This is a summary of the eighth chapter of Cynthia Long Westfall's book: Paul and Gender. One more chapter after this and I'm done! Phew! This chapter is called Authority, and it just about turned everything I thought about church positions on its head.
In this chapter, Westfall attempts to answer the question: what did Paul teach about authority and how does this relate to gender and the church? By the way, I have organized this summary differently than Westfall's chapter, and thus you will see that I skip around in my references. Her chapter's flow makes no sense to me.
Westfall explains how there was a difference between Greco-Roman practice and ideals regarding women in authority. In general, philosophers taught that honor came from knowing one's place in society and following social conventions. However, the Greco-Roman male's dream was "to gain the position of paterfamilias with as many men as possible subjugated to his patronage" (Westfall, 244).
Likewise, while the Greek philosophy of Plato, Stobaeus, and Aristotle had different views of women and authority, Westfall explains that "even during the most conservative period of practice, the Greek philosophers acknowledge the authority of men in marriage and the family, but in the complex social and power structure, women also ruled over men in various social forms" (Westfall, 247). Evidence of this has been "well documented across the Roman Empire, through inscriptions, papyri, and other evidence (Westfall, 262).
Some of these places of female authority included "head of a household (materfamilias), a mother of sons, a patron of men, a master of male slaves, and a supervisor of male servants" (Westfall, 246). Women also functioned as priests in local cults and over businesses themselves (such as Lydia who sold purple cloth). Women also "exercised authority and influence in various ways as patrons and benefactors. The accounts of Paul's mission in Acts and the Pauline corpus indicate that women were wielding authority and influence in the household and in public" (Westfall, 262).
Thus, it's historically inaccurate to assume that when Paul says for wives to submit to husbands, he means that all women ought to submit to all men in all places. That would mean that Paul was asking women masters to submit to their male slaves or servants.
When Paul gives instructions about social orders, he's not calling for social reform. Paul would not tell female masters to encourage their male servants to exercise authority over them as a way to bring out some kind of inherent leadership quality in men. Westfall explains this to counter John Piper's idea that mature women will "affirm and receive and nurture the strength and leadership of men in some form in all relationships with men" (Piper as quoted in Westfall, 264-65).
Rather, when Paul gives social order instructions, he is instructing Christians how to survive in an environment that didn't want slaves, servants, or citizens to rise up against masters, bosses or governors, thus undermining their social structure. First-century Greco-Rome wasn't the time and place for social revolution. That would come later. First, they had to survive waves of persecution from Roman emperors.
Thus, Paul reinforces that all those who are receiving benefits from masters, bosses, parents, husbands, or governing authorities are obliged to reciprocate with submission and respect. In some cases, this included men reciprocating with submission and respect to women.
Westfall states that Paul's instructions about how to act under authority are not given to support a hierarchy of authority or to empower those on top, but to render to benefactors their due (Westfall, 255). Like Paul says in Romans 13:7 "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed" (ESV).
"This was the essence of grace and the obligation of gratitude. God's people were to pay or at least acknowledge their debts to humanity..." (Westfall, 255). Thus, Paul reminds church members to reciprocate to those who work hard in the church—"they owe their submission to these leaders, (cf. 1 Cor. 16:16; 1 Thess. 5:12)" (Westfall, 255).
House Church
So who are those leaders in the church? Who are those who work hard?
Westfall reminds us that when it came to leading a house church, Paul lists leadership as given by the Holy Spirit just like the other spiritual gifts: prophecy, teaching, instructing, exhorting, administrating, apostleship (messengering), hospitality, giving, etc. People's roles in the church were based on what the Holy Spirit gave them, not based on their social positions outside of the house church. In this way, God chose leaders. Leadership was a matter of actual Holy Spirit power, not something inherently present in all men or masters or government rulers.
Westfall explains how both Jesus and Paul rejected Greco-Roman culture's ideas of power, authority, and worldly wisdom. God's power, wisdom, and authority was given indiscriminately through the Holy Spirit to the weak, foolish, and poor of the world. Perhaps that was why Christianity was known early on as the religion of slaves and women.
