Most days I just don’t want to go there. While I disagree with my friends on the egalitarian side of the gender role debate, I think they know I respect them and their studious work on the subject. But I believe we have reached a point in the debate, at least at a popular level, where we find what’s being waged is an unfair fight of fallacious reasoning tactics. We keep hearing wait for the book (Thomas Nelson, 2012). In the meantime, some of the activities involved in her Year of Biblical Womanhood that are the basis of this book have nothing to do with biblical womanhood at all. So today I am going there, because a woman’s “blossoming career” should be based on hard work and intellectual honesty, not outright misrepresentations.
I have to admit, I was very intrigued by the idea of an evangelical feminist woman living out a year of biblical womanhood even as just a thought experiment. But what Rachel Held Evans has done is not that.This could have been an opportunity to discover and experience some aspects of complementarianism not otherwise understood. Her experiment, however, was little more than a piecemeal approach. As I understand it, she didn’t not live the year consistently (as in every waking moment) with this as her newly adopted (though temporary) view of women’s roles. Not only did she not live it consistently, she added practices that don’t belong (camping out in her front yard, for example). She was not faithful to biblical womanhood as taught by its adherents.
Evans’ Year of Biblical Womanhood has actually been a year of an erroneous hermeneutic resulting in misrepresentation to the church and the public at large of what biblical womanhood actually looks like. She expanded on the literal approach of scripture practiced by complementarians by flattening scripture such that systematic theology is of no consequence. An initial statement at the front end of her post titled A Year of Biblical Womanhood is evidence enough of this.
On October 1, 2010, I committed one year of my life to following all of the Bible’s instructions for women as literally as possible—from the Old Testament to the New Testament, from Genesis to Revelation, from the Levitical purity codes to the letters of Paul.
The problem with this is that no evangelical expression of biblical womanhood demands women follow “all of the Bible’s instructions for women as literally as possible”–at least in terms of how she is using the term “literally.” This has nothing to do with any arbitrary decision–the “pick and choose” methodology–by complementarianism as she asserts on her website. This is a hermeneutical matter that Evans has failed to devote any serious time to. In her post, Complementarians Are Selective Too, she argues that proponents of the biblical womanhood model are sacrificing scripture’s meaning by picking an choosing in order preserve patriarchy. To be fair, she suggests egalitarians are also guilty of picking and choosing to make their case as well, but egalitarianism isn’t the target of contempt with her Year of Biblical Womanhood project.
Evans has failed to properly represent the teachings of biblical womanhood in what she has so for divulged of her one year experiment. If it is the case, in fact, that her issue is with the way complementarians handle scripture, she ought to have written a series of posts simply dealing with the hermeneutical problem she identifies, showing how proponents of biblical womanhood err in their literal handling of the biblical text. Here, she might have shown systematic theology to work to her benefit while engaging the systematic theology foundational to the biblical womanhood model. But this requires a lot more work and doesn’t yield as many winsome blog posts. Instead, she created a straw woman by packaging together every biblical command having to do with women (whether it has anything to do with the theological structure of biblical womanhood), leaving readers with the impression that biblical womanhood demands the observance of Levitical purity laws among other practices.
An apology is owed to the evangelical community for an unfair representation of a view that can be argued from the biblical text in both scholarly and generous manner for all sides. But now that our culture has been provided a skewed view of biblical womanhood from the inside, they have no reason to work any harder to move beyond their present perceptions. At the end of Evans’ post on her Year of Biblical Womanhood, she writes
My purpose in embarking on this project is not to belittle or make fun of the Bible, nor is it to glorify its patriarchal elements. It is simply to start a conversation about how we interpret and apply the Bible to our lives.
A conversation has certainly been started. It would be nice, however, if we were all talking about the same thing.
October 4th, 2011 | 2:52 pm | #1
I’m a convicted egalitarian, but this is an awful attempt to argue against non-egalitarian positions. (While Evans doesn’t explicitly say that her experiment is tantamount to that, the nature of what she’s doing seems to indicate otherwise). I don’t think complementarians believe that all examples of women in the Bible ought to be followed to the T. The awful double standards against women in the OT in regards to adultery laws, for instance, I don’t think are upheld by any of the people honestly arguing for the complementarian position.
I’ll defend egalitarianism from a Biblical perspective any day, but never in this fashion.
October 4th, 2011 | 3:08 pm | #2
Nikolai, and I’ll remain in fellowship and love my egalitarian friends and colleagues. I think she wants to challenge the hermeneutics by showing the absurdity of the model in its applications, hence the strange biblical ethics she’s attributing to the camp in her sensationalistic response.
October 4th, 2011 | 3:58 pm | #3
Nikolai, can you expound on what you call double standards against women in the OT? I’m convinced that no Scripture, no matter the genre, is categorically opposed to women. Then again, by “double standard” you might mean that something applies to women and not to men, in which case you are right because there are no ritual purity laws for men and their menstrual cycles. However, the way you phrased it seems to me that you think there are unfair standards against women, which makes me think that you do not believe that God could be the author of the standards, which means you do not believe that those parts of Scripture are attributable to God.
October 4th, 2011 | 5:08 pm | #4
This wasn’t an attempt to live more faithfully as a woman or even to understand Biblical womanhood. It was a crass stunt done for cheap laughs and to sell books. Thank you for a very reasonable and thoughtful post. Rachel’s admirers won’t see it that way but what you wrote needed to be said.
October 4th, 2011 | 5:35 pm | #5
Sarah,
Though we differ in our total perspective, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. I don’t think any of the ritual Old Testament laws are what good complementarians use to uphold their beliefs about the roles of men and women.
Orthodoxdj,
The adultery laws in the Old Testament were notoriously against women. To begin, even if a man was punished for adultery, it wasn’t on the basis of his perversion of the sexual union, but that he violated another man’s property.
