Women Leading Men: A Narrative Event

Featuring a Curious Christian, a Prudent Christian, and a New Testament

CC: “When speaking with their opponents, Jesus and Paul sometimes say things that almost don't sound ‘politically correct’. Are we allowed to talk like that too sometimes?”

PC: “NO! Certainly not. Those were one-off narrative events, not to be imitated. We must stick to the clear, direct teachings of the New Testament.”

CC: “Like what?”

PC: “Things like being gentle, not being angry, not being quarrelsome, etc. (1Tim. 1:8, 2Tim. 2:24-25).”

CC: “Ah, ok. So, we just need to stick to what they told us to apply, rather than imitating the things we observe them doing here or there?”

PC: “Exactly. After all, you’re not a Messiah or an Apostle, are you!”

CC: “I’m certainly not, no.”

PC: “There we are then!”

CC: “And so, other examples of clear direct teachings would be things like: 'I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man' (1Tim. 2:12)? Stuff like that?”

PC: “No, that was actually a one-off narrative event.”

CC: “Wait, what...?”

PC: “Yeah. Look at the commentaries and they'll tell you what was really going on in the church Paul was talking to at that time and it gives you further insight into what he probably meant by it.”

CC: “Fascinating. So, what was this narrative event? What did Paul mean by such a phrase?”

PC: “It was basically just some bolshy women in that specific church that he wanted to encourage not to usurp authority. Plus some goddess worship stuff. The bottom line is: he obviously didn't mean for it to apply to other churches.”

CC: “Obviously. And that's still the case even when he's referring to stuff that seems to apply beyond just that church, like when he makes reference to Eve in the garden of Eden as a kind of theological symbol for all women?”

PC: “Oh, that's all just part of the narrative detail. He's essentially saying to those bolshy women: 'Don't act like Eve did there.'”

CC: “Ok. And is that really all there is to it?”

PC: “Well we also don't really know what he means by the word often translated as 'authority' there. Paul doesn't use it anywhere else in the New Testament so how can we really know what it actually means...?”

CC: “Unless he literally made the word up, you'd think you could look at what the word means in other ancient literature maybe?”

PC: “You shouldn't need to go beyond the Bible to get the meaning. If it was so significant a word he would’ve used it elsewhere, but he didn’t. At the very least this shows we can’t interpret it with confidence either way.”

CC: “I'm not quite sure I follow.”

PC: “You will, in time.”

CC: “Ok. So, you’re basically saying that Paul didn't mean for other people/churches to apply what he 'clearly taught' there, is that right?”

PC: “Correct. It was clearly only for those women in that church at that time.”

CC: “I see now.”

PC: “Good!”

CC: “But you're also saying that Paul did want, say, the 'don't quarrel' and 'don’t be angry' teachings (which occur in that same letter, don’t they?) to apply to all people/churches, right?”

PC: “Correct.”

CC: “Ok. But how do we know that?”

PC: “Know what?”

CC: “How do we know with confidence that those teachings weren't also part of the 'narrative' for that church which Paul was referring to in 1Timothy at that specific time only?”

PC: “Oh. Well, because he talks about those themes of gentleness and quarrelling in other places too. That's one obvious way that we know it's not a one-off. It’s a theme that runs throughout the New Testament.”

CC: “So we can apply those to all churches at all times because they’re a more obvious theme/pattern in other texts?”

PC: “Exactly. Where there's repetition of clear teaching across texts, you know it's not just a one-off event.”

CC: “I guess that makes sense.”

PC: “You still seem unsure...”

CC: “It’s just that I could swear there are other times Paul clearly talks about women not exercising authority over men, doesn’t he? Like in 1Corinthians?”

PC: “Arguably. Depends how you look at it…”

CC: “What do you mean?”

PC: “Well, again, the commentaries show how the context of 1Corinthians was all about avoiding connotations of pagan goddess worship, etc.”

CC: “Ah, so the 'clear teaching' in 1Corinthians is actually just another 'narrative event'?”

PC: “Bingo!”

CC: “A narrative that we don't know the details of from the 1Corinthians text itself?”

PC: “Yes. But again, the commentaries are very insightful on this.”

CC: “I can see that.”

PC: “It also correlates with the available ancient literature.”

CC: “Ok. But forgive me, I'm still not quite sure how to get from that to saying that women actually can and should do the exact opposite of what Paul says in both of those 'narratives' in 1Timothy/1Corinthians? Is there a link I'm missing somewhere?”

