Keywords

8.1 Introduction

Leadership defined has a distinctive root in the process of influence and values that advances a goal or attributed actions made by others (Northouse, 2019). Leadership as a spectrum yields terms such as authenticity, management, visibility, power, and authority (Keohane, 2020). Leadership involves social identity and the art of engaging, mobilizing, directing, and helping others finds a vision for themselves (Barentsen, 2011, p. 56; Cole, 2010, p. 87). Leaders clarify goals for a group and bring together the energies of members of that said group to pursue the defined goals (Keohane, 2010, p. 23). However, leadership has been closely associated with masculinity and men as natural-born leaders throughout the centuries (Keohane, 2020, p. 238).

Leadership studies do not generally embrace theology in the process of research (Ayers, 2006). Understanding the need for women in leadership is vital to the approach of this chapter, and their involvement is essential to elements of social growth and organizational success (Chand, 2015). The focus on women’s issues and rights brings to the forefront of history the role women play daily throughout human society (Hoyt & Murphy, 2016; Keohane, 2020). Yet it is an aged-old cultural context and conversation that in modern day brings tension within the faith and corporate communities is the social convention (or construct) of womanhood in society, and even furthers the discussion of women in leadership. Hence the implications for biblical foundations will shed light on and connect the impact of women in leadership.

This chapter considers two specific biblical texts that contribute to the nuances that impact women leaders, specifically women serving in leading roles within professional workspaces, family structure, and institutions of faith. Through an analysis of 1 Cor. 11:1–16 and 1 Peter 3:1–6, the chapter will highlight some of the cultural, social, and ethical challenges about headship versus lordship, position versus power, and honor versus submission as it relates to women leaders. These two biblical texts contribute to the culturalization of the twenty-first-century leading woman who impacts, inspires, and compels her identity, her behaviors, her actions and reactions, and her leadership within home, community, and faith. Through the cultural analysis, this chapter identifies six principles from the two chapters that intersect within sectors of profession, family, and faith for women in leadership. The principles include moral agency, alignment, interdependence, honor, vision, and organizational stewardship. Each of the six principals will be examined after the social-cultural analysis of each text.

8.2 Biblical Impact on Women in Leadership

The role of women is part of every culture, within every profession and during every era. Women have a place, space, and role for humanity, yet despite many global advances, women’s position as leaders has been challenged due to stereotypical expectations, gender bias, and social characteristics that shape perceptions (Diekman & Eagly, 2000; Northouse, 2019). Baker (2009) reminds that analysis of biblical text through, “new research, new eyes and new minds” is crucial to the narrative of women (and leadership) and discerning the complexity of such issues “to advance the place of women in global societies” (p. ix).

Christian beginnings are understood from a monolithic perspective (Fiorenza, 1985, p. 68). Moreover, historical interpretation of the biblical text has shaped theological location of women against the backdrop of roles, responsibilities, and the ability to lead within the Christian faith. However, cultural and historical research that considers the biblical woman disentangles ingenuous perceptions and ideologies of women in the Scriptures and provides context towards her points of view (Bradley & Muller, 2016). Many contemporary biblical scholars maintain a complementarian, yet traditional, perspective in the roles of women and would find it sacrilegious to question or critique interpretation of final authority of the text (Kostenberger & Schreiner, 2016). Furthermore, emerging scholars advocate for a tenable divine revelation that approaches the text through a reframing of perspectives and a rhetorical lens of faith that avoids offensive theology of gender roles (Peppiatt, 2018; Wire, 1990). As a principle of scholarly argument, the forementioned theological views give way for discussion of the juxtaposition of headship versus lordship; the spiritual art of position versus power; and the grace of honor versus submission—as it relates to the impact of women in leadership.

