Judge Deborah and Pastor/Teacher Priscilla: Templates for Contemporary Biblical Women’s Leadership

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

As the title leads readers to believe, this article examines two figures in Christian scripture as models for female leadership in the present-day world. Exploring Deborah and Priscilla, the author argues that female leadership is portrayed in dynamic, complex, and vivifying ways within the pages of scripture. After a brief introduction, the author outlines what scripture says about Deborah and Priscilla, respectively. These sections offer full characterizations of each woman, while providing a fair characterization of what scripture says about each woman. The inclusion of a section on Priscilla as an author breaks with the otherwise biblically focused interpretations of the women throughout the rest of sections 2 and 3. However, as the author rightly notes, the belief that Priscilla wrote Hebrews is found elsewhere in scholarship and balances the presentation of Deborah as author. The descriptive sections are brought to a close by a comparison in which the respective leadership styles of Deborah and Priscilla are analyzed. Based upon this extensive exegetical analysis, the author constructs templates based off Deborah and Priscilla’s respective leadership styles. Alongside the construction of these types, the author argues that women in positions of ecclesial leadership should be encouraged to lead from similar positions in which their gender identity as female leaders is affirmed.

This article makes a helpful contribution to current intra-ecclesial reflections on female leadership. The author rightly points out the limitations of a key opposing position that appeals to a select number of prooftexts from the Pauline letters to validate exclusively male leadership. Instead, the author observes that other models of leadership can be found in Christian scripture. In addition, the author helpfully characterizes Deborah and Priscilla as “templates” that may be adopted by contemporary ecclesial leaders.

The article may be aided by including a statement about why biblical figures should be interpreted as models for the contemporary world at all. Admittedly, this reviewer is sympathetic to such readings of scripture, and it would not be at all reasonable to ask for a full response to the various hermeneutical issues implicit in this suggestion. However, even a brief acknowledge of a footnote, sentence, or short paragraph (perhaps around the transition from section 4 to section 5), might signify to readers an awareness that some practice the study of religion differently from the approach taken in this article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your insightful evaluation of my article regarding Deborah and Priscilla as models for female ecclesial leadership today. I appreciate your clear understanding of the methodology and purpose of my article. Your input is most helpful. I have responded in general to your corrective comments and also in point-by-point form with changes to the article.

Thank you for pointing out that the segment on Priscilla as a hypothetical author breaks with the otherwise biblically focused analysis of the two women, though I am pleased you note the hypothesis has scholarly support and balances Deborah's authorship. Since another reviewer also mentioned the segment on Priscilla's authorship as problematic, I have cut the segment altogether. Do you agree?

I appreciate your suggestion to insert a brief defense of the practice of using biblical figures as templates for ecclesial leaders today. I have now included this requested statement in the paper (see below). Thank you for your apropos suggestion on where to place this paragraph.

Again, thank you for your time and wise guidance. (see below for point-by-point)

In His Grace,

Response 1:

YOUR COMMENT: The inclusion of a section on Priscilla as an author breaks with the otherwise biblically focused interpretations of the women throughout the rest of sections 2 and 3. However, as the author rightly notes, the belief that Priscilla wrote Hebrews is found elsewhere in scholarship and balances the presentation of Deborah as author. 

MY RESPONSE: I have omitted this problematic segment from the article.

Response 2:

YOUR COMMENT: The article may be aided by including a statement about why biblical figures should be interpreted as models for the contemporary world at all . . . even a brief acknowledge of a footnote, sentence, or short paragraph (perhaps around the transition from section 4 to section 5), might signify to readers an awareness that some practice the study of religion differently from the approach taken in this article.

MY RESPONSE: The following statement has been inserted in the transition from section 4 to section 5, page nine, fourth paragraph, lines 454-459.

The New Testament frequently cites characters from the Hebrew Scriptures as examples of life and conduct applicable to the time of the nascent church (e.g., Hebrews 3:5; Romans 4:3,13; Hebrews 11:11). In parallel practice, so also might worthy examples of life and conduct from the Bible validly apply to contemporary contexts with appropriate cultural adjustments. This paper next looks at the leadership models Deborah and Priscilla have bequeathed female leaders today.

Again, thank you for your time and attention to my article. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written, thorough and well-researched article that is highly relevant to today’s leadership contexts. It is interesting and easy to understand and interpret, even without a strong knowledge of scripture. While there is sufficient connection to theological scholarship, I would like to see more sufficient integration of the literature related to feminine leadership styles and opportunities for women in leadership, particularly evidence to support the statement that “female leaders offer unique leadership qualities specific to their gender.” Without this support, this statement and others (i.e. “no one questioning or resenting her leadership,” “a hallmark female characteristic”) appear to be assumptions. While there is some discussion of feminine leadership styles, it does not connect with all of the statements made throughout the paper. In addition, consider using the phrase Hebrew Bible or Hebrew Scriptures in place of Old Testament as these terms are generally used when writing for a general audience that includes Christians and non-Christians. I also suggest selecting either females or women rather than using these terms interchangeably.

