Aren't mothers theologians?
Carolyn Custis James:
It is not overstating things to say that becoming a good theologian is how a woman fulfills her highest destiny--her calling to know and be like Jesus. This is truly the essence of a woman's calling.
Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. (Titus 2:3-5)
John Calvin (on the above text):
In short, he wishes women to be restrained, by conjugal love and affection for their children, from giving themselves up to licentious attachments, he wishes them to rule their own house in a sober and orderly manner, forbids them to wander about in public places, bids them be chaste, and at the same time modest, so as to be subject to the dominion of their husbands; for those who excel in other virtues sometimes take occasion from them to act haughtily, so as to be disobedient to their husbands.
If all through her article, Carolyn Custis James is using the word "theologian" simply as a placeholder for someone who seeks to know Christ and to make Him known, who would argue with her? But she equivocates, using 'theologian' also in opposition to nursery workers, those practicing hospitality, those decorating and setting tables, and so on...
If it's knowing God she's referring to, then by all means, being a theologian is "truly the essence of a woman's calling."
But if it's specific categories of work, of duty, of service; it it's the things that one does to serve others with one's gifts as a woman she is speaking of, then to set the scene as if theologian competes with mother, housewife, or giver of hospitality is to make a big show of obeying God while doing what is right in one's own eyes.
It's to make a big show of sacrifice while refusing to obey.
Repeatedly, the Bible honors what we today despise--women who are devoted to their husbands, their children, and their homes. And of course, it is just those callings--wife, mother, and housewife--that get not one positive mention in the entire 2,700 words of Carolyn Custis James' article (other than one glancing allusion to men and women together "multiply(ing) worshippers").
We must be clear about this. The question is not whether women will be filled with the knowledge of God and men will honor and listen to such women. They always will and we always have.
No, the question is whether the calling of housewife and mother will continue to be disdained by the People of God. The question is whether those godly women in our churches, those "mothers in Israel" who continue to give themselves to these holy callings will live on, denigrated by the world and damned with faint praise in the church by women like Carolyn Custis James who treat them just as the world treats them--as absolutely invisible.