Beyond that, polygamy was common practice and acceptable for men, but not for women. Married men who had prostitutes weren’t punished, but a woman had to be completely faithful to her husband. As far as adultery is concerned, the rationale set up in the Old Covenant concerning a man’s punishment for adultery has to do with him violating another man’s rights, not that he actually did a crime to the woman herself. As a result, if he committed adultery with a woman who was unmarried, his offense was not punishable by death; instead; the woman was forced into marriage with that man. (Deuteronomy 22).
October 4th, 2011 | 5:47 pm | #6
Sarah J. Flashing: “An apology is owed to the evangelical community for an unfair representation of a view that can be argued from the biblical text in both scholarly and generous manner for all sides.”
How come apologies that are owed oftentimes never come?
October 4th, 2011 | 6:12 pm | #7
So Nikolai, in the Old Testament was God being unjust to women?
October 4th, 2011 | 7:10 pm | #8
Nikolai,
Before I provide an argument in defense of the OT laws, I would like to sketch out where you’re coming from. Do you link Jesus to the OT? It seems to me that Jesus endorsed the OT en toto and didn’t nuance his endorsement. Do you agree with that?
Do you believe that God is responsible for the laws of the OT?
Do you believe that having differences in laws for men and women is by definition sexist? Do you believe God could ever be the author of a law that would allow for distinctions on the basis of sex? Do you believe that it’s possible that given the historical context of the Law that the laws therein could have actually protected women? Do you believe there is a legitimate moral framework that corresponds to reality and yet is different from the moral framework of the Scriptures? In other words, do you believe that the morality of the Bible does not correspond to the moral law, i.e. the Bible is sub-moral in some places?
October 4th, 2011 | 8:16 pm | #9
I believe, first of all, that many of the things in the Old Testament are narrative, not normative accounts. The fact that these things happened in the OT doesn’t mean that God was actively sanctioning them; so, stories of men philandering doesn’t point to God saying that it is permissible for men to commit adultery. Jesus did affirm the OT, but he also did uphold a monogamous standard for marriage, not a polygynous one. Christ came and fulfilled, in His words, the laws of the Old Testament.
And now to each of your questions in turn:
“Do you believe that having differences in laws for men and women is by definition sexist?”
I’m not willing to make that categorical assumption, no (I believe in the equality of men and women under laws that apply the same to them, if that’s what you’re asking), but in the case of adultery, adultery is wrong no matter the sex of who commits the act. Men should not be punished in a more lax fashion than a woman as far as adultery is concerned.
“Do you believe God could ever be the author of a law that would allow for distinctions on the basis of sex?”
I do think God distinguishes between the sexes, but in the specific case that I was talking about, adultery laws, I am saying that the way men got treated in those societies was sexist. Obviously, as you mentioned, ritual purity rites regarding menstruation shouldn’t (and can’t) apply to men, but that was not the point I brought up. I was referring specifically to the adultery laws.
“Do you believe that it’s possible that given the historical context of the Law that the laws therein could have actually protected women?”
I don’t believe the adultery laws do, no. Take, for instance, the law mentioned in Deuteronomy regarding a virgin man marrying a woman he believes to be a virgin, but then finds out post-consummation that she is not. If she is proven not to be a virgin, she is taken out and stoned. Whoever took her virginity, however, was not searched for or punished. I don’t think that’s a case of protecting women.
“In other words, do you believe that the morality of the Bible does not correspond to the moral law, i.e. the Bible is sub-moral in some places?”
I believe the people of the Bible are sub-moral in many places, the OT especially. The stories of the OT aren’t always qualified with moral judgements (as in the fashion of Onan being struck down by God in Genesis), so one cannot say, “because this law existed at this time,” or “because this person acted this way and no obvious judgment was rendered, this was morally correct then.”
But we must also analyze the OT in light of the NT, since we have that capability. The ethic of virtue prescribed by Christ in Matthew 5 is one that helps aid the marginalized in society (women, victims of racism, the poor). Christ’s ethic doesn’t hold double standards like the adultery laws did. Husbands and wives are called to submit to each other in an act of reciprocal love. We are to turn the cheek against our enemies; whether or not one interprets that as pacifism (as I do) or a just war ethic, it certainly means that we ought not stone a woman for adultery (or a man for that matter).
I suppose I have gotten myself into a bit of a gray area here, as I am by no means an expert in Old Testament law, other than that I firmly believe that, according to the words of Christ, the Savior has come and fulfilled those laws. I looked up some material on the nature of the OT decrees, and I found this in one of my texts on women in the church. I’m still mulling it over, but I wonder, Orthodoxdj, your thoughts:
(Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says about a Woman’s Place in Church and Family. Third Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. p. 46.)
October 4th, 2011 | 8:42 pm | #10
Nikolai
“Husbands and wives are called to submit to each other in an act of reciprocal love.”
Is Christ supposed to submit to the church? That would be the necessary inference of the oft repeated and never substantiated claim that Paul meant husbands are to submit to their wives in direct contrast to what he….well, what he actually wrote.
October 4th, 2011 | 8:57 pm | #11
Thank you for your thoroughness and the quick response. If I do not get back to this tonight, it isn’t because I’m abandoning the discussion. I have to teach. My default setting is to believe the Scriptures are right and that there will be a way to make sense of them as God’s Word. My interest in-and study of-the OT laws has led me to have a newfound respect for them, so a discussion like this helps me clarify my own thinking and hopefully show that it is reasonable to believe that the laws were not only good for the community, but were given by God.
Peace.
October 5th, 2011 | 1:17 am | #12
Someone writing on the internet, criticizing a book that is yet to be released, based on the content of blog posts which may or may not have to do with the content of the book.
This reminds me of something…
October 5th, 2011 | 5:39 am | #13
Eric,
I just re-read this and I’m having trouble finding anyone criticizing a book.
October 5th, 2011 | 10:42 am | #14
EricMichaelSay, I thought this might be somewhat reminiscent of the Rob Bell book. This is quite different though.My critique is on content independent of the book.
