The Making of Biblical Womanhood (Beth Allison Barr) -- A Review
I am an
ordained minister in a denomination that has elected two women as General Minister
and President. While my denomination is out front in this area (I’m reminded
that local congregations don't always embrace women as their pastors even my
denomination), that is not true everywhere. Some denominations, the Southern
Baptist Convention, in particular, have even reversed course and ruled that women
should not have any leadership roles where they might oversee or teach men. The
leaders of the Convention have all embraced the ideology of complementarianism.
This patriarchal ideology teaches that while men and women are equal before God
when it comes to salvation, the same is not true when it comes to life on earth.
Therefore, patriarchy is the rule. Men rule and women submit because that is
the way God intended this to be from time immemorial. While that is the
argument made by those who preach patriarchy, their position may not be fully
rooted either in scripture or church history.
Beth
Barr's The Making of Biblical Womanhood offers a rebuttal to
patriarchalism and complementarianism. As such, the book is part memoir and
part history. Barr is an accomplished medieval historian who grew up in and
lived within the Southern Baptist Convention. While she accepted the message as
true, eventually she began to question this view. Her own study of history
contributed to it. So did personal experience. As for her credentials, she
holds a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina in History and currently
serves as an associate professor of history and associate dean of the Graduate
School at Baylor University.
For
some of us who read this book, they will recognize elements of her story
because we too were once indoctrinated in patriarchalism. That is true for me
even though this indoctrination came during my sojourn within a denomination
founded by a woman—the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel founded by
Aimee Semple McPherson. Barr begins her story by introducing us to the ideology
of patriarchy as expressed in the works and words of conservative evangelical
leaders including John Piper, Paige Patterson, Wayne Grudem, Mark Driscoll, and
Russell Moore. In laying out her case she addresses a distinction by some
complementarians between pagan and Christian patriarchalism. She makes it clear
that patriarchalism is patriarchalism, whether Christian or not, and it’s
designed to justify male domination of women. Some patriarchalists like Mark Driscoll
are militant in it, while others like Russell Moore offer softer versions.
Whether militant or soft, adherents seek to justify the subjugation of women.
With
this foundation laid out, Barr begins to unpack the so-called biblical and
historical foundations of patriarchalism. To do this, she begins with Paul, who
is often used in support of patriarchy. While Paul at times gives support to
that view, she believes (as do I) that this is a misreading of Paul. Barr isn’t
a biblical scholar. She’s a historian, and this is where she shines. Since
she’s a medievalist, she introduces us to strong women leaders like Hildegard
of Bingen (chapter 3). She notes that many of these women have essentially been
written out of the story by modern church historians. She writes that “not only
do these texts [she mentions several] contain very few references to female
leaders in the medieval church; they minimize the authority of these women” (p.
97). From the medieval era, Barr moves to the Reformation era (chapter 4). She
points out that the Reformation wasn't exactly beneficial for women. This is especially
true since monasticism, which gave women a place to develop their gifts and
authority, was rejected, while the role of a wife was made the goal for women.
The legacy of the Reformation for modern evangelical women has been extremely
problematic. She points out that when it comes to Paul, it was the Reformation
era leaders who began to use him to keep women from leadership roles. Thus,
“instead of Scripture transforming society, society transformed how early
modern Christians interpreted the Bible—and this was compounded (as we will see
in the next chapter) by the proliferation of the English Bible” (p. 127).
As Barr
noted at the end of chapter 4, the English Bible has influenced the way
evangelicals and others have understood Scripture. In chapter 5, Barr focuses
on the reaction among certain conservative evangelicals to a revision of the New
International Version to make it read more inclusively. Led by people such as Wayne
Grudem and James Dobson, the translators were accused of presenting a feminized
Bible and taking men out of the Bible. That is, by using terms like human
beings instead of mankind, men have been excised from the Bible. What Barr does
here is show us that gender-inclusive language is not new. In fact, it's there
in medieval translations, so why are modern evangelicals so upset by efforts to
make Scripture read more inclusively. Since most of us are dependent on
translations, this is a most useful chapter.