What did this mean practically speaking for how the house-church was run? Let me explain what I think Westfall is getting at. House churches were held in homes. Homes were women's domain. She "ruled" there, so to speak.
Women arranged a clean and friendly environment for the church to meet. They arranged for the food and the foot cleaning. They served the food. They probably spread the word to others about where and when they would next meet. They would practice hospitality and help make their guests feel comfortable. And they or their husbands or both would preside over the meetings. Westfall cites Chloe and Lydia as two examples of women sponsoring and presiding over their tables at a fellowship meal. (Westfall, 267).
Church meetings were largely women and slaves working hard to serve. If you think about having a crowd at your house, who is usually the one who does most of the serving? Who then is the "leader"?
Westfall states that "women participated in all the activities of the house church in the first generations of the Christian era" for they were providing the bulk of the services (Osiek and MacDonald as quotes in Westfall, 266). Thus women were vitally important to the spread of early Christianity because Christianity held its meetings in their homes.
Westfall explains Paul's understanding of what it means to be a church leader and how that parallels Jesus' teachings about being humble and lowly. Paul describes his ministry to his churches as functionally becoming a slave to all, and he describes adopting the role of those with lesser status to be a more effective minister (See 1 Cor. 9:19-23) (Westfall, 251). Paul's model of leadership was so unlike typical Greco-Roman leaders that the Corinthians criticized him for not being an ideal leader according to the culture's standards (Westfall, 253). I think Westfall is saying that Paul and Jesus taught that the real leaders are the ones who functionally served the body, not necessarily those who had the power/money/advantages.
"Paul and his ministry team set up people responsible for the house church, using leadership labels that he related to household functions: He defined elders as caregivers in the household (Titus 1:7) and as servants (deacons), both of whose functions he correlated with household management (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 12; cf. 3:15)" (Westfall, 269). In Westfall's footnote she defines the word ἐπίσκοπον (overseer) in Titus 1:6-7 as one who watches the household, "which would be a tutor, caregiver, or even a babysitter..." (Westfall, 269).
Paul and Jesus' models of leadership "cannot be glossed over or bleached into describing exercise of unilateral benevolent power" (Westfall, 252). The service given by leaders in the church was both done by and given to slaves and women.
I think she's arguing that Paul wasn't saying, "You high-up leaders need to do lowly jobs," but rather, "Those people doing the lowly jobs of serving others through the Holy Spirit's power of love and self-sacrifice are the ones leading as Christ led. Render to them respect and honor and submission."
Westfall goes on to say that the titles of shepherd/pastor and deacon/servant weren't considered high-status, high-paying, highly respectable positions in the house church as they are today. Thus, nearly all early Christian offices carried low-status labels that a woman could bear without scandal (Westfall, 266). In this, a woman could be a pastor or deacon to her husband without violating the cultural household codes of wives submitting to their husbands. Likewise, a slave could be an elder to his master because authority in the church was based on service, that is, real manifestations of the Holy Spirit's power given so people could edify others.
And "if a woman was problematic in the role of a messenger/ambassador (apostle), then Jesus himself overrode that prejudice by having his resurrection first announced by women" (Westfall, 261).
Interesting Historical Side Note
Westfall mentions how when Christian churches moved from homes to public places, men and people of power and influence began to primarily preside and "serve." However, the form of service became less about actually providing for people's needs and more about the official sacraments of baptism and handing out the eucharist.
"When Christianity was legalized in 313 CE and moved into public space, the terms 'elder' and 'deacon' quickly became titles of power, authority, and prestige in the gentile world. The positions of leadership became public offices instead of household roles, reflecting masculine concepts of hierarchy in the public sphere. When the context of worship changed, 'elder,' 'deacon,' and 'bishop' soon became titles that were far different from Paul's use of the terms" (Westfall, 269).
As the church became a primary power in the world, then the places of leadership became positions for elite groups of men. Eventually, governments and churches changed from class-based social structures to structures based on human rights. When this occurred, the hierarchical system was transferred to the nuclear family (Westfall, 245).