PC: “Well you also have to factor in the other clear teachings on women preachers/leaders spanning right across the New Testament.”

CC: “Ah, ok, now we’re talking. Well that would make sense! So you’re saying there are, in fact, clear and direct teachings in the New Testament on women exclusively exercising authority over men that explain away those other texts that say it's prohibited?”

PC: “Yes. Loads of them.”

CC: “Why didn’t you say so before??”

PC: “Because you ask too many questions.”

CC: “I guess I'm just fascinated to hear about whether these other texts mention those other 'moments’ in 1Timothy and 1Corinthians which appeared to say the ‘opposite’ thing (strictly within the confines of the narrative event, of course). Do they mention those other texts at all to undo any potential misunderstanding from them?”

PC: “Not as such. The larger problem is that we rarely even notice these other explicit texts because we have a tendency to look at them through a misogynistic lens.”

CC: “Right. That would make sense. So you mean many people don’t even think of them as texts that teach that women should exercise authority over men?”

PC: “Exactly. You see what we’re up against?”

CC: “I do. Ok, so what are these other texts?”

PC: “Well, for starters there are the women who saw the resurrected Jesus and proclaimed this news to the male apostles (Luke 24:9-10). Can you get a more important moment of preaching in the history of the world than that...?!”

CC: “Wow, sounds amazing! So does that text include a clear command from Jesus that women should always be able to preach to men?”

PC: “Well, why would it not be saying that?”

CC: “I don’t know. I guess it could imply that?”

PC: “Well, what else would it be if not a full authorisation of women preachers over men?”

CC: “Some might say it was a one-off narrative event, maybe?”

PC: “Some might, but they’d be wrong. In the wider context we can see it as a clear teaching, for those with eyes to see.”

CC: “Right. And I guess the commentaries clarify that clarity further?”

PC: “Always.”

CC: “Ok, I think we’re making some progress, at least. But I'm just wondering, are there any slightly clearer ‘clear teachings’ than that one...? Just in case someone doesn’t have a commentary to hand to add the further clarity that might not be immediately clear within the clarity of the text as they read it?”

PC: “I'm guessing you already know about Junia?”

CC: “No, who's that?”

PC: “Oh…she's only the apostle who pioneered and led several churches…! She’s only the woman who was essentially of equal authority with Paul and exerted a major influence on the life of the early church...!”

CC: “Woah. Seriously?”

PC: “Big time.”

CC: “Wild! I confess I haven’t really heard much about her, to be honest.”

PC: “Well, you’re not alone, unfortunately. It's frankly appalling that her colossal contribution to early church polity, governance, and doctrine gets overlooked.”

CC: “So did she also write letters to the churches she oversaw, like the other apostles? If so, wouldn’t they be included in the books of the New Testament?”

PC: “Well, not all apostles wrote letters which made it into the canon. And don't forget: it was a misogynistic patriarchal culture so it would've been more difficult to preserve any letters she wrote. Many would've just dismissed them.”

CC: “Because of all the misogyny?”

PC: “Exactly.”

CC: “Even among fellow believers who would’ve been responsible for passing on and preserving such letters?”

PC: “I'm afraid so. Misogyny has always been rife in the Church. Not much has changed.”

CC: “It almost sounds like a conspiracy!”

PC: “It’s not a ‘conspiracy theory’. It’s just the truth. If you want conspiracy theories, try the misogynist conservatives. They specialise in them!”

CC: “Right. I just mean that it seems such a tragic accident that her contribution is so unknown.”

PC: “Accident…?”

CC: “Woah, I see what you mean. But wait, hang on. Obviously Jesus couldn’t have been a misogynist too, could he?”

PC: “Of course not.”

CC: “But when he chose his twelve apostles, he didn’t choose a single woman. Was this because people were too misogynistic to handle it at the time?”

PC: “Exactly.”

CC: “And presumably that’s also why the apostles didn't even consider appointing a woman to replace Judas in Acts 1?”

PC: “Can you see how powerful the stronghold is now...?”

CC: “So powerful that not even Jesus could challenge it, it seems…”

PC: “Well, as you know, Jesus was winsome, not combative (except in occasional narrative events when speaking to conservative types).”

CC: “So, Jesus’ plan to undermine the very things Paul was later going to say about women not exercising authority over men, was meant to be a very gradual thing?”

PC: “Well, he was hardly going to go blazing in like some Christian Nationalist and try and 'turn over the tables' of misogyny just like that, was he?!”

