The (so-called) "Traditional" Argument is not Traditional

Let me start by saying I haven’t read Witt’s book so I’m just assuming that McNight’s summary is correct. That being said, there are a couple of problems with his argument.
The first one being, so what? “The church” making the argument that women cannot lead/be ordained because they are inferior can be wrong and we can still say that the traditional position is that women cannot lead. They may have arrived at that conclusion for the wrong reasons. I believe more likely is that they no doubt saw the explicit teaching in scripture and drew conclusions from that. It seems to me that any teaching that I’ve heard, which has been very limited, which says that a woman cannot teach because she is inferior in some way is trying to explain why she cannot teach. It’s usually an attempt to answer the “why“ ‘question. I’ve never heard the order reversed, including in older Christian writings, where they say “Women are inferior, I guess they shouldn’t teach.”
Semantics- “inferior” is a pretty loose term and I’d have to really hear what is meant. For instance we can say that God-given roles imply greater aptitude for certain things. The Bible uses the phrase “the weaker sex.” Whatever you think that means, it sounds like there is some area where a woman is less equipped than a man. The reverse is also true of course. That’s the beautiful thing about complementarianism. Whether one wants to class that as “ontological” or not is up to them.
It’s interesting to see the gender denier’s chickens coming home to roost in sports. Many records are being broken by biological men and many women are (understandably) angry that they cannot compete. There is a very difficult path for many where they are trying to accept claimed gender while also excluding men from competing in women’s sports. One one hand they are arguing that a person is the gender they feel while at the same time saying that men have an unfair ontological advantage.

Cherry picking- I’d have to read each quote that Witt uses in his book but some of the sources McNight references may not be representative. Samuel Johnson? As in the literary critic? The guy known for being a grouchy (albeit entertaining one) old crank? He was not even a theologian. Luther is much the same in the area of crankiness and one doesn’t have dig in Luther to find all kinds of incendiary things. I’ve read a lot of Luther and probably close to ten biographies of him and don’t remember concluding he thought of women as inferior. Could be though. I’m pretty much positive that if you asked him, he would say that he is inferior to Kate in a lot of ways and that he would likely attribute that to differences in gender.
He was very open about how much better she was at many things than him.

Culture- It’s an unfortunate fact that we are all products of our culture to one degree or another. Edwards had slaves, southern Presbyterians supported slavery, modern Christians are hyper-politicized. We need to remember that Calvin (and especially) Luther were living in a time where people feared being attacked by goblins and evil fairy’s. We wouldn’t discount their contribution to spiritual warfare because they had some seriously wrong ideas about what that meant. “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”- Hartley

Last thought- I don’t usually make the traditional argument for any theological position but it definitely causes me pause if something is new. “If it’s new it isn’t true and if it’s true it isn’t new” is a good guide but ultimately what matters is what do the scriptures say. The older divines may have missed the boat here on some related issues but they still came to the biblical conclusions about the role of women generally.

Thanks for that, Josh.

Other things being equal, traditional is better than not. And solid point about the difference between “what” and “why.” Complementarianism does include some ‘why’ as well as ‘what’—human nature and the nature of the family as well as God-assigned roles and functions in the church and the home. But “inferiority” is not part of the argument, in either the “why” column or the “what” column.

Different ≠ inferior or superior

I’m being very common sense/”lay-perspective” about it, I realize, but some of the criticism of complementarianism is like insisting someone is anti transmission just because he believes the engine and the transmission have non-interchangeable roles in making a car go. The tranny might wish to be more visible and make more noise… but the fact that it’s less conspicuous and quieter doesn’t make it “inferior.” It’s every bit as vital as the engine.

And making the two more like eachother would be stupid. The difference is designed and essential.

(But as a matter of language, let’s accept that “inferior” and “superior” are purpose-oriented terms. A transmission is an extremely inferior engine. An engine is an extremely inferior transmission. So, men are generally inferior to women in some ways and women are generally inferior to men in some ways. It’s fine… and pretending otherwise is just silly.)

[TylerR]

There is a very long history of interpreting 1 Tim 2:12-14 to indicate some kind of mental or psychological inferiority for women. I don’t think this is the case. But, regardless, this is a tough passage. Schreiner opts for a psychological frailness. Webb, who is egalitarian, sees Paul making a argument from the facts of his culture - where he alleges women were lesser educated and not equipped to do the things they are now.

Agreed. And, this isn’t the only passage that speaks to the deception (or gullibility) of women specifically. See, for example, 2 Timothy 3:6. Of course, one could argue Paul is only describing the particular women in Ephesus and not addressing women in general (so, George Knight).

I don’t recall where I read this view, but I often wonder if the point of the passage is far less subjective than we tend to read it. Or, better, it’s far more objective… in the sense of “not having much to do with the qualities/experience of the subject.” He’s talking about what the rules in the church are, references the Fall. So I think it’s more like what we see in Romans with regard to imputation. I haven’t experienced Adam’s sin personally by any conscious choice, and though I do have the personal quality of being “a sinner” as his descendant, the penalty of sin has more to do with my identity as a human. In Adam all humans sinned and all die (Rom. 5:12, 1 Cor. 15:22). In Eve all women were deceived, and endure childbirth and don’t exercise teaching leadership over men in the church.

I’m inclined to see it as instructional symbolism. (Along the lines of “this do in remembrance…”)

How “traditional” that view is, I don’t know.

Interesting thoughts. I hadn’t heard that before. The only possible point that might bear fleshing out is that women are forbidden from teaching because of creation roles/position (13). It seems like Paul is appealing to that fact to support his argument that women cannot have authority over a man. The deceived part has always baffled me I admit.

Just thought I would add this quote on the subject from Johnson that I ran across today since Witt referenced him. I want to reiterate that Johnson was not a good representation of “the church”. Nevertheless, I don’t remember hearing it when I listened through “The Life of Samuel Johnson.”

“Sir, a woman preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”