word actually used by Augustine in most of the passages Sumner is basing her case on (some of which I quoted) is mens which is nearly untranslatable. In one case it is “spiritus mentis”–spirit of mind–whatever that means. When I translated 13th and 14thc Carthusians on mystical theology I translated it as “spirit” but that too has it’s drawbacks. One can translate it as “mind” as long as one doesn’t think of mind in a Cartesian way.
Mens for Augustine (and all Christian Latin writers throughout the Middle Ages, indeed, in Catholic Latin writing well into the 20thc when manuals of theology ceased to be written in Latin) included both of what we call right and left brain functions. In the passages at issue here, the contrast is simply between body and mens/spirit/mind. So it’s not just about reason.
This also illustrates why the text in the actual original language also matters.

OK, folks, I have to say it for all of us: “Good for us!”
Probably never seen a conversation go from the edge to being so gracious. Someone might use this as a good example of how conversations that are on edge of breaking into mistrust and anger can come back through reminder, reconsideration, and reconciliation — 3 pts for those looking for them.
Again, thanks so much.
What I’m hearing here is that, while Sarah has some fair comments from Augustine that he really did say (and I am loathe to think they aren’t reflective of some reality for him), we have learned that the fathers deserve to be understood in context and we have to be careful on how we use them.
What I would say is this: what Augustine said is reflective of how some men have thought and what those have thought and taught have done damage to the worth of women in history. I doubt anyone would disagree with this.
It’s something I’m taking away from this conversation.
Now I’m wondering if we can sustain this kind of thing very long; I’ll probably post on women in ministry only once a week. Twice a week is too much for me in that it generates enough comments to keep my computer full all day long.

Thank you, Dennis. (post #78) I appreciate that glimpse into a bit more of your life and history. Helps me understand and will help me listen better when you post.
Perhaps the season is right for that book of yours? I wonder if you tied it in to this issue of women in the church if it might have a bit more attraction to the church today? Who knows … But I like the concept … “What the church fathers got right; and how we get them all wrong …” by Dennis Martin. I like it. I’d buy it.

Alice might buy it, Dennis, but tell the publisher to send it to me and I’ll blog about it!

Matthew in # 75: I’m not quite sure what you are saying, but it seems like you stipulate that some Christian authors believe women do not fully bear the image of God and then note that this has not yet sunk in.
I know of no major Christian Father in the ancient or medieval period who believed that women lack the image of God. Perhaps I am mistaken and I certainly have not read all the Fathers. But prima facie it would be very, very unlikely that any of them would assert this because it flies in the face of Genesis: male and female, created He them, in the image of God, he created them.
Once more, this illustrates the hermeneutic problem common to modern writers on male-female issues (notice I did not say “feminist writers”) who employ ancient smoking gun texts. Even to think that an ancient Christian author would assert that women lack the image of God shows a willingness to think ill of these ancient writers because, to deny women the image of God is to deny their humanity. It’s a heinous accusation and, if true, confirms these writers were misogynists. But I react upon hearing the claim in just the opposite way–I am very skeptical that any Christian writer of this era, versed in the Bible, could make such a claim, so, when someone asserts that one of them did, rather than quickly accepting it and running with it because it confirms modern cultural assumptions about ancient Christian men being mean to women, I ask, like Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons, “What does the text say? It all depends on the text? If I can take this oath, I will take it, and you must too.” (spoken to his daughter Margaret with regard to the Act of Supremacy, if I recall correctly–I’m quoting from memory and what I put in quotes is not verbatim from the film.) In every case where I’ve looked at the text on which claims that ancient Christian writers denied women the image of God, I discover that the text has been misunderstood. (Not misquoted, but misunderstood. Understanding ancient authors is the issue here, not quoting words. One can lie with statistics, one can also lie with quotations.)

Michael, you asked about the helpmate-procreation quote. I simply have not had time to look at it. On its face, I’m not sure what it’s saying and would need to find its context. Right now, I can’t do that.
Scot (# 80), my critique of Sumner goes deeper than your summary, though of course I “know” Sumner only through your summary of her and I have not had time to study what she writes and the quotations from Augustine, some of which I posted yesterday, at leisure. But it does seem to me, from your summary of her, that it’s not merely a matter of missing context but of incomplete and/or deeply prima facie misunderstood quotations (do you see the difference)? The key quotations from On the Literal Meaning of Genesis and from On the Trinity that address 1 Cor 11:7 seem to say that Augustine actually was saying, “Don’t take Paul literally when he says that only men bear the image of God–Paul meant that figuratively.” Augustine sees the immense problem that would arise if Christians actually thought Paul meant to say that only men have the image of God, he won’t simply ditch Paul but neither will he give in to the false notion that women are not fully human, so he solves the problem exegetically by resorting to “figurative.” And then he explains what the image of God is, how both men and women have it in the mind/soul/person and yet how their differences are found in the body.
But I have not read Sumner and so this assessment may need to be revised. And I don’t see how I’m going to have time to read Sumner in the near future. All I wanted to do was raise a caution flag.
This will get too long if I go into the problem of Augustine saying that maleness and femaleness is only written on the body–when I quoted that yesterday I pointed out that I was not endorsing it but I also think that a careful reading of Augustine might show that he doesn’t mean that men and women don’t think differently or have no differences in mind. He was not that oblivious to how men and women interact. But, like John Paul II, perhaps–there’s a dissertation topic–to take JPII on how maleness and femaleness which do extend to non-body differences nonetheless are fundamentally and initially written on the body and how body-soul unity works in this light–take that and read Augustine to see what he has to say on this cluster of topics–one might find some interesting congruances).
Well, there I went and did it–tried to deal with that question which someone raised last night–and made this post too long.

