"This is the worst kind of double bind for women- that you might be trained but not held to the highest standards, that you might not have the ability to level up intellectually, that you might always remain someone’s pet student or favorite peer. It is intellectual immaturity for women, and it would be better that women were not trained than that they remain stunted."
I feel ya on this one... :-\
Edit: It also eliminates or contaminates a possible feedback loop re. the quality of the arguments, the soundness of the judgments, the cultivation of particular analytical skills yada yada yada...
I have been nettled by this subject since I was a teenager. I preferred the men’s discussions of theology and politics to the women’s shop talk—though I preferred hearing about soccer and school schedules to football. . . . It has been amusing to see the ways folks work out their consistency or lack thereof. I’m currently in the SBC after spending most of my growing up years in Reformed churches. A woman can’t teach Biblical languages or Church history in a seminary…but if she’s on the mission field, all restrictions are off! No wonder so many single women are on the mission field—there’s a place for them to serve. . . . I loved my classical Christian college education so I got a very rushed but decent quality theological education. Growing up, our CREC congregation got really into Biblical Patriarchy where women primarily serve the church by being a good wife and having babies and that is still strong in my hometown (where I still live). I don’t have administrative gifts. My husband grew up Independent Baptist and creeds and catechisms are almost a foreign language to him. At college we girls were told that our education was for our children…my children are still a long ways off from understanding Nicaea. I still wonder how to explain to myself and my daughter how we fit in the church other than teaching children’s Sunday school—but if we aren’t fit to teach adults, why would we be fit to teach children? . . . Oh, and Jen Wilkin has pointed out that if we believe in the authority of the Scriptures, anywhere the Scriptures are taught, that teaching is authoritative . . . . Anyway, sorry for my ramblings.
I have never been in these circles myself. It seems that complementarians are the ones best suited to recognize the difference of women’s minds, and how that might be a gift.
I really enjoyed this and your first article--I think the sort of thinking about our thinking that you do here is the only way we're going to make any headway in this debate. And I heartily agree about the problem of female theologians in Complementarian spaces. It's an absolute scandal that this problem is so often ridden off with a glib, "women have other interests."
Question: would you have the same criticism of the way intellectual women are treated in the Catholic intellectual ecosystem? It seems like a category like "Doctor of the Church", which is now open to women, and in which women have become intellectually sharpened, receive honor, and exercised their gifts, is something that could be adopted in Complementarian churches.
I try not to comment on Catholics 😇 but yes, this might be true, although “doctor of the church” is a pretty high bar- theologians aren’t usually saints 😉
Circling back to this to reframe slightly. Maybe the office of “doctor” isn’t the right thing to point at. My point is more that RCs limit the priesthood to men but still manage to produce robust female intellectuals. RCs have a long tradition of women in the intellectual vocation, where they receive encouragement as thinkers, public honor, legitimacy (see JPII’s letter to women), examples to emulate, etc. It may not be perfect, but to me it’s evidence that it’s possible to cultivate a culture that nurtures potential female theologians, while still not ordaining women.
You deny a NT distinction between teaching with authority and without. But the only possible applications of this opinion today are (1) to not permit any teaching outside of ecclesial authority, or (2) to water “teaching” down to something that is manifestly not authoritative at all – anyone who shares at any time what they have learned about something.
Authoritative teaching is guarding the deposit of faith by those specifically entrusted with such a task. This includes: protection of doctrine *by the church as such* through her authoritative heads or councils; discipline; and an application to the faithful that should be received at a higher level than mere suggestion. That’s why some are appointed to an office and others are not. All of that’s throughout the NT.
Sure, our social organization and ecclesial structures make any one-to-one transfer from the NT church quite difficult. They didn’t have sermons in a Sunday church service like we do. But the basic sense of authority from last paragraph is not so historically lodged.
Again, why is it so difficult to think about what teaching without (or with some kind of circumscribed) authority might be like? These range from everyday situations to formal scholarly training. I learn from my children all the time (current topic = swords) but they do not and never will have authority over me like I do over them. History is filled with non-officials who counsel kings – but cannot legislate.
