Was St Paul anti-women?  There are arguments for and against.

The Case for the Prosecution

Of course St Paul was anti-women.  He kept telling them to be submissive, subject to their husbands and to be silent in church.  Here are some of the things he said:

“Women should be silent in the assemblies.  For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate.  If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”            (1 Corinthians 14.34-35)

“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the  Lord.” (Ephesians 5.22)

I am not even getting into the verses like 1 Timothy 2.11-15 in which women “will be saved through child-bearing”, as these letters may not be authentically from Paul – the jury is out on that one.  St Paul’s advice in 1 Corinthians is enough to condemn him.

The Case for the Defence

We know that in the ancient world women held an inferior position.  This makes some of Paul’s writings truly radical.  For example:

“The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.  For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”  (1 Corinthians 7.3,4)

And St Paul is clear about the fundamental equality between men and women:

“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”  (Galatians 3.28)

His personal relationships with women were marked by respect and affection, witness the greetings at the end of Romans;

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae,… she has been a benefactor of many and of me as well.  Greet Prisca and Aquila (Prisca was the wife) who work with me in Christ Jesus…  Greet Mary who has worked very hard among you.  Greet Andronicus and Junia (Julia? Junias?), my relatives; … they are prominent among the apostles…  Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa.  Greet the beloved Persis,who has worked hard in the Lord.  Greet Rufus… and greet his mother – a mother to me also….  Greet Philologos, Julia, Nereus and his sister….”  (Romans 16.1-15)

Altogether Paul greets 29 people individually, ten of them women.  It is as clear as daylight that St Paul was no misogynist.

What St Paul really thought

St Paul started his life as a traditionalist and ended it as a radical.  But the two sides of his personality could come into conflict, as they did over the position of women.  What I like about St Paul is how he lets it all hang out, and is prepared to argue against himself.  Nowhere is this clearer than in his argument as to whether women should be obliged to cover their heads in church – similar to the question whether Muslim women are obliged to wear the hijab.  The passages come from 1 Corinthians 11.3-16.

Paul starts off with a classic rabbinic argument from Genesis:

“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved… (This may refer to punishment for adultery).  For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man… For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

It is an argument of sorts, though not a very good one.  And what are the angels doing in it?  But note that Paul assumes that women will pray and prophesy in church. meetings!  However,  Paul cannot curb his wish to be fair.

“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God.”

This completely undercuts his previous argument.  So he takes the aesthetic approach:

“Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”

He knows this is a weak argument.  So he falls back on the classic approach of the conservative, Why should you be different?

“But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”

Today’s Case:  The Ordination of Women

I think that St Paul would be deeply uneasy about having women priests and bishops, but when push came to shove, he would vote for it on two grounds:  In Christ there is no distinction between men and women; and if not ordaining them creates scandal in the wider society, then we should go ahead.