Bonovox

When Women Were Priests :Women’s Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity

By Karen Jo Turjesen

Harper Collins, 288 Pages

The Gospel According to Women: Christianity's Creation of the Sex War in the West

By Karen Armstrong

Elm Tree Books, 323 pages

Human beings are subjective creatures.  Even when looking at facts, we come to different opinions about what the facts “say,” based upon our presuppositions, that is, the interpretive grid that we have developed.  This in turn is based upon what we already believe to be true about the world.  We like to think of ourselves as being rational and objective, but we are all biased and subjective.  Where there is information, there must be interpretation.  It is said that, “facts don’t lie.”  That may be true, but human beings lie, even when we do not know that we are doing it.

We read history, and it is truly a struggle to let the facts shape our understanding, instead of letting our predetermined understanding, shape our interpretation of the facts.  This reviewer is of course subject to that error. But a reading of two fairly recent works on the subject of, gender in historic Christianity shows that a Ph.D. is just as susceptible to bias, as the lowly undergrad student is.

Karen Jo Torjensen is the author of When Women Were Priests, subtitled Women’s Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1993).  This book was an enjoyable read.  Her style is accessible, almost popular.  She has truly done her homework and knows her facts.  It is however, her interpretation of those facts, and the conclusions she attempts to draw from them, which are easy to take issue with.  And really, taking issue with Dr. Torjesen is half the fun!

Torjensen states in her introduction that:

The last thirty years of American scholarship have produced an amazing range of evidence for women’s roles as deacons, priests, presbyters and even bishops in Christian churches, from the first through the thirteenth century. (pg. 2)

This statement should cause emotion in the reader who has just picked up the book.  Depending on the already existing paradigm, this could either be excitement; if one is expecting to have their ideas confirmed, or at least a little “trepidation;” if you’re expecting your understanding of Church history to be shaken.  Unfortunately, by close of the book, the expected common emotion would be disappointment, as Prof. Torjesen does not deliver for either party.

The first piece of evidence that Torjesen puts forth, in attempting to prove that women were clergy in the early Church, is a mosaic in a Roman basilica, dedicated to SS. Prudentia  and Praxedes.  Depicted in this mosaic from the 9th century, are four women: the two saints who are patrons of the church (Prudentia or Priscilla, and Praxedes), Mary the God-bearer, and a fourth.  This fourth woman has the inscription, “Theodora Episcopa.”

To someone who knows a little Greek and very little Christian ecclesiology, this perhaps would lead them to consider that this means “Bishop Theodora.”  But the average layman (or “layperson” if you must) in the Eastern Orthodox Church, is well acquainted with “presvyteras” and “khouriyees”, “diaconissas” and “shamasseys.”   These terms, in the Greek and Arabic respectively, are literally translated as “priestess” and “deaconess.”  But they do not refer to sacramental office in the life of the Church; only in the sense that a wife shares in the grace and ministry of her husband.  For these titles are best translated as “priests wife” and “deacon’s wife.”  This is true today in the Eastern Orthodox Church, as it was then.

So if you add to that understanding, taken as it is from a “living tradition,” the knowledge that in the early years, the Church had married bishops.  It is pretty evident what conclusion, those not trying to find “female clergy” will draw.   Theodora was a beloved wife of a local bishop.  Its not even a stretch, when you consider Byzantine Christian culture, to consider that Episcopa Theodora may have even been a much loved “mother” of a bishop.  It also seems that the title was applied to abbesses.  In any event, there are much more logical conclusions to draw then Torjesen’s, particularly considering that during the 9th century, every ordination canon in force and every ordinance, presumes that only persons of the male sex will be ordained.

Much of this book is an exercise in disclosing the same type of “evidence.”  What is somewhat irritating, is that Torjeson doesn’t even have the courtesy to offer any of these contrary interpretations of the data she “reveals.”  This makes it much more in line with propaganda then a scholarly treatise.

She does offer an enjoyable chapter on the woman’s role in the Roman household.  It was quite informative.  But it does not make her point at all.  Managing a household is not the same thing as being a priest.  When it’s all said and done, that chapter is what her book should have been about.  She explains the family dynamic in the Roman period, and shows the great importance of the woman’s role in managing a household.  I found this chapter very interesting, and totally forgot the purpose of her book.  If she does write a book on this, I for one would search it out and buy it.

