If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard a thousand times. Calvinism is a hierarchical system of thought and it is hierarchical in marriage and it is hierarchical in churches. The more one emphasizes God’s sovereignty the more one can emphasize male sovereignty. Therefore, Calvinism is inherently complementarian and that means it will — for those who aren’t complementarian or who think women should be leaders in churches and pastors etc — suppress women in churches.
If you think this, you need to read Ken Stewart’s new book, Ten Myths About Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed Tradition , because he has a whole chapter on that examines the myth that Calvinism rejects gender equality. Got your attention? Read on friends.
What is your experience with Calvinism and women (in the home, at work, ministry)?
“It is hard,” he says to open the chp, “to imagine that anyone would point to the movement in which John Calvin holds such a prominent place and suggest that it had helped to pioneer the advancement of women” (219). And concludes the chp with these words: “The evidence supports the conviction that he [Calvin] encouraged an enlarged role for believing women in society (on behalf of the church) and in the ministries of the church itself” (235). But… but…
… “it is necessary for us now to recognize that portions of the Reformed world today fall well behind Calvin’s own demonstrated sixteenth-century readiness to capitalize on the then-expanding influence of women in kingdom work” (235).
Two probings then suggest to Ken Stewart that Calvin was more open than many of his followers, and that means that those today who think the NeoReformed (or perhaps even better NeoPuritan) groups who are so intent on raising complementarianism in home and church to the front of beliefs and practices may not be continuing the movement Calvin himself began. Here are some elements to consider:
First, Calvin was responding to a medieval world that confined women and to a Renaissance that was clearly showing shifts toward women, including their inclusion in the educational systems in a few places. Shifts, then, were in the air.
Second, the Reformation laid the groundwork for serious changes in its commitment to the priesthood of all believers, an emphasis on the sacredness of Christian vocations, a robust sense of a Christian marriage, and the overall greater freedom that was beginning to become the norm. Marriage was more about love and companionship, for instance.
Third, women figured more prominently in the European locations that favored the Swiss Reformation. In education the Swiss reformers began to develop education for girls. Oddly enough, the Swiss Reformers found greater freedom for divorce because it became more “principled” (225). Calvin himself favored divorce by women who were wronged. There were plenty of women martyrs due to their faith. And there were good examples of spontaneous ministries developed by women, including women like Katharina Schütz Zell and Marie Dentière.
Fourth, Stewart thinks Calvin was a progressive for his time. Here’s why: (1) Calvin rejected the view that women were defective males and believed both men and women were made in God’s image, though he clearly was complementarian in marriage and church speaking. (2) He encouraged the development of women deacons (distribution of charity). (3) Of more emphasis by Stewart was the correspondence of Calvin with women of political influence who could aid in the development of the Swiss Reformation.
Fifth, Stewart sketches the Reformed movement after Calvin, showing how it backtracked and then moved forward (say in Scotland and in the USA). He admits that some see an arsenal of weapons against the progress for women.
Sixth, the critical factor is the evangelical missionary movement where it was proven what women could do if given the freedom to exercise their gifts: not just as wives but as teachers and gospelers.
So, the issues are these: Calvin was in some ways more open than many Calvinists today; Calvinists have plenty to learn from the missionaries; Calvinists need to see if what women do is biblical or a reflection of cultural trends.
Interesting… My initial thought is, for someone whose beliefs are leaning toward Calvinist doctrine, this is a hopeful perspective. However, for those who believe and practice a neo-Reformed, uber conservative faith, I doubt (Lord, help my unbelief!) that their authoritarian, exclusivist beliefs and practices will be swayed in the least. In our current time and place, the dogmatism seems to be as much about “culture war” as church tradition. “A dog barks when his master is attacked…”
Is there a group of theologically Calvinist churches or a theologically Calvinist denomination that has female lead pastors? Stewart may present theological possibilities, but I’d want to see where have these theological possibilities been put into action.
For my Church History class this semester, I wrote a short paper on the views of Calvin and Luther on women, using their own writings as my sources. Calvin, bless him, believed that women were made subordinate from the beginning of creation, and that the Fall meant that their subordination to men only became more harsh. Luther, on the other hand, agreed that women were supposed to be subordinate, but that if the Fall had never occurred, women would be/still be equal to men. This might have had something to do with his wife, Katherine Von Bora, a strong and intelligent woman in her own right.