Author Response

Dear Peer Reviewer:

Thank you for much for your helpful and thoughtful review of my article. I'm so pleased you found the study well-written and relevant. Those were heartfelt goals. I have devoted significant consideration and prayer to your revision suggestions. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to improve the article. Thanks once again.

Below, please find my responses. 

Response 1

YOUR COMMENT: I would like to see more sufficient integration of the literature related to feminine leadership styles and opportunities for women in leadership, particularly evidence to support the statement that “female leaders offer unique leadership qualities specific to their gender.” Without this support, this statement and others (i.e. “no one questioning or resenting her leadership,” “a hallmark female characteristic”) appear to be assumptions. While there is some discussion of feminine leadership styles, it does not connect with all of the statements made throughout the paper.

MY REPLY: Per your recommendation, I have modified the article to take greater care throughout to support general statements with specific scholarship and to integrate literary references specific to female leadership styles exemplified by Deborah and Priscilla. For clarity and integration, I have selected a limited number of characteristics to emphasize repetitively through the case studies of Deborah and Priscilla. These are accessible, relational, collaboration, cooperation, servant leadership, transformation vs. transaction, nurture, and emotional intelligence. One or more of these words or derivatives thereof are now found on pp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14. The repetition should help clarify for the reader the points regarding these leadership characteristics.

The small adjustments are too numerous to list, but below are instances of substantive changes:

P. 1, lines 13-18. The need for rediscovering and recovering females’ leadership gifts and styles has never been more urgent or appropriate in the current cultural atmosphere requiring an emphasis on collaboration and cooperation (relationality), emotional intelligence that seeks transformation rather than a transaction, and nurturing servant-leadership that females seem naturally to possess females, as manifested in Deborah and Priscilla as leaders.

(The above is in the Abstract, where details are not yet appropriate. Relationality is addressed specifically with direct connections to the literature on pp. 2, 8, 12, and 13; and non-hierarchical collaboration occupies most of p. 14 with a clearly defined connection to the literature.)

P. 1, lines 25-30. Scripture depicts females as God-anointed leaders of His chosen people, Israel, and of His church. Female leaders offer unique leadership qualities specific to their gender, which the church (and the world) has mistakenly subjugated or ignored to its detriment. As Esther Wachs Book notes, “Men and women often bring different approaches to looking at problems, opportunities, and decisions. The more approaches available, the better the outcome (Esther Wachs Book 2009, p. 9).

P. 1, lines 32-35. The study unpacks Deborah’s and Priscilla’s uniquely feminine contributions to leadership, highlighting their emphases on collaboration and cooperation, transformation rather than transaction, and circular/web rather than hierarchical/tower leadership styles.

(This statement is in the Introduction. The study revisits these specific feminine contributions to leadership and connects the literature on pp. 2, 8, 12, 13, and 14.

P. 2, lines 66-71. Her firm planting beneath the tree that “bears her name” while citizens came to her lends weight to her recognized authority (Sterman 2011, p. 20). In addition, Deborah’s open accessibility to the people for whom God has made her responsible illustrates the distinctively female emphasis on relationality in leadership as identified by Werhane, Posig, et al. in their study of successful female leaders in the workplace (Werhane, Posig, et al. 2007, 178). This deliberate accessibility characteristic is found in none of the male judges in the Book of Judges.

P. 3, lines 113-114. This statement was removed from the paper: Neither she nor the people who trust her judgment display any indication that they consider her leadership inappropriate.

P. 4, lines 176-181. Further, Deborah behaved maternally toward the people of her nation—God’s people, whom she served with faithful devotion toward YHWH and His call upon her life. Japinga points out that her distinctly female nurturing instinct, evidenced by her empathy toward her people’s pain, as well as her piety toward God, qualified her as an effective national leader (Japinga 2017, p. 60).

P. 8, lines 403-406. Deborah and Priscilla exemplify the best in female leadership qualities and styles. They share significant leadership similarities beyond the basic fact of their gender, including what Esther Wachs Book considers “traditional feminine qualities” like nurture, empathy, and relational collaboration (Esther Wachs Book, 2009, Introduction).

P. 11, lines 537-541. In perceiving the authority of her Lord, she does not concern herself with garnering acclaim. Whether from nature or nurture, women seem more adept at subjugating ego (servant leadership) in pursuing team accomplishments, demonstrating a feminine instinct toward collaboration in aid of their leadership skills (Wachs Book 2009, Introduction, Kindle Edition).