October 5th, 2011 | 10:48 am | #15
THANK YOU!!!! for saying what I’ve been thinking since I first read about RHE’s “Year of Biblical Womanhood.” I agree that it feels like a way to gain attention at the sacrifice of honest, productive conversation.
And you are correct that she should apologize for the caricature of Biblical womanhood that she is presenting. Especially because she so vocally criticized other Christian voices for the very same thing–stereotyping and maligning individuals in the Church. (http://rachelheldevans.com/mark-driscoll-bully)
October 5th, 2011 | 10:52 am | #16
Sarah
Actually, your criticism of Evans is a little premature. At this point, there is no indication as to how all of the pieces that she has written about will be assembled. You may feel that this is different than what happened to Rob Bell. On the other hand, wouldn’t it have been better to do a complete critique when the book is published?
October 5th, 2011 | 11:01 am | #17
Not premature at all, but certainly I’ll be reviewing her book when it comes out. Not only has she written several posts on the topic to be commented on and critiqued, she’s provided a number of pictures of her year-long project. Check out the picture of the Christian present from her to her “Master.” https://picasaweb.google.com/104526863997515691495/WomanhoodAlbum?authkey=Gv1sRgCMuUyKWdmK7ZeA#5655715352914850994
October 5th, 2011 | 11:05 am | #18
Hannah,
Thank you for the link. I had not read that blog post but I did just now. It seems one thing Mrs. Evans and Mr. Driscoll have in common is a predilection for linking to pornographic sex advice websites.
Steve,
I initially thought the same thing. But Mrs. Evans’ penchant for ridiculing what she can’t be bothered to understand should not go unanswered simply because these blog posts of hers may eventually make it into a book. In the meantime, she continues to dum up publicity and interviews and run around the country making fun of men and women who aren’t as au courant as she is.
To remain silent in the face of this false picture she is painting is to lend credence to it.
October 5th, 2011 | 11:09 am | #19
Truthfully, Sarah’s essay doesn’t seem to be so much a critique of the coming book but of the paradigm that RHE has already publicly employed on her blog. She herself has been very clear in the way she is approaching the issue. And that is what is at stake–her hermeneutic.
And honestly folks, we have to acknowledge that no book is ever an entity of itself but a reflection of the author; so if the author has already said I’m going to write and think after a certain manner, it’s not unreasonable to believe her and expect her book to follow that paradigm.
October 5th, 2011 | 11:10 am | #20
Sarah,
Thanks for the reminder in pictures. Perhaps the most thoroughly offensive stunt was the “Chip” baby doll she kept for a weekend.
Even there she couldn’t manage to do something kind and genuine for a sister. No real poopy diapers in the Evans household, no siree!
October 5th, 2011 | 11:55 am | #21
I didn’t follow the thing — I Googled and looked up the doll thing on her blog. What was she trying to accomplish with that? To be “saved through child-bearing” by having a Baby-Think-it-Over doll for a weekend? If so, SERIOUSLY? Did she think the one has ANYTHING to do with the other?
October 5th, 2011 | 11:56 am | #22
And for the record, at the time of the Rob Bell thing, a lot of people were taking the same approach — not “critiquing a book they hadn’t read,” though I confess to initially reacting that way myself. If you looked into what many of the critics were saying, they were doing just what Sarah’s doing — looking at the already-published material of the author on the same topic, and thinking, “This can’t be good, and here’s why.”
October 5th, 2011 | 12:43 pm | #23
While she certainly IS writing about, considering, and exploring the complementarian view towards women in Christianity (is that avoidable?), her interaction appears to be, first and foremost, with the Judeo/Christian traditions towards women as depicted in scripture. She is looking at Biblical Womanhood as it relates to scripture, not as it relates to YOUR view of womanhood, or MY view of womanhood, as we define it as biblical.
So we can complain about how a woman with no children takes a doll home for a weekend to ‘experience childbirth’ sounds a bit crass (kind of like a movie?), but this post appears to be mischaracterizing the key point of the experiment.
October 5th, 2011 | 12:45 pm | #24
If Sarah is going to be “Belled”, should NPR and Slate get the same criticism? They’ve done pieces on the project too. Of course, they’re not being critical, so maybe that’s okay….
October 5th, 2011 | 1:02 pm | #25
This whole debate reminds me of the “Mommy Wars” in secular culture. Both sides seem like the sort of petty, catty, worldly dispute that a truly committed Christian woman would steer clear of.
Surely the Lord has more important things for us to do.
October 5th, 2011 | 1:07 pm | #26
She absolutely is speaking to the evangelical conception of “biblical womanhood” as she states clearly in this quote:
“This most recent turn of events has reminded me of why I took on this crazy project. It seems to me that this whole notion of “biblical womanhood” has become so distorted among its evangelical advocates that no one knows what it means anymore. We’ve gotten caught up in the details—is it “biblical” for a woman to wear a stained Mickey Mouse T-shirt?—and we’ve failed to ask the more important question—wait; what do we mean by “biblical”? ”
It can be located here: http://rachelheldevans.com/biblical-womanhood-challies-better-conversation
Evans most definitely is conflating things.
October 5th, 2011 | 1:17 pm | #27
Megan, I don’t respond to everything I disagree with on blogs, just those that I believe are significant to my ministry of equipping women. And when a woman of influence like Evans writes as she does, it needs to be responded to. This is a pretty important thing to do.
October 5th, 2011 | 1:51 pm | #28
Sarah, What exactly does it mean to have a ministry of “equipping women?” It looks to me like you’re equipping them to go to war against their sisters in Christ.
October 5th, 2011 | 2:16 pm | #29
Megan, aren’t you doing right now what you think is such a waste of time? According to your own words, surely the Lord has more important things for you to do.
But to answer your question, equipping women to think biblically, to develop a Christian worldview, is a rare tradition among women in this therapeutic, professional doubter culture of ours. I hold to the Titus 2 mandate to teach other women “what is good” and sometimes that involves refuting what is not good.