All cultures make social distinctions between men and women and place importance of identity and roles in some form of social hierarchy (Harris, 1991, p. 67). The introduction of charismatic customs, commonly referenced as household codes, appears in literary writings when Judaism engages the Greek worldview (Jobes, 2005). Moral household codes during the early century church were a government response to the diverse Greco-Roman culture. The ground basis of household management codes in the Greco-Roman culture was acknowledged and addressed by numerous philosophical and religious leaders, including Paul and Peter; however, neither of the two apostles simply affirmed Greco-Roman expectations (Jobes, 2005). The codes had a direct impact on growing communities in surrounding social structures of influence. In addition, the household codes served as a distinction between the new Christian identity and the Roman-Greco society that many were living among. These codes had an impact on marginalized groups, including women of all socio-economic demographics, in leadership and community roles. Code development formed a defense strategy, a cultural norm, that marked a centripetal direction (Malina, 2001) between men and women roles as it relates to headship versus lordship; position versus power; and honor versus submission. This calls attention to understanding that the established household coded system of the early church offers some insight into the cultural behavior of women in leadership through the lens of these three dichotomies: headship versus lordship; position versus power; and honor versus submission.

8.3 1 Corinthians 11:1–16

Commentators attribute the authorship of the Corinthian epistles to Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 16:21), affirmed with amanuensis assistance from Sosthenes (1 Cor. 1:1), and further edited with Paul’s parenetical commentary (Fotopoulos, 2010, p. 421; Malcolm et al., 2012, p. 65). Paul communicated through correspondence on numerous occasions to the people of Corinth (1 Cor. 5:9–11; 2 Cor. 2:3–4, 7:8–9); however, survival of the historical canonical texts is lost (Bray, 2009; Keener, 2014). The occasion for 1 Corinthians reveals factors for Paul’s communication with his first-established church to resolve community dissention reported to him while he was in Ephesus (1 Cor. 1:11, 11:18, 16:8) and for Paul to address moral and ethical issues that raised concerns of spiritual formation and community worship (7:1–40, 81–11, 12:1–14).

Cultural analysis supports that Corinth was a Greek-speaking, Roman-settled colony, suggesting that it was influenced by both dominant cultures. Corinth was strategically significant due to its extensive Greek history, multi-cosmopolitan culture, and its Roman government influence (Brown, 1997). This would make sense, considering the settlement and geographical make-up of Corinth. Julius Caesar settled and modeled the city of Corinth in 44 BC as a Roman colony with the proconsul presence at the center of the province (Acts 18:22). Corinth’s geographic landmass conventionally provided for dock, port, and harbor of the Saronic and Corinthian gulf coasts that created an economic trading trough for the city (Fotopoulos, 2010).

Rhetoric is the science and art of speaking well. Apostle Paul lived in a rhetoric-saturated environment because it was the primary education discipline during the Roman Empire (Witherington, 2011, p. 22). Scholarly suggestion implores Paul’s interest in persuasion was “more than mere ornamentation or simply speaking eloquently” in his communication with the leadership (Witherington, p. 23). Cultural and social intertexture is dominant rhetoric throughout 1 Corinthians that suggest Paul’s adherence to traditions of honor and shame regarding women roles by means of analysis. 1 Corinthians 11:1–16 has often been identified and referenced by scholars to suggest or renege Paul’s complex persuasion of women serving in ministerial leading roles (Gench, 2015; Keener, 1992; Wire, 1990). In addition, scholarly interpretation contends 1 Cor. 11:1–16 as one of the lengthiest ambiguous, complex, and contrary to mutuality discussions of gender within the Pauline corpus (Gench, 2015, p. 37; Lee, 2021, p. 114).

Cultural elements and patterns that develop into behaviors within a culture were the basis of formed structures of the early church (Malina, 2001; Meeks, 2003). Examination of 1 Corinthians 11:1–16 reveals elements of cultural and social intertexture such as allusions and echoes over ecclesial attire. Progressive patterns and repetitive text reveal pronouns and derivatives that suggest cultural themes of honor and shame that, “pervade the text with rhetorical language such as praise, commendation, glory, shame, disgrace, propriety and dishonor” (Gench, 2015, p. 45). However, Hawkins (2004) references Paul’s approach towards the Corinthian community as a premise towards women submission. Such an argument would be compelled to societal and cultural norms of which Castelli (1999) referenced as Paul’s ongoing cultural reception and authority interwoven with concern for social relations and identity within the Greco-Roman community (p. 229).

