Christian Doctrines, Egalitarianism, Literary Apologetics, theology

Honoring Giftedness- Women in David Weber’s science fiction

The_Honor_of_the_QueenDavid Weber is the author of a few New York Times Bestselling science fiction series. One, the Honor Harrington series, follows a woman who starts off as a captain of a starship sent on routine (and initially boring) missions. The second book in the series, The Honor of the Queen portrays its main character becoming involved in a wartime crisis between two nations with whom Honor’s home Kingdom is attempting to set up an alliance. There are SPOILERS for this book in what follows.

The two nations are complementarian in nature. Complementarianism is the theological belief that men and women are “complementary” in roles, which means that men should be in charge in the church and home. I have discussed it and the rival view that women should be ordained/treated as equals (egalitarianism) at length elsewhere [scroll down to see other posts].

What really struck me is that David Weber fairly presented firm theistic believers as a spectrum. In the future, the Christian Church has continued to reform and have splinter groups form because of this. Weber’s presentation of the issue showed that believers–even some who might be considered extreme–can be reasoned with and even persuaded to believe differently based upon evidence. Furthermore, he showed that even those who may line up on the side with which he disagrees are not all (or even mostly) blinded by faith or foolishness. Rather, although there are some truly evil and disillusioned people, Weber shows that many are capable of changing their position or at least acknowledging that rival views are worth consideration.

The most vivid portrayal of this theme is found in a conversation between Admiral Courvosier and Admiral Yakanov. Courvosier is from the same nation as Honor Harrington and wholly endorses his female officer in a position of command. They discuss Captain Honor Harrington:

[Yanakov responds to Courvosier’s question about his society’s reaction to Honor]: “If Captain Harrington is as outstanding an officer as you believe–as believe–she invalidates all our concepts of womanhood. She means we’re wrong, that our religion is wrong. She means we’ve spent nine centuries being wrong… I think we can admit our error, in time. Not easily… but I believe we can do it.”

“Yet if we do[” Yanakov continues, “]what happens to Grayson [Yanakov’s world]? You’ve met two of my wives. I love all three of them dearly… but your Captain Harrington, just by existing, tells me I’ve made them less than they could have been… Less capable of her independence, her ability to accept responsibility and risk… How do I know where my doubts over their capability stop being genuine love and concern?” (96, cited below)

The exchange is characteristic of the way Grayson’s people are treated throughout the book. They are real people, capable of interacting with other views in honest ways. They feel challenged by a view contrary to their own. Some react poorly, and there are extremists who are blinded by hatred and anger. Yet all of them are treated as people with real concerns shaped by their upbringing and backgrounds.

Honor Harrington ends up saving Grayson, and at the end of the book, she is commended by the rulers of that planet. She talks to the “Protector” [read: king/president] of Grayson:

“You see,” [said the Protector] “we need you.”

Need me, Sir?” [Responded Honor]

“Yes, Grayson faces tremendous changes… You’ll be the first woman in our history to hold land… and we need you as a model–and a challenge–as we bring our women fully into our society.” (419)

Weber thus allows for even ardent supporters of specific religious backgrounds to respond to reasoned argument and to change. They are capable of interacting on a human level and deserve every bit of respect as those who disagree with them. Again, there are those who are radicals and will not be reasoned with, but they are the minority and they do not win out.

The dialogue presented in this book provides some interesting insight into facets of the present dialogue between complementarians and egalitarians. David Weber’s fictional character presented a challenge to the Grayson’s notions of what it meant to be a woman by being an excellent officer and professional. There are, it seems, real “Honor Harringtons” out there, challenging preconceived notions of what it is to be a woman. When, for example, a woman takes on the role of leadership in the church and succeeds, that should not be dismissed as a fluke, but rather a challenge to a paradigm which may itself be undercutting women’s ability to succeed.

On a personal note, I have been challenged in exactly this way. When I was younger, I was a complementarian and was confronted by a woman who destroyed my presuppositions about what a woman “could do” spiritually. She showed that she could be a leader and present Christ to all without having to fit into role I defined for her. This real challenge caused me to realize that my notions of what a woman “should be” were themselves social constructs, not anything derived from the Bible. Like Yanakov, I had to rethink what my words and actions had done to perhaps limit the women around me. By God’s grace, this woman’s very existence forced me to rethink what I had assumed as truth and go back to God’s word to see where I had gone wrong.