"Therefore, male authority in the household came to be applied to every man and husband in a way that was far more absolute than it was either in the Roman Empire or particularly in Paul's household codes . . . that authority has lacked checks and balances in the churches and religious traditions that continue to advocate it" (Westfall, 245).
Perhaps that is why (Abby talking here) the church and Christian homes have become a breeding ground for abuse. They have created a system where men rule unchecked with absolute authority.
First-century church leaders weren't kings with absolute unchecked authority, they were servants and women as well as business owners and slaves. "Paul relativized the authority structure of the church by casting every leader as a slave of both God and the community" (Westfall, 244).
Imagine it: early Christianity was like a secret society where outside of meetings people were dressed up as slaves or masters or statesmen, but inside the secret meeting, everyone called one another "brother" or "sister," and treated one another with submission and honor. The higher-ups could even serve the lower downs as they would themselves. A master could serve his slave communion. A woman could have a prophetic word for the men. A man could wash his children's feet.
Interesting Footnote
In a footnote, Westfall mentions how some male leaders label their leadership and control as "servanthood" where they supposedly use their advantages for what they determine to be the good of the woman. But this is just redefining servanthood to mean the exercise of power similar to the Greco-Roman model, but with hardly any real correlation to slavery (Westfall's footnote, 252).
I believe she is saying that some try to redefine church leadership as "using God-given advantages to serve others," but their leadership positions still come with all the bells and whistles and exclusivity of having human power without any of the humbling services of a slave.
"According to Paul, authority and power in the Christian community were based on the nature of the foolishness of the gospel, the sovereign choice/election of God, and the demonstrations of the power by the Spirit" not based on gender (Westfall, 253). "Paul explicitly and vehemently opposed the Greco-Roman concepts and system of authority as a model for leadership in the church" (Westfall, 254).
"He rejects leadership that is based on Greco-Roman concepts of wisdom, power, and status (1 Cor. 1:18-31). His teachings are the polar opposite of Plato's argument that the "weak should be ruled by the strong, the ignoble by the noble and the ignorant by the wise. When Paul rejects the status markers of his heritage, privileges, and attainments in Judaism, he rejects the biological essentialism and the social pyramid of the Greco-Roman system as well (Phil. 3:1-11)" (Westfall, 254).
I had to look up what biological essentialism was. I believe she means basing one's position on one's biology.
Paul's rejection of cultural norms for the elite male changed the value system of honor in the Christian community. The new values, such as the fruit of the spirit, were now available to all believers and in many cases were stereotypical female. "This nevertheless, was good news for men, because the Christian community freed both elite men and men who aspired to improve their status from a rigid structure that placed an enormous amount of pressure on them to perform and compete for honor" (Westfall, 256).
Abby’s Side Note
As far as I (Abby) can tell, this seems to align with what Paul said about leadership. But I do see a problem. If Paul redefined those who served the meals and washed feet as the real leaders, who in the church fulfilled the traditional "leadership" roles? Someone has to decide the good of the group. How were the traditional leaders chosen?
Again, as I (Abby) mentioned in the previous summary, I don't think Westfall is saying that our skills or physical abilities can't be related to leadership. Jesus said that if someone has two tunics, to give to the one who has none. This implies some have two coats while others have none. Some people have financial advantages, physical strengths, or God-given skill sets that others do not. It makes sense for us to use those advantages, strengths, and skills to edify the church body.
What I think Westfall is arguing is Paul saying church leadership shouldn't be based on human advantages. In fact, authority based on advantages, strengths, and skills is how the world chooses its leaders.
Women Mentioned in Leadership
Moving on, Westfall states that if a title or position of authority was given to a woman in Paul's writing, we need to regard that as we would if that title or position of authority had been given to a man. This has not been the trend. Rather, Paul's citations of women in leadership have been overlooked or mistranslated or disputed as examples of authority (Westfall, 262).
Paul was working within the social structure of the Greco-Roman world where women wielded real authority and power in the outside world, as cited several times in Acts and in the previously mentioned documentation, and they also served in actual church roles in the home.