Dennis #78
“One cannot dip into and out of historical texts. Understanding them requires “going native” in ancient cultures, as much as that is possible. I can never fully go native in New Guinea or Surinam. Likewise I bring my own baggage with me when I read Augustine or Gregory of Nyssa.”
Amen!
#83
“In every case where I’ve looked at the text on which claims that ancient Christian writers denied women the image of God, I discover that the text has been misunderstood.”
And I suspect that as you wrote that in #79 that when we we speak of “rationality” we mean something different than Augustine. It seems the same might be true for the expression “image of God.” Thus the confusion when we use a 21st century version of the concept for processing what he wrote. Same goes for Bible exegesis.

Dennis #84
“Michael, you asked about the helpmate-procreation quote. I simply have not had time to look at it. On its face, I’m not sure what it’s saying and would need to find its context. Right now, I can’t do that.”
Understood. The quote comes from “Literal Commentary on Genesis.” Should you ever the opportunity I would be interested in your thoughts.

Good to hear from you again Dennis. Your posts (78, 79 and 84) are very helpful to me. I especially appreciate your explanation (or attempt!) at what *mens* means. Now that I see more where you’re coming from, I see how much I over-reacted yesterday. A good reminder for me to listen better and not assume I know where someone is coming from. When I get upset in the future, I’ll ask questions rather than accuse (I hope!). And give the benefit of a doubt. Sorry, I underestimated you.
I also appreciate your comments on my question about the mind/body connection re: male and female attributes. I’d be interested to know more about what you/others think about that but it might not be the the right place to take this thread right now.
So what does it mean for a woman to be the “glory” of man? I’ve always wondered and still don’t have a clue.

Dennis (#83 and others),
I would consider any quote taken out of context and used in a way inconsistent with context to be a misquote (misuse) – even if the words are actually correct. Used in this fashion both quotes and statistics lie.
Good scholarship should always go back to the sources and look at context. I would go one step further and say that critical reading requires us to check the facts. These days many of the facts are readily available at least at the level of English translation. But none of us can go back to the original languages and consider all the textual variants and the full cultural context in every case. There are not enough hours in the day or days in the year.
Anyway I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that “One cannot dip into and out of historical texts.” Understanding them requires being immersed as much as possible in the ancient culture, and it requires reading significant bodies of work rather than selected tidbits.

Michael #77,
I would freely admit that I do not have a solid grasp of what it means to be in the image of God. I do wonder if it wasn’t left purposely vague in Scripture. I suppose that is what gives rise the discussions in past threads about the nature of the Trinity.

Dennis #83,
I was thinking of this from Scot’s post:
Does the Church’s treatment of women lead to a consciousness on the part of women that they are actually “not” the image of God even though my today would affirm they are the image of God?
I was looking forward to popular understanding, rather than back to ancient texts. I took Scot’s question to relate to the popular culture of the Church – has the Church either created or perpetuated this supposition for women today?
Deep misunderstanding of the image of God probably exists; mistreatment of women does exist. But I was making a surface comment that in spite of the Church’s other failings I believe that Jane Doe in the Church does not consciously feel “‘not’ the image of God.”

Matthew (post #90) I do agree with you that Jane Doe in the church does not consciously feel that she is “not” in the image of God … in fact, I’m not sure that most people even think about whether they are in the Image of God. None of this is real conscious. But, I think what Sumner was trying to get at was all the subtle, subconscious ways that women are made to feel somehow inferior, “less than,” and in need of a man to be complete somehow.
One little area I think women struggle with is the simple concept of calling God “Father.” To see onself as a woman made in the image of one who we are to call “Father” is a bit of a leap sometimes. Don’t get me wrong … I don’t advocate calling God “Mother” or “Father/Mother.” I don’t like that language change at all. But one has to be honest about the leap it takes to see oneself as a female made in the image of a God who takes on a masculine name as part of His description.
Just a small area where people get hung up.
Not me though … no sirree … it’s all those other folks out there who get hung up.

If a woman is spending time on thinking about whether or not she bears the image of God, or whether or not other people think that about her, perhaps she’s thinking about herself too much.
There’s no doubt many or most women worry about ourselves, wonder if we are “ok.” There’s no use putting this down to men, society, or the church past or present. Certainly the answer is not in finding more public ministry roles, either, as Amanda Witt points out. If we live out the image of God, no one would question what they see; and in any case it wouldn’t matter to us if they did.