David Weber’s own presentation of Honor Harrington as a paradigm-shattering woman is something that hits close to home for me. For you, dear reader, I think it is worth considering the same: who has challenged your view of what they are “supposed to be”? Is your view of someone’s giftedness directly drawn from the Bible or is it something that you’ve just always assumed? As for me, I think we need more Honor Harringtons in our lives.


Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Check out my posts on egalitarianism (scroll down for more).


David Weber, The Honor of the Queen (New York: Baen, 1993).



The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.


About J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick is a Lutheran, feminist, Christ-follower. A Science Fiction snob, Bonhoeffer fan, Paleontology fanboy and RPG nerd.


5 thoughts on “Honoring Giftedness- Women in David Weber’s science fiction

  1. Weber’s presentation of the issue showed that believers–even some who might be considered extreme–can be reasoned with and even persuaded to believe differently based upon evidence.

    This reminded me of something from Alister McGrath’s Emil Brunner: A Reappraisal:

    Brunner opened his analysis by acknowledging the importance of philosophy as a critical tool—a way of asking good questions, of probing the foundations of knowledge. Yet it must be recognized to have limits (Grenzen); limits that are defined by human reason—more precisely, human nature—itself.

    Philosophy, which fundamentally wishes to call everything into question, because it is only by doing so that it can be a basic discipline, dares not call into question one point, one certainty—namely, reason itself. It argues that reason is the only drilling tool with which we can work, and that we cannot drill into this tool itself. We cannot use reason to call reason into question.[4]

    Yet how can the foundation of a critical discipline also be its object? Is this not tantamount to epistemological circularity? While insisting that theology must welcome the critical questions philosophy raises, Brunner points out that philosophy itself has limits placed upon it by the very nature of its method. In effect, Brunner develops a critique of philosophy which affirms its critical role, while denying its foundational role. Philosophy is about the refinement of knowledge. But how is such knowledge to be attained int he first place? How can human beings gain access to the truth? (32)

    So when you say “believe differently based upon evidence”, does that mean the foundational “judging entity” (based on this thing called ‘reason’) remains the same?

    Posted by labreuer | September 29, 2014, 10:31 AM
  2. Enjoyed your review, J.W.! I haven’t read any of the Honorverse books, but have read one novella about her as a young officer, and enjoyed it far more than I expected to (I am not big into military sf). This sounds really interesting, and I will have to look into it. (I did try Weber’s “Off Armageddon Reef” recently, and couldn’t stick with it more than the first 100 pages or so – it quickly became very, very tedious and much more wanna-be high fantasy than space opera, which is what I was in the mood for).

    I am married to an ecclesiastical “Honor Harrington.” My wife’s the pastor at our church, and is a far more effective one than I was when I was in pastoral ministry! She didn’t change my views about women in ministry, per se, but she has certainly confirmed them (and, a few times, kept me honest about them – like the time I mentioned that a woman priest at a local Episcopal church was substituting in the pulpit for “the real priest.” I didn’t mean it as a sexist comment, but it betrayed some lingering assumptions about who was and wasn’t legitimate, and my wife didn’t let it slide!)

    Posted by Michael Poteet | September 29, 2014, 10:49 AM
    • Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for the comment! I think it’s great when we have others who are able to reveal our underlying assumptions so effectively. It’s good to have an editor. I plan to dive into the “Off Armageddon Reef” series soon, I’m just finishing up the last of the Honor Harrington offshoots, which are decidedly not at all tedious and filled with awesome spaceships blowing up and political drama.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | September 30, 2014, 8:42 PM
      • Do a review of the Armageddon Reef series when you can. I was so optimistic, since most of the novels’ titles are taken from great hymns of the faith, that it would be a really interesting use of religion in sci-fi… but I just couldn’t see myself sticking with it. I definitely want to read the Honor stuff, though. I looked up that novella – it was “Ms. Midshipwoman Harrington.”

        I’m also curious to try Lois McMaster Bujold’s Verkorsian saga sometime. Have you read it? Recommend?

        Posted by Michael Poteet | September 30, 2014, 10:43 PM


  1. Pingback: The Great Honor Harrington Read-Along: “The Honor of the Queen” by David Weber | Eclectic Theist - October 11, 2022

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,865 other subscribers


Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
%d bloggers like this: