The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth, by Beth Allison Barr, Brazos Press, 2021.

I realise that Dr Barr is first and foremost a historian (with Religious Studies as her second area of academic expertise).  I know that she frequently appeals, in her book, on personal adecdote (often in involving her students).  However, I am sure that she would agree that her case for egalitarianism stands or falls on a convincing interpretation of the biblical text.  That interpretation will be coloured by historical considerations and personal experience, but can never be trumped by them.

So, as I work through her book, I shall pay particular attention to her treatment of the various passages of Scripture that she appeals to.

Chapter 1 is entitled ‘The beginning of patriarchy’.

For Barr, ‘complementarianism’ is ‘patriarchy’, pure and simple:

‘Complementarianism is patriarchy, and patriarchy is about power. Neither have ever been about Jesus’ (p. 218)

Both share a commitment to male authority and female submission.

But ‘Christian’ patriarchy is no different, in essence, from ‘pagan patriarchy’.  In fact, that’s where it comes from.  Of course, there is a lot of patriarchy in the Bible.  But the fact the Scripture describes patriarchy should not be taken to mean that it prescribes patriarchy.

It is worth noting at this point that just because someone uses a word like ‘patriarchy’ it doesn’t mean that they are necessarily guilty of all the negative connotations often associated with it.  Kevin DeYoung, in his review of Barr’s book, comments:

‘Barr often mentions a 2006 article from Russell Moore where he talks favorably about the word “patriarchy.” (Incidentally, it’s ironic that Moore, because of an article 15 years ago, has become the chief culprit in advocating patriarchy when many would regard him as the type of complementarian most sympathetic to many of Barr’s complaints.) Barr also quotes Owen Strachan using the p-word (patriarchy). Citing Moore’s article, along with one line from Strachan, Barr insists, “Not long ago, evangelicals were talking a lot about patriarchy” (p. 12). Two examples hardly seem like a lot, especially considering the word complementarian was coined specifically to get away from words like patriarchy.’

To return to Dr Barr’s argument: Just as women today are disadvantaged (economically, and in other ways), relative to men so they are within the church.  And,

‘when the church denies women the ability to preach, lead, teach, and sometimes even work outside the home, the church is continuing a long historical tradition of subordinating women.’

The subservience of women to men is as old as the hills (or, least least, as old as the Epic of Gilgamesh).  So we could say that history is on the side of patriarchy.

But,

‘What if patriarchy isn’t divinely ordained but is a result of human sin? What if instead of being divinely created, patriarchy slithered into creation only after the fall? What if the reason that the fruit of patriarchy is so corrupt, even within the Christian church, is because patriarchy has always been a corrupted system?’

In particular, what should we make of this key verse, which occurs near the beginning of the Bible:

Gen 3:16 To the woman [God] said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”

Barr (along with other egalitarians) thinks that male headship dates back only as far as the Fall, and is therefore itself a sinful human invention, rather than a divine institution.

Alice Mathews is quoted as saying:

‘It is in Genesis 3:16 (God speaking to the woman) where we first see hierarchy in human relationships. . . . Hierarchy was not God’s will for the first pair, but it was imposed when they chose to disregard his command and eat the forbidden fruit. . . . Adam would now be subject to his source (the ground), even as Eve was now subject to her source (Adam). This was the moment of the birth of patriarchy. As a result of their sin, the man was now the master over the woman, and the ground was now master over the man, contrary to God’s original intention in creation.’

Astonishingly, Barr claims that…

‘Everyone already knew that patriarchy was a result of the fall.’

…adding that,

‘Stanley Gundry, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, states this matter-of-factly in a 2010 essay.’

Well, what Gundry states in his essay (available here) is that patriarchy is, in his own judgement,

‘mere accommodation to the reality of the times and culture; it is not a reflection of the divine ideal for humanity. …patriarchy is not the divine ideal, and that restoration of what originally was is coming once again.’

This one quote (from an avowed egalitarian) provides scant evident for the notion that ‘everyone already knew that patriarchy was a result of the fall.’

Now, some complementarians, such as Wayne Grudem, maintain that male headship was established by God prior to the Fall; what Gen 3:16 does is to record its distortion due to human sin.

See here for evidence that Grudem’s rationale for his view, and that this view is neither novel nor idiosyncratic.

Barr cites the view of Katharine Bushnell, who

‘cautioned about the danger of patriarchy for women. Instead of “desire,” she preferred to translate the word in Genesis 3:16 as “turning.” As she translated the verse, “Thou art turning away to thy husband, and he will rule over thee.” Before the fall, both Adam and Eve submitted to God’s authority. After the fall, because of sin, women would now turn first to their husbands, and their husbands, in the place of God, would rule over them.’

