Evaluating Knowing and Reasoning in College for Use in Christian Higher Education

Abstract

This article evaluates Marcia B. Baxter Magolda’s cognitive development theory in Knowing and Reasoning in College (1992) for its potential use in Christian higher education. Baxter Magolda is an educator and researcher who pioneered a study on cognitive development at Miami University. Her study considers both genders’ perspectives on development. This article utilizes John David Trentham’s principle of inverse consistency as a precedent to reorient Baxter Magolda’s model to one consistent with a Christian worldview.

Keywords

Women’s cognitive development Baxter Magolda epistemology developmental psychology Christian higher education

Introduction

Women and their patterns of development were largely ignored in secular developmental theories until Carol Gilligan (1993/1982), along with Mary Field Belenky, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, and Jill Mattuck Tarule (1986/1997), and later Marcia B. Baxter Magolda (1992), put forth studies that highlighted women’s perspectives.ⁱ Christians must avoid the same mistakes of the early secular developmental theorists in their neglect of women. Genesis 1:27 describes the starting point for a redemptive view of development. It teaches that both biological sexes, male and female, are a part of God’s plan. It also teaches that both men and women are created in the image of God. Thus, there is an inherent and equal value assigned to both sexes. This understanding of both diversity and equality necessitates the equal consideration of the perspectives of both men and women in Christian models of cognitive development. Further, there is a need for Christian educators to acknowledge the realities of gender-related patterns and perspectives in learning as this is consistent with Scripture’s acknowledgement of male and female image bearers (Gen. 1:27).

Marcia B. Baxter Magolda is an educator and researcher who pioneered a study on cognitive development at Miami University. In her work, Knowing and Reasoning in College (1992), Baxter Magolda presented the results of her five-year longitudinal study, during which she looked at 51 female and 50 male students from Miami University. Her contribution to developmental theory is discussed in Student Development in College (Evans, et al., 2010). It states that her strength “lies in her longitudinal approach, depth of analysis, and careful attention to application of theory practice” (p. 193).

Her study furthered the works of William G. Perry (1970; 1981) and Belenky et al. (1986) whose respective studies on cognitive development concentrated on one gender. Baxter Magolda simultaneously considered the perspectives that both genders have on development. While Baxter Magolda’s findings are interpreted through a secular worldview, her study points to common grace realities that may be useful to Christian developmental theories. This article critically evaluates Baxter Magolda’s cognitive developmental theory as presented in Knowing and Reasoning in College for its potential use in Christian higher education.

This article utilizes John David Trentham’s principle of inverse consistency as a precedent to reorient Baxter Magolda’s model to one consistent with a Christian worldview (Trentham, 2012). The critique will also follow Trentham’s modified version of David Powlison’s epistemological priorities originally proposed in Powlison’s article, “Questions at the crossroads: The care of souls and modern psychotherapies” (Powlison, 2001, p. 32). The modified version of these priorities reflects the principle of inverse consistency: “(1) articulate positive biblical truth; (2) interact with the model/theory from a critically-reflective posture; (3) interact with the model/theory from a charitably-reflective posture; (4) synthesize any available wisdom into a sharpened perspective” (John David Trentham, personal communication, March 2, 2018).

As a part of interacting with Baxter Magolda, this article will look at affirmations in the areas of biblical commitments, philosophical ideas, and pre-theoretical commitments. In evaluating biblical commitments, this research affirms the Bible is the primary source and foundation for all other evaluative tools. This article will discuss four points of affirmations from Scripture used to critique Baxter Magolda’s work. These points of affirmation are: gender, self, and wisdom. In evaluating philosophical ideas, this research uses Frame’s tri-perspectival epistemology (Frame, 1987). In evaluating pre-theoretical commitments this research uses James Sire’s seven questions regarding worldview (Sire, 2004).

After a critical examination, this article describes what has been learned from Baxter Magolda. Additionally, this article offers potential points of application for these priorities in Christian higher education. Specifically, this article gives points of application specific to assisting college-aged women develop as mature learners.