Progressive texture and patterns emerge within the text firstly with Paul’s “I” commendation of tradition (11:2) offset by the word “head” metaphorically referenced three times (11:3) to reflect man/Christ, man/woman, and Christ/God relationships. Lee (2021) characterized this descending pattern as a standout reflecting a form of order in lordship. The progressive texture of head eight times in the text is a part of Paul’s theological framework that connects the passage, to why men ought not have anything on the head and why women should be covered (Gench, 2015; Payne, 2009). The metaphorical use of head for the man would bring shame upon Christ and the community if something was hanging down the head, juxtaposed the woman, if she were to prophesy with an uncovered head would bring shame. Gorman (2017) recognized this as an affirmation of three headship relationships—Christ, man, and woman—understood in hierarchal progression representing authority or general relation in nature. Nonetheless, an alternative viewpoint that Paul articulated to the community of Galatians contradicts his statement to freedom in Christ in whom “there is no longer male and female” (Gal. 3.28).

The anomalies of “disgraces his head, disgraces her head” and shaved, cut, and veiled (4–7) illume as progressive textual rhetoric form regarding men. Payne (2009) opined Paul’s reference of “disgraces his head” (11:4) and “ought not have his head veiled” (11:7) as an awareness of long effeminate hair cultural influences, yet an advocation for gender differentiation in his concluding argument, “Does not nature itself teach, if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him” (11:14). Of note, 11:4–5 calls out men and women, yet 11:6 places formality on woman only. Payne suggested that Paul’s intent is to focus on both men and women leaders of the Corinthian church (p. 115). In a similar indication, Vander-Stichele and Penner (2005) identified 11:5–7 as the critical lynchpin of Paul’s argument where irregularities are connected to shame for both occasions (p. 292). Progressive text pattern is also observed in 11:8–9 revealing a sequence of man–woman, woman–man, and the purpose of woman’s creation. This progressive pattern outlines a relationship between man and woman and the appeal to draw a connection to the creative narrative text in Genesis 2:4–25. A similar progressive pattern is observed again in 11:11–12, but in reverse order of woman–man, man–woman, and the purpose that “all things come from God.” Fee (2014) considered the paired verses as “a perfect double chiasm,” nonaccidental on the rhetoric’s part yet affirmation that God arranged as believers, man and woman, mutually dependent on one another (pp. 578–579). The progressive pattern observed throughout 11:8–12 is noted by some scholars as a contrast of gender hierarchy and tension between mutuality and equal dependence (Gundry-Volf, 1995; Peppiatt, 2015). Malcolm (2013) placed emphasis of the rhetoric in both 11:3–5 and 11:11–12 and Paul’s insistence of God-dependent mutuality and that there is no position or independence from the power of the Lord (p. 196).

In view of all the Pauline versatility regarding women’s roles, Paul is the first New Testament leader to address women serving within a leading role in the church. Four areas emerge concerning the women in Corinth in 1 Cor. 11:1–16. Firstly, women were involved in prayer and prophesy as leading roles within the Corinthian church. Honor versus submission aligns in agreement with Schreiner (2016) who suggested that women with the gift of prophecy could exercise honor and respect the organizational culture in a way that did not subvert leadership but allowed them to function in the gift equally as the male leadership (p. 194). Second, men and women leaders set the example for the Corinthian church. 1 Corinthians 11:1–16 holds to the theme of Paul’s demonstrated leadership example that the church should “be imitators” and follow, concerning how Christians should live during internal group controversy (Barentsen, 2011). Paul’s appeal to the Corinthian congregants to imitate him is reflective of an alignment towards leadership social identity. This includes a process of self-sacrifice and setting a personal example for followers to learn directly or vicariously from the leader within an ecclesial setting.

