I’m not a big fan of separating women’s and men’s theological education. I affirm the differences between men and women. I believe women’s Bible studies and accountability groups are valuable. But I also see a huge disparity between the ministry opportunities for men and those for women. Even women who attend seminary can end up in a gender-secluded arena upon graduation. They can educate other women but are prohibited everywhere else. The result is men serving in many areas of the church while women are confined to leading women’s Bible studies.
Even if we believe the role of pastor and elder is reserved for men, we should actively be working to bring men and women into dialogue, to discuss issues in the church together. Often the appeal for men and women to minister together is followed by reasons such as “because women bring a compassionate tone” or “women can clearly see the needs that men might miss.” This may be the case, but some women are gifted to speak clearly, lead with boldness, and cast a vision. And there are plenty of men who are compassionate and aware of the subtler needs in the church.
So why then, should men and women minister together? Why does this gap need to be bridged? Because men and women together display the full image of the triune God. We are more alike than seminary enrollment numbers lead us to believe. Women are rational and men are emotional. Not all women want highly emotional teaching and not all men want systematic teaching. While women as a whole may tend toward one side or men as a whole toward another side, there is so much variation in the middle. (And who’s to say those differences are caused by gender rather than opportunity?) Each of us are complex. When we consider the differences between one man and one woman, there are many other factors at play other than gender, such as personality, family upbringing, church denomination, and culture.
In an older article, Aimee Byrd writes on women in academia:
It’s even tougher to work in circles that supposedly promote complementarity between the sexes, and then keep women from contributing as conversation partners at the theological table, from speaking at coed conferences, or just don’t encourage them in higher theological learning and publication. Why are all of the women publishing good academic works egalitarian? And why are complementarians warned that it’s dangerous to read them? Do we sound off alarms like this when it comes to other secondary doctrinal differences?
Byrd’s concerns are good reason for why more women should attend seminary. First, in order to work in academia. More women should be seminary professors, teachers, and scholars. This is important not only because of women’s differences from men, but their similarities to men. If we believe women can have intellectual gifts, leadership gifts, and teaching gifts, let’s put them in positions where they can exercise those gifts in the academy.
Second, women should go to seminary to serve the church directly. To serve as missionaries, Sunday school teachers, deacons, or small group leaders. While seminary is not the end-all-be-all, everyone in the church benefits when women are theologically educated. Everyone is edified when women are given positions that fit their gifting. For those of us who are complementarian, who believe there are certain positions women should not fill, that means we need to work all the more to ensure we give women the roles we do think are biblical. And then, let’s work together, discuss together, and lead together to build up the body of Christ.
Amen! Makayla