The principle of inverse consistency as a precedent

A helpful paradigm for reviewing social science is found in the principle of inverse consistency (Trentham, 2012). Trentham proposed this principle to analyze the Perry Scheme. He first asserts that “the orderly world is so created by God that secular social science research can observe and accurately identify human developmental patterns and behaviors” (p. 121). While these patterns are observable, the ability to accurately interpret these patterns by secular social scientific research is hindered by a lack of deference to a biblical worldview and because of the noetic effects of the fall (p. 121). Secular developmental models are anthropocentric in contrast to models in Christian education that are Christocentric. Trentham asserts, “This prescriptive directionality guides a theory’s preferred trend of development” (p. 121). Christian developmental theories and secular developmental theories will have inverse consistencies as they mature toward their different telos—Christlikeness and self, respectively (p. 19). A redemptive progression trends toward righteousness and Christocentricity and reorients fallen patterns in development away from sin and anthropocentricity (pp. 15, 28). Secular developmental models may well describe a natural progression, but ultimately their schemes will need reinterpretation from a biblical worldview.

Articulating biblical truth

A distinctly Christian feature of Christian higher education is its adherence to biblical principles. To understand what portions of Baxter Magolda’s model is compatible in Christian higher education it is necessary to first affirm scriptural truths that will interact with her model. This research will articulate a biblical view of gender, self, and wisdom, and discuss points of interaction with Baxter Magolda’s model.

Understandings of gender in knowing and reasoning in college

In critiquing Baxter Magolda’s model, it is necessary to define a biblical view of gender because her model discusses development along gender-related patterns. This research assumes a complementarian model of gender. Complementarianism stems from an evangelical viewpoint that seeks to engage culture with biblical truths. Complementarians’ core beliefs can be found in the book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Piper & Grudem, 2006/1991); The Danvers Statement (1987); and, most recently, The Nashville Statement (2017). These works present theological beliefs based on scriptural passages about gender.

Complementarians use the first three chapters of Genesis to construct a case for the creation of gender and gender roles before the fall. Specifically, complementarians understand Genesis 1:27 to be the theological basis for gender distinction. They do not perceive of gender as a social construct. Complementarians believe that the curses given after the fall and the effects of the fall work against the distinct and established roles for men and women. New roles were not created through the curses given, nor were they established as a result of the fall. Men and women’s roles are part of God’s original design (Ortlund, 2006/1991).

Complementarians affirm the following particular understandings of gender-related passages. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 reaffirms man’s role as head over the woman and presents this headship as representative of the Trinity (Schreiner, 2006/1991). 1 Corinthians 11, as well as 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36, and 1 Timothy 2:11-15, discuss men and women’s roles within the church structure, in which males lead the church (Carson, 2006/1991; Moo, 2006/1991). Ephesians 5:21-33; Colossians 3:18-19; and 1 Peter 3:1-7 discuss the relationship between men and women in the home, in which the husband is seen as being a servant leader like Christ and the wife is seen as submitting to his leadership (Grudem, 2006/1991; Knight, 2006/1991). Galatians 3:28 affirms that salvation is offered to people regardless of their ethnicity, socioeconomic class, or gender. Galatians 3:28 does not eliminate gender differences (Johnson, 2006/1991). Additionally, Titus 2:1-8 describes the need for and value of gender-specific ministries (Hunt, 2006, p. 37). Following these scripturally designed gender patterns is the best soil to promote human flourishing.

Furthermore, this research assumes that gender involves biological realities and functional realities with cultural applications (Heimbach, 2002, p. 280). Biological realities are determined by God and based in biology. Functional realities, derived from biblical commands, primarily center on how men and women are to function in relation to one another. Cultural realities are guided by biblical wisdom and do not change the functional or biological realities. Developmental literature will vary on how biological realities, functional realities, and cultural applications are defined.

Baxter Magolda did not originally set out to study gender differences in students’ ways of knowing, but the contrast between the genders became a clear theme. She used postmodern feminist writings with regard to gender to assist in codifying the differences (Baxter Magolda, 1992, p. 16). From their writings, she adopted the premise that biological sex does not determine gender-related patterns; instead, these patterns are products of society (p. 16). She infers two ideas from that premise: (1) “variability exists among members of a particular gender” (p. 16), and (2) “gender-related behavior is fluid; it changes depending on context and other factors that interact with gender-related behaviors, such as race, class, or identity” (p. 16). Furthermore, she adopted the idea of gender-related patterns versus a prescribed set of behaviors based on gender. She wanted to articulate clearly that the patterns were not exclusive to one gender (pp. 22–23). In addition, the pattern is not a dichotomy, where students know one way or another, but it is a continuum where students know in varying combinations (p. 22).

