The egalitarian books just keep coming. And they will keep coming as long as people keep buying. The latest trend is for women authors to attack complementarianism, the view that men are to lead in the home and church, as being rooted in unbelieving cultures. I previously reviewed two popular books by women who attend complementarian churches (both in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church), Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Aimee Byrd and Beyond Authority and Submission by Rachel Green Miller.
Beth Allison Barr’s book, The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth, is different in that she is openly egalitarian, explicitly advocating for women to serve as pastors. In this sense, Barr’s book is less dangerous. Whereas Miller and Byrd seek to push complementarianism in an egalitarian direction, Barr calls for a complete abandonment of complementarianism. Barr’s attack is much less subtle.
In short, Barr’s argument is that the church has upheld pagan patriarchy by misusing Bible passages and overlooking historical examples of women in ministry. Barr makes this argument primarily through narrative, weaving historical examples alongside her own personal stories recounting her problems with complementarianism—or what she describes as “patriarchy.” Try as they may to distance themselves from the term, complementarians are still labeled as patriarchalists by egalitarians. As Barr says, “Complementarianism is patriarchy” (13). And according to the back of the book, “It is time for Christian patriarchy to end.”
Barr is a historian, and thus one would expect her to interact with history in her book. However, Barr takes this to a new level by reminding the reader no less than 18 times that she is a trained historian. Yet claiming expertise does not make one’s case. Kevin DeYoung’s review has already highlighted some of Barr’s historical missteps. But the bigger problem is that Barr’s history does not support her egalitarian conclusions. Pointing to women ministering, or even to the occasional woman preacher in the medieval period, says nothing about whether a particular practice conforms to God’s design.
Unlike Barr, I am not a trained historian. So I will focus my evaluation on her overall argument, particularly her interaction with the text of the Bible. Barr opens her introduction by telling the story of how her husband was fired from his youth pastor job because he challenged the church leadership on the issue of women in ministry (3). While the story is aimed at gaining the reader’s sympathy, the primary question here is whether God permits women to lead in the church. And we know God’s will here from what is written in the Bible.
Even Barr understands this, as she attacks the complementarian/patriarchal interpretation of Scripture—“Patriarchy is created by people, not ordained by God” (29), and, “I knew that it [complementarianism] was based on a handful of verses read apart from their historical context and used as a lens to interpret the rest of the Bible” (6). Based on this claim, the reader should expect Barr to show that complementarians misread essential passages such as 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and Ephesians 5:21-33. Yet she barely addresses 1 Timothy 2 in the book.
Barr does address Ephesians 5 by making the typical egalitarian claim of mutual submission—“Yes, wives are to submit, but so are husbands” (50). She goes so far as to criticize the “complementarian translators of the ESV” for highlighting female submission and minimizing male submission when they place a header between Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22 (51). While Barr is right to see a problem with the ESV’s break in Ephesians 5:21-22, this is not a problem particular to the ESV. Moreover, Paul explains exactly what he means by “submitting to one another” (5:21) when he gives instructions for three particular groups in Ephesians 5:22–6:9—wives, children, and slaves are to submit to those in authority over them. Husbands are to no more submit to their wives than parents are to obey their children.
Instead of discussing 1 Timothy 2:8-15, Barr focuses on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, incorrectly claiming it “has become a foundational verse for complementarian teachings” (57). While this passage (“the women should keep silent in the churches”) was historically considered a parallel passage with 1 Timothy 2:12, since D.A. Carson’s chapter in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1992 the vast majority of complementarians have held that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 only prohibits women from evaluating prophecy. Barr argues that Paul draws from his Roman context by comparing the words of Livy (60). She then goes on to argue, based on the work of Lucy Peppiatt, that it is “possible” Paul actually quotes the Corinthians and then refutes them—“Or was it from you that the word of God came?” (1 Corinthians 14:36). But even if this is wrong, Barr “would still argue” that Paul’s words are “limited to their historical context” (63). She bases this on Paul allowing women to speak in 1 Corinthians 11:1-6 (ironically the argument adopted by most complementarians), but she does not offer any explanation of what exactly Paul then means in 14:34-35.
Barr’s case for women leading and preaching from Scripture is extremely weak. She claims that “we see a surprising number of passages subverting traditional gender roles and emphasizing women as leaders” (35). Yet she appeals to the example of the Samaritan woman at the well and Mary Bethany learning at Jesus’ feet. These are a far cry from women in leadership. Barr then gives the usual appeal to Deborah and Galatians 3:26-28 with no exegesis (36-37). She spends several pages arguing from Romans 16 that Junia was a woman apostle and Phoebe was a deacon (64-69). I have argued elsewhere that there is little reason to think Junia was a woman apostle, and even if Phoebe held the office of deaconess (which I deny), this would prove nothing about women in leadership. Many complementarians today allow for women deaconesses.
An example of particularly bad interpretation is Barr’s claim that the masculine pronouns for elders in English translations of 1 Timothy 3:1-13 are not in the Greek text, which leads to a male bias (148). This is incorrect, as the Greek terms throughout the passage are masculine. The question is not whether the English translation is biased, but whether the masculine terms allow for women to serve as elders and deacons. Barr even admits that there is a specific reference to a “man” as deacon in 3:12, “man of one woman” (also used for an elder in 3:2), so the reader is left wondering what she is attempting to argue here.
The book contains other theological errors, such as Barr’s misapplication of the priesthood of all believers. She asks, “Why didn’t Protestant theology sanction women to teach and preach, even though it had declared the priesthood of all believers and sanctioned the marriage bed?” (116). The priesthood of believers means all Christians possess a priestly status and do not need a priest like they did in the Old Testament. It is noteworthy that Peter follows his teaching that we are a “royal” and “holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5, 9) with a command for wives to “be subject” to their husbands (1 Peter 3:1).
Barr even attacks the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture as supporting a “plain and literal interpretation of Pauline texts” (190) and “transforming a literal reading of Paul’s verses about women into immutable truth” (189). Yet Barr never offers an alternative to this teaching that God’s Word is without error because it is breathed out by Him. It is not clear why there is a problem with taking Paul’s commands “literally,” nor is it clear whether Barr thinks Paul actually erred in his teaching on women. If we cannot take Paul’s commands about women literally, on what basis do we take anything else he says literally?
There are lots of other issues that could be addressed, including Barr’s claims that the Eternal Subordination of the Son is a form of Arianism (194), that there is a link between abuse and complementarianism (207), and that patriarchy is tied with racism and white supremacy (208). But for the sake of brevity, I will stop there.
I have asked myself why this book is so popular. It is a fairly engaging read, but it is not even close to the best case for egalitarianism from Scripture. It is primarily an emotional appeal based on the author’s own experience, intertwined with misguided references to the Bible and church history. Considering its popularity, this must be what many Christians today are looking for. They do not want rigorous biblical and theological debate, but an easy read, filled with personal stories about how bad patriarchy is.
