Women Preachers: Why Are We Still Talking About This?
What follows are the remains of a larger paper written during my time in divinity school. In its initial iteration I explored how readers of 1 Corinthians 14:33–40 have historically interpreted the text and, as a result, subjugated women in general, and preaching women in particular, to non-speaking roles within the church.
I’ve returned to this paper often as this important issue has continued to prove itself alive and well. The reality is there are still men in the church who strongly oppose women exercising preaching gifts within the Lord’s church. They forget (or ignore?) that the church is, indeed, the Lord’s bride and it is the Lord, alone, who calls willing vessels to the work of ministry.
Even today, we face opposition as women, licensed and ordained, mount pulpits in their own churches to proclaim what thus saith the Lord only to be told to sit down because folks are tired of hearing her voice. We face opposition as women, equipped, qualified, and called, sit at their own pastoral installation and hear a man distastefully declare from the pulpit that she is getting “his” church because he made it all possible…even the chairs upon which she sat. We continue to face opposition, in 2022, as women post videos of themselves preaching only to be trolled and told that women don’t belong in the pulpit.
Their reasoning? Well, Paul has taught us in 1 Corinthians 14 that,
33 for God is a God not of disorder but of peace. (As in all the churches of the saints, 34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 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. 36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?)
For many, still, this passage requires no further exegetical work — no treatment of its language, cultural background, or larger literary context. For many, still, this passage should be taken face value — women are not permitted to speak in the church.
Such a problematic sentiment mistakenly appears dated and out of place in 2022. Yet, this proclamation represents a larger historically hegemonic ideology which situates women at the margins of faith communities. Women have, for centuries, struggled to occupy speaking roles within the church due to androcentric ideologies that are supposedly grounded in patriarchal biblical texts.
Women of faith have resisted such oppressive ecclesiastical pigeonholing which relegated them to passive roles, such as church mother, nursery worker, and administrative clerk, within the church. They resisted in the first century, throughout history, and continue to resist today. Women of faith have a legacy of resistance. With the later emergence of feminist and womanist inquiry, hermeneutical frameworks were developed to challenge the way biblical texts have been read and interpreted in ways that create and uphold oppressive beliefs and practices within the church. These women understood an important truth: if women are to be liberated from the margins of faith communities it is necessary, then, to deconstruct androcentric interpretations of the foundational texts within which oppressive frameworks of gender roles and espoused leadership models have been excavated.
It is with this legacy of resistance in mind that I now turn to the pericope at hand to explore an alternative reading — a reading that I believe is more accurate to the author’s intent and creates new possibilities for preaching women.
The Scope of the Problem
Paul’s prohibition of women speaking in the assembly in 1 Corinthians 14:33–40 is arguably one of the most controversial topics in New Testament studies. Various interpretations have been raised on the meaning of this pericope. Some scholars argue that the problematic verses are a post-Pauline interpolation while others seek to justify Paul’s rebuke of these speaking women. Throughout history, scholars have attempted to answer for this challenging text. Some would argue that Paul was specifically speaking to married women while others suggest that this prohibition was intended for all of Corinth. Indeed, these explanations even make it into modern Bible studies as pastors and faith communities seek to wrestle with this difficult passage.
The challenge that this text presents is that it has been the source of oppression and marginalization of women since its inception. Even first- and second-century followers of Paul have read and interpreted this fragmented correspondence and exacerbated the situation. The author of 1 Timothy, having taken the passage at face value, constructed his own argument against speaking women stating, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.” (1 Tim 2:12). This 1 Timothy prohibition, certainly in agreement with its second-century hegemonic ideology, has been attributed to Paul in ecclesiastical spaces even though scholars have generally accepted that it is pseudonymous.
Such horrific interpretations have kept women out of the pulpit for centuries. Even more, if women were allowed to speak in a proclaiming capacity, they were relegated to podiums that were situated on the floor. They were rarely allowed to enter the elevated pulpit. History records many women proclaiming in the church despite this attempt to silence them; women such as the woman of John 4, Phoebe, Jarena Lee, and the plethora of contemporary preaching women such as the Reverend Drs. Danielle Brown, Gina Stewart, and Cynthia Hale to name a few. Because of this progress towards change, even in 2022, many falsely assume that gender disparities in ecclesiastical leadership are relatively unheard of.
Even recently, women continue to be told to “go home” where they are kept out of the pulpit and relegated to domesticity. Women continue be placated by men who declare publicly that they affirm women as preachers but privately fight against the elevation of that preaching woman to pastoral authority. This ideology finds its primary grounding in historical interpretations of Paul’s supposed prohibition of women speaking in the assembly as recorded in 1 Corinthians 14. This interpretation has created challenge for women who sense a vocational call to teach and preach. It is especially problematic for Black women who sense this call as they must not only exist at the intersections of racism, sexism, and classism outside of the church, but are likewise marginalized within faith communities because of historical interpretations of this Pauline text.