Complementarians cannot affirm a purely socially constructed view of gender. Gender is rooted in the biological sexes that God determines. Biological realities determine functional realities. The expression of functional realities differs because of cultural variables, but they are constrained by scriptural wisdom. Baxter Magolda views gender differences as being “context-bound” (p. 16). She rightly points out that gender differences are situated in a culture, but they are not bound to it; rather, they are bound to their biological sexes. Cultural variables still need consideration due to gender’s situatedness. While gender itself is not the exclusive function of culture, culture may influence how knowing is expressed. A complementarian paradigm can affirm the possibility that Baxter Magolda exposed gender-related patterns of knowing as a part of common grace. While the Bible does not explicitly describe varied paradigms of knowing related to gender, neither does it preclude them. Baxter Magolda mentions that men and women are more alike than they are different (p. 13). A complementarian paradigm does not shy away from celebrating differences because God made men and women to be different. It can also celebrate their similarities. The inherent value God bestowed upon men and women at creation as image bearers sets them apart from the rest of creation. Within their relationship, the woman was made from the man, and she was made for him (Gen. 2:22-23). They are interdependent with one another yet distinct.

Understandings of self in knowing and reasoning

Secular psychology is mainly concerned with the development of “self.” Professor Ellen T. Charry explains the origins of “the autonomous secular self” as being “a product of Enlightenment philosophy and popularized post-Freudian psychology” (Charry, 2001, p. 119). The idea of the self can be summarized as “the whole person,” or “the subjective and inner person” (Boyd, 2001, p. 104). This idea is, however, in contrast to the Christian orientation of Christlikeness. Charry describes the “self” being directed toward God: “The task of Christian therapy (care of souls) is to help the individual to identify the proper godly orientation for desire in order to regain control of the emotions and behavior” (Charry, 2001, p. 125). This proper orientation will allow the intellect to thrive. In their work regarding human development, The Reciprocating Self, Jack O. Baswick, Pamela Ebstyne King, and Kevin S. Reimer further explain the Christian understanding of self. They note, “In mutually reciprocating relationships we encounter the other and ourselves most fully” (Baswick, King, & Reimer, 2005, p. 49). The Christian will develop into the self that is “sharing and receiving with others” (p. 49). The self grows in relationship with God and others, and its maturity will be fully realized in the eschaton (p. 49).

The self is at the center of the narratives that Baxter Magolda studied. In absolute knowing, the self is silent. It then develops further in the transitional knowing stage. The self emerges fully in the independent knowing stage. It moves then to create meaning and realities in the contextual knowing stage. Baxter Magolda affirms that autonomy of self is necessary for complex thought, but there must also be an emphasis on interdependence with others (Baxter Magolda, 1992, p. 374).

Baxter Magolda describes three elements that are vital to the development of the self: “situating learning in the student’s own experiences,” “developing community,” and “genuine dialogue” that includes reflection (p. 360). These elements work together to push the self to grow both toward autonomy and with the voices of community (p. 363). The self is in a constant state of “rebalancing” autonomy and others (p. 363). Baxter Magolda also points to a close relationship between self-definition and association with a pattern (p. 374).

These ideas possess both similarities and differences with a biblical view of self. A clear disparity is that the self is not autonomous. It is connected to God and His authority. Therefore, it is not able to provide self-definition. A similarity is that this model reflects a reciprocating self. Baxter Magolda emphasizes ways the self and others share perspectives and grow together. Where it diverges with this conception is that it is missing a proper orientation of growing toward God. Frame describes the proper orientation: “And as we are renewed in the image of Christ, we come to reflect God’s righteousness more and more, so that we become more and more a source of revelation—to ourselves and to others—of God’s law” (p. 73). Baxter Magolda is right in a sense in that a definition of self affects ways of knowing. Except that God defines the self and, thus, God’s definition of self reveals more and more of Him.

