"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?).
What is the context of this letter, and what theme is Paul developing in it?
that's not a hard question; a simple outlining of this short letter is helpful and a good habit to develop if we want to understand even the 'basics' that scripture is teaching.
A three month class Sunday mornings ,for adults, on John's gospel, began every week with a quick reading of John's words toward the end, that explained the purpose of his writing--'these things i have written that you might know that Jesus is the Christ and in knowing, have life in His Name". Every week, the lesson was centered on determining what the passage told us that met this goal; what did we learn about Jesus, as the Messiah, or how to walk with Him in ways that bring us greater fullness in Life?
Paul gives us clear purpose for writing the letter, right from the beginning. And with a little bit of knowledge about the structure of letters in greek culture in the first century we look in the introduction for a statement of purpose; after the initial 'greetings and salutations' sections. We find it in verse 5: "But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. " 1 Timothy 1:5
We find this purpose statement comes AFTER Paul interjects his main concern-about false teachers. He is writing to continue to encourage Timothy to engage in sound teaching, with a concern about the danger and harm false teachers are and cause!
And he interupts the classical form 3 times, in the introduction, to interject such concerns:
'As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. 1 Timothy 1:3-4.
"For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions". 1 Timothy 1:6-7 8
This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, 19 keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. 20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme. 1 Timothy 1:18-20
So Paul, writing to encourage Timothy to be faithful in teaching, also is concerned greatly about false teachers in Ephesus; warning 3 times in the first section of his letter, about false MALE teachers.
the second section, corresponding to the later chapter division, broadens out, begining with teaching men, where again, there's indication of the problems that false teaching causes-of men lifting their hands, not holy toward peace and a quiet life in godliness, but in 'wrath and dissension'-Paul defines a focus that counters that.
When he turns to women, he directs the focus to 'good works in godliness; but then gives warning about the problem that has a historical context not in the passage; except for the reference that Timothy is in Ephesus where a group of women were teaching false doctrine and creating problems, which Paul references by use of a word used ONCE in the New Testament, that is only recently retranslated wrongly (falsely?). A better translatino of verse 12 is I do not allow a woman to teach and SUBVERT AUTHORITY of a man, but to remain quiet'-as men were just instructed to pursue a'quiet life in all godliness and dignity', lifting up holy hands WITHOUT WRATH AND DISSENSION. You cannot miss the parallels, or ignore the THEME of the whole letter, without distorting what is being taught and that seems to be very problematic, especially when those who are doing so, clearly know what careful exegesis and thematic outlining IS...
Somehow, when exegesis of the passage continues, we skip over the little statement that 'and ADAM was not deceived {but WILLFULLY sinned-a context of the WHOLE GOSPEL framework, that doesn't need mentioned for the hearers to know it 'backward and forward'; we can reference a DOZEN passages that elaborate on that theology extensively, in Paul's writings.
so what is his purpose in bringing up the deceit of Eve here? To offer a gospel answer to the consequence (not curse) of that deception and transgression, the preservation through the bearing of children, if women continue in faith and love and sanctity with self restraint.. (as someone who gardens and takes care of the landscaping around our house, Adam's WILLFUL sin still brings the curse GOD SPOKE to the GROUND because of Adam's sin-and all who till the earth TOIL because of the weeds and at times, hardness of the ground...).
There is something absolutely WONDROUS in God's GRACE in the GOSPEL entirely OVERLOOKED that we should be AMAZED BY here...
And grateful for, and celebrating and taking hope in...
Why the focus on eve's deception as something to shame and blame women for-when the passage Paul references should be one we are VERY familiar with. In its entiretly, including God's DESIGN from the beginning to be created male and female, DISTINCT yet EACH OF US reflecting the IMAGE OF GOD!
I would love to hear more of your scholarly engagement in biblical anthropology; I remember my great disappointment when a book with multiple authors was published that purported to expand on men and women, and our unique distinct characteristics; it was a book I put back on my shelf saying 'maybe if I read this again, later, there will be SOMETHING of value in it.
but it was a HUGE disappointment-and the movement it brought is NOT ONE that enlightens, edifies, or strengthens one's faith and walk of love...
This is a space only large enough for a comment, and this is my third effort to shorten my comment so it will post... so I'll stop here.
