comments:
Christian men seem to love using the bible to justify coercing their women into submission. OT Israel was described to have done many things considered abhorrent by today's standards (slavery, taking concubines, ritual sacrifice). Whether they were authorized, permitted, or encouraged to do those things is a matter of the past, and does not inform our current rights, responsibilities, or encouraged behavior. This could also include patriarchy, in which the women were viewed as property and incapable of defending themselves without a man to guard them. NT church doctrine might at first glance seem to also authorize and encourage placing women under the administration of men. Pauline epistles, for instance, describe a church milieu in which women are silent and submissive, or family dynamics where men are "over" the women. When contrasting the epistles against contemporary Roman culture, though, Paul's writings may often actually empower women above what they would otherwise would have. In the book Lives of Unforgetting by Stant Litore, the female priesthood of the early church (yes, this was a thing) was shown as an illustration of how the early church actually elevated women beyond what many churches do today, and how it may have in fact been a crucial part of Christianity's success in those times. It's not necessarily a direct rebuttal of complementarianism, but does indicate that this contemporary view that women "have their place" doesn't necessarily have a basis in ancient church history.