Understandings of wisdom in knowing and reasoning in college

Baxter Magolda’s study of intellectual development can be compared to the biblical development of wisdom. The “fear of the Lord” is the beginning of wisdom for the knower (Ps. 110:10; Prov. 1:7, 9:10, 15:33). Biblical wisdom can be defined as “skill in living according to Yahweh’s orders” (Estes, 1997, p. 26). It is the application of knowledge to life. This principle goes further than secular developmental theorists who are seeking propositional truth and reaches into the ethic of knowledge. The implicit truth in fearing the Lord is that there is a basic belief in God. The knower humbly acknowledges that the Lord is sovereign and has designed the world according to God’s ways. Truth about these ways can be generally revealed to all. But as Trentham explains, “Wisdom that is distinctively God-fearing, however, while identical in developmental pattern to that of worldly wisdom, strains toward an opposite telos (Phil 3:13-14)” (Trentham, 2012, p. 46). The fear of the Lord will be the impetus for maturity. Trentham describes the process of acquiring wisdom: “biblical wisdom—rooted in faith-centric knowledge and understanding—is the natural outworking of a God-glorifying character, and evidence of the transformational renewal brought about by redemption (Rom 12:2)” (p. 44).

Using Proverbs 1–9 as a guide, theologian Daniel J. Estes describes the role of the learners (knowers) as developing their skills at applying knowledge. They must “receive wisdom” (Estes, 1997, p. 136). Wisdom must be derived through humility and acknowledgment of authority (p. 136). The knower must “respond to wisdom” (p. 40). This knowledge is external to the knower (p. 42). It is not a wisdom that comes from listening to self. The knower must also actively respond to the teachings. The knower must “value wisdom” (p. 143). Wisdom entails an active pursuit; it is not something passively acquired. Lastly, the knower must “assimilate wisdom” (pp. 135–149). This stage is the last step of progression as the truth is integrated into the whole of the individual’s life. Furthermore, Estes’s biblical pathway to wisdom is comparable to Frame’s tri-perspectivalism. Receiving wisdom complements the normative perspective. Both responding and valuing wisdom complement the situational perspective. Assimilating wisdom complements the existential perspective.

Baxter Magolda describes the growth mechanism through the stages as a “genuine reflection on experience” (Baxter Magolda, 1992, p. 365). This is likened to valuing wisdom. In this way, it is similar to a biblical path; however, it is still void of the wisdom of the Lord. In absolute knowing, the learner is receiving knowledge. This is comparable to the biblical pathway of receiving wisdom. In the transitional knowing stage, the learner is understanding knowledge. This is similar to the biblical pathway of responding to wisdom. The independent knower is using one’s own voice and further developing it. This is similar to the biblical pathway of responding to wisdom. The learner is actively pursuing knowledge. Diverging from this pathway is the source of knowledge. In this model, the learner is diving more into the self and using peers as a source of knowledge. A biblical pathway would promote using the Bible as a source of knowledge to know the self and peers in a fuller sense. In contextual knowing, the learner is socially constructing knowledge. This is similar to the biblical pathway of assimilating wisdom. It diverges again from the path because the Bible is not normative. Overall, this model closely resembles the biblical pathway to knowledge, but lacks focus on the proper source of knowledge.

What can we know? Tri-perspectival epistemology

In addition to biblical affirmations, philosophical commitments must be examined as Baxter Magolda’s intellectual development model studies ways of knowing. God is the origin of knowledge. He gives it to humanity by His grace. All members of the Trinity are involved in the process of giving knowledge to humanity: “The Father knows all and reveals truth to us by the grace of His Son through the work of the Spirit in our hearts” (Frame, 1987, p. 42). Humans gain knowledge through obedience to God (p. 43). Conversely, obedience reveals knowledge of God (p. 43).