Westfall cites the much debated Junia in Romans 16:7, who is named by Paul as an apostle just like Barnabas in Acts 14:14; 1 Cor. 9:5-6, James in Gal. 1:19, Epaphroditus in Phil. 2:25, and Titus in 2 Cor. 8:23. None of these were one of the original twelve disciples chosen by Jesus, but were given the same title, Apostle. Apostle literally meant "sent one" or "messenger" and this person would've traveled between local churches as representatives, probably planting churches too. It's noteworthy that Paul mentions Junia as "outstanding" compared to the rest of the group (Westfall, 271).
"Junia was recognized as a woman apostle in the virtually unanimous understanding of the church until the later Middle Ages" (Westfall, 270). She cites here Joseph Fitzmyer's list of commentators for the first Christian millennium who understood Junia to be a woman. The consensus began to shift with Aegidius (or Giles) of Rome about 1316 who preferred to identify Junia as Junius because she was called an apostle (Westfall, 270).
"This passage has stirred up a storm of controversy because it is understood as a clear challenge to the view that Paul excluded women from positions and titles of leadership" (Westfall, 271). If Paul included women as apostles, he might've also meant women to be pastors, elders, deacons, and bishops.
Then there's Phoebe in Romans 16:1 who is identified as a deacon, which in the context of a domestic church service simply means one who serves in menial tasks.
And of course, 1 Corinthians makes it quite clear that there were women prophets. Westfall makes note of how Paul spoke so highly of prophecy as the gift that edifies the church more than revelation, knowledge, or instruction. If you read 1 Corinthians 14 and how Paul talks about prophecy, it sounds a lot like how church pastors define their roles today. "...the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation" (1 Cor. 14:3a); prophets evaluate other's prophesies (1 Cor. 14:29); "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged" (1 Cor. 14:31); "But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you" (1 Cor. 14:24-25).
Westfall points out that this understanding of prophesy ought to be used to understand verses 1 Cor. 14: 34-35 where Paul asks women to be silent in church and not the other way around.
Then Paul names several women as "fellow workers": Priscilla, Euodia, and Syntyche. It's notable that Timothy, Aquila, Urbanus, Epaphroditus, and Philemon also share this title. With whatever position we attribute to Timothy, we may also apply that to Paul's women workers. Someone with the unpronounceable name of Adolphus Chinedu Amadi-Azuogu demonstrates in a chart in Westfall's book how "fellow worker" is one of Paul's preferred titles for ministers and leaders in Paul's writing (Westfall, 275).
Finally Westfall notes the women Paul mentions as working hard. In Romans 16 it's Mary, Tryphaena, and Tryphosa. Aren't you glad that's not your name? Euodia and Syntyche are commended for "fighting" and "contending" for the gospel and Paul calls them coworkers. Paul does not reference these women as if they were under his authority. And, in fact, in 1 Corinthians 16:15-16, Paul urges the Corinthians to be subject to the people who work and toil like the household of Stephanas worked for the saints.
So if Paul said to be subject to people who toil and work for the saints, and then he calls plenty of women fellow workers who worked hard, he meant for men to be subject to these women.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, Paul directs the church to recognize and honor its leaders, who are described as 'those who labor [work hard] among you, and have charge of you in the Lord and admonish you' (NRSV) (Westfall, 275). Westfall notes these three jobs—laboring, having charge over, and admonishing—as Paul's version of what people in spiritual authority do (Westfall, 275). And women were in that group.
One last doozy: while "pastor" and "elder" or "teacher" aren't given to any specific women, Westfall states that no men are given these titles either, except Paul when referencing himself as teacher in the books of Timothy.
"According to Pauline practice and Greek grammar, outside of 1 Timothy there is no compelling reason to suggest that women would be excluded from being pastors, elders, or teachers in a house church that is modeled on the household, since Paul has honored them for filling these other roles. Paul's teaching on spiritual gifts indicates that the Spirit distributes the spiritual gifts of pastor and teacher as he wills, so that only the Spirit is qualified to restrict any group from serving those functions" (Westfall, 276).
Sorry, that was another long summary. But good news, only one more to go!
Click the link below after April 12 to read the last Chapter summary on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Yeah! Almost done!