I’m not sure that the male heirs of Calvin have changed their opinions all that much…
I am extremely glad that Dr. Stewart, as a professor at a conservative Reformed seminary and a Christian thinker within the movement, has noted this issue in its historical context. As an egalitarian within the Reformed strand of the faith, I am acutely aware of this issue and the negativity that can surround it. I don’t think the negativity that comes from without (and sometimes within) the movement is completely prompted by the complementarian position itself, but by two related issues. First, some churches handle the complementarian issue well, but I’ve seen many that do not. Holding to a complementarian position does not mean that women are completely neglected from important leadership tasks in the church insofar as their view of the position allows. Too many times, I’ve seen women’s giftings and talents completely neglected rather than allowing them to function in every possible capacity in the church that is allowed by their view of position.
Second, I wonder if those who hold to the complementarian viewpoint, emphasize it too much in their teaching, preaching, theologizing. It seems as if sometimes, this secondary issue shifts to a primary issue for many of these churches, especially amongst the “New Calvinism” or Young, Restless and Reformed movement. I hope Dr. Stewart’s words have at least given all of us a pause to reexamine the Reformed movement in a more holistic manner and for some to realize that what they are espousing isn’t commiserate with their tradition.
I have never seen this as a Calvinist vs non-Calvinist issue. Perhaps I am wrong in this, but I have seen it as a cultural and hermeneutical issue.
If one values hierarchical authority – ambition and competition – power becomes an entrenched value.
Traditionalist views resist change as necessarily bad, and no one can deny that the view of women has undergone revolutionary change in the last 100 to 200 years.
Protection of the divinity of scripture forbids nuance (except for some on any issue that indicates human free response, or God changing his mind or responding to events).
In the office of our new, Calvinist CofE Rector at the end of a meeting about why I hadn’t been in church much since he took over the job:
Me: “I’m just looking for a church where I’m not always out in left field and where I can use my gifts.”
Rector: “About your gifts. Frankly, because you’re literally one flesh with (my husband with whom he had a disagreement about youth work), you wouldn’t be permitted to use your gifts at St. ~’s anyway.”
It is my one and only Calvinism and women experience because I didn’t stick around long enough to have another one. Friends who did stay have many many more.
On a very positive note, that one experience has led me to “look the bible in the eye” and really figure out my theology. Many thanks to Scot and this blog for helping in the process.
Some general reflections raised by this topic:
- As one of the few reformed persons at the United Methodist Seminary I attended,I was the only one who was happy when we were assigned Calvin’s “Institutes” but, most of my class mates were pleasantly surprised by what they found when they actually read Calvin-as opposed to what they had been told about him.
- For better or worse, Calvin wouldn’t recognize most modern forms of “calvinsim”.
- Calvin was a person of his times, and needs to be read and interpreted as such. Some of what he wrote remains extremely helpful and insightful, some other parts, not so much.
-as to women in leadership- PC(USA), Reformed Church in America, and the Christian Reformed Church ( somewhat less enthusiastically than the others)
I’ve always thought it was fundamentalism that rejected gender equality, not Calvinism. It just so happens that many fundamentalists are also Calvinists but there is no direct correlation.
Good thoughts from Stewart. Thanks Scot.
I find the contemporary embrace of conservatism on economic, social, and political issues an interesting contrast to the progressive stance and actions of many of our historical examples in Chrisitan life and history.
Joey @ #8 — yes, I have perceived the intersection of fundamentalism and Calvinism. Why is it that Calvinism (in its current-day version) seems to also be the overwhelming doctrinal bent of fundamentalists?
rjs @ #5 — I think you are saying (much more articulately) what I was thinking in #1. The authoritarian, complementarian practices go far beyond anything Calvin may or may not have originally intended. The ideology is so much driven by the sense of battling cultural evils. I think in hyper-conservative individuals and churches extremism is a response to all that is viewed as a threat coming from the worldly culture.