Frame summarizes the question of “What can we know?” in his tri-perspectival epistemology (p. 73). He argues that the law, world, and self are objects of knowledge and, therefore, the process of knowing each is closely related (p. 73). Each object represents one of three perspectives on all human knowledge. The first perspective is normative (the law), which “focuses on God’s authority as expressed through His Law” (p. 75). Frame emphasizes that the Law, as representing God’s authority, is self-attesting and is a presupposition for all of life. The second perspective is situational (the facts, the world), which “focuses on the law as revealed both in Scripture and in the creation generally” (p. 75). Frame emphasizes that the world must be understood before Scripture can be properly applied to it. The third perspective is existential (the person), which “focuses on the law as revealed in man as God’s image” (p. 75). All of these perspectives bear upon one another.

In Esther Lightcap Meek’s work about covenant epistemology, the author uses Frame’s triad and further expands his ideas of knowing from being an impersonal one to a more personal exercise (Meek, 2011, p. 216). She uses Frame’s notion of the influence of the normative perspective and combines this idea with that of another philosopher, Michael D. Williams, and his notions of covenant being an expanding relationship between persons (p. 194). Meek builds on these ideas to include covenant as governing interpersonal relationships. She further describes covenant’s implications on knowing: “Covenant elucidates the reciprocity of the relationship, in particular with respect to descent of God as the primary direction of motion in the relationship, and with respect to the goal of communion” (p. 211). Meek explains the value of learning with another person because “all knowing is with or in the presence of” (p. 265).

In Meek’s work, Longing to Know, she asserts how knowing in community avoids both denying objective truth and the privatization of truth (Meek, 2003, p. 138). Meek stresses that reality is complex and, therefore, dialogue with others will provide a “fuller picture” (p. 138). Objective truth is better understood through the consideration of others’ perspectives, including the perspectives that male and female offer. According to Meek,

I can’t imagine a better way not to annul gender differences, but to optimize them, as in mutuality in joint epistemic ventures. Men and women must exercise companionship on the way to knowing, with full expectation that their equal complementarity strategically suits them for perichoretic partnership in knowing. (Meek, 2011, p. 413)

Therefore, the value of knowing in relation to others is a mark of developmental theory from a biblical understanding.

Pre-theoretical acknowledgments for knowing and reasoning in college

Underlying philosophy and theology is worldview or pre-theoretical beliefs. Christian intellectual James W. Sire defines worldview:

A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or a in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being. (Sire, 2004, p. 17)

Sire provides seven questions with respect to worldview: (1) “What is prime-reality—the really real?” (2) “What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?” (3) “What is a human being?” (4) “What happens to a person at death?” (5) “Why is it possible to know anything at all?” (6) “How do we know what is right and wrong?” (7) “What is the meaning of human history?” (p. 20).

Baxter Magolda’s contrasting worldview carries several implications for the usefulness of her model in Christian education. First, her presuppositions carry with them both naturalistic and postmodern feminist leanings, which imply that the knower has the ability to create reality. It is a helpful correction to recognize that the knower is a part of reality, as opposed to an objectivist perspective that understands the knower as being completely separate. These presuppositions, however, do not acknowledge God as the creator of reality. This outlook allows the knower to be elevated above God and replace God as the telos of development. Second, her conception of womanhood is different from a complementarian one. She perceives gender as created through the construction of society, without the influence of biological sex. Consequently, a different societal structure may change how genders develop. Complementarians can acknowledge that society may have the ability to affect learning. However, both biological and functional realities are anchored in Scripture in the complementarian structure. They will not change, though society may shift. Cultural applications—with the governance of biblically defined biological and functional realities—will offer the best structure for the sexes to flourish and learn. Subsequently, complementarians deny that biological sex has nothing to do with psychological differences, but how much influence is undetermined. Third, the telos of this study is different from that of a Christian worldview. She conceives that maturity involves the autonomous self and society, constructing a meaningful life or identity. Christians deny an autonomous self; rather, the self is in some type of relationship with God. Additionally, the Christian telos is to know God. Fourth, Baxter Magolda views truth and morality as socially constructed, which leads to various understandings of both. Even though her worldview is in sharp contrast to a biblical one, her study may be useful if the previous implications are considered.