One last comment, as a life long learner; Jesus spoke with authority, when He taught. But he was not 'exercising authority' when He taught; He taught what HE KNEW as God Incarnate; all who teach exhibit some mastery of the subject they have taken time to LEARN and are helping another learn... it's not EXERCISE of authority when we as human beings teach; even those formally teaching, don't exercise authority with regard to their TEACHING; they exercise authority with respect to 'keeping order' in the classroom, and to assigning homework and grades and the like. but LEARNING is done 'side by side' and is largely 'imparted' within a community that TOGETHER is learning.
I spent most of my adult life as a scholar in a community of scholars in a larger graduate community of learners, walking side by side, learning and helping others learn.
EVERY CHRISTIAN is called to be ready to 'give an answer' for the hope God has put in our hearts, in the knowledge of God and the gospel. And a New Covenant promise abolishes any 'priestly' authoritarian class of teachers-a whole chapter in Hebrews quotes this promise and applies it to us NOW, that 'everyone' will know God and no one will need to teach us; Jesus exanded on that after the Last Supper-explaining the work of the Spirit as our present 'comforter-paraclete' and 'teacher'.
Every one of us is meant to be growing in our knowledge of God so that we grow in our ability to love God, one another and the hurting world around us! And that involves 'implicit' teaching as we share our learnings about walking in life in love, with one another, in the BODY of Christ we comprise, now, under HIS SOLE AUTHORITY as our Head. NO ONE has authority over the conscience, but Christ ALONE.
so we need to rethink our paradigm of 'teaching' accordingly; we are ALL called to love and edify one another. and there is no division in the most basic engagement of 'building up one another' that includes learning TOGETHER, side by side.
We've sadly developed a 'hierarchy' of authority with respect to teaching.
Clearly some are 'gifted' but we are ALL called to seek more knowledge, and help one another grow in our knowledge of God.
there's a fundamental misunderstanding of God's WONDROUS Provision for our LEARNING by those who embrace a TOTALLY NON BIBLICAL understanding that has imposed this very restrictive structure on 'how we learn'.
"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
What is the context of this letter, and what theme is Paul developing in it?
that's not a hard question; a simple outlining of this short letter is helpful and a good habit to develop if we want to understand even the 'basics' that scripture is teaching.
A three month class Sunday mornings ,for adults, on John's gospel, began every week with a quick reading of John's words toward the end, that explained the purpose of his writing--'these things i have written that you might know that Jesus is the Christ and in knowing, have life in His Name". Every week, the lesson was centered on determining what the passage told us that met this goal; what did we learn about Jesus, as the Messiah, or how to walk with Him in ways that bring us greater fullness in Life?
Paul gives us clear purpose for writing the letter, right from the beginning. And with a little bit of knowledge about the structure of letters in greek culture in the first century we look in the introduction for a statement of purpose; after the initial 'greetings and salutations' sections. We find it in verse 5: "But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. " 1 Timothy 1:5
We find this purpose statement comes AFTER Paul interjects his main concern-about false teachers. He is writing to continue to encourage Timothy to engage in sound teaching, with a concern about the danger and harm false teachers are and cause!
And he interupts the classical form 3 times, in the introduction, to interject such concerns:
'As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. 1 Timothy 1:3-4.
"For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions". 1 Timothy 1:6-7 8
This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, 19 keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. 20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme. 1 Timothy 1:18-20
So Paul, writing to encourage Timothy to be faithful in teaching, also is concerned greatly about false teachers in Ephesus; warning 3 times in the first section of his letter, about false MALE teachers.
the second section, corresponding to the later chapter division, broadens out, begining with teaching men, where again, there's indication of the problems that false teaching causes-of men lifting their hands, not holy toward peace and a quiet life in godliness, but in 'wrath and dissension'-Paul defines a focus that counters that.