October 5th, 2011 | 2:34 pm | #30
I agree. I am wasting my time.
October 5th, 2011 | 2:42 pm | #31
Sarah
From what I’ve read Evans may not be the only one conflating issues. There have been several well known complementarian bloggers and pastors who have been adding fuel to the fire. Driscoll, for one has been known to tell men who were stay at home dads that they were in sin. I know of one SAHD who works from home while his wife, who makes 2-3x his salary works outside the home.Is he in sin? I don’t think so.
Some of what Held is responding to is the strict roles that complementarianism presents as Biblical. When in fact they may not be Biblical. Seriously, is there a verse that specifically deals with male/female roles in the home?
October 5th, 2011 | 2:58 pm | #32
“Some of what Held is responding to is the strict roles that complementarianism presents as Biblical. ”
But what does that have to do with the “project?” Exploring the “biblical” view of womanhood by loosely and selectively using a hermeneutic that neither makes sense nor is practiced by any actual people — how does that contribute to that “response?”
October 5th, 2011 | 3:31 pm | #33
[...] Flashing takes issue with Rachel Held Evan’s ‘Biblical Womanhood’ project: Her experiment, however, was [...]
October 5th, 2011 | 4:01 pm | #34
Megan, (if you’re still reading),
The whole comp/egal thing is somewhat a secondary issue. The primary issue is her hermenutic, and how it’s received by the world. When a Christian poorly interprets Scripture, is the right response to discredit Scripture through exaggeration and mockery,
or is it to appeal to Scripture, to assess terms like “Biblical” through a better hermeneutic, and expose the Christian’s error?
Which approach fosters mockery of God and His Word, and which one fosters loyalty?
October 5th, 2011 | 4:16 pm | #35
Ooh, good one, Pentamom!
I hadn’t quite looked at it that way, but you are spot on. It shows how she is doing just what her critics have said, and what she denies.
October 5th, 2011 | 5:00 pm | #36
Steve D.
I’d like to hear you interact with Titus 2, just as a starter. The whole chapter, including ‘to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands…’ which seems pretty clearly to address roles. And importantly note the reasons the text gives for why men and women should live in these ways. I don’t know how much more or a straightforward instruction from God explaining both what to do and and why someone could want.
October 5th, 2011 | 6:11 pm | #37
Titus 2 – that passage doesn’t describe roles for the genders. Quite the opposite – Paul is describing the sort of qualities men and women should have in every area of their lives. I work in the home but I also work outside it – there’s nothing to say that women can’t do both as long as their home is not neglected! And where does it say that men can’t work at home? It doesn’t – Paul’s concern is their character – that wherever they are, they are behaving as men transformed by the grace of God. The idea that women have to stay at home because it’s ‘unbiblical’ to work outside is simply not true. It’s a classic example of a cultural expectation dressed up as biblical teaching. I do wish people would have the self awareness to recognise this and stop passing judgement on people who have chosen a different way of life. And before you assume I am some hard bitten career woman desperate to defend her position, I gave up a promising legal career to stay at home with my children for ten years. I don’t regret this but I didn’t do it for scriptural reasons. What is important in Titus are our characters as men and women of God wherever we are and whatever we are doing.
October 5th, 2011 | 7:10 pm | #38
Pentamom
First, I wonder if one could actually live a truly Biblically based life. I’m not referring to whether or not we could follow the spiritual directives. Rather whether or not some of the ritual directives could be very difficult to follow. I would like to suggest that even among the complementarians complete adherence to all of Paul’s directives are not followed. Hint: in most Evangelical churches it would be rare to see a woman’s head covered,
October 5th, 2011 | 7:23 pm | #39
Rachele
Do you honestly believe that Held is mocking scripture? Could it be that she (and others) interpret scripture different from the way that you (and others) do? Could it be that scripture isn’t always as easy to understand in some cases as we would like it to be?
October 5th, 2011 | 9:41 pm | #40
I think we’re straying from Sarah’s main point. It’s not that RHE ultimately comes to a different understanding of gender roles; it’s the way she does so by misrepresenting the opposing view and mishandling texts. (And no, I do not believe coming to a different application equals mishandling the text.) There is a very valid and legitimate conversation to be had about the way the conservative church understands womanhood–but this is not it.
What RHE is doing (through her blog alone) is laughable and couldn’t pass anywhere as mature scholarship or dialogue. So I’m having a hard time figuring out what she is actually trying to accomplish through it all. So far, it seems only to have intensified the divide between people and gained her a lot of personal publicity.
This. Is. Not. Helpful.
October 6th, 2011 | 1:01 am | #41
So, if I am to understand Sarah’s point, it is that RHE is unfairly characterizing complementarian’s as persons who are calling their husbands ‘Master’, growing their hair out, camping outside the home during menstrual cycles etc…
Is that your complaint, that she’s mischaracterizing complementarians?
October 6th, 2011 | 9:05 am | #42
“First, I wonder if one could actually live a truly Biblically based life. I’m not referring to whether or not we could follow the spiritual directives. Rather whether or not some of the ritual directives could be very difficult to follow. ”
Well, of course they are. Of course we couldn’t.
But that isn’t really the issue here — the issue is whether RHE’s process really *is* recognizably an attempt to live a biblically based life, as the Bible actually understands that, rather than a stringing together of de-contextualized commands and customs contemporary to the Bible, poorly applied, and with little recognition of the (biblically intended) spirit of the ones that do apply.
And how doing that furthers the conversation on the right understanding of sex roles in the Bible, regardless of whether I agree with RHE’s initial position on that and where she’d like it to go, is what is baffling to me.
October 6th, 2011 | 9:13 am | #43
Just to take the example I picked on previously: how does taking a Baby-Think-It-Over home for weekend and playing with it
1) help someone better understand the Bible’s teaching on motherhood and its relationship to womanhood and
2) help bring necessary insight to the question of egalitarianism vs. complementarianism vs. any other version of biblical sexuality?
