Book Review: The Making of Biblical Womanhood
I remember being taught that women were created to be under men, to be their helpers, to find their purpose only through the purpose of their fathers or husbands. The Old Testament served as a foundation for this kind of teaching: Eve was created after Adam because Adam needed a helper. Eve also led Adam into sin and was cursed with always having a “desire” for her husband. This phrasing was written in a different language thousands of years ago, but still Eve’s curse was translated to mean modern-day feminism in the religious world I grew up in.
It’s easier to go along with sexism and misogyny than it is to speak up for yourself, especially when you’ve been indoctrinated into a patriarchal system that doesn’t have any safety net for those who are abused, neglected, hurt, or questioning. It’s easier to live under Eve’s curse, accept your fate as a female to be passed from father to husband as if you are property.
I only knew what I was told, and any outside information was strictly filtered or banned. I didn’t know what I didn’t know. I accepted my fate as a woman who would never have the freedom to make her own choices. But since leaving high-control religion, I’ve grown a lot and changed my thinking on many things. How women should be treated in religion is one of them. If I were to read this post fifteen years ago, I would probably be scared of the ideas, yet secretly intrigued. The idea of women being liberated was dangerous, but extremely compelling.
This year I read The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth by Beth Allison Barr, and I read it for the girl I was, the girl who didn’t know she was an inheritor of years of patriarchal oppression and who would grow to become a descendant of those who resisted.
I have always loved history (my childhood heroes were Queen Elizabeth I and Annie Oakley, so it shouldn’t have been a surprise when I turned out nonconforming and “rebellious”). I think studying where ideas come from can help us understand our lives today, how we are impacted by centuries of thought, and how our presuppositions about life and theology and culture come from social movements and ideologies.
The Making of Biblical Womanhood helps piece together the historical evidence for how the ideology of women being subordinate to men became ingrained in the Western Christian church today. Barr argues that just because patriarchy has existed since agricultural civilization began, this doesn’t mean it should exist, especially in a religion that teaches that every person is equal before God. She shows evidence that patriarchal hierarchies were established prior to the Bible being written and that “Patriarchy exists in the Bible because the Bible was written in a patriarchal world.” Just because the Bible describes a patriarchal society doesn’t mean that this is the way we should live today.
This reminds me of how as a child I was taught how to be a godly woman through the Old Testament stories of women such as Sarah, Rebekah, and Ruth. The context and genre of these writings were obscured, while the behavior of these women was held up as a guideline for women today. I find it humorous that the leaders of my childhood pointed to women in the Old Testament as role models for us. They pointed to their submission and how they served their household. But these teachers liked to shrug off the historical reality of women during that time period, including the polygamy and sexual slavery that existed in these Old Testament stories.
Another foundation of today’s concept of so-called biblical womanhood is the writings of Paul in the New Testament, where we find the verses used to teach female submission. Barr writes that if we consider the social context of Paul’s writings and who he was writing to, we can see that his frame of writing was actually in subversion of social patriarchy, not in support of it. I’ve studied rhetoric and the evolution of the English language enough to think it’s irresponsible to believe that we can read the English translation of the Bible and take it at a “plain” meaning without understanding how the Greek language even worked two thousand years ago. Barr takes a look at the rhetorical tools used by Greco-Roman writers, and it is fascinating to really study this ancient text as it would have been read in its original time and place.
Barr also traces historical movements and ideologies that have contributed to the way “biblical womanhood” is understood today. One important movement to the Protestant church is the Reformation of the 1500s, a time that was glorified in the church circles I grew up in, looked back on as a period when believers had renewed freedom of ideas and access to God. Some might argue the role of wives during the Reformation became more valued than before, but in fact the “economic and religious changes hardened a ‘theology of gender’ for women that, far from improving their lives, placed women more securely under the household authority of their husbands.” Instead of becoming more free, women became more dependent, which meant less opportunity to pursue work and ministry.
My favorite part of the book is the chapter on translations, “Writing Women Out of the English Bible.” It strikes me that one of the biggest reasons the conservative American church today takes a stance against women in leadership is because the system is based on theologies developed by men, versions of the Bible translated by men, and sermons taught by men. It’s impossible for conscious or unconscious bias not to seep in when the system is based on the perspective on predominantly white men.
Barr lays out how English translations over time have erased the original context of women in the Bible. For instance, she points to how male pronouns were inserted in the text where they don’t appear in the original, and how woman is translated “wife” many times in the Hebrew Old Testament. The translators interpreted ancient Hebrew language and society with the biases of the early modern era. Barr explains how modern marriage is very different from the ancient understanding, yet that modern bias is imprinted in the translation: “The word marriage never appears in the Hebrew text. But it appears fifty times in the Geneva Bible and nineteen times in the KJV.” New Testament examples include how Phoebe’s role is translated as “servant,” even though the same word is translated as “deacon” when it is referring to men, and how the female apostle Junia’s name was almost universally translated feminine until it was changed to the masculine Junias in the twentieth century. As Barr writes, “People are products of the world in which they live, and translators are no exception.”
We see these translation biases continue to happen today, with a controversial one being how the ESV Bible was created in response to the gender-inclusive language of the TNIV. It makes sense that men in power want to preserve that power, and so it also makes sense that they want a translation that upholds that power, expressed through patriarchal gender roles. Barr writes, “The ESV was a direct response to the gender-inclusive language debate. It was born to secure readings of Scripture that preserved male headship.” And when we study the history of the church, we find that the medieval church was using gender-inclusive language long before the TNIV debate. Looking at the larger historical context means we can’t ignore the cultural influence on translations.
Another myth I’ve heard many times is that women have only recently tried to take leadership positions, as if it were a direct result from the feminist movement. But women have always taught, preached, and led in the church, whether sanctioned or not. Barr’s expertise is medieval history, and she points to women such as Margery Kempe and Hildegard of Bingen as examples. I don’t have space to go into their stories here, so that’s another reason to read the book!
My perspective is as someone who lived in extreme patriarchy and then attended complementarian churches. I like to call complementarianism “soft patriarchy” because it is an ideology still based on gender hierarchy, but not as harsh as the patriarchy I grew up with. Barr argues that complementarianism is still patriarchy: “Patriarchy by any other name is still patriarchy. Complementarians may argue that women are equal to men. . . . Yet their insistence that ‘equal worth’ manifests in unequal roles refutes this.”
As Barr says, “Complementarianism rewards women who play by the rules.” I conformed to patriarchal and complementarian environments because it was safer to do so, because I didn’t want to “rock the boat,” and because I was afraid. But I also resonate now with what Barr has come to believe: “By staying silent, I had become part of the problem. Instead of making a difference, I had become complicit in a system that used the name of Jesus to oppress and harm women.”
I’ve seen far too many women harmed by not having a voice in the church, by not receiving help for abuse, by being kept in a box of gender stereotypes. I believe liberation is the only way forward for women to thrive, to be themselves, and to pursue their callings. So I can’t keep quiet anymore, and I will always speak up for women to be free to lead and teach if they feel called to do so.