So the NT church filled up with widows and female messengers and evangelizers who did way more than sit in passive silence. But a male-only-authority interpretation of 1 Tim 2 (and many other passages) doesn’t imply such passivity in all things, just subjection in relation to authority. Authority isn’t 100% vs 0% - by its very nature, in the NT or ever. There are grades and situations and applications – even where there are also bright lines.
The New Testament has no category for “lady theologian,” not because it refuses women that position, or because it only recognizes gender-undifferentiated “theologians,” but because they had nothing like what we now call theologians. (Which is fine.)
We treat your role oddly (yours and most other theologians’ today) because it fits ambiguously and awkwardly into the NT. So I read you like I read other theologians, sifting and respectfully considering – but I read none of you like I respond to my bishop, or like how my parishioners relate to me. That would be a category mistake.
you've offered some really useful insights here. My role is "odd"; and it is the oddness of it that I feel most often when I encounter complementarian theology.
I don't object to the authority of a bishop, nor would I say the role of a theologian is any thing like one. I am, you could say, thinking backwards- from where I sit, in my own ecclesial situation, to some of these original epistles- and asking, which of these requirements are necessary, and which have merely developed in one particular way, but could have otherwise?
Additionally, I would never desire to be obeyed and not argued with- that would be boring- but I do find that even the engagement that would lead to argument can be thin, depending on how thick the complementarianism is. these are the kinds of questions I'm seeking to untangle. Thanks, as always, for engaging.
It’s worth noting that seminaries are also “odd.” Are they grad schools? Or official arms of denominations? If the former, women teaching at comp seminaries shouldn’t be a problem. If the latter - well, you could understand a prohibition if they think they are instantiating official teaching in their clergy - that could be interpreted as a different function. But no seminaries are actually licensing clergy (I think, right?).
"This is the worst kind of double bind for women- that you might be trained but not held to the highest standards, that you might not have the ability to level up intellectually, that you might always remain someone’s pet student or favorite peer. It is intellectual immaturity for women, and it would be better that women were not trained than that they remain stunted."
I feel ya on this one... :-\
Edit: It also eliminates or contaminates a possible feedback loop re. the quality of the arguments, the soundness of the judgments, the cultivation of particular analytical skills yada yada yada...
the misogyny of low expectations
A meta-comment to say I am thankful for the graciousness of taking your lumps and coming back with constructive follow-up.
i'm in it for the lumps. believe it or not, this is the part i like best.
I have been nettled by this subject since I was a teenager. I preferred the men’s discussions of theology and politics to the women’s shop talk—though I preferred hearing about soccer and school schedules to football. . . . It has been amusing to see the ways folks work out their consistency or lack thereof. I’m currently in the SBC after spending most of my growing up years in Reformed churches. A woman can’t teach Biblical languages or Church history in a seminary…but if she’s on the mission field, all restrictions are off! No wonder so many single women are on the mission field—there’s a place for them to serve. . . . I loved my classical Christian college education so I got a very rushed but decent quality theological education. Growing up, our CREC congregation got really into Biblical Patriarchy where women primarily serve the church by being a good wife and having babies and that is still strong in my hometown (where I still live). I don’t have administrative gifts. My husband grew up Independent Baptist and creeds and catechisms are almost a foreign language to him. At college we girls were told that our education was for our children…my children are still a long ways off from understanding Nicaea. I still wonder how to explain to myself and my daughter how we fit in the church other than teaching children’s Sunday school—but if we aren’t fit to teach adults, why would we be fit to teach children? . . . Oh, and Jen Wilkin has pointed out that if we believe in the authority of the Scriptures, anywhere the Scriptures are taught, that teaching is authoritative . . . . Anyway, sorry for my ramblings.
I have never been in these circles myself. It seems that complementarians are the ones best suited to recognize the difference of women’s minds, and how that might be a gift.
I really enjoyed this and your first article--I think the sort of thinking about our thinking that you do here is the only way we're going to make any headway in this debate. And I heartily agree about the problem of female theologians in Complementarian spaces. It's an absolute scandal that this problem is so often ridden off with a glib, "women have other interests."