Third is an interdependence of man and woman serving “in the Lord.” Paul formed his entire discussion throughout 1 Corinthians on expectations regarding the functioning of the church leadership surrounding controversy in support of roles. This includes Paul’s commitment to cultivate community in the context of Christian social identity within Corinth. There is no doubt that women are serving alongside and independently of men in the text; however, there is the reminder that all beings come from God who serves as head of both men and women, as precedence in Pauline theology and imitated by both men and women leaders, using Paul as the example. Integration of these power relations within a marginalized community may cause for rejection and tension; however, this analysis reflects Paul’s narrative and attention to his position on in support of women roles. Lastly, it is meaningful to point out the magnitude of diversity of women’s engagement in the text. Likened to Livermore (1824), an advocate contended biblical restrictions against women’s leadership (p. 70) and defended that women be able to speak and labor for the discipleship of all men and women in public settings, as the witnessing of Paul’s writings support (pp. 95–97).

8.4 Overview of 1 Peter 3:1–7

Historically, 1 Peter has been studied for theological, ecclesial, and gender-contextual issues (Greene, 2007; Jobes, 2005; Witherington, 2007). Contemporary Petrine exegetes explore the text for its cultural dynamics, rethinking center and marginal audiences and their social context (Kaalund, 2020; Smith, 2016). Crowther (2012), however, examined 1 Peter for a deeper analysis and insight through the lens of authentic leadership. Crowther (2018) would further identify the story of Peter as a case study in leader transformation through wisdom, counsel, and servant leadership. Viewing Apostle Peter through both contemporary leadership theories makes room for organizational complexity, while addressing issues of “self, motive, and the proper use of divergent areas such as authority and ethics” (Crowther, 2018, p. 159), and in the case for this work, headship vice lordship; position vice power; and honor vice submission.

Placing the epistle in a chorological perspective, archeological research suggests 1 Peter was written after Paul’s letter to the Romans, yet before the burning of Rome in 64AD. A wide degree of scholarly consensus attributes the penmanship of First Peter to an author after Peter’s time, pseudonymously a Petrine group in Rome or one of the apostolic teachings to a later generation (Best, 1971; Elliott, 1990; Kittredge, 2012). First Peter is mostly important because of its prominent role in the history of the first-century church (Elliot, 2007). It is expressly written to a marginalized community of believers in which Apostle Peter would have had direct influence and impact. Also, although it was addressed to a community to prevent the loss of faith, the same community was socially and religiously estranged, dispersed throughout the Roman provinces of Asia Minor and living under ubiquitous conformity of societal norms.

Kittredge (2012) suggests that 1 Peter is written with an awareness of moral codes of conduct and the activity of cultural accommodation (p. 617). During the latter of the first century, women and leadership became a controversial concern within the Christian church. Household churches came under scrutiny to conform to Roman social and political structures. Prevailing order of household codes would become a relational norm within Christian communities, specifically as it relates to male and female roles (Russell, 1993, p. 62). This conformation represented one leader’s attempt to manage diversity within a marginalized culture, while exhorting a microculture to maintain peaceful community balance (Kaalund, p. 207; Witherington, 2007, p. 25).

Throughout the 1 Peter epistle, the author is addressing three groupings of people: slaves, wives, and husbands. The author’s communication is to a diasporic people, all—slave, wife, and husband—destined and given a new birth, a chosen people, to do and declare the works of the One who called them. This call is of a mutual service for both woman and man, independent of one another, yet unified to show others as an example and model. This would suggest that 1 Peter speaks directly to leaders about leadership much like Paul speaks to leaders in the Pastoral Epistles, yet the Petrine texts have not been mined for an understanding of leadership in relation to Paul (Crowther, 2012).

