We Connected Through Twitter: My Interview with Egalitarian Marg Mowczko
I logged into Twitter early one April morning to tweet a request for ideas on Christian egalitarian women to interview. To my delight, Marg Mowczko (pronounced “Moss-Koh”) connected with me through Twitter and offered an interview. I’d previously read several of her blog articles, but we’d never met or spoken. After arranging a Texas to Australia connection, Marg joined me for an interview via Facetime from her home in New South Wales.
Garnering more than 100,000 page-views-per-month, Marg writes extensively at margmowczko.com on the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism. She has a theology degree and an MA from Macquarie University with a concentration in early Christian and Jewish studies. Her master’s thesis on Phoebe and deacons won a prestigious award. Marg’s other writing includes a number of published journal articles and book chapters. Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
“Where do you fall on the spectrum of orthodox views on women?”
MM: I’m an egalitarian. I believe all Christians, both men and women, are equal in status in the home, church, and society. We are all made in God’s image, and we have all been adopted as sons [children] of God with all the rights, freedoms, and privileges that come with being a son [child] of God (Gal 3:26).
“Complementarians ground their argument for male over female hierarchy in the creation accounts of Genesis 2 & 3. What are your views on Genesis 1–3?”
MM: I often say that in Genesis 1, there is sexual differentiation; there is male and female in humanity. But, they have the same shared status as God’s image-bearers. They have the same shared authorization; to me, authorization equals authority. Because authority is a huge issue, isn’t it? And, they have the same shared purpose, so there is no differentiation in role in Genesis 1. Differentiation in sex, as in the animals, but no differentiation of role. They have the exact same status, authority, and purpose.
Genesis 2
I think in reading Gen 2, that it is possible that the first human was sexually undifferentiated…It’s not a new idea that Jewish writers and some Christians have looked at this first human, adam, as being a primordial, undifferentiated person. It’s only until the operation that we have man, ish, and woman, ishah. And, the astounding thing about Gen 2 is God took this chunk out of this first human and made a woman out of her. The symbolism is so profound. She is made of the same stuff, and they share the same DNA. They were pulled apart, and then they’re put together again…I still think, “Wow!” …If you try to show that men and women were compatible, I don’t think you could do a different job than to say they were made from the same person, and they were pulled apart, and they were put together again.
One thing I do when I read is I try to find out what the author is really trying to say. You know, to look at the overall picture, as well as the parts… What is the author of Genesis 2 saying? He is talking about the compatibility and the unity of man and woman—that’s the message. And is highlighted by the fact that Adam names the animals. So, then people try to say, “Adam named Eve.” But you’re missing what the author’s saying… He doesn’t name Eve. The focus is on the man in the story, and he sees this woman—look, this woman was taken out of man—it’s not even naming.
Genesis 3
In Genesis 3, Adam names Eve; he calls her “Eve,” which I think is astounding. They’ve just sinned, they’ve stuffed up [Australian for “messed up”], they’ve just been told by God [And then, oops, I accidentally disconnected my phone from Marg :-0; but I quickly reconnected.] I was going to say in Gen 3, Adam names Eve, which means “life.” I don’t have a problem with Adam naming Eve because the story’s focus is on Adam. And that makes the other stuff about Eve all the more remarkable to me.
“In 1 Corinthians 11:3–16, prophesying men and women were causing dishonor by having/not having something on their heads. What are your thoughts on this passage?”
MM: I wrote an article called “The Chiasm in 1 Corinthians 11.” There’s definitely this chiastic structure in this passage that we need to pay attention to… An Australian scholar named Matthew Malcolm says that what Paul does a few times in 1 Corinthians looks as though he is setting up a human hierarchy, and then he subverts it. And I suspect that that’s what Paul’s doing.
Regarding the appearance of their heads or the appearance of their hair, when I write about this, I usually mention both options. If I had to vote, I would say hair. Especially because, in v 15, Paul actually says that the woman’s hair is her covering. You can’t be sure of anything in 1 Cor 11, it’s such a tricky thing, so I don’t want to say anything emphatic.
There were a variety of customs in the Roman empire, which was a diverse place…The respectable haircut for Roman men was short hair. The respectable style for women was long hair, but always up, unless they were in mourning.
And, only women of a certain status were allowed to wear their head covering outside because it was a symbol of status. You often hear that it (a veil) was a symbol of subordination, and I’m not saying that there wasn’t that element of it somewhere, but it was more than anything a symbol of status… I don’t think women ordinarily, in Roman Corinth, wore a head covering when they were in a house church. And definitely, women of lower status by law weren’t allowed to wear a head covering because it was a status symbol.
“What is your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35? Do you think these two verses were an interpolation (an addition to the text by a scribe)?”
MM: I think it could be. I remember reading 1 Cor 14 in Greek and then hitting those verses and thinking, “Ok, that jars.” Something of the sense of the Greek jarred. I remember thinking, well, maybe it’s not Paul’s words. But even if it isn’t an interpolation, Paul silences three groups of people from verses 26–40. He’s silencing bad speech; he’s not silencing gifted speech.
So, and this is my main argument with 1 Tim 2:12, Paul’s providing correction for bad speech, for unruly behavior. In verse 26 and verse 40, on either end, Paul makes it really clear what he’s talking about—speech needs to be edifying and not unruly.
He’s telling three groups of people to be quiet: tongue speakers if; prophets if; women if; (and I know the grammars completely different). Women, if they want to learn, which is the Greek word mathein—that word for real learning discipleship—if they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. So, I think women were asking questions; they were asking too many questions. And it could be an interpolation. But even if you take it as all Paul’s words, Paul addresses unruly, unedifying speech, and he’s telling three groups of people to be quiet under these certain conditions.