In
chapter 6, Barr brings out the practical implications of patriarchy. This
chapter speaks of "Sanctifying Subordination." One of the issues
addressed here is the purity movement, which holds women responsible for male
behavior. According to this viewpoint, women should be submissive and modest so
that the boys and men won't be led astray. The purity movement is accompanied
by the ideology of domesticity. That is, women belong in the home and not in
the workplace. Barr demonstrates that this ideology has its roots in the
industrial revolution, which separated home and workplace in ways not seen
before. Thus, the cult of domesticity emerged in the nineteenth century and
ruled that women are to be kept separate and protected (especially white women,
women of color of course were exempt since white women needed their help in the
home).
As we
turn to chapter 7, we begin to see more clearly how biblical womanhood takes
shape in evangelicalism. Thus, in "Making Biblical Womanhood Gospel Truth,"
Barr reminds the reader that at one time in the past, women were called upon to
preach and evangelize. This was true even among Southern Baptists back in the
1930s. She reminds evangelicals that women once played an important role in the
life of the church before things changed more recently. As she brings history
into the conversation, she ventures into theology, where she describes how
evangelicals, in their eagerness to define subordination, have embraced heresy.
She suggests that the attempt to root the subordination of women in the Trinity
is an expression of Arianism. In other words, leading evangelical theologians,
like Bruce Ware, appear to have subordinated Jesus to the Father in such a way
that Christ, the Son, may not share God's substance (homoousious). Yes,
could evangelicals have embraced heresy just so they can keep women in their
place? Could the subordinationists rather than those who reject patriarchy be
the real heretics? Who would have thought that evangelicals would go to such
lengths as to embrace a view of Jesus rejected at Nicea?
As Barr
brings The Making of Biblical Womanhood to a close, she brings home the question
of the importance of freedom for women in the church. She brings into the
conversation the #MeToo movement, sharing her own story of being abused, and
suggesting, rightfully so, that patriarchalism contributes to this abuse. In
making her case she points to the influence of Bill Gothard on evangelicalism.
She doesn't go into detail on Gothard's views, but I know them well because I
was introduced to them long ago. While I rejected them, I know that many in my
circles wholeheartedly embraced them. While not everyone who embraced Gothard's
views is an abuser, if you take him literally, well, you could justify abuse. I
remember the image he used to train up children. He pictured God taking a
hammer (husband) and chisel (wife) to form the child into a proper Christian.
In other words, God takes the hammer, hits the chisel, that hits the child. Do
you see the problem here? In any case, the goal of this ideology is to keep men
in control. If you don't believe me, recently news came out that a famous
megachurch pastor (John McArthur) excommunicated a woman because she left her
abusive husband, a husband who had been on the staff of the school connected to
the church. While the husband would eventually end up in prison because of his
actions, it was the wife who was excommunicated from her by the pastor, who
declared her to be an adulterer for leaving an abusive husband. Yes, the cult
of biblical womanhood is dangerous.
Beth
Barr’s book, The Making of Biblical Womanhood, may not describe the
context in which I live, but I’ve been there and witnessed it. I even bought
into it for a time, but fortunately, that’s not where I ended up. The fact is patriarchalism
is still present within evangelicalism as seen in the devolution of the Southern
Baptist Convention. But patriarchalism is really part of a larger ideological
perspective that embraces authoritarianism in the church and society. Indeed,
the doctrine of divine right monarchy was rooted in male headship in the home
(see Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings (1680)). As
I pointed out at the beginning of the review, The Making of BiblicalWomanhood has elements of a memoir. Beth Barr lived this story, along with
her husband, who lost his ministry position because he supported the full
equality of women. Together they fought this battle, and now she tells the
story in a way that sheds light on what is happening across evangelicalism.
Thus, this is a most important book for our times.
Comments