It seems more like she’s making a game of it, rather than doing anything that accomplishes her stated goals, and I don’t find that surprising, given the methodology she’s apparently using — just make a list of “aspects of biblical womanhood” cherry-pick a few verses that seem to relate to each, and engage in some loosely-connected practice that represents each, without considering the Bible’s full teaching *even on the purpose and nature of those practices,* let alone whether that particular practice (taking home an electronically-augmented baby doll) in any way actually related to what it really means to live according to that teaching (the biblical concepts of motherhood and its place in the Christian life.)
If she’s not making a game of it, her approach was so deeply flawed that it gets us nowhere as far as her stated goals. And I think that, given the trivial and disconnected nature of what she actually did in her “year,” people can be excused for thinking it’s just a game, provided we’re willing to leave a bit of room for doubt.
October 6th, 2011 | 10:35 am | #44
Eric–
Not speaking for Sarah, my frustration with RHE’s approach is that she misrepresents the opposing view this way: By choosing to practice a literal, flattened approach to “Biblical womanhood,” she implies that this is how complementarians approach the same texts as well. When she goes on NPR and says that “submitting” to her husband means only watching the DVD selections that he wants, she completely skews a very nuanced concept. And the sheer absurdity of it all communicates that anyone practicing submission is just as absurd, dumb, and thoughtless.This is the precise definition of a straw man.
And when you go into a discussion convinced that your proponent is an idiot (and willing to publicly portray them as such), you’re are not respecting them nor will you get very far in actually understanding their position. The truth that this is a very complex conversation with deep, thoughtful people on both sides. RHE is just revealing herself to not be one of them.
October 6th, 2011 | 10:36 am | #45
*opponent*
October 6th, 2011 | 11:09 am | #46
Way to go, reviewing a book that doesn’t exist yet!
PS, Sarah, you are an idiot.
*slow clap*
October 6th, 2011 | 11:15 am | #47
Hannah and Pentamom
I suspect part of the problem is that you are looking for a deeper theological discussion. I don’t believe that RHE has a seminary degree (I could be wrong about this). She makes no claim to be a theologian.
To me, blog posts are to writers as sketches are to artists.The blog posts are part of a greater work. Hence, I tend to wait for the finished work to go full bore on the criticism. Please don’t misunderstand, I do understand your criticisms and even agree with a couple of them. However, I want to reserve judgement until the final version is out.
I sort of wonder if either of you have read her first book.
October 6th, 2011 | 12:08 pm | #48
I’ve been following Rachel’s project from the first day she announced it, and a big part of it involves interviewing people from a variety of perspectives, entering into their world, and then reflecting on that. That is her stated method for the book. Dare I say that the goal of her project is to be incarnational?
I don’t think this project is about mocking anyone. It’s about exploring multiple perspectives from a first person point of view.
And having said all of that, I also echo the other commenters who suggest that you wait for the book before passing judgment on it. Blog posts are a poor substitute for the real thing.
October 6th, 2011 | 1:16 pm | #49
You said that “equipping women to think biblically, to develop a Christian worldview, is a rare tradition among women in this… culture of ours. I hold to the Titus 2 mandate to teach other women “what is good” and sometimes that involves refuting what is not good.”
Notice that I omitted a couple of descriptors of our “culture” in this quote, and that was intentional. Why? Because, with those descriptors emitted, this quote could have come from Rachel too.
The truth is, you and Rachel are more alike and have more in common than you realize. You both make it a goal to “edify” those around you and help them in their walk with Christ, even if your methods and beliefs are different. You both are willing to propagate a message that may or may not be well received or accepted. And, truth be told, you BOTH occasionally make assumptions about what someone from a different believes: you accuse her of doing it in your post, and you are guilty of the same thing towards her in this post as well.
Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism? I don’t know…. A year ago, I couldn’t have even told you what the terms mean. I can tell you this — Jesus said that the two most important commands are to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself, right? Arguing/bickering about petty (and I do mean petty) stuff like this is NOT loving your neighbor as yourself.
You and Rachel are sisters in Christ. You might want to start acting like it.
October 6th, 2011 | 1:21 pm | #50
Okay, fair enough. Maybe what I’m passing judgement on are her blog posts and how she’s publicizing her book up to this point–NPR interview, posts, pictures, etc. And while it is POSSIBLE that the book will do a 180 and actually handle the issues with respect and maturity, everything so far indicates that it won’t. That it can’t, simply based on what RHE herself has released so far.
And yes, I am looking for a deeper theological, adult conversation only because RHE postures herself as engaging in that. She wants respect for her perspectives, she touts her books, she engages Christian leaders and publicizes her opinions in a way that suggests she should be listened to. But if she doesn’t have the scholarship and ability to carefully handle the issue, should we? No one asked her to engage in this; she put herself forward. And she has to be ready for the scrutiny that comes with that.
October 6th, 2011 | 1:43 pm | #51
I appreciate the thoughtful responses (on both sides) to my commentary *on Rachel’s public discussion.* This was not a book review nor did it project onto what the book might ultimately say.
Rachel Held Evans is a settled egalitarian, and I’m ok with that and I respect her for doing that work to establish her views. But that she is settled in her own mind on that issue, a public discussion of “biblical womanhood” communicates that she has temporarily adopted a particular school of thought (not a personal hybrid) she has studied and wants to experience in order to get into the mind and motivation of its adherents. Many of the pictures she posted drew away from the serious intent of her project as they were stereotypes of female adherents of Biblical Womanhood and served as symbols of scorn.The book was not required to *see* these pictures.
Three weeks ago, I engaged Rachel in her post “Complementarians are Selective Too” and received no reaction from her. My comment was the basis for my post here and at my website, http://www.womenfaithculture.org. I wrote,
“Clearly the authority of scripture is undermined by a cherry-picking methodology, but to use the lack of observance of the Levitical purity laws as an example of complementarian selectionism is the ultimate strawman. If you’re suggesting that both comps and egals are being selective about the observance of these practices because a literal hermeneutic would REQUIRE these observances, then I need to better understand the hermeneutic you are practicing.”