Twenty-first-century contemporary exchange and discussions about woman’s roles and responsibilities from a biblical perspective fall within the margins of 1 Peter 3:1–7. “Wives in the same way accept the authority…” (3:1a) serves as a follow-on explanation of the previous discussion. Howsoever, the author draws a great deal of suspicion on gender roles from the very beginning of the sentence. The exhortation to be submissive was presented within a culture where conventional wisdom was acceptable as an integral part of societal order (Christensen, 2016). During the early Pauline Christian church women had some sense of equality and were treated as individuals in their own right. Women found an expressive freedom within the “new creation paradigm,” which granted women new responsibilities in the community of faith that they could not experience elsewhere in society (Davids, 1990; Witherington, 1988). Yet political authorities were adamant about religious movements and the effects of the orderly functioning of households (Van Rensburg, 2004, p. 255). However, the radical undertone of 3:1 tells wives they can evangelize their non-Christian husbands without a word, and later in the text (3:15) be prepared to verbally express a public word about their faith (Smith, 2016, p. 79).

However, Peter addresses women as independent moral agents, with a conscious decisiveness of faith and attitude to win their husbands over, contrary to cultural belief and household codes set in place by an estranged society. There is also a rhetorical of brevity for women to remain committed to their faith and committed to their husbands, through submission of the heart and submission to the development of the inner person (Crowther, p. 103). Peter’s appeal to inward vice, outward adornment, and inner self (3:3–4) reflects an alignment with God and self. The inward-outward metaphor places an emphasis on being and reflects an ongoing inner transformation of the heart, that negates position and power that is normalized in a patriarchal organization. As a principle, 3:4–6 supports women to use their gifts and talents to steward in leadership and power paradoxically, not as in dominance but even in weakness (Crowther, p. 165), for in His perfect weakness women are made strong.

There is a rhetorical strategy that God transforms shame into honor through the Christian community’s relationship to the larger community (Elliot, 2007). The affirmation that wives are “heirs with you” implies woman’s equitable and honorable standing and not subordination (Payne, 2009, p. 276). It debunks the academic teachings of Augustine who referred to women as the weaker being, lesser, and second in creation (Ruether, 2014, p. 85). Instead, woman is made in the image of God aligned with man, a new relationship marked with equality and service (Bekker, 2007). Another aspect within the text is the role of women in positions of leadership vice power. Keck (1998) points out that a dramatic feature is the image of strong, courageous women displayed in a healthy and positive image (p. 782). One can envision an image of the women of Corinth exercising in leading roles of worship, engaging in prayer and prophecy along with men as courageous and positive. Another aspect of power is the displacement of honor. It is a reversal of power from its traditional masculine ideal context versus the feminine aspect in the same regard. This would be germane to the point of view of women having the same level of leadership and recognition in abilities and to work ethically alongside the male counterpart. Lastly, the social and cultural context of 1 Peter 3:1–7 is a culture of honor and submission. A progression of integrative themes, such as the behavior of slaves, wives, and husbands, serves to indicate that all, in every society or grouping, must submit to and honor one another (Dinkler, 2007, p. 11). Society throughout the globe has changed since the first century, due to the power of the Gospel. As a result, a distinctive identity has emerged that provides for community and a place of belonging.

In summary, although twenty-first-century women are not subject to the same cultural constraints that influenced the doctrine of early century leaders and thinkers of the church, women in leadership remain a delicate conversation in the company of professions and occupations. 1 Peter offers an example through which an appreciation and understanding of authenticity and partnership for women in leadership can be gained. The analysis of 1 Peter regarding the biblical narrative about women and women’s place in society from a cultural posture debunks the theologies of position vice power because women were empowered to influence household dynamics and relationships by their leading character.