A reoriented model based on inverse consistency

Baxter Magolda’s model represents multiple layers of common grace, in that the overall pathway resembles the path to biblical wisdom, but this model still inherits the weakness of a secular orientation. The first position, absolute knowing, is similar to the biblical pathway of receiving wisdom. The learner is focused on obtaining knowledge from authorities, but there is no critical reflection (Baxter Magolda, 1992, p. 74). The weakness at this stage is that the learner is considering earthly authorities as the source of knowledge without regard to God. It is not wrong to look to earthly authorities for information; however, this information needs to be examined in light of Scripture in order for it to be properly received. Within absolute knowing, the receiving pattern, the pattern more closely associated with women, settles competing claims through reconciling feelings about the knowledge (pp. 82, 88). In the mastery pattern, the pattern more closely associated with men, one reconciles competing claims through internal logic (p. 98). In this stage, looking for certainty in authorities elevates authorities as a god in the life of the learner, therefore making authorities an idol. From the Christian perspective, certainty of knowledge is a biblical idea where the authority of Scripture provides certainty of knowledge (Frame, 1987, p. 136). Relying on the reconciliation of feelings and using reason will result in futility because of their false telos in looking for an authority outside of Scripture.

The second stage, transitional knowing, resembles responding wisdom where the learner endeavors to understand knowledge (Baxter Magolda, 1992, p. 105). In this model, the learner is diving more into the self and utilizing peers as a source of knowledge. This is a step toward connectedness. This is a step toward embracing all three perspectives on knowledge equally. This is a movement toward common grace, but God’s Word is not informing the normative perspective. A biblical pathway would promote using the Bible as a source of knowledge to know the self and peers in a fuller sense. Within transitional knowing, the interpersonal pattern is the pattern more closely associated with women (p. 113). These learners use their own personal judgment, or voice, to justify uncertain knowledge (p. 114). The interpersonal also takes into account the experiences of their peers (p. 123). The impersonal learner is the pattern more closely associated with men (p. 113). The impersonal learners’ voice repeats what they hear authorities teaching (p. 133). Overall, this stage adopts the weaknesses of the previous stage, with its idolatrous pursuit of outside authority. This stage adds another idolatrous pursuit—that of the self and others. There is value in knowing the self and the world but, without the self being humbly submitted to God’s authority, the self becomes the authority.

Independent knowing is similar to valuing wisdom. Self-awareness is amplified for both patterns, and the wisdom of others is increasingly valued (p. 146). This is a step toward connectedness. Self-awareness is not negative. It is a healthy progression when accomplished through union with Christ. In this model, union with Christ is not addressed. Instead, as previously stated, Baxter Magolda has correctly identified the result of the idolatrous pursuit of self, which is that knowledge is uncertain. As the learner becomes more self-aware, knowledge becomes less certain; subsequently, the movement toward others is a common-grace corrective of selfishness.

Contextual knowing resembles assimilating wisdom. Baxter Magolda’s telos is described in her understanding of maturity at this stage. Contextual knowing is an “individually created perspective constructed through judging evidence in a context” (p. 188). Baxter Magolda explains, “Helping students create their own informed perspective is crucial to promoting responsible community membership on campus and beyond” (p. 392). She recognizes that the self and society construct a meaningful life or identity. Instead of drawing near to God as the primary relationship, the self is turning to its primary relationship with itself and others. Self and society are the criteria for morality. Consequently, self and society maintain a constant state of dialogue (p. 170). This dialogue is a healthy mode of development. Ultimately, the dialogue will not end in resolution because there is no biblical view of the eschaton, nor a normative perspective from God’s Word bearing on the conversation.

Implications for Christian higher education

The following is a summary of points of truth or apologetics to be learned from Baxter Magolda’s reflective epistemic model of cognitive development. First, this model is helpful in its taxonomy and conception of “pattern” to describe gender differences in cognitive development (Baxter Magolda, 1992, pp. 21–22). Baxter Magolda describes development wherein gender patterns are not absolute but, instead, they are a continuum (p. 37). Possibility exists for the different genders to hold to these patterns of knowing in varying degrees. It is reasonable to adopt this idea of a continuum because it still acknowledges that with the different sexes there are varying degrees of expression situated in culture and personality. However, what cannot be adopted with this conception is that sexual dimorphism is fluid or a denial of functional realities determined by Scripture. Pattern acknowledges the rich nuances of individuals, while still recognizing differences in men and women. Moreover, pattern allows for conversation between the perspectives of the sexes that can lead to increased awareness of God’s work in the world.