She had every opportunity at this time to note the irrelevancy of hermeneutics, that this was a hybrid-experience and not representative of any particular view. But the context of the post was about was about hermeneutics and her perception of “picking and choosing” by evangelical complementarians (and as I noted in my piece, she says egalitarians do it too) and actively engaged the hermeneutics of
Piper, Gruden and CBMW, foundational theologians in the Biblical Womanhood and manhood movement.
Obviously this was not a book review, this was a commentary on commentary. But my “Evolving in Monkey Town” review will be posted shortly and next year, obviously, I’ll review her new book as well.
October 6th, 2011 | 2:31 pm | #52
I’m exercising a little discretion here and just deleted a 56-paragraph comment.
I exaggerate. But only slightly.
If Mrs. Evans is honest about wanting to start a conversation with this project, I think it would be good of her to show willingness to converse with actual proponents of biblical womanhood. I am sure Sarah would be willing to have that conversation.
Kamilla
October 6th, 2011 | 2:57 pm | #53
Thanks for delineating in that last comment, Sarah.
A couple minor notes…. I don’t think Rachel intended her pictures to be “symbols of scorn” towards women that lead traditional “Biblical” lifestyles. I’m guessing that you’re taking more offense than was intended. For example, the picture with the robotic baby, “Chip” — she wasn’t mocking mothers, but she didn’t want to exclude the work that it takes to be a mother from her “biblical year”.
As for not responding to your comment, I know that Rachel is intentional about not getting into debates in her comment section. My guess is she was probably trying to avoid that.
As for Kamilla’s suggestion of having a real discussion about the issues, I think that Rachel would probably be up for that too, as you probably would, Sarah. The key would be doing it right — a “roundtable” with the two of you and a moderator could be beneficial to folks on both the egalitarian and complementarian side of things.
And yes, I’m being completely serious when I’m saying that.
Blessings…..
October 6th, 2011 | 3:06 pm | #54
Dan McM,
Well, at least we agree on one thing – a round table between Sarah and Rachel.
As for a thirty-year-old woman posing with an electronic baby and pretending a weekend with it is going to teach her *anything* at all about parenting and messy real life – well, let’s just say I am flummoxed as to how that could be anything *but* snarkiness in the extreme.
October 6th, 2011 | 3:06 pm | #55
Dan – thanks for your very courteous reply. Please don’t forget, however, my issue is not with her egalitarianism but in the way she, as a prominent female author in the evangelical community, has misrepresented “biblical womanhood” to society at large.
October 6th, 2011 | 3:35 pm | #56
Kamilla – I still don’t think she was being snarky with the Chip thing, but I often let things slide that bother other people. I can see why some would be bothered…. And yes, I do think a roundtable would be a great idea.
And Sarah, thank you too. I see the distinction you’re making, though I’m not sure I’d arrive at the same conclusion you did (obviously, or I wouldn’t have commented, right?)
You mentioned that you might go ahead and review Rachel’s “Monkey Town” book? I think that’s a good idea…. It would give you a better appreciation of where she’s been, why she questions what she questions, etc. My personal philosophy is that we all have “common ground” if we take the time to look for it…. reading monkey town would help you find common ground with Rachel.
October 6th, 2011 | 6:20 pm | #57
Dan,
It might be a good idea to read Monkey Town, in certain respects – but I think it’s legitimate to deal with the project as the project. don’t need to know what Mimi Haddad’s childhood was like in order to assess whether she is being honest in her arguments against biblical womanhood, for instance.
On the other hand, it was a section in Monkey Town that convinced me I was right about her snarkiness. It’s the section where she talks about winning something like the Good Christian Attitude award at her school. She writes there that she got very good at feigning sincerity.
As a friend of mine would say, The girl is mother of the woman.
I hope Sarah will review the book when it comes out – I know I will be. It would be good if we could come back here with Rachel participating as well.
October 6th, 2011 | 8:55 pm | #58
Kamilla
I don’t see what your seeing as snarky. It’s a different point of view. I happen to identify with a lot of what she talks about. In particular some of the times of questioning.
I find your tendency to pick out relatively small sections/sentences to make broad generalizations to be frustrating. You make accusations of dishonesty and you read intentions into acts that may very well not be there.
October 6th, 2011 | 9:52 pm | #59
Steve,
Heres the problem, you don’t see. It’s not her point of view that I am criticizing when I refer to her snarkiness, it is the manner in which she expresses it. Some folks are capable of making that distinction.
As for Mrs. Evans’ honesty about desiring conversation? I’ll only say that I know she has received at least two invitations to do so on places less public than her blog or big splashy conferences and she has failed to respond to either invitation.
October 7th, 2011 | 6:08 am | #60
Kamilla,
Sometimes we find what we are looking for. Could it be that you are looking for snark and therefore are finding it? I suspect that you may be reading snark into statements that RHE never intended to be snarky.
I have friends who are authors. One Christian and one secular. Both internationally published. They both get mountains of requests for interviews, appearances, whatever. There is only so much time one can devote to such requests. Not responding to a request could be considered rude, but not a sign that she is avoiding confrontation.
October 7th, 2011 | 9:24 am | #61
“but she didn’t want to exclude the work that it takes to be a mother from her “biblical year”.
Then why did she? Using the Chip doll is to “the work that it takes to be a mother” as a child sitting in the car going zoom, zoom and playing with the steering wheel is to the work of being a UPS driver. It’s not that it wasn’t for long enough, it’s that it doesn’t partake of any of the essential elements of what it means “to be a mother.” Granted, you can’t really do that on an experimental basis anyway, but a real, living child with a personality and actual needs (as Kamilla suggested,maybe taking charge of a child for a short time to give a mother a break) would be a good start.