Womanist and feminist scholars help us to interrogate historical interpretations of biblical texts and retell women’s stories in ways that liberate her from the margins of the faith story and, in turn, create possibility for contemporary women who have been targets of a weaponized faith. In her work, Bread Not Stone, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza suggests that a hermeneutic of suspicion is an essential feminist model of interpretation.[1] By assuming the androcentric interests of biblical texts and interpretations, new hermeneutical perspectives can be developed which create narratives where women are liberated from the margins of the Christian faith story. Womanist biblical scholars such as Renita Weems and Wilda Gafney have put forth works which read the stories of biblical women with a hermeneutic of suspicion by disadvantaging patriarchal interpretations and reimagining possible experiences of those women to draw parallels between then and now.
It is important to retell the stories of women as well as to reinterpret the proclamations made about women and their roles. This is especially concerning when engaging the biblical texts authored by the apostle Paul as the Church has historically rooted much of its theology in his words. His undisputed letters have been of scholarly and ecclesiastical interest because they contain contradictory and challenging ideas about women. These ideas have historically and continue to shape the way women of faith understand themselves and, very critically, how they are understood by others.
It is critical, then, that a hermeneutic of suspicion be applied to the way in which biblical interpreters have read, understood, and applied the 1 Corinthians 14 text. Scholars have rightly noted that Paul is a complex figure with seemingly contradictory ideas about women. In some places he appears to be hailing the women who have “struggled beside [him] in the work of the gospel” (Phil. 4:3). Further, he goes on to name several of the women (Chloe, Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, Euodia, and Syntyche) who appear to occupy authoritative roles within churches, roles that most certainly called for their public speaking. Even more, within the 1 Corinthians correspondence there are seemingly affirmative mentions of women employing speaking gifts, namely the gift of prophesy. Yet, when approaching the 1 Corinthians text, a text that has notedly been accused of misplacement within the pericope, scant attention has been given to the androcentric hermeneutical moves which read this passage at face value.
Paul’s other letters affirm women exercising speaking gifts within the assembly. What must be interrogated, then, is the interpretive sexism which understands the 1 Corinthians 14 passage as an isolated pericope without concern for the apostle’s many affirmations of speaking women. Here, the hermeneutic of suspicion must be applied to the interpretation and not merely the text. This hermeneutical inquiry regards early interpreters within the scope of their hegemonic patriarchal ideological environment.
Reading 1 Corinthians 14:33–40 with a Hermeneutic of Suspicion
If speaking women are to experience liberation which eliminates the delineation of women as silent fixtures in the ecclesia, 1 Corinthians 14:33–40 must be regarded with the assumption that even its interpreters held androcentric interests. Approaching this text with a hermeneutic of suspicion demands that biblical interpreters more immediately regard the passage within its literary context and not in light of second-century ideology. Equally as important is that the passage be regarded in light of the presence of the real women mentioned even within the 1 Corinthians letter itself. That Paul specifically mentions women exercising leadership roles and employing speaking gifts may suggest that he did not regard women speaking as shameful.
It is necessary to explore this text within the larger context of the letter. When reading 1 Corinthians in its entirety, an important pattern must be noted. Paul quotes the concerns raised by the Corinthian community and then responds with a critique. This pattern, along with an altered reading of Paul’s discussion on spiritual gifts, presents a different reading of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35. An alternate reading of 1 Corinthians 12:1 and Paul’s tendency to quote the Corinthian community is important for understanding the passage in question.
Scholars have noted the awkward use of the Greek in the verses at hand. Many argue that verses 34–35 fits a later, post-Pauline era where the topic of women speaking in the churches was of major concern. This argument against Pauline authorship may point to an alternate interpretation. When read within the context of 1 Corinthians in its entirety, we must consider the possibility that these words were not Paul’s words in their origin but rather, were added by Paul as a quote from a previous correspondence from the Corinthian community.
Subsequent to his words, “Now for the matters you wrote about…” in 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul follows a particular pattern where he either directly quotes or summarizes the concerns of the Corinthian community and then provides a rebuttal. This pattern begins in chapter seven where Paul addresses the forbidding of sexual relations. Here, he directly quotes the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7:1) and follows this quote by instructing them to get married before engaging in sexual relations. The same pattern is used when Paul addresses the betrothed (1 Cor. 7:25), and although there is no direct quote, the inclusion of his advice suggests the presence of the concern in the Corinthians’ letter to Paul. Paul then provides a rebuttal to their concern. To the next concern regarding the consumption of foods offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul follows the same pattern.