Second, this model is useful because it acknowledges the equal complexity with which both men and women know. Baxter Magolda determined that “(1) both [patterns] cut across most of the developmental picture, and (2) both are equally complex ways of making meaning of experience” (p. 367). Additionally, she confirmed that the way women know is not an inferior method to that of men: “The evidence refutes the argument that learning arising from connections to others and intuition is inferior to the objective version traditionally characterized as the male approach” (p. 369). This principle attests to men and women’s equal worth as image bearers.

A point of exploration is in how much biblically defined maleness and femaleness determine patterns of knowing. She proposes the patterns “relate to, but are not dictated by gender” (p. 369). In other words, patterns relate to—but are not dictated by—society’s description of male and female. Her proposed patterns may not be properly representative of maleness and femaleness because these descriptions are not rooted in scriptural truth. Thus, to what extent knowing relates to biblically defined male and female can be explored. She then concludes: “Finally, their mixed use offers hope that more women and men can use both patterns, a condition that appears necessary for the most complex forms of knowing” (p. 369). This convergence represents a growth toward Christlikeness in knowing. Complementarians do not acknowledge the disembodiment of knowing, and can acknowledge that an increased recognition by individuals of both perspectives works toward a complex, mature way of knowing. To what extent society influences knowing is yet to be determined.

Third, Baxter Magolda concludes: “Connection, or relational aspects of knowing, may be the key to complex forms of knowing” (p. 371). Whereas Gilligan and Belenky et al. related connected knowing in a stronger way to a female voice, Baxter Magolda attributes this way of knowing to both sexes (p. 375). Gilligan and Belenky et al. did not claim that the male voice could not use connected knowing, but the participants in their respective studies were female. Baxter Magolda—in studying both male and female—identified ways that males related to connection. Connection is a part of a biblically grounded understanding of development. This is true from both a philosophical standpoint and a theological one. From a philosophical understanding, Meek adopts “interpersoned covenantal knowing” as her thesis of covenant epistemology (Meek, 2011, p. 245). From a theological standpoint, connectedness is an essential element of the Christian life. Connectedness to God and to other believers is expected of every believer.

Applications for Christian education

Christian educators can implement these affirmations in the following ways. First, acknowledge the reality of both men’s and women’s experiences in the classroom and in the church. Second, provide both men and women with platforms and opportunities for participating in academic dialogues with each other. Third, prioritize relationships in the learning environment and along with the practice of mentoring in light of Titus 2. Relationships in mentoring should not be perceived as concessions to cultural oppression, but as necessary and normal educational experiences.

Conclusion

Baxter Magolda’s stages and patterns proposed can be considered, but cannot be universally integrated for use in Christian higher education. After critiquing her work from a Christian worldview, several affirmations can be made for use in Christian higher education. Certainly, there are points of common grace represented in her study. However, it is limited in its integration due to an overall secular worldview and lack of adherence to the authority of Scripture. Her consideration of a woman’s perspective in learning is something to note for educators and serves as a point of exploration. Based on scriptural truth that all human beings are made in the image of God, Christian educators are obligated to avoid the neglect of women that was displayed in early developmental theories. Christians have the opportunity to demonstrate the beauty of God’s plans by honoring women through including their experiences in developmental theories and in Christian education.

Questions for reflection and discussion

Are both men’s and women’s unique experiences being given equal consideration and equal representation in current Christian higher education curriculum?

What opportunities are provided for both men and women to participate in academic dialogue with one another? Are both men and women given equal consideration and representation in these dialogues?

Are relationships and mentoring a priority in curriculum? What opportunities are available to men and women to enter into mentoring relationships?

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Erin M. Shaw

Notes

References

Baswick

J. O.

King

P. E.

Reimer

K. S.

(2005). The reciprocating self: Human development in theological perspective. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Baxter Magolda

M. B.

(1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Belenky

M. F.

Clinchy

B. M.

Goldberger

N. R.

Tarule

J. M.

(1997). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1986).

