Perhaps you should not be reading this.

at what cost does consistency come?

There is a particular sort of discomfort that, if not welcome, has become familiar to me. This is the relationship I have with men who enjoy reading my work as a theologian but are within communities that do not officially allow women’s leadership. I have defended, quite strenuously, the right of these traditions to exist. My own sense of calling and vocational identity does not invalidate their own tradition and ways of reading scripture. In many circumstances, these men have benefited from my writing and thinking. At times, they have found themselves provoked by my work or been grateful that I have defended positions they themselves hold. I, too, benefit from their friendship and collegiality. I am glad they are here.

But what I increasingly object to is the attempt to thread the needle of “wise and learned woman whose teaching is useful for the Church” and “congregational structure that will not allow women to serve in official positions of leadership”. It seems to me that those who trade on both of these positions- that women should not lead, and yet that female theologians like myself are valuable, insightful, and worth leaning from- are trading on a particular reading of Scripture that is logically untenable. It seems to me, increasingly, that they are being duplicitous.

Here is why.

The one passage that is first and foremost both for women’s leadership and for the organization of the local church comes from 1 Timothy 2-3.

In 1 Timothy 2, Paul prohibits women from teaching or “assuming authority over a man”. The prohibition is quite stark; women are to “learn in quietness and full submission”. This form of obedience is not qualified. It is difficult to know exactly what “full submission” means, but the inference here seems to be that the women must adhere fully to the content of whatever is being taught. If that is the case, Paul is calling for a form of unqualified obedience to doctrine that goes far beyond what is modeled elsewhere in Scripture. Here is 1 Timothy 2:11-15, from the NIV:

¹¹ A woman^[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;^[b] she must be quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵ But women^[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Additionally, women must neither “teach” or “assume authority” over a man. The context for this is not explicitly given. Does this refer to teaching only men? Adults? Anyone at all? How about religious high school teaching? Or at a seminary? Various answers to this question have been given, but Paul offers none of them. He even seems to amplify the prohibition: “She must be quiet”. Indeed.

The following chapter, in 1 Timothy 3, speaks of the various forms of organization that the local church should take. Here it is from the NIV:

Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. ² Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³ not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ⁴ He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full^[a] respect. ⁵ (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) ⁶ He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. ⁷ He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

Though the passage refers to one “faithful to his wife” and takes the male pronoun, there is actually no stipulation here that the “overseers” of a church must be male-only. Paul does not say “only men should apply” for these roles. Additionally, the following passage about deacons does indicate women’s involvement, when it speaks of “the women”. Here is 1 Timothy 3:9-13:

In the same way, deacons^[b] are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. ⁹ They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. ¹⁰ They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

¹¹ In the same way, the women^[c] are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

¹² A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. ¹³ Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

It is common that conservative churches split the difference here, taking the reference to “the women” to allow for female deacons, even though the remainder of the language speaks of a man who is a“faithful to his wife” and takes the male pronoun. What such churches demonstrate is that they are willing to exercise hermeneutical possibilities as it relates to female deacons that they are unwilling to exercise in relation to female eldership and female preaching.

What gives? It seems that as long as a bit of male-only hierarchy is retained, everyone is a bit more comfortable. But how might a person act as a deacon and always remain submissive to a man? Why is the male pronoun and the reference to “one wife” ignored, when it pertains to deacons? And where do we get the idea that “overseers” have a much more significant role than deacons? Is it actually a biblical view?

Even those churchmen who disallow female elders and deacons are almost always willing to exercise some flexibility as it comes to women “teaching”. Whether it comes to Fleming Rutledge or Sarah Coakley or someone lesser known like myself, men from such traditions generously engage, read, analyze, learn from, and praise the writings of women who teach “with authority”. They do this because they understand such women not to be “teaching”, or not to be doing so “with authority”. In both cases, they have invested the passage that prohibits women’s teaching with a form of clarification that they are unwilling to extend to the restrictions that follow in 1 Timothy 3, prohibiting female leadership. Is writing and lecturing not teaching? or is it not authoritative? In both cases, you need to develop a scaffolding that would allow for you to allow something- teaching- that is prohibited. In some cases, such individuals have gone so far as to develop an entire account of what is “authoritative teaching”, and what isn’t, so as to allow for women to engage in a lesser, qualified form. What they have done in these cases is create an entire explanation that prevents women from doing something that they may have actually been encouraged to do in other biblical passages, which is teach and admonish (2 Timothy 1:5, I suspect much of Romans 16).

But there is a willingness to develop this scaffolding to prohibit things like teaching and female eldership, but an unwillingness by the same individuals to develop a similar scaffolding to allow such things. What is the motivation here? Many will say “obedience to Scripture”, but clearly what is at stake is a prior belief about who is fitting for what forms of leadership. A prior view about fittingness prevails here, and any scaffolding is motivated reasoning.

There is an entire cottage industry of theology that develops such scaffolding. The framing of “complementarian” and “egaliatarian” are both forms of it. They arose recently in relation to a desire to either allow, or prohibit, women’s leadership. But by not acknowledging that both schools use motivated reasoning, they have buried the fact that a prior truth- a belief about who is available and suited for leadership- rests beneath these frames.

In doing so, they have muted what might have been a much more robust, biblical, and thorough treatment of men and women in the church. They’ve made it much more shallow, and even boring.

It seems to me that a more honest reading of the text allows for two choices.

1. Prohibit women teaching with authority and leading in religious contexts. This means no female pastors, no female elders, and no female deacons- but it also means no female Sunday school teachers or theologians. No women teaching or writing theologically, at all. Only men are to teach Scripture with any authority- why on earth would you want to read a woman who taught without authority? Women should submit and listen in silence.

2. Admit women to church leadership in the form of elders and deacons, and allow for women’s preaching and teaching in all forms.

Any other position increasingly seems to me to be strained and a dishonest reading of the text. It is a position that makes allowances on the one hand that it takes away with the other. It allows for people like Beth Moore to speak to stadiums of thousands of women but not be “teaching with authority”. This inconsistency is what led Moore out of the Southern Baptist denomination, but it should have been obvious much earlier than it was, to everyone involved, that she was indeed teaching with authority and not “being silent”. Either women can teach, or they can’t. It does seem that simple.

If you are a member of a congregation that threads the needle in this way (PCA, Southern Baptist, some Anglican), this is not a request to stop reading my work. It is a gentle nudge to consider that you may be violating your principles by doing so. It is also a reminder that perhaps you have grown comfortable with a habit of Scriptural interpretation that trades on rather specific inconsistencies. Unless you are also requiring women to cover their heads and refrain from wearing jewelry, you have made some rather significant hermeneutical decisions, decisions that you are are unwilling to make in reference to forms of church leadership. And unless you are also requiring that your parishioners only read men and listen to male Bible teachers, you have already made certain accommodations.

It is also an invitation to consider the fact that, though this pattern of inconsistent reading has grown comfortable to you, it has never been comfortable for me.