3.4 The influence of Roman family ‘values’ of patronage and family
influenced by the language of the Roman patronage system and uses it to reinforce the (gendered) hierarchical relationships of domination (1 Cor 11:3). Furthermore, Paul himself plays the role of patron to his communities (see Kittredge 2000,40
However, with regard to the role and status of women in the church, the patronage system had a positive effect. As indicated above, one of the roles of the ‘new’ Roman woman was patronage.
This significant role underlies the role of women as patronesses of house churches in Paul’s letters.
Castelli 1991:89-117, Marchal 2008:59-90). Paul therefore, as patron, maintains asymmetrical relationships with his clients, namely his faith communities.
41 Osiek and Macdonald (2006) for instance, argue that the named women patrons in Pauline letters were probably continuing the leadership roles, which they had fulfilled as pagan and Jewish women in other groups and associations. Chow (1992:101) also regards Paul’s use of
‘prostasis’ with reference to Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2) as an equivalent of patroness.
If this is the case, then the church mimicked the empire with regard to women’s roles of patronage. The Early Church may therefore not be credited with being the first to accord public roles to women, for this already was done in Roman society. The church facilitated such roles by allowing women to serve as hosts of household churches. From the role of patronage, we can also deduce that there was class distinction among women in the church, just as in the society.
Women’s patronage in Roman homes and society can therefore be regarded as a positive influence for the Christian women because it created opportunities for them to be active participants in the spread of Christianity through house churches but, on the other hand, it negatively reinforced class hierarchies in the church.
40 Kittredge criticizes Elliott’s and Horsley’s view that Paul was organizing the church as an alternative society to the Roman patronage system. She rightly argues that Paul was actually shaped by the patronage view as becomes apparent in the ways he used the language of subordination of the Son to the Father in 1Cor 15, used also to subordinate women prophets (1Cor. 11: 1-16).
41 Several passages in the New Testament and especially in Acts and Pauline letters, reveal that women participated in the Christian community as patronesses of home churches. Some of these were Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12-27), Lydia (Acts 16:14-15, 40), Nympha (Col 4:15), Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:2-3, 1 Cor 16:19, Rom 16:3-5).
3.4.2 Family hierarchy
This section examines the influence of the Roman family hierarchy on the role and status of women in Pauline congregations in general. Several passages give evidence of the active participation of women in Pauline churches. Apart from their role in patronage cited above, which indicates that these women managed house churches, women are also portrayed as serving the church in other ways. Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2) for example, was diakonos (servant) and perhaps the principal leader of the assembly at Cenchreae, Euodia and Syntyche were perhaps leaders of the church in Philippi and probably also hosted a house church (Phil 4:2-3) and in Rom 16:7, Paul refers to Junia(s) (a woman) as an apostle, probably used here in a broader sense and not to designate one of the Twelve. The mention of these women by name is significant because it serves as evidence of gender inclusiveness in the leadership of Pauline congregations. Paul also portrays women as praying and prophesying in the Church in Corinth (1 Cor 11:1-16).
However, did women participate in Pauline congregations as equal partners with men, or was there a gendered hierarchy like the Roman family hierarchy in their participation?
The question as to whether or not women participated in Paul’s churches on equal terms with men, is made more difficult to answer by the contradictory (ambivalent) statements of Paul himself (which will be examined further in the next chapter). As far as the role of women in patronage is concerned, both women and men may have equally provided meeting venues for worship in their homes. We however have no idea whether the hostess/host also played a leadership role in the house church, worshiping in her/his home.
With regard to other public roles of speech, there is a difference between men and women.
Women were for instance expected to pray and prophesy, but in a subordinate status under a gendered hierarchy (1 Cor 11:1-16), or they were silenced altogether (1 Cor 14:34-3542
42 Although some scholars like Conzelman (1975:246) among others regard this passage as an interpolation, I maintain the traditional view of Pauline authorship because the passage is not inconsistent with Paul’s ambivalence in his positioning of women. Paul silences the woman here and directs her to be taught by her husband at home, following the Greco-Roman cultural practice where, according to Hemelrij,k, a wife was the student of her husband (Hemelrijk in Dijkhuizen 2008:71).
).
Horbury, Davis and Sturdy (1999:399) also argue that even the role of women deacons like Phoebe was restricted to dealing with women. In his book, Women Deacons in the Early Church, Wijngaards (2002) makes a similar conclusion, namely that the main task of women deacons was pastoral care among women and also to prepare them for baptism. If women’s ministry was only confined to serving other women rather than the entire church, then the church maintained the gendered hierarchy of the Roman family structure.
However, the role of women deacons in Pauline churches requires further evaluation. Paul’s commendation of Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2) reveals that her role as a servant is of equal importance to him (Paul) as the role of his fellow male servants. It is for instance noteworthy that Paul gives to Phoebe a similar commendation as to Timothy and Epaphroditus in Phil 2:19-30. The fact that Paul indicates that Phoebe has been of help to many and also to him, may imply that her ministry was not confined to women but in some ways touched the lives of men as well. Phoebe therefore measures up to the qualifications of Paul’s fellow male servants and hence Paul himself does not perceive her ministry as inferior to that of his fellow male servants. However, the use of the term
‘deacon’ in Rom 16:1 may be only a generic designation which denotes ‘servant’ or ‘assistant’
(Fitzmyer 2005:867), and Paul may have used it in the same way for both Timothy and Epaphroditus (cf. also 1 Thess. 3:2; 2 Cor 3:6; 11:23).
Other scholars indicate that Rom 16:1 refers to a ‘church office’ (see Wild 2005:897). We have actually no way of knowing with certainty what Paul is referring to here. If women in Pauline churches were excluded from the special ‘order’ of ministers (which is first mentioned in Phil 1:1 and expounded in the post-Pauline text in 1 Tim. 3:8, 12 where women are not mentioned as either bishops or deacons), then we may argue that even if women like Phoebe qualified, the emerging ‘church order’ was a male preserve. ‘Woman deacon’ did not connote a meaning, similar to that of ‘male deacon.’ In this case, the role of a woman deacon was inferior to that of a male deacon.
In sum, although Paul values women in the Christian congregations as co-workers, benefactors and leaders in the church, his view about their roles is quite inconsistent. To a great extent, he limits women in their public roles. It is, for instance, quite puzzling that Paul does not mention any woman in his list of witnesses of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15:5-8, where he indicates that Jesus appeared to over five hundred brothers some of whom he mentions by name, including
himself as the last witness. He therefore differs from the gospels which present Mary Magdalene and a few other women, not only as the first eye witnesses of the resurrection but also as the first post-resurrection witnesses to the Twelve apostles (Mk 16; Matt 28:1-10; Lk 24:1-12; Jn 20:1- 18). Some scholars explain this variance by arguing that Paul was using a different traditional account of resurrection appearances (see Crocker 2004:155-156), while others argue that it cannot be proven that Paul knew and rejected the gospel accounts (Wire 1990:162). However, in my view, given Paul’s hybridity and ambivalence on the public roles of women, it is plausible that, with regard to such a significant event as the resurrection, he once again opted to silence women. He may have been influenced by the dominant unfounded Jewish cultural view that a woman is unreliable as a witness (see arguments in Wire 1990:162-163).