Question: would you have the same criticism of the way intellectual women are treated in the Catholic intellectual ecosystem? It seems like a category like "Doctor of the Church", which is now open to women, and in which women have become intellectually sharpened, receive honor, and exercised their gifts, is something that could be adopted in Complementarian churches.
Upvoting this comment/question. I think about it all the time, based on what I've seen in the Catholic world.
I try not to comment on Catholics 😇 but yes, this might be true, although “doctor of the church” is a pretty high bar- theologians aren’t usually saints 😉
Circling back to this to reframe slightly. Maybe the office of “doctor” isn’t the right thing to point at. My point is more that RCs limit the priesthood to men but still manage to produce robust female intellectuals. RCs have a long tradition of women in the intellectual vocation, where they receive encouragement as thinkers, public honor, legitimacy (see JPII’s letter to women), examples to emulate, etc. It may not be perfect, but to me it’s evidence that it’s possible to cultivate a culture that nurtures potential female theologians, while still not ordaining women.
Kirsten,
You deny a NT distinction between teaching with authority and without. But the only possible applications of this opinion today are (1) to not permit any teaching outside of ecclesial authority, or (2) to water “teaching” down to something that is manifestly not authoritative at all – anyone who shares at any time what they have learned about something.
Authoritative teaching is guarding the deposit of faith by those specifically entrusted with such a task. This includes: protection of doctrine *by the church as such* through her authoritative heads or councils; discipline; and an application to the faithful that should be received at a higher level than mere suggestion. That’s why some are appointed to an office and others are not. All of that’s throughout the NT.
Sure, our social organization and ecclesial structures make any one-to-one transfer from the NT church quite difficult. They didn’t have sermons in a Sunday church service like we do. But the basic sense of authority from last paragraph is not so historically lodged.
Again, why is it so difficult to think about what teaching without (or with some kind of circumscribed) authority might be like? These range from everyday situations to formal scholarly training. I learn from my children all the time (current topic = swords) but they do not and never will have authority over me like I do over them. History is filled with non-officials who counsel kings – but cannot legislate.
So the NT church filled up with widows and female messengers and evangelizers who did way more than sit in passive silence. But a male-only-authority interpretation of 1 Tim 2 (and many other passages) doesn’t imply such passivity in all things, just subjection in relation to authority. Authority isn’t 100% vs 0% - by its very nature, in the NT or ever. There are grades and situations and applications – even where there are also bright lines.
The New Testament has no category for “lady theologian,” not because it refuses women that position, or because it only recognizes gender-undifferentiated “theologians,” but because they had nothing like what we now call theologians. (Which is fine.)
We treat your role oddly (yours and most other theologians’ today) because it fits ambiguously and awkwardly into the NT. So I read you like I read other theologians, sifting and respectfully considering – but I read none of you like I respond to my bishop, or like how my parishioners relate to me. That would be a category mistake.
(Please stop welcoming feedback…)
you've offered some really useful insights here. My role is "odd"; and it is the oddness of it that I feel most often when I encounter complementarian theology.
I don't object to the authority of a bishop, nor would I say the role of a theologian is any thing like one. I am, you could say, thinking backwards- from where I sit, in my own ecclesial situation, to some of these original epistles- and asking, which of these requirements are necessary, and which have merely developed in one particular way, but could have otherwise?
Additionally, I would never desire to be obeyed and not argued with- that would be boring- but I do find that even the engagement that would lead to argument can be thin, depending on how thick the complementarianism is. these are the kinds of questions I'm seeking to untangle. Thanks, as always, for engaging.
It’s worth noting that seminaries are also “odd.” Are they grad schools? Or official arms of denominations? If the former, women teaching at comp seminaries shouldn’t be a problem. If the latter - well, you could understand a prohibition if they think they are instantiating official teaching in their clergy - that could be interpreted as a different function. But no seminaries are actually licensing clergy (I think, right?).
what denomination are you, Bryan?
ACNA