CC: “Maybe not. But there was that time when he actually turned over the tables in the temple, wasn't there? In fact, isn't that where the phrase ‘turning the tables’ actually comes from, because Jesus literally did just that?”

PC: “That was a one-off narrative event.”

CC: “A one-off narrative event for Jesus?”

PC: “Yes.”

CC: “So, it was a one-off narrative event within a one-off narrative event?”

PC: “Exactly. Not even Jesus is allowed to imitate his own actions there, let alone us!”

CC: “Ok, but hang on, even if Jesus secretly intended to show us (without actually telling us) that he really wanted women to exercise authority over men, does this Junia person you mentioned clearly show that? I guess that's where I'm still a bit confused.”

PC: “How is it confusing?”

CC: Well, you mentioned Junia when I asked for a clear New Testament teaching for why women actually can exercise authority over men. Does it literally say that when it mentions her?”

PC: “Well, just read Romans 16:7 for yourself: 'Greet Andronicus and Junia[s] my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles'. What more do you want...?”

CC: “Well, I mean, even if Junia[s] was a woman (and it's presumably possible that it's not actually a woman)–”

PC: “–DEFINITELY a woman!”

CC: “How do we know?”

PC: “Because studies of ancient literature show that there aren't any records in the ancient world of men called Junia[s].”

CC: “Ok... It just seems like a lot seems to hang on that, and there can't be that many ancient world documents which happen to have that name in it, so it still seems at least slightly speculative, right?”

PC: “Not really. It’s entirely clear. What's not so clear is the misogynistic lens which might lead someone to doubt the scholarly consensus which has proven it with utmost confidence.”

CC: “It just seems like there's a lot riding on that one name that only comes up once in a list of almost forty other names of people Paul refers to in Romans 16. Didn't you say earlier it was not good to read too much into one word?”

PC: “This is a name, not just a word.”

CC: “Well, yes, but I'd have thought that makes it even less of an obvious foundation to build upon, doesn't it?”

PC: “You think names don't matter to God...?”

CC: “Of course they do. I'm just saying your earlier point seemed to say we can't build a certain argument off of one-off words in texts.”

PC: “It's not just about her name anyway; it's about what's actually said about her.”

CC: “You mean the bit that says she was 'known to the apostles'?”

PC: “Well, yes – though, less biased translations say 'among' the apostles, which makes a more obvious case. But it also says she was a 'kinsman'.”

CC: “'Kinsman' almost sounds like a 'male' term?”

PC: “Exactly. That's how we know she was a leader like the other men.”

CC: “Because she was described in similar terms to the male leaders?”

PC: “Exactly. Paul's showing us that there was literally no difference between Junia and, say, Peter or Barnabas, etc. Like when he says in Galatians 3:28 that there’s 'no male, no female', etc.”

CC: “So, you're saying that Paul is subverting the patriarchal culture of the time by clearly showing us that women can be brotherly kinsmen, fellow apostles, etc., because he otherwise wouldn't have described her like that?”

PC: “You're finally getting there.”

CC: “And if Junia[s] was an apostle–”

PC: “–DEFINITELY an apostle!”

CC: “–ok, if she definitely was, then is that case closed? i.e. Does that definitively prove that women can/should exercise authority over men in contradiction to those other passages that say they can’t?”

PC: “There's a bit more to it, but basically, yes.”

CC: “It's a big 'if' though, isn't it? To me, this small mention still doesn't seem like a clear and obvious teaching that could overturn the authority of those other texts. Do you see what I mean?”

PC: “Well hang on, we haven't even discussed the fact that women prophesied in the early church! That's basically preaching, if not even more authoritative.”

CC: “Where does it say they prophesied?”

PC: “Well, for starters there's Phillip’s prophetess daughters in Acts 21:9.”

CC: “Isn’t Acts a 'narrative' though?”

PC: “Yes, but it's also backed up by clear teaching about it in 1Corinthians 11, you see.”

CC: “Ah, ok. But hang on again, earlier on we said that 1Corinthians was a kind of one-off 'narrative' thing too, didn't we?”

PC: “Yes, but that was in relation to the authority stuff of men over women, etc.”

CC: “Ok, so you're saying that there is, in fact, clear teaching in 1Corinthians that we can and should follow today, which teaches us that women should exercise authority over men, and that it applies to all churches, even today?”

PC: “Of course!”

CC: “What does it say, exactly?”

PC: “Well, it refers to the explicit and recurrent practice of women prophesying in the context of the whole church.”