October 7th, 2011 | 10:01 am | #62
pentamom
Maybe her schedule didn’t fit with the people who she could have babysat for. I really don’t think that there was an easy way to work with this. Would a weekend have really taught her what you are expecting?
Frankly. I think this was a no win situation for RHE.She has no children of her own, hence anything could be criticized.
October 7th, 2011 | 10:09 am | #63
[...] What Biblical Womanhood Is Not Evangel, Sarah Flashing [...]
October 7th, 2011 | 10:42 am | #64
“Maybe her schedule didn’t fit with the people who she could have babysat for. I really don’t think that there was an easy way to work with this. Would a weekend have really taught her what you are expecting? ”
Perhaps not, but please remember that *she* as the one who represented the baby doll as being useful to the task.
And isn’t the fact that it might be inconvenient to “her schedule” to work around someone else’s schedule *precisely the point?* Biblical motherhood is precisely *not* about finding a way to have a child in your life that suits your existing life.
My objection is not so much that she didn’t find even a marginally more authentic way to explore the meaning of motherhood, as that she claimed to have explored that meaning, while having done it in such an inauthentic way. There is really *no* value to the process of “understanding biblical motherhood” in the keeping of a Baby Think It Over doll for a weekend (which is related to the reason why I think that is such a misguided process for the education of teenagers, incidentally.) Had she simply said, “You know, there’s no way as a childless woman I can live out the experience of biblical motherhood other than by actually having children,” or “I realize that babysitting for a weekend doesn’t come close, but that’s what I did.”
No, she took the doll, made a blog post about how it was part of the process of understanding the mothering aspects of biblical womanhood, and left it at that, as though the doll actually *did* have some value to the process. That she was able to do that is symptomatic of the problem some of us have with this project — that she thinks these superficial experiments and tricks really have much to do with understanding biblical womanhood, from either the perspective of understanding the Bible itself, or understanding other people’s views of it.
October 7th, 2011 | 10:45 am | #65
I meant to say, that had she just either admitted it was impossible without children of her own, or admitted that some half-way measure of caring for an actual child for some period of time was not adequate but was perhaps a small taste, I wouldn’t have said she couldn’t win. That would have been the truth, appropriate to her situation. That she thinks that having an electronically enhanced piece of plastic in her house could even remotely approach what she’s aiming at, is the problem, not that she didn’t achieve an ideal experiment on biblical motherhood.
October 7th, 2011 | 11:38 am | #66
I wonder if part of the issue is that we as Christians each have an understanding of what biblical womanhood entails and we *know* we are right about it. What I find fascinating about RHE’s project (and I admit that I don’t have the time to read all of her blog posts, but I do plan to read her book) is that she’s trying to consider biblical womanhood writ large. So, Jewish women practice biblical womanhood (that they believe to be *the* form), evangelical complementarians practice biblical womanhood, evangelical egalitarians practice biblical womanhood, (not to mention Catholic women, Mennonite women, Episcopalian women, etc.) And, even more interesting/confusing, there are varieties even within each of these camps. RHE tries to engage these multiple views of biblical womanhood, but I find it even more admirable that she goes back to scripture to see what the Bible says about women.
Like many of you, I believe that some of scripture’s commands toward women are not to be followed anymore. However, that’s not the point. Some woman, at some time (and sometimes now), has understood that law to be part of biblical womanhood. For example, Orthodox Jewish women still participate in cleansing rituals after menstruation. Thus, multiple versions of “biblical womanhood” existed and continue to exist side-by-side. I hope that RHE will dedicate part of her book to examining the various hermeneutics that each of these groups employ. She is right that all are selective, but they are selective in different ways.
Finally, I LOVE it that someone’s finally stating the obvious: multiple versions of biblical womanhood exist. No one owns the rights to the phrase complete with a checklist of things women must do to be biblical. We just all think what we believe about biblical womanhood is right (just like we all think our view of baptism, the Lord’s Supper, etc. is right ;-)). That doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean that we can’t learn from one another, however.
October 7th, 2011 | 12:40 pm | #67
Ah, but Steve – Rachel herself is the one who has repeatedly confessed her facility for snarkiness and faux sincerity.
Who am I to disagree with her?
October 7th, 2011 | 12:49 pm | #68
Despite these peripheral arguments, Sarah’s underlying concern is still valid. The issue is not which conclusions RHE reaches in the end; it’s HOW she reaches them.
1. Can you seriously explore something when you exhibit a penchant for stereotyping? (see NPR interview)
2.Are your conclusions in any way relevant if you don’t apply consistent reasoning (hermeneutic) to reach those conclusions?
At root, part of the problem is that RHE (like so many others of my generation) seems to think that just asking the questions and “starting the conversation” is enough. (See EiMT) That challenging the status quo is somehow intrinsically worthwhile.
But the truth is that questions and conversations are never enough–they are tools to reach an end, not an end in themselves. And worse, if you don’t ask them in an honest manner, all your questioning will do is alienate people and make the discussion all the more confusing.
October 7th, 2011 | 5:59 pm | #69
I have found that what feminists write about the Bible, the patriarchy, and conservative notions of how women “ought” to live often tells us more about feminist fears than about anything to do with conservatives, their beliefs, or their lifestyles.
October 7th, 2011 | 7:20 pm | #70
Hannah
“Despite these peripheral arguments, Sarah’s underlying concern is still valid. The issue is not which conclusions RHE reaches in the end; it’s HOW she reaches them.”
That’s why you need to read the book. Blog posts are not always intended to be a complete treatise on a subject. Why has it become fashionable to critique without trying to get ALL of the information? There are tons of things that I have opinions on that I choose not to blog about because I haven’t read the book, seen the movie. The HOW could very well be answered in the book.