8.5 The Impact of Women in Leadership in the Twenty-First Century

Societies have changed drastically since the first few centuries when the formation of Christendom was being established. The enforcement of early century cultures onto modern societies would be unrealistic and contrary to the power of the Gospel (Gonzalez, 2010). However, the takeaways from the two passages present some measure of principles for women in leadership within the twenty-first century. There are six principles gleaned from 1 Corinthians 11:1–16 and 1 Peter 3:1–7 that impacts, inspires, and compels the identity of the twenty-first-century leading woman—her behaviors, actions, and reactions, and her leadership within home, community, and faith. The analyses in the preceding sections communicate principles such as moral agency, interdependence, alignment, honor, vision, and organizational stewardship that are particular to women in leadership in the twenty-first century.

8.6 Principle One: Moral Agency

Paul addressed the early churches in an effort to create a pattern of leadership behavior and moral efficacy. Peter’s communication to wives suggests that women had (and still have) a measure of moral responsibility and choice (Crowther, 2018, p. 102). Paul and Peter ascribed a degree of agency and influence on women in the area of individual and familial faith through leadership inside of the household. Throughout today’s society, it is needful as a leader to maintain a spirit of consciousness, moral agency, and resilience in order to respond to adversity in ways that protect the organizational fabric of the home, the community, and her faith (Elkington & Breen, 2015, p. 96). For as often as women leaders are exposed to a greater level of consciousness—through reflection, prayer, and meditation—their paradigm of leadership will evolve, shift, and grow (Elkington & Breen, 2015). For women in leadership, moral agency is the triune balance of peace, self-awareness, and resilience that provides meaning to challenge and wonder of purpose. Moral agency is the threshold whereupon identity is negotiated for women in leadership and the distinguished characteristic of being called out of oneself for the sake of communal work.

Principle One: Moral agency is the triune balance of peace, self-awareness, and resilience that provides meaning to challenge and wonder of purpose.

8.7 Principle Two: Interdependence

Passages such as 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Peter 3 point to men and women serving “in the Lord.” Paul formed his entire discussion throughout 1 Corinthians on expectations regarding the functioning of the church leadership surrounding controversy in support of roles. This includes Paul’s commitment to cultivate community in the context of social identity. There is no doubt that women are serving alongside and independently of men in the text, yet there is the reminder that all beings come from God who serves as head of both men and women. Peter addressed women specifically, as an encouragement to them to remain focused on your interdependence to your faith. Women were expected to independently manage their households. Stepping into a woman’s household was to step into women world. The analysis advocates for a leadership model that embraces interdependence and mutuality of and for women and men. This responsibly bears weight on women’s leadership at large, minimalizing binary views of women in leadership and supporting an interdependence with others while adopting a trajectory towards unity.

Principle Two: Women in leadership supports interdependence with others and adopts a trajectory towards unity within an organization.

8.8 Principle Three: Alignment

Julia Foote’s comments that women during the first century church, “did more than to pour out tea” (p. 209), speak to Apostle Paul’s guidance to leaders in the community to align with women who labor in the Gospel (Phil. 4:3). Paul’s direction to the Corinthian congregants to imitate him is reflective of alignment towards leadership and social identity. Peter’s appeal to the wives also represents a showing of alignment in relationships with others. This includes a process of self-sacrifice and setting a personal example for followers to learn directly or vicariously from the leader within. For the woman as leader, a balanced and stable mind makes room for peace and exercises alignment with the body that will follow to the soul (Ortberg, 2014). This analysis supports that women in leading roles encourage harmony with moral and ethical alignment of conviction of community and service to others.

Principle Three: Women in leading roles encourage harmony with moral and ethical alignment of conviction of community and service to others.