‘I love how historian Kristin Kobes Du Mez describes Bushnell’s interpretation as a “theological coup” that “upended Victorian understandings of womanhood.” As Du Mez explains, “For Bushnell, male authority over women contradicted God’s will and perpetuated man’s original rebellion against God.” Women thus “continued to commit the sin of Eve when they submitted to men, rather than to God.” Patriarchy, for Bushnell, was not just a result of the curse; it was embedded in the fall itself. Adam’s rebellion was claiming God’s authority for himself, and Eve’s rebellion was submitting to Adam in place of God.’

It is to be noted that Barr offers no exegetical rationale for her preferred interpretation of Gen 3:16, or for her rejection of Grudem’s view.  Rather, she seems to think that some kind of impasse has been reached:

‘In many ways, the debate between egalitarians (those who argue for biblical equality between men and women) and complementarians (those who argue for a biblical gender hierarchy that subordinates women to men) is in gridlock. While complementarians like John Piper and Wayne Grudem proclaim that male headship existed before the fall, egalitarians like Alice Mathews and Philip B. Payne proclaim that it only came after.’

Having being unable to justify her view on exegetical grounds, she looks for help from the historical evidence.  So far as antiquity is concerned, she finds patriarchy in the Epic of Gilgamesh.  Following Gerda Lerner, she regards patriarchy as ‘a historical construct—linked to “militarism, hierarchy, and racism.”’  Economically, patriarchy seems to be associated with the development of agriculturalism – wioth women becoming increasingly dependent upon men as the latter became the property owners and productive labourers.

Conclusion? –

‘Rather than patriarchy being God-ordained, history suggests that patriarchy has a human origin: civilization itself.’

But, once again, this is to ignore the reasons offered by Grudem as to why we might view male headship as divinely ordained, and that it was the Fall which led to its abuse.

It is beside the point for Barr to argue that

‘We see a surprising number of passages subverting traditional gender roles and emphasizing women as leaders—from the Samaritan woman at the well giving Jesus a drink to Mary of Bethany learning at Jesus’s feet like a disciple to Martha declaring her faith in Jesus (which counters the lack of faith exhibited by most of the disciples). I laughed recently at biblical scholar Febbie C. Dickerson’s musings about Tabitha, a woman identified as a disciple in Acts 9. “I wonder,” asks Dickerson, “what would happen if preachers learned Greek and so recognized that Tabitha’s identification as ‘a certain female disciple’ probably indicates that she is one of many female disciples.” Biblical women are more than we have imagined them to be; they will not fit in the mold complementarianism has decreed for them.’

What the examples of Mary, Martha and Tabitha show (and we could add many more examples) is that women are honoured and valued in the New Testament, and so they should be by Christians today.  But these example have little or nothing to do with ’emphasizing women as leaders’.

Given the multiple weaknesses in Barr’s treatment of the biblical text, her conclusion remains unsubstantiated:

‘Patriarchy exists in the Bible because the Bible was written in a patriarchal world. Historically speaking, there is nothing surprising about biblical stories and passages riddled with patriarchal attitudes and actions. What is surprising is how many biblical passages and stories undermine, rather than support, patriarchy.’

If Barr handles the biblical text carelessly, then she also misrepresents those whom she criticizes.  She rarely (if ever) considers their substantive arguments.  Instead, she takes swipes at them such as this:

‘Even John Piper admitted in 1984 that he can’t figure out what to do with Deborah and Huldah.’

But, as Kevin DeYoung has pointed out, that comment doesn’t accurately reflect what Piper actually wrote:

‘I admit that Deborah and Huldah do not fit neatly into my view. I wish Berkeley and Alvera [Mickleson] would do the same about 1 Timothy 2:8–15 (etc.!). Perhaps it is no fluke that Deborah and Huldah did not put themselves forward but were sought out because of their wisdom and revelation (Judges 4:5; 2 Kings 22:14). I argued in March (pp. 30–32) that the issue (in 1 Cor. 11:2–16) is how a woman should prophesy, not whether she should. Are Deborah and Huldah examples of how to “prophesy” and “judge” in a way that affirms and honors the normal headship of men?’

DeYoung continues:

‘That presents a different picture than Barr’s “he can’t figure out what to do with Deborah and Huldah”—not a befuddled complementarian, but someone trying to deal with the strongest arguments of the other side and provide a response. Surely, this is a good model for all of us to follow.’