Karen Armstrong on the other hand, works much harder at supporting her ideas, and does so rather well.  Her book (among many) is entitled, The Gospel According to Women with a subtitle of, Christianity’s Creation of the Sex War in the West. (New York: Anchor Books, 1986).  Her theme, that “Women’s problem in the Western World, is sex” is pretty well supported.  In fact I would go so far as to agree with much of her criticism of the "Western Church," even her claims that it is again sex that is at the heart of it.  Modern Christianity in the West has been shaped by a dualistic fear of nature, and things "natural;" sex being one of them.  But again, her presuppositions direct her interpretation of the evidence, in a predictable direction.

Her thesis is basically that, because Christian men have been taught that sex is evil, the Christians world is moved by a hatred and fear of sex.  She goes as far as to say that Christianity is the only organized religion to hate and fear sex, and subsequently, to hate and fear women; as women represent sex to men.  Its seems odd that she would suggest that a religion like Islam, has a higher view of women (and also sex) then Christianity.(4)

How does she come to such conclusions?  Well, certainly because of her "starting point."  She claims that "sexuality is formed by society," (5) basically that sex is a human construct.  She laments the fact that Christians simply cannot realize that sex is just "play."  Why should this assertion be uncontested?  It seems evident to me that sex is more then just play.  That the opposite of fearing and hating sex, is loving and respecting sex, and seeing it as sacred. 

I think the problem with her argument that sex is just play is two-fold.  First, she does not cite a study or any other reason to embrace such an idea., other then that is seems self evident to her.  In that case the Christian attitude towards sex is on equal footing.  But more importantly, her idea would seem to be undermined, by the vast amount of studies that really are out there: that sex outside of the traditional idea of a man and wife united in marriage, leads to all sorts of problems: diseases, children at risk, loneliness, abortions, attachment disorder, to name a few.  But I guess it could be argued that Russian Routlette is play as well.

Dr. Armstrong refers to many of the Church fathers, as well as the Christian Church in general as "neurotic."  Take her analysis of Jerome for example.  She takes his writings, about his struggles to remain chaste and celibate, as proof that he was neurotic.  This seems highly unfair.  While his language seems harsh and full of conflict, could not documentation be produced on just about all of us, particularly from those times when we go through a real struggle?  One can only wish that more of today's "celibate" (and married for that matter) clergy would take up such a cross of struggle as well.  When you think about it, the "sex is play" attitude is more clearly evident then the "sex is sacred" one, when considering the recent scandals in the Roman Catholic Church.

But can we really hope to know St. Jerome and come to an analysis, based upon his writings, particularly those when he was under distress?  Is it not pretty anachronistic, to take a modern idea, and really social construct, about neurosis, and apply them to the ancients?  Dr. Armstrong does not treat Jerome or anyone else for that matter, with much compassion.  They are only pawns to her, useful as long as they serve to prove her point.  She offers no counter-view.

She does bring ups some disturbing information, particularly about some individuals who have been declared "Saints" in the Roman Catholic Church; Catherine of Sienna for example.  Quite frankly I agree with much of her criticism, and am willing to say that unhealthy (and unchristian) ideas of sex, and other things are at play.  But that is a long way from admiting she is right about all Christian men being "misongynists."  She really does assert that.  (338)

 Additionaly she declares that all Christian women have as part of their makeup, guilt. (243) This is another unqualified assertion.  Women of other creeds do not suffer from guilt?  Even if it could be proved true, why is this so certainly "nurture" and not "nature?"

Another first principle of Dr. Armstrong as well as Dr. Torjesen, is that Christianity is simply a human construct, and not a deposit of Divine revelation.  Dr. Armstrong speaks of "using elements of Christianity more creatively." (XV)  She states that "..it is possible to use the Christian myth creatively to obtain a new and healthy freedom." (346)  Christianity is not a Truth to be adhered to, but a construct to be plundered.

 This presupposition will obviously lead to totally different conclusions, then ones who study the same information and data, yet begin their study by believing that Christianity is a source of Truth.  As much as a secular materialist would cringe at the idea, there is really no scientific reason to embrace their paradigm, anymore then there is to be a Christian believer. 

Armstrong, unlike Turjeson however, does acknowledge a counterpoint.  She states, "it could be objected that because I have dwelt only on these rather exceptional women my account has been biased." (346)

She is correct, I will object on those grounds, as well as others.  But my main objection to both books, particularly Torjesen’s, is that ideology should be formed by evidence, and not vice-versa.