P. 11, lines 550-551. The Deborah leader is a coach and a mentor to leaders under her guidance, illustrating the feminine leadership emphasis on transformation over transaction..

P. 11, lines 556-563. “He, in turn, did not appear to resent her leadership or direction. He saw her as the embodiment of God’s presence” (Japinga 2017, p. 61). Through Deborah’s life and ministry, we see a model for males and females to work together with the female at the helm and, as Japinga points out above, no one questioning or resenting her leadership. Carrying out the will of God becomes the focus, not the gender of the person in charge.

P. 12, lines 608-610. There is no thought in the Priscilla leader that she ought not to lead because the Spirit compels her to step out and guide others with a true shepherd’s hand in a humble spirit of collaboration and cooperation.

P. 12, lines 620-622. she astutely delayed the goal of correction until an appropriate time and place that guarded Apollos’s dignity. Such delicacy illustrates the feminine focus on transforming those they lead rather than simply requiring performance (Alloway 2021, p. 152).

P. 12, lines 633-635. The Priscilla leader is intensely relational, a hallmark female characteristic, in all she undertakes. Werhane, Posig, et al. dub this relational style—key in the female leaders they studied—as “interactive and participatory,” concerned more with transformation than transaction (Werhan, Posig, et al. 2007, xviii). Hierarchy does not concern her when interactive participation and collegial coaching produce better results.

P. 14, lines 726-729. This community-based, big-picture style of leadership is a typical manifestation of the feminine tendency toward serving those she leads in a creative, nurturing, and liberating manner, finding value in empowering others (Wachs Book 2009, p. 244).

Response 2

YOUR COMMENT: In addition, consider using the phrase Hebrew Bible or Hebrew Scriptures in place of Old Testament as these terms are generally used when writing for a general audience that includes Christians and non-Christians.

MY REPLY: I have substituted the Hebrew Bible for the Old Testament throughout the paper unless the term occurs in a quotation. Is there a general audience term for the New Testament, or is that term universally understood?

Response 3

YOUR COMMENT: I also suggest selecting either females or women rather than using these terms interchangeably.

MY REPLY: I have substituted female for women throughout the paper unless the word occurs in a quotation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Based on the declared operating assumption that the Bible supports women in all leadership roles, the author presented two case studies. This case study approach presents scriptural evidence that displays the point without requiring a descent into an ages-old debate that no scholarship will likely solve. The decision to write in this manner wisely helped the author get straight to the point of showing how biblical depictions of Deborah and Priscilla portray female leadership as a desideratum for the church universal.

The author fulfilled the promise made at the end of the second paragraph, though I am not certain that stating the plan to use a wide variety of sources helped the article. The remainder of the paper showed that the author had done so; that display of scholarship seems sufficient. Despite the excellent bibliography, the author could have used sources more judiciously. The large amount of direct quotations risked giving the appearance of stringing together other peoples’ work rather than providing a unique contribution to scholarship.

Although the bibliography included diverse scholarly voices, I had difficulty discerning which ones (if any) disagreed with the author’s perspective. The plan to avoid the argument over the Bible’s overarching view on women in ministry generally served the author well. However, for specific arguments (e.g., whether biblical women must only be compared to other women), the author often uses phrases like “some scholars say,” without citing any sources or explicating their views. Further, the quote credited to Nguyen in lines 239-41 does not refer to Nguyen’s work but rather to his precedent research. Engaging with the points made by some of Nguyen’s opponents (if they are also the author’s opponents, as appears to be the case) will give credence to this article’s argument by its specificity. In other words, the author should give readers at least one example of opposition instead of the vague “scholars say…” The author should engage with the opposing argument so readers can recognize why the author’s option is preferable. 

Paraphrasing sources and interacting with scholars who disagree with the author’s viewpoint will help overcome the problems named in the previous two paragraphs. Such revisions will encourage the writer to expand on the work of others, showing how it relates to the thesis that Deborah and Priscilla serve as appropriate case studies to prove that God desires female leaders in all areas of life. Having said that, the variety of sources already consulted should assist the writer toward making these adjustments. Further, the article’s strongest warrant occurs in a paraphrase of Herzberg (lines 133-34). If the author uses this example and thus paraphrases most other aspects of the argument, the writer’s voice will become more authoritative, and the argument will become the author’s own.

The most significant drawback to this draft of the article was the author’s lack of interaction with biblical texts in their original languages. Quotes from other scholars occasionally included transliterations, but the argument depended on modern English translations. The author’s own translations would help toward a clear, precise, original argument. The case study approach possesses much potential for a unique contribution to scholarship, but the three aspects of argument structure addressed here should be revised substantially in order to activate that potential. If the author is currently unable to complete the request for interaction with biblical languages, I recommend consulting the best commentaries that discuss texts in the earliest available forms until the time the author has mastered the languages enough to use them in academic writing.