Having added my $1.02 worth, I will admit that I have not read Calvin’s Institutes. The focus of my contemplation of late has been more on resultant practices of faith than on any systematic theology at the foundation. I’m not drawn to Calvinism, whether egalitarian practices are embraced or not. If TULIP is in any way close to an accurate description of Calvinist doctrine, then I can only say that the Holy Spirit convicts me differently when I read the Bible and encounter Christ in my experiences.
I’m a worship leader in the Reformed Church in America (RCA), and we fully affirm women elders, deacons, pastors, and all forms of leadership. For us, though, our main hurtle is no longer denominational, but cultural. In the Midwest (Iowa, to be specific), there is still quite a bit of push-back on the idea of a woman pastor, or even elder. I believe this is simply a matter of education, and helping people realize that the “doctrine” they’re fighting for is more a cultural tradition – at this point – than anything else.
So appreciate your postings
I am grateful to Scot for highlighting this chapter of the book.Of the several blogs which have commented on _Ten Myths_ to date, Jesus Creed is the first to pinpoint this chapter as having particular significance.
In a nutshell, my contention is that given the Swiss Reformation’s renaissance orientation to the equal dignity of women, their educability, and their possession of both literary gifts (capable of uses for the kingdom)and ministry gifts (capable at least of use in diaconal ministry), we have got a lot of explaining and back-peddling to do if we want to insist that a Reformed expression of Christianity necessarily entails the suppression of the ministry of women.
My argument does not entail any attempt to overthrow Pauline statements about the roles of pastor and elder, but I show that both in the Reformation era and since Pauline statements about those particular ministries were not seen as providing any blanket prohibition against the ministry of women. The Reformation era had ‘church mothers’? Why doesn’t ours? The Great Awakening era had influential women as the guiding hand over networks of churches dependent on their financial patronage. Such a practice is unthinkable among conservative Calvinists now. The modern missionary era demonstrated abroad that women had ministry gifts being underused at home. The twentieth century trend to open ministries at home to women owed as much to this noble heritage of 400 years as it did to any questioning of Pauline prohibitions. Current conservative Calvinism needs to ask whether it is not stuck in a river ‘eddy’ on this question, struggling against a current which is at least partially to be explained in terms of providential direction.
Along with several others wouldn’t lay this issue at the feet of any particular system . . . I really understand Calvinism and other systematic systems as Historical theology more than once-for-all Systematic theology. That is, they are fine examples of faithful people doing Biblical theology in their culture. And everyone has to do theology-in-culture, while learning from past Historical theology. When we freeze-frame a theology-in-culture we end up out-Calvining Calvin.
“When we freeze-frame a theology-in-culture we end up out-Calvining Calvin.”
And out-Pauling Paul.
@Elaine 16.: +1
Some people want to engrave the revelation of the Spirit on tables of stone.
I mean Elaine 15.
This highlights where this blog is very valuable to me. While I’m sure some may consider us “soft,” the PC(USA) is undeniably a “Calvinist” tradition, and we have not only supported women in church leadership for several decades now, but I honestly wasn’t aware that some who denied women this right did so “Calvinist” (as opposed to merely “biblical”) principles (although I was certainly aware of many denominations against women in minister that were indeed themselves Calvinist).
I have also noticed a correlation between (neo)calvinism and complementarianism.
Because I am neither a calvinist or a complementarian, I may be slightly biased, but the material in this blog is new to me! I am excited by it. I also have not read Calvin’s writings (at least not many of them), but am always open to reading someone, whether I agree with them or not. This has made me curious and I think I shall do some more reading within the realm of Calvin about this.
Douglass’ Women, Freedom, and Calvin, to my mind, is a must-read supplement to Stewart’s thoughts on this matter.
The best book I’ve read to date for the opposing view (that Renaissance/Reformation=good for women) is Wiesner-Hanks’ Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe.
Finally, for a decent challenge to Wiesner-Hanks and the assumption that the puritan movement was a setback to Calvin’s progressive views on women, see the pertinent bits in Ryken’s Worldly Saints.
PC(USA) may officially support female pastors, but how many PC(USA) churches actually have female pastors?