Gina (#92),
Though I appreciate the spiritual nature of your statement, and I agree that it’s true, it does appear to trivialize the whole issue and to blame women for institutional injustice. This issue is much bigger than women simply being too self-absorbed.
Another point is that many women are not trying to “find more public ministry roles” but simply find themselves spiritually gifted and called into positions that demand a public position. So, be careful of chastising women who are gifted in teaching and preaching for somehow being self-centered or self-absorbed, and striving to find ways to be more public. That’s not the point at all, at least for me.
I have landed where you suggest in your last sentence …”If we live out the image of God, no one would question what they see; and in any case it wouldn’t matter to us if they did.” Yup. I just disagree with the part about people not questioning what they see … I think that happens all the time, especially for women with non-traditional gifts in the church … but I do agree with the part about it “not mattering to us if they did.” I simply have decided that the people who question my gift of teaching solely because I’m a woman are just going to have to deal with Jesus on the issue.
The great tragedy is that some of us are trying to live out the image of God, and many are questioning what they see.
Again, I agree with most of what you say, but the tone feels a bit trivializing and condemning of women who are making every attempt to live into the call they have received from God.

Gina #92
I am trying to get into the Orthodox mind (and your mind) here on being “Eikons of God.” You know what I think but I am still unclear what you think. I think we mean different things by the term. I want to understand what makes us image bearers and how does that influence our lives?

Tongue in cheek, from
http://maggidawn.typepad.com/maggidawn/2006/03/top_ten_reasons.html
Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained
10. A man’s place is in the army.
9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.
8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.
7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.
4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.
1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.

Ooooo, Shawn, love it! Thanks for making me laugh ~

Shawn #95
Shawn, this is priceless!
As to number number 4 on her list, I have a female pastor friend with two boys. She tells a story about when her sons were about 8 and 6. They were playing with some neighbor friends at her house. The kids decided to play church. When they told the six year old to be the pastor he refused. He said he didn’t want to be the pastor because that was women’s work.

The internet gremlins seem to have eaten my comment. Maybe that’s Scot enforcing brevity.
Michael- What you want is the Orthodox mind, not mine, and I wish I could say they coincide! From what you’ve written, I don’t think our views of what it means to bear God’s image are dissimilar. What gives you the feeling?
About feminism above- I believe all that following Jesus is agenda one, but as I’ve said before I think there’s some intellectual honesty in owning the influence. It seems hard to deny, when the assumptions, language, and goals are so similar, that there is crossbreeding between secular feminism and the issue of women in the church.
Alice- Since you think what I said was true, it must be the tone of what I said you’re objecting to. What can I say, I don’t think these issues are as important as they’re made out to be. I don’t think there is “institutional injustice” against women in the church at large. I wish we could focus on more important things, and I believe it is the secular feminist assumptions and agenda that are driving these discussions in the church. I know you disagree and will likely take exception, but it will take a lot to convince me that’s not what’s happening, and use of terms like “institutional injustice” doesn’t help allay my doubt. Not that all that comes from feminism is bad, but I am urging caution in adopting a mindset that is fundamentally alien to that of the church.

#98 Gina
Gina, I am thinking particularly of my comments in #47. (BTW, I also realized that in #47 I attributed Augustine’s view to Sumner. Sorry about that.) In #92 you wrote:
“If we live out the image of God, no one would question what they see…”
I think the “we” is referring to women. I am struggling with the fact that if we do agree with my #47 how would the image bearing look different between men and women? I get a sense there is difference between male image bearing and female image bearing that you see that I am not seeing. Is this any clearer? I feel like I’m not asking this well.

Michael, glancing back to #47, what leaps out at me as a difference is the assumption that there can be any such thing as an individual standing alone in the church, which any discussion of a woman “without covering” must imply. Though honestly I’m not sure what people mean by that.
We all exercise dominion as image-bearers– and the Orthodox understand this as implying authority, too, as symbolized by the crowns worn during the marriage service. How that authority is ordered is different. However as soon as we enter in to discussions of whose is lesser, greater, more or less important, etc., we’ve left the law of love and need to go back to the first thing.

Gina #100
“…as symbolized by the crowns worn during the marriage service.”
Now that is powerful imagery!
I have heard someone once use the imagery of head and body (in modern sense of the head being the locus of direction for the body) to describe the relationship of husband and wife. The relationship between the two is seamless yet you identify to distinct parts. There is such an interflow of information back and forth between the two that their separate functioning is virtually indistinguishable, thus there is no ruling or domination. Am I getting close to your perspective?

Very nicely put. And the way they come together is also beautiful, don’t you think? An icon is a revelation of beauty, and let’s not forget that man and woman together make up an icon, too- of Christ and the church. Wondrous.

Gina #102
Great! I am glad I getting closer to getting a handle on it. It seems to me that this imagery is much richer and more profound than anything I have known from the Greco-Roman world. It gives clear evidence of the redemptive role of the Church in the marriage relationship over the centuries.
I also expect that is why when a non-hierarchicalist like me starts talking it sounds like instead of joining body and head together into a complete whole, the image becomes one of joining two heads together. In this case, two heads are not better than one.

Has anyone stopped by Gina’s blog? It’s lovely!

Gina, I should add, your blog is lovely in word and appearance.