The final concern for consideration is 1 Corinthians 14:33–40, which is situated within a larger conversation regarding the use of spiritual gifts. Paul commences his rebuttal to the Corinthian community in chapter 12. Here, many translations render περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν ἀδελφοί as, “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters…” (1 Cor. 12:1). However, the word χάρισμα, which is used to designate “gifts” throughout this chapter beginning in verse 4, is missing. Without this designation, the alternate reading must be considered. It is likely that these words should be translated, “Now concerning spiritual persons…” This shift in focus is significant because it places the implication not primarily on a question of the gifts, but rather, on which persons are spiritual.
Paul, accordingly, begins his conversation with the Corinthians about an issue regarding persons who speak in the assembly. It is probable that there were voices in the community who proclaimed, “Let Jesus be cursed!” (1 Cor. 12:3), to which Paul insists that these are the voices of those who do not speak by the Spirit of God. In the same manner, some proclaimed, “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3), to which Paul insists that these people are speaking by the influence of the Holy Spirit. After making this distinction, Paul goes on to declare that the same Spirit that endows one member of the body with a “manifestation of the Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:7) also endows other members of the body with a gift. This declaration permits all spiritual members of the assembly to use their spiritual gifts and affirms that each spiritual person has an important gift to use for the common good of the assembly.
Within this context, then, it may be inferred that the question from some of the Corinthians likely deals with, “who has the authority to speak in the community?” An important note must be made regarding Paul’s position on women speaking in the assembly. Prior to his instruction about the use of spiritual gifts, Paul mentions “any woman who prays or prophesies…” (1 Cor. 11:5) in his discussion on head coverings. Here, there is no rebuke of these women as it pertains to the act of speaking but, rather, there is instruction on head covering logistics. It is likely, then, that women in the assembly were actively using their spiritual gifts, including the speaking gifts.
With this in mind, it may be inferred that there were members of the Corinthian community who opposed the voices of these women. This would give credence to this seemingly odd addition to this Pauline letter. Many scholars agree that 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 appears to be a post-Pauline interpolation because it seems to contradict other Pauline writings. The incongruity of this passage with the entire letter suggests that these words did not belong to Paul. Yet, when investigating this passage in light of the Pauline pattern outlined previously, it may be suggested that 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 is a quote from the Corinthians in their previous correspondence, to which Paul replies with a rebuke.
According to Raymond F. Collins, the use of a double rhetorical question in v.36 supports a masculine rebuke theory. Collins posits that the words “only you” are in the masculine plural which suggests that in this instance, Paul is questioning men.[2] The argument is that Paul is challenging “those who would limit Christian women’s right to speak” and “bluntly and forcefully he asks them, ‘do you presume to have an exclusive claim on the word of God?’”[3] Here, Paul appears to be quoting the concerns of the Corinthian community prior to his rebuke of the men who sought to silence women exercising their spiritual gifts by speaking in the assembly.
Further, an important note must be made concerning the use of masculine gendered language. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza notes the way in which the Greek language contains specific genders to denote how words behave. She notes that language that is grammatically masculine typically absorbs women and is used to denote a mixed-gendered environment.[4] This means that the word brothers may denote either a group of men or a mixed-gendered group of people. For Fiorenza, this grammatical move marginalizes women by eradicating them from public consciousness.[5]While this is, indeed, an accurate and necessary critique, in the case of this particular Pauline text, it is unclear whether the use of the masculine grammar in verse 36 denotes a mixed-gendered environment or if the apostle intentionally addressed the men in particular.
I argue that it is an interpretive assumption that the translation denotes a mixed-gendered environment. Due to the common knowledge of the patriarchal culture of the times in question, it is often assumed that the language must be translated in this way — in favor of androcentric interests. It favors androcentric interests because the women, then, are included as the target of the rebuke. This translation is in direct conflict with Paul’s previous remarks and affirmations of women exercising vocal agency. Yet, while masculine grammar may denote a mix-gendered environment, it may also be translated literally. Translating this passage in literal terms, then, accuses the men, and the men exclusively, of oppressive and misogynistic behavior and beliefs. In this reading, Paul issues a strong rebuke to the men in the Corinthian community who sought to silence the women from speaking — proclaiming — in the assembly.
This reading provides contemporary believers with a model for supporting and affirming the gifts of proclamation that many women in our churches possess. What would it mean for the men in our churches to confront the misogyny of the brethren who wish to stifle the preaching gifts of women? What would it mean for us to make 1 Corinthians 14:33–40 the biblical basis for a church’s support of women in ministry? Maybe instead of gatekeeping the Lord’s pulpit, we should share in Paul’s declaration that anyone who has been gifted by God through the Holy Spirit shares in the edification of the whole body, regardless of gender. Indeed, those who have the power to challenge and speak out against the misogyny that continues to silence our preaching sisters have a responsibility to do so — just as their beloved apostle Paul did.
[1] Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical
Interpretation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1984.), 15.
[2] Raymond F. Collins and Daniel J. Harrington, First Corinthians, Sacra Pagina Series, vol. 7
(Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1999), 522.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Fiorenza, 25.
[5] Ibid.