TrishaM #6 Wow, what a terrible thing for someone to say to you. I hope you have found a more welcoming church.
Susan N #10 There is much more to the Reformed tradition than TULIP, but the better place to look for it (non hierarchical, inclusive, takes Scripture seriously and Reformed) would be in the Presbyterian Church (USA) or the Reformed Church of America. For some reason, non denominational churches seem to hold to a, shall we say, more strict form of Calvinism.
Or if you prefer to read- may I suggest Eugene Peterson or William Placher.(the first two who come to mind).
Jason,to answer your question, a 2008 survey said 27% of pastors were women, 45% of specialized clergy were women, and 52% of elders were women. Where I live in Grand Rapids MI, there are six PC USA churches, one has a woman pastor, one a woman co pastor and one two women associate pastors.
Wow. Reading your blogs always remind me to keep doing what I’m doing… no matter what people may think.
Thank you for your words of encouragement and affirmation
I could not find recent statistics about the number of female pastors in the CRC which has about 1000 congregations. Back in 06 it seems there were less than 20 head female pastors and less than 70 female pastors in total.
Our local church has lots of female elders, I’d guess around 50%.
I really wonder if the complementarian position correlates very well with reformed theology. IMO the numbers of female pastors will increase over time as the culture changes.
Dave W
My biblio (#20) was a little confused:
The bit about Douglass stands, but it was the collection of essays by Sherrin Marshall (Women in Reformation and Counter-Reformation Europethat challenges the more positive takes on the Reformation toward women.
And it was Steven Ozment (When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe) who gave a more scholarly and positive view on the effects of the Reformation toward women.
The other two books are very good (Wiesner more of straight-up history and Ryken more lay-level and devotional), nevertheless.
Jason @21,
I have personnaly participated in the ordination of two women in the PC(USA), my parent’s church had a woman as senior pastor (for at least 20 years). We have ordained women as Elders for 75+ years and as Pastors for over 50 years. There are women at every level in leadership–right now the Moderator of General Assembly is a woman.
I’m not sure “Calvinism” should be blamed for complementarianism but churches, of all types, get in cultural ruts.
Why should Calvinism not be blamed? Because real Calvinism and real Calvinists genuinely strive to base their beliefs on Scripture. Of course that might bring them to complementarian conclusions but not necessarily so. I’m a 5-point Calvinist, yet I’m not at all convinced that we have gotten in right in the past on the role of women in the church. Case and point: 1 Timothy 2 is often sited to “prove” that women should not teach or lead men. Yet, the word Paul chose to use in that context was “gune” and “aner” which are the only Greek words that mean “wife” and “husband”. If Paul wished to address women in general, rather than wives, there are other words he could have used to do that. But he chose to use the word “wife”. And in almost all instances of Paul’s use of these words in his epistles, they are translated as husband and wife. In fact, even if the rest of 1 Timothy, his other uses of these words are translated as husband and wife. So why were these words translated man and woman in 1 Timothy 2? Could it be the bias of male translators? It’s a fair question.
A very fair translation of 1 Timothy 2:8-12, in light of Paul’s overwhelming use of the terms gune and aner in his other epistles and in the rest of 1 Timothy itself suggests strongly that Paul was addressing submission of wives to their husbands, rather than forbidding women from teaching men. And Paul gives, Adam and Eve as an example (v. 13), not as the first male and female, but as the first husband and wife. In any case, there is certainly enough doubt on how 1 Timothy 2 should be translated that it should never be used as a weapon against women to stifle women and keep them from doing what they believe God is calling them to do.
So my point? Calvinists overwhelmingly turn to Scripture to decide matters. And we make our case based on Scripture. That is how it should be. And by-and-large that is how it is.
Susan N @ #10 – That was my experience exactly. Jesus Christ is my savior, not John Calvin.
Yes, the Reformation era did see improvements for women in some regards (education, no longer seen as evil temptresses), but I do not think we can look back and affirm that historical Calvinism was good for women. I’ll outline a few reasons.
1. Darcyjo already mentioned the views of Luther and Calvin towards women and the fall. There is greater hope for Luther’s views than for Calvin’s, in which women are inherently secondary and subject. For Calvin, women are ontologically lesser. The order of creation argument is still made by fundamentalists today in supporting female subordination.
