Written by Nicole Savage
The role of women in the church is the problem that seems to resurface at every Bible Lectureship, when chapel is getting a semi-controversial rebrand, or in the life of every young girl spending her formative years in a church setting. Personally, I have talked about it at length with friends and professors, read about it and shed tears over it. But one component often missing from this discussion is an examination of the current models of Christian womanhood. What are their effects? Are these models fair? I believe that being mindful of these questions can lead to a more well-informed discussion on where to go from here.
I recently read an excerpt from Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex” where she discusses multiple archetypes of women in literature. On the surface, the types of women she outlines seem vastly different from one another. Some women are presented as despicable and lowly while others are revered for the love and harmony they bring (in their uniquely feminine way). However, in every new archetype presented, these fictional women are subjected to the same fate. They are consistently defined in relation to men. Through these various modes of femininity, the authors create myths of women — archetypes that do not represent three-dimensional complex characters, but rather construct two-dimensional women who exist as a catalyst for male development. Regardless of the nature of the myth, whether it is degrading or exalting, it traps the woman into a role where her identity is defined by a man.
As I read about these fictional archetypes of womanhood, I began to think about the various models of contemporary Christian womanhood that have been presented to me throughout my life. When I think of influential women in churches, I think of the preacher’s wife, the elder’s wife or the youth minister’s wife. Do you see the pattern? They are models of Christian femininity that are defined in relation to men, models of Christian femininity with defined expectations and restrictions. These idealized women fit the mold of complementarian theologies where women’s roles are separate and more limited than those of men, but fulfilling their expected roles can grant them veneration from their communities. Doesn’t this create a myth of a woman in the same harmful way that de Beauvoir outlined? These women are presented as worthy of protection and praise, but still inferior, because to mythologize someone is to deny them their humanity. These women are placed on a pedestal of Christain womanhood, but is that pedestal a gift or a trap? The complementarian model is often presented to women as a gift that allows them to lean into their “natural” roles. But as French feminist Hélène Cixous wrote, “Who could ever think of a gift as a gift-that-takes? Who else but man, precisely the one who would like to take everything?” Complementarian theology might not be the gift you think it is, as it is a gift that takes away certain opportunities to speak, lead and be heard.
So I ask you to stop putting Christian womanhood on a pedestal. Being placed on a pedestal, being mythologized, being idealized — it is dehumanizing. I do not want a pedestal, I simply want a platform. A space to be as fully human as my fellow man. As you think through your own theology, I invite you to ask yourself: Am I mythologizing women? Am I allowing everyone to fully and authentically participate in spiritual community? Am I listening to voices unlike my own?