When he turns to women, he directs the focus to 'good works in godliness; but then gives warning about the problem that has a historical context not in the passage; except for the reference that Timothy is in Ephesus where a group of women were teaching false doctrine and creating problems, which Paul references by use of a word used ONCE in the New Testament, that is only recently retranslated wrongly (falsely?). A better translatino of verse 12 is I do not allow a woman to teach and SUBVERT AUTHORITY of a man, but to remain quiet'-as men were just instructed to pursue a'quiet life in all godliness and dignity', lifting up holy hands WITHOUT WRATH AND DISSENSION. You cannot miss the parallels, or ignore the THEME of the whole letter, without distorting what is being taught and that seems to be very problematic, especially when those who are doing so, clearly know what careful exegesis and thematic outlining IS...
Somehow, when exegesis of the passage continues, we skip over the little statement that 'and ADAM was not deceived {but WILLFULLY sinned-a context of the WHOLE GOSPEL framework, that doesn't need mentioned for the hearers to know it 'backward and forward'; we can reference a DOZEN passages that elaborate on that theology extensively, in Paul's writings.
so what is his purpose in bringing up the deceit of Eve here? To offer a gospel answer to the consequence (not curse) of that deception and transgression, the preservation through the bearing of children, if women continue in faith and love and sanctity with self restraint.. (as someone who gardens and takes care of the landscaping around our house, Adam's WILLFUL sin still brings the curse GOD SPOKE to the GROUND because of Adam's sin-and all who till the earth TOIL because of the weeds and at times, hardness of the ground...).
There is something absolutely WONDROUS in God's GRACE in the GOSPEL entirely OVERLOOKED that we should be AMAZED BY here...
And grateful for, and celebrating and taking hope in...
Why the focus on eve's deception as something to shame and blame women for-when the passage Paul references should be one we are VERY familiar with. In its entiretly, including God's DESIGN from the beginning to be created male and female, DISTINCT yet EACH OF US reflecting the IMAGE OF GOD!
I would love to hear more of your scholarly engagement in biblical anthropology; I remember my great disappointment when a book with multiple authors was published that purported to expand on men and women, and our unique distinct characteristics; it was a book I put back on my shelf saying 'maybe if I read this again, later, there will be SOMETHING of value in it.
but it was a HUGE disappointment-and the movement it brought is NOT ONE that enlightens, edifies, or strengthens one's faith and walk of love...
This is a space only large enough for a comment, and this is my third effort to shorten my comment so it will post... so I'll stop here.
One last comment, as a life long learner; Jesus spoke with authority, when He taught. But he was not 'exercising authority' when He taught; He taught what HE KNEW as God Incarnate; all who teach exhibit some mastery of the subject they have taken time to LEARN and are helping another learn... it's not EXERCISE of authority when we as human beings teach; even those formally teaching, don't exercise authority with regard to their TEACHING; they exercise authority with respect to 'keeping order' in the classroom, and to assigning homework and grades and the like. but LEARNING is done 'side by side' and is largely 'imparted' within a community that TOGETHER is learning.
I spent most of my adult life as a scholar in a community of scholars in a larger graduate community of learners, walking side by side, learning and helping others learn.
EVERY CHRISTIAN is called to be ready to 'give an answer' for the hope God has put in our hearts, in the knowledge of God and the gospel. And a New Covenant promise abolishes any 'priestly' authoritarian class of teachers-a whole chapter in Hebrews quotes this promise and applies it to us NOW, that 'everyone' will know God and no one will need to teach us; Jesus exanded on that after the Last Supper-explaining the work of the Spirit as our present 'comforter-paraclete' and 'teacher'.
Every one of us is meant to be growing in our knowledge of God so that we grow in our ability to love God, one another and the hurting world around us! And that involves 'implicit' teaching as we share our learnings about walking in life in love, with one another, in the BODY of Christ we comprise, now, under HIS SOLE AUTHORITY as our Head. NO ONE has authority over the conscience, but Christ ALONE.
so we need to rethink our paradigm of 'teaching' accordingly; we are ALL called to love and edify one another. and there is no division in the most basic engagement of 'building up one another' that includes learning TOGETHER, side by side.
We've sadly developed a 'hierarchy' of authority with respect to teaching.
Clearly some are 'gifted' but we are ALL called to seek more knowledge, and help one another grow in our knowledge of God.
there's a fundamental misunderstanding of God's WONDROUS Provision for our LEARNING by those who embrace a TOTALLY NON BIBLICAL understanding that has imposed this very restrictive structure on 'how we learn'.
I hope this is helpful..