“How do you interpret 1 Timothy 2:12, ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.”
MM: We know from Acts that Paul knew high-ranking people in Ephesus. There were high-ranking people in the Ephesian church. And, one of these women, I believe, but I don’t say it pedantically, she’s teaching rubbish. And if we look in 1 Tim 1, he talks about people who were teaching the law but didn’t know what they were talking about… So, I believe the language in 1 Tim 2:11–15 is actually really diplomatically written. He’s not saying, “Command this woman.” Instead, he’s saying, “I’m not allowing this woman to teach. And I’m not allowing her to take advantage of or bully a man.” And as you know, those words could just as easily be translated “wife” and “husband.”
“I do not allow,” epitrepō [Greek for “allow”] is a verb used to talk about something temporary, or local, or for making a concession. Elsewhere in his letters to Timothy, if Paul wants to make a strong statement, he’ll use the word paraggello for “I command,” “I direct,” it’s strong. Epitrepō is about concessions or local situations. It’s used in 1 Cor 14 as well, the same word! I have an article about it.
“I do not allow a woman” is singular. In itself, this may not mean anything, except Paul had just been telling men plural not to be angry [in v 8], then he tells women plural not to wear fancy clothes [in v 9–10]. Immediately we need to be aware that not all men would have been angry, and certainly, not all women would have been wearing fancy clothes. The braided hair was something only quite rich women could do because they needed slaves to make the really intricate hairstyles, which was the fashion in the first century.
Paul is talking about rich women. And, I believe he narrows the focus to a particular rich woman. I think “to teach,” and “exercise authority” are two separate things. So, I don’t believe that it is a hendiadys [a figure of speech in which a conjunction connects two words/phrases to express a single idea]. Paul is saying that this woman is not to teach anyone (comma), and she is not allowed to authentein [Greek for “exercise authority”] a man. Because, and I am a little bit emphatic about this because if you are going to say that there are two prohibitions, and it’s not joined together, it is very hard to join “a man” to “to teach.”
“Paul used the Greek word authentein for authority in 1 Timothy 2:12 rather than the usual word exousia. Complementarians argue that authentein does not have a negative meaning. What kind of authority do you believe Paul is communicating in 1 Tim 2:12?”
MM: One thing I’m reasonably sure of is that authentein is negative. If I had to say one reason quickly, if we look at all the early Syriac and Latin translations of authentein, it’s negative. It means “to dominate,” “to domineer,” “to be insolent,” or “to not be good.” It’s a really rare word, so we don’t have a lot to go on in Paul’s time. But after that, it becomes a bit more common. The thing about authentein, because it’s vernacular, it wasn’t used in good Greek literature. It was a common word, so people probably used it in the streets, but they didn’t use it when writing their sermons or treatises.
Chrysostom does use the word three times, so that would be a few hundred years later. He uses it in his Homily on Colossians 3:19. When Paul says, “Husbands love your wives and don’t be harsh with them,” Chrysostom says to the husbands, “Even though your wives have to be submissive, don’t you authentein them,” Meaning pretty much, don’t take advantage of them. It’s about taking advantage of someone, about not being nice. The context is clear. You should not be doing this, don’t do this.
“What is your view on 1 Timothy 3 related to women as elders?”
MM: If we look at 1 Tim 3, Paul doesn’t actually use the term “elders,” he uses the term “overseers.” Some people think that overseers at the time Paul was writing were house church leaders because most churches met in houses. This makes sense in the context because Paul assumes that an overseer will be married, have children, and that he will have a house. We are talking about a person who was rich enough to have a household and who had been married only once. In my 1 Tim 3 article, I wrote that most people who had their own household would have been men.
Then there’s that contentious little phrase in v 2, “one-man woman” or “husband of one wife.” The easiest way to understand it is that he’s talking about faithfulness. But that’s actually not how the term’s used. It’s really used by people not marrying again after they were widowed. Which really complicates things. That qualification, “husband of one wife,” is more an understanding of morality.
I think Paul is assuming that an overseer will be a man and, as well, have these other qualifications. He never says that an overseer must be a man…But, I do think that when Paul wrote this, he had guys in mind; I really do. But it doesn’t exclude women, is my summary. And even Douglas Moo and Tom Schreiner [both complementarians] will say, you can’t use that to say women can’t be elders because that’s not the intention of “husband of one wife.”
Conclusion
Last week I shared my interview with Dr. Dan Wallace, a complementarian. And this week, I shared this excerpt from my interview with Marg Mowczko. Did you notice that every Bible passage we discussed needs the interpretation of action, for example, Adam naming the woman “Eve” in Gen 3? Or, the interpretation of word meanings, like whether authentein in 1 Tim 2:12 is a neutral type of authority or a negative type of authority?
The authors of Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women conclude, “It has not been easy to discover how all the biblical statements about women in ministry fit together and how the inner unity of Scripture on this subject is to be found…An illegitimate but all too common methodology has been to begin with an arbitrarily selected and interpreted text such as 1 Timothy 2:11–12 (for complementarians) or Galatians 3:28 (for egalitarians) and use it as the interpreter for all the other relevant passages of Scripture…But this is to deny all the rest of the Bible the right to speak for itself.”[1] How about you? Do you understand God’s very good design for women?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you need clarity on what the Scriptures say about women and the church? The Theology of Women online course, launching in September, is a 7-week deep dive into understanding the spectrum of biblical beliefs and developing your views on women, the church, and leadership. Learn more and join the waitlist at cynthiahester.com/course.
[1] George and Dora Winston, Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women, (Xulon Press, 2003), 13