2. Mothering and homemaking were redefined as vocations ordained by God and granted special status. Modern complementarians still argue that mothering is the highest calling and vocation for a woman. Woman’s redemption is found in mothering.
3. Calvin’s cognitio dei vs. cognitio hominis; all people are seen as equal before God and there are no hierarchies, but in a fallen world hierarchies are necessary for order, and men are on top. There is certainly gender equality when Calvin regards how God views humanity, but it takes a big turn when shifting towards practicality and every day life.
4. Calvin’s correspondence with women of political influence does not say much about his favorable views towards women. They had power and they had money. If Calvin was corresponding in similar manners with peasant women then it would be a different story.
5. Silent acceptance and submission for women who are in abusive relationships is not a mark of gender equality. “And so we exhort her in the name of God to bear with patience the cross which God has seen fit to place upon her; and meanwhile not to deviate from the duty which she has before God to please her husband, but to be faithful whatever happens.” The sovereignty and providence of God cements suffering and oppression as a part of the plan. Those in power are allowed to abuse and exploit while the oppressed learn how to bear their crosses and accept the will of God. The issue of theodicy is still alive and raging today when we look at poverty, oppression, and natural disasters.
May Potter’s article “Gender Equality and Gender Hierarchy in Calvin’s Theology” is an excellent article that examines both sides of this issue.
I appreciate the lively discussion which Scot’s excerpt from my chapter has generated here. Please bear in mind that I have not tried to demonstrate that Calvin was a ‘closet egalitarian’ and that this ought to be recognized, belatedly. I have only argued a more modest case which is that Calvin, by his sharing in the Renaissance mindset accepted the dignity, educability and legal rights of women more than has been generally acknowledged. He argued unsuccessfuly for women as deacons, pressed for the right of wronged women to sue for divorce, occasionally sought prefaces written by females for his publications, and wrote letters to powerful queens and princesses in France and England imploring them to declare for the Reformation, when by doing so they would shield many defenceless evangelical believers. Reformed history since has a mixed record in following up Calvin’s better instincts. But strides forward were made especially in the eighteenth century (through the periods of Awakening) and in the nineteenth century (in the century of missionary expansion). The enlarged opportunities for recognized ministry by women which have characterized the twentieth century (especially post WWII)have extensively built on these numerous precedents, all of which are found within the history of the Reformed tradition.
ken stewart said:
The enlarged opportunities for recognized ministry by women which have characterized the twentieth century (especially post WWII)have extensively built on these numerous precedents, all of which are found within the history of the Reformed tradition.
hmm…i’m not sure how much credit the calvinists really get for precedence as to women in ministry. aren’t you forgetting the quakers and methodists? while i admit i don’t know that much of church history i believe it was also (primarily?) the efforts and influence of the quakers with the abolitionists & women’s suffragists (e.g. lucretia coffin mott) and the methodists/holiness movement (e.g. phoebe palmer, azusa street) who have helped propel women into ministry. certainly charles finney gets credit for supporting and allowing women in ministry but he wasn’t exactly a typical calvinist and many calvinists disavow his teachings.
Linda:
I’m afraid you mistake my intention here. I never claimed that the whole Christian or Protestant tradition was indebted to these developments, traceable to the sixteenth century. I am simply saying to those who do identify with the Reformed theological tradition, and who may quibble with the extending of ministry opportunities to persons of both genders that there is an organic growth on this theme extending back into the sixteenth century within the tradition they call their own.
I take nothing away from eighteenth and nineteenth century developments _outside_ the Reformed tradition (Methodism, Finney etc). But the person I am trying to convince would suppose that such examples, from outside the Reformed tradition, are non-applicable to their churches. And this is the intractable problem: coming to terms with developments of understanding and interpretation within a theological tradition without resorting too easily to the idea of ‘defection’ from the original ideal.
I find it especially interesting that within the Presbyterian tradition, there is evidence that Christian women – engaged in foreign missionary labor — returned home to campaign both for wider ministry opportunity in the churches at home _and_ for voting rights. The three were like ‘beads’ on a string.