Boyd

J. H.

(2001). Self-concept: In defense of the word soul. In McMinn

Philips

T. R.

(Eds.), Care for the soul: Exploring the intersection of psychology and theology (pp. 102–117). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Carson

D. A.

(2006). “Silent in the churches”: On the role of women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36. In Piper

Grudem

(Eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood (pp. 140–153). Wheaton, IL: Crossway. (Original work published 1991)

Charry

E. T.

(2001). Theology after psychology. In McMinn

Philips

T. R.

(Eds.), Care for the soul: Exploring the intersection of psychology and theology (pp. 118–133). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. (1987). The Danvers Statement. Retrieved from https://cbmw.org/about/danvers-statement/

The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood & The Ethics and Religious Liberty Committee Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. (2017). The Nashville Statement. Retrieved from https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement

Estes

D. J.

(1997). Hear my son: Teaching and learning in Proverbs 1–9. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

10.

Evans

N. J.

Forney

D. S.

Guido

F. M.

Patton

L. D.

Renn

K. A.

(2010). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

11.

Frame

J. M.

(1987). The doctrine of the knowledge of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R.

12.

Gilligan

(1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1982)

13.

Grudem

(2006). Wives, like Sarah, and the husbands who honor them: 1 Peter 3:1-7. In Piper

Grudem

(Eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood (pp. 194–208). Wheaton, IL: Crossway. (Original work published 1991)

14.

Heimbach

D. R.

(2002). The unchangeable difference: Eternally fixed sexual identity for an age of plastic sexuality. In Grudem

(Ed.), Biblical foundations for manhood and womanhood (pp. 275–289). Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

15.

Hunt

(2006, Fall). Women’s ministry in the local church: A covenantal and complementarian approach. Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 11(2), 37–47. Retrieved from http://cbmw.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/11-2.pdf

16.

Johnson

S. L.

(2006). Role distinctions in the church: Galatians 3:28. In Piper

Grudem

(Eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood (pp. 154–64). Wheaton, IL: Crossway. (Original work published 1991)

17.

Knight

G. W.

III . (2006). Husbands and wives as analogues of Christ and the church: Ephesians 5:21-33 and Colossians 3:18-19. In Piper

Grudem

(Eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood (pp. 165–178). Wheaton, IL: Crossway. (Original work published 1991)

18.

Meek

E. L.

(2003). Longing to know: The philosophy of knowledge for ordinary people. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

19.

Meek

E. L.

(2011). Loving to know: Covenant epistemology. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

20.

Moo

(2006). What does it mean not to teach or have authority over men? 1 Timothy 2:11-15. In Piper

Grudem

(Eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood (pp. 179–193). Wheaton, IL: Crossway. (Original work published 1991)

21.

Ortlund

R. C.

Jr. (2006). Male-female equality and male headship: Genesis 1-3. In Piper

Grudem

(Eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood (pp. 95–123). Wheaton, IL: Crossway. (Original work published 1991)

22.

Perry

W. G.

Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

23.

Perry

W. G.

Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In Chickering

A. W.

(Ed.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp. 76–111). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

24.

Piper

Grudem

(Eds.) (2006). Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood. Wheaton, IL: Crossway. (Original work published 1991)

25.

Powlison

(2001). Questions at the crossroads: The care of souls and modern psychotherapies. In McMinn

Philips

T. R.

(Eds.), Care for the soul: Exploring the intersection of psychology and theology (pp. 23–61). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

26.

Schreiner

T. R.

(2006). Head coverings, prophecies and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. In Piper

Grudem

(Eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood (pp. 124–139). Wheaton, IL: Crossway. (Original work published 1991)

27.

Sire

J. W.

(2004). The universe next door: A basic worldview catalog (4th ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

28.

Shaw

E. M.

(2018) She knows truth: Toward a redemptive model of women’s epistemological development (Doctoral dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2018). Retrieved from https://digital.library.sbts.edu/handle/10392/5605

29.

Trentham

J. D.

(2012). Epistemological development in pre-ministry undergraduates: A cross-institutional application of the Perry Scheme (Doctoral dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012). Retrieved from https://digital.library.sbts.edu/handle/10392/4102