8.9 Principle Four: Honor

The context of 1 Corinthians and 1 Peter is set in a society of honor, which would have caused the example of women in leading roles to be countercultural as well as counterintuitive (Crowther, 2012, p. 64; MacDonald, 2014, p. 272). Even as such honor towards the household codes emerge against the backdrop of cultural resistance to the extent that gender plays a role in cultural compliance. The honor of male and female, towards male and female, is a responsive trait in leadership. Honor connects to respectability, both in the eyes of self and in the eyes of others (Malina, 2001). As a key practice and principle of women in leadership, honoring the belief, skillset, and ability of others elicits trust and integrity in others. This considers the distinguishing characteristic within both contexts, specifically for women, whereby women in leadership present a perspective of giving honor where and when honor is due and recognizing that honor is consequential to horizontal and vertical leadership relationships.

Principle Four: Women in leadership present a perspective of giving honor where and when honor is due and recognizing that honor is consequential to horizontal and vertical leadership relationships.

8.10 Principle Five: Vision

Without vision an organization will perish. Vision shapes the present and influences the future (Crowther, 2012). Successful leadership takes into consideration an organizational vision that is inclusive of diversity of thought and intellect. The early church nurtured a vision for women and men to lead. Gleaned from each biblical text is a vision and a promise of a world where the humanity of every person will be fully valued (Weems, 2021). The study of the two biblical texts demonstrates a model for structured formality of organizational vision that included women as a center piece and leadership. A developed vision communicated to others is a key ingredient in leadership (Yukl, 2013). Leadership involves social identity and the art of engaging, mobilizing, directing, and helping others find a vision for themselves. Paul and Peter communicate directly to women in both instances. Women have a vision that is authentic to their leadership style and approach to organizational structure and a vision that enables everyone within communities providing order and stability. This further suggests women’s capacity for a vision that includes healthy relationships, safe workspaces, organization of family structure, and connection in community.

Principle Five: Women have a vision that is authentic to their leadership style and approach towards organizational structure and vision that includes healthy relationships, safe workspaces, organization of family structure, and connection in community.

8.11 Principle Six: Organizational Stewardship

Crowther (2012) identified steward leadership as one of the principles in the Petrine leadership model. A steward leader is one who serves by overseeing and using gifts and resources wisely in the community not for gain of honor or status. Organizational stewardship nullifies the exchange of position vice power and allows for relationships based on equity and service.

Where and when women lead there is a propensity for stewardship. Statistically, women-led organizations embody a culture of participation, collaboration, egalitarianism, extrinsic reward, and interpersonal relationships (Maier, 1999). Where and when women’s leadership is present, the organizational structure contributes to cultural values, emotional intelligence, and authenticity in leadership style (Walker & Artiz, 2015). The above analysis suggests that the ability of women to negotiate on behalf of others demonstrates the value of stewardship and a capacity to handle difficult situations.

Principle Six: The ability and capacity of women to handle difficult situations and negotiate on behalf of others demonstrate the value of organizational stewardship.

8.12 Conclusion

Ideas, inspirations, and imaginative originate within social and historical contexts that shape and define them. Peter and Paul were two biblical leaders who mostly shaped early Christianity (Witherington, 2007). The two leaders represent different functions in the building and the development of the first-century Christian leader, yet their messages work in tandem in situating the discussion of women in leadership and the impact of contemporary leading women within sectors of profession, family, and faith. Through the cultural analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:1–16 and 1 Peter 3:1–7, this chapter identified six principles that intersect women and leadership roles. Women were expected to be leaders of their households during the early Christian church. Even as a diasporic people—presumably in public as much as private—women, as a marginalized group, were called upon to demonstrate principles of ethical leading behaviors modeled for a communal sect.

In addition, this chapter situated that honor and submission were paramount values for the Greco-Roman world, that lordship and headship represent an affirmation of relationship to, and order within community; and there is no position from the power of God. The prevalence of Greco-Roman ethical codes carried weight of significance and relevance for leaders during the early century church. However, whether such codes fit within a broader symbolic reference for the twenty-first century or whether such doctrine has passed away, the principles shaped from the cultural analysis within this study, bring to the forefront a way to see the text and its relevance for women in leadership within today’s societal context (Table 8.1)

Table 8.1 Principles that support women in leadership in the twenty-first century
Full size table