The article’s claims for Deborah as a biblical paradigm of female leadership persuades far more effectively than the claims for Priscilla. Any discussion on the authorship debate concerning Hebrews seemed outside the article’s scope. The author rightly maintained that biblical scholarship often lacks consensus. Nevertheless, camps usually develop, with each side presenting compelling, evidence-based reasons for their case. The debate over Hebrews' authorship, to the contrary, involves some guesses that are better than others, but no scholar has introduced significant evidence that can transcend guesswork. Dickson provided some thoughtful insight that showed Priscilla may have been the author, but Dickson did not and cannot elevate that insight beyond guesswork. Without a solid argument that Priscilla wrote Hebrews, one cannot use the tenuous claim as a warrant in favor of female leadership. For that reason, the mystery over Hebrews’ authorship extends far beyond the normal lack of scholarly consensus that the article tried applying to the issue. I would recommend removing the material associated with Priscilla as a possible author and then either seeking compelling warrants to present her as a case study or expanding the superior arguments regarding Deborah.

After presenting the biblical case studies, the author provided nice summaries that function almost like job description for modern leaders, regardless of gender. The lists of characteristics for “Deborah leaders” and “Priscilla leaders” helpfully applied the biblical material to today’s church. This aspect of the article seemed to be the author’s purpose for writing this work. Tightening up the biblical arguments, as recommended in previous paragraphs, will bolster the potential impact that this list of characteristics can have on biblical studies and ecclesiology.

One of the great strengths of the case study approach for such a controversial topic is the irenic tone one can maintain while displaying evidence that dramatically impugns the other side. Although I share the author’s discontent, even anger, at ways in which some segments of the church define and relegate roles for women based on unbiblical, patriarchal standards, the final two sections of the article include some rancorous language that should be assuaged. First, when dealing with the ostensible Pauline injunctions against female pastors, the author does not interact with opposing viewpoints but instead subjugates those arguments to mere “prooftexts.” More egregiously, the writer’s conclusion referred to the views of complementarian practitioners as “uncritically evaluated, dogmatic assumptions fueled and reinforced by cultural dictates.” Many excellent scholars fall within the complementarian camp; many faithful, sincere Christians—including many women—do not find all forms of female leadership to be biblical. We can disagree with those positions without impugning the scholarly competency of the former or the Christian faithfulness of the latter. If the author would stay fully within the confines of the case study, as the introduction implied, that decision would allow the evidence to speak for itself and provide a more productive outlet for the writer’s anger.

Finally, I want to commend the author again on choosing a method with so much potential for scholarly contribution. After making the revisions necessary, I believe this article can have a significant impact on scholarship and on the church. To that end, I hope that the author will continue with this manner of research after publishing this article. Phoebe, in particular, presents a promising opportunity for a case study to consider in the future. The text critical evidence regarding Romans 16 seems to suggest that she served not only as a deaconess but also as Paul’s rhetorical reader, a role akin to many pastorates today. So, I hope that the writer understands how much potential exists with this case study approach and will continue to produce related articles regarding other biblical women. In so doing, the author can prove the point of the Bible’s attitude toward female leadership void of the hostility that so often taints this debate.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you so much for your thorough review of my article on female leadership in the church today employing case studies of Deborah from the Hebrew Bible and Priscilla from the New Testament. Your insights were invaluable. I can't adequately express how much I appreciate your time and attention. 

Please see the attachment for my point-by-point response to your review.

Again, you have my gratitude.

Blessings,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has produced a draft that provides an original contribution to scholarship regarding the ministries of biblical women. This article convincingly displays OT and NT proof that God ordains and even demands female leadership. Staying fully within the stated case study approach, the author speaks with an authoritative voice. By allowing the case studies to speak for themselves, the author makes pointed, powerful arguments that might encourage some complementarians to reconsider the biblical foundations of their beliefs. This article possesses great significance for biblical scholarship, practical theology, and the church.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable review of my work. In accordance with your recommendation, I have softened some of the essentialist language and substituted the word "woman" or "women" for "female," though I have retained the use of the word "feminine" in several places. In my field, gender roles are viewed as social or cultural constructs, but gender itself is viewed as an objective reality. Thus, my academic work will necessarily reflect a perspective that may not necessarily be shared by all readers. However, productive academic conversation requires engaging with differing views, so I trust the article may be received as representative of a certain view and that my arguments possess merit for consideration. Thank you again for your help in strengthening the article.
Cordially,