CC: “As a direct teaching?”

PC: “More or less. It occurs within the context of the church receiving teaching about how to handle prophecy within church meetings in general, so yes.”

CC: “Ah, ok. What kind of stuff is it talking about, specifically?”

PC: “A mixture really, like keeping good order, etc.”

CC: “Hang on, isn't part of that 'good order' where it says that when women prophesy they should wear a head covering to show the authority of their husband over them...? (1Cor. 11:2-16)”

PC: “Well, yes, but again, that obviously related to the context of the time. Hardly any churches apply that today anyway, and the only ones that do are usually weird. That should tell you something!”

CC: “Quite. I guess it just seems a bit mad that one of the main texts to prove that women can exercise authority over men comes in a context when they’re being told (within the narrative event, of course) to show that they should not exercise authority over men.”

PC: “Well, as Paul also says: 'the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men' (1Cor. 1:25).”

CC: “I guess I must be the fool here because I'm just still not seeing how prophesying-with-head-coverings-on is a blatantly clear teaching that women should exercise authority over men. Do you see what I mean?”

PC: “Well, that's because we haven't even mentioned the numerous other examples of women teaching men in the New Testament.”

CC: “Oh, like who?”

PC: “Where do you want to start? Priscilla? The woman at the well? Mary? Priscilla? Phoebe? Lydia? Priscilla? Nympha? Euodia? Syntyche? Lois? Eunice?”

CC: “Priscilla seems to come up a lot.”

PC: “Well, she ought to. She was Apollos’ leader, who taught him theology!”

CC: “Really? Apollos, the famous preacher?”

PC: “Oh yes.”

CC: “How did that come about? Was it in some kind of church leadership setting?”

PC: “Not exactly. It was more of an exclusive mentoring kind of thing.”

CC: “That’s odd. In that time, wouldn’t it have been weird for a woman to spend time alone with another man like that?”

PC: “Well, her husband was with her at the time.”

CC: “Ah, ok. So, he was just chaperoning her in the background whilst she did some authoritative teaching to Apollos?”

PC: “Well I guess he was also involved.”

CC: “In the teaching?”

PC: “Yeah, I guess you could say they were both teaching Apollos, sort-of.”

CC: “Ok, so this is one of the go-to examples of women exercising authority over men in the New Testament per se and it’s not actually clear that Priscilla is even teaching anything on her own beyond the authority of her husband, or even that she’s the primary teacher in that instance?”

PC: “Well that would be the misogynistic way of looking at it, perhaps.”

CC: “Would it?”

PC: “You might want to ask yourself why you’re so quick to assume that Priscilla wasn’t taking the lead? Might it be because there’s a part of you that doesn’t want Priscilla to take the lead?”

CC: “Because it would challenge my assumptions?”

PC: “I’ll leave you to figure that one out.”

CC: “Sure. At this point, though, I’m still really just trying to ask questions about why it’s apparently so clear. To me, it doesn’t seem at first glance (or even second or third glance) to be clear at all.”

PC: “What isn’t clear to you?”

CC: “Well, it doesn’t seem abundantly clear that Priscilla, like many of the others in the list you mentioned, are actually exercising authority over men.”

PC: “Doesn’t it? Why?”

CC: “Well, I’m sure they’re doing all sorts of variously important things. But surely an interpretation with such significant implications for the whole Church either way, don't we need it to be absolutely clear?”

PC: “Clear about what?”

CC: “About the idea that these New Testament examples of women playing a key role within the early church definitively means that they exercised authority over men in ways that entirely undermine the apparently clearer New Testament texts that say they can’t?”

PC: “You’re not thinking enough about the wider liberative narrative being portrayed in all of Scripture. Nor all the amazing women pastors there are today, all of whom know that God has called them to their role over men.”

CC: “Well that's kind-of difficult to verify. In any case, that's a separate thing to whether the Bible actually teaches whether it's ok or not, isn't it?”

PC: “The real question is: why can't you see it...? Is there a part of you that doesn’t really want to see it, maybe?”

CC: “I don't think so, I'm just-”

PC: “-Why might that be, do you think?”

CC: “I'm still just struggling to see why all those fairly ambiguous examples of women being involved in various things in the early church - great as they are - somehow overrides the clearer teachings about not exercising authority over men, that's all. Why aren't all those examples not also seen as one-off narrative events that don't apply to all churches at all times as well?”

PC: “Why do you hate women?”

CC: “I’m sorry?”

PC: “I think you’re finally starting to get it.”