Some readers may be familiar with the current fight over female pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention. The Making of Biblical Womanhood, a recent release by Baptist and historian Beth Allison Barr, claims to prove that evangelicals invented biblical womanhood to subjugate women. This month we take a look at her book to consider whether her argument stands up to scrutiny.
Barr specializes in medieval church history; the book’s extensive footnotes and historical citations attest to her academic training. Yet she also mixes historical analysis with details of her personal experiences – experiences that ultimately led her to reject the complementarian teachings of her Southern Baptist past.
Barr begins with the premise that complementarianism (the belief that God has given men and women unique roles) is just gussied up misogyny. Or as she puts it later, “Complementarianism is patriarchy and patriarchy is about power” (218).
According to Barr, continuing the historical Christian practice on this issue is just “repeating the same mistakes of Christians in the past” (41). Yet she spends much of the book citing historical examples of women preaching and holding positions of authority to back up her own claims. Barr accuses complementarians of making history say what they want, but fails to notice the double standard she creates.
It’s interesting to see how Barr navigates the Bible passages that deal with gender roles. For some verses (Genesis 3:16, I Cor. 14:34-35) she suggests innovative translations – always a red flag – to solve the feminist interpretive dilemmas. Other places, like Ephesians 5, Barr points out just how countercultural Paul was in addressing women as equally human, compared to Roman attitudes. (Treating women as equals certainly was countercultural, but that doesn’t get us off the hook of obeying the specifics of headship.)
Unfortunately, Barr often resorts to straw man tactics instead of measured critique. Complementarians don’t think women are less intelligent or less gifted than men. They didn’t create the idea of inerrancy to justify patriarchy. They don’t believe in Arianism. This penchant for sweeping oversimplification weakens her case. Nevertheless, even the most hostile critique often carries with it a grain of truth. Perhaps one such grain may be that complementarians face the temptation, not just to compromise on gender roles, but also to sinfully distort and abuse that God-given good.
It would be nice to find a convincing argument that God doesn’t require us to take such an unpopular stand on gender roles. Nevertheless, Barr fails to do so, and the clarity of God’s Word compels us to continue. Although I can’t recommend Barr’s ideas, some readers may find the book useful to better understand the current push toward egalitarianism and to sharpen their own convictions on the subject.