October 7th, 2011 | 10:39 pm | #71
Steve — on what would you base the assumption that we will get a clearer picture of her methodology in the book, which is more likely going to be a summary of the process and her conclusions, than from the blog posts, which are a day by day (or at least week by week) account of what she did, as she was doing it, and what she was thinking about it, as she was doing it.
I’m not saying the blog posts are necessarily *more* reflective, but why assume they’re less so? And even more so, I don’t understand what the problem is with critiquing what we do have available to us, so long as we’re not claiming to critique what is not yet there, or that it will be identical to what we already see? “The blog posts reflect a poorly thought out approach” is not the same as “the blog posts indicate that the book will reveal a poorly thought out approach.” Why are her own writings not to be deemed credible as a reflection on the process and how she viewed it?
October 8th, 2011 | 12:14 pm | #72
pentamom
I cannot speak directly for RHE, I can only speak as one who has friends who are published writers and as one who has a degree in Journalism and English.
In the world of writing blog posts are considered short form essays. They are not necessarily designed to give an exhaustive exposition on a given subject. Think of commentators in newspapers. However, unlike columnists, RHE has stated that she is writing a book.Obviously, a book gives a lot larger platform with which to develop ideas and concepts.
While some writers do use blog posts to develop concepts, they are still subject to being a short form.
In short, I believe that her blog posts are more like artist’s sketches than they are full blown miniatures. Ypu see them as full blown miniatures, I see them as sketches. Both can stand on their own, however, sketches are really part of a larger work and must ve seen as that.
October 8th, 2011 | 12:32 pm | #73
I had some misgivings when I first began reading about Rachel’s “Biblical Womanhood” Project. It did seem kind of shoddy, and dancing around the issue. But, as I continued to read, I realized this was because I had a mixed up idea about the purpose of the project. I think that some of it IS supposed to be kind of tongue-in-cheek self-reflection on womanhood and Christainity for both sides. Not a detailed diagnostic on what is wrong with contemporary hermenuetic methods.
I don’t want to say too much, except that of course the blog posts represent a piecemeal approach, because of the limitations of the medium. Plus, you don’t want to stick the good, really meaty stuff on the blog, or no one would read the book.
October 8th, 2011 | 1:21 pm | #74
Steve,
Give it up. Pentamom is the wisest woman among us here and you are not going to snow her.
Short form, long form, incomplete or comprehensive – who gives a rat’s right butt cheek about that?
We all know, even you know, that she has steadfastly stuck her thumb in the eye of the one practice for which biblical womanhood proponents consistently criticized – women not being allowed to preach or teach men in the assembly. She’s even joked about it on her blog and admitted she rarely turns down a speaking engagement.
October 8th, 2011 | 2:12 pm | #75
Kamilla,
I am not trying to snow anyone. It’s called discussion. If you are uncomfortable with that concept, then please don’t feel the need to participate. If you are expecting ANY blog to write in the kind of depth that you are looking for, they are far and few between. If you don’t understand forms of writing, that’s not my fault
Up until this point the discussion has been civil and rather enjoyable. I get that you don’t like RHE. Then don’t read her blog. No one is forcing you
October 8th, 2011 | 2:27 pm | #76
Oh and by the way, the Evangelical Church that I attend allows women to preach during services. I don’t happen to think that she is “sticking a thumb” in anyone’s eye. She is presenting a differing interpretation of scripture than the one that you hold.
October 8th, 2011 | 2:44 pm | #77
Steve — I do understand that blog posts are not supposed to be as comprehensive a treatment of something as a full book.
I don’t understand why blog posts by the same author on the same subject are not to be treated as substantially reflective of that person’s position and approach on the subject. I understand deferring to a “fuller treatment” that a book might provide; I don’t understand why people can’t comment and critique what they do see reflected in the blog posts.
Only if people barge ahead and insist that there cannot be anything more to her position than what is in the posts, which Sarah and others have taken pains to explain is not their position, is it *any problem whatsoever* to criticize what someone has written in a blog, regardless of whether those things were written in the course of preparing a book, or for some other reason.
October 8th, 2011 | 2:46 pm | #78
Kamilla, if anyone’s “snowed,” it you. But thanks. ;-)
October 8th, 2011 | 3:27 pm | #79
Not me, Pentamom – we only got rain today, hahaa!
October 8th, 2011 | 4:04 pm | #80
Steve,
Whether or not I “like” Rachel is beside the point.
My only question to you and her fan club is – why do you only seem to take exception to critical assessments of her and not to the positive or adulatory ones?
If we are supposed to wait for the book – why doesn’t everyone get the same admonition?
Kamilla
October 8th, 2011 | 8:59 pm | #81
I think by this point, it’s safe to say that we are ALL eagerly anticipating the book, even if each for our own reasons. And maybe that’s half the trouble with the whole blogging leading to book deals phenomenon: RHE has gained a tremendous amount of publicity through her blogging/video clips/interviews, etc. and while I think she has revealed her method in the process, at the very least she is using the controversy to sell books. And THAT in and of itself does not make for honest dialogue.
One thing that I can’t get over is in her introductory video she explains her process of “taking the bible as literally as possible” and then concludes by donning an apron and a headscarf and says “now, I’m ready.” In this one satirical moment, she gives away her agenda–to challenge conservative notions of femininity. Why did she not as quickly pick up a hammer and tent spike or start prophesying to represent “biblical womanhood?” Because she already had an agenda going into the project.
Is it possible her agenda changed throughout the process and the book will reveal that? Possibly. Is there anything in her blog posts/interviews/video updates to indicate it has? Absolutely not. Is it legitimate then to evaluate her process and rhetoric so far? Yes and it’s about time it happened.
October 8th, 2011 | 10:50 pm | #82
It’s interesting to read how Ms Evans has insulted/misrepresented and generally annoyed all of you. However, some reading of what she actually is saying might be slightly different than the complaints.
First, last time I checked she named the book “Year of Biblical Womanhood”. To me, the word “Biblical” includes both Old and New Testaments. Biblical does not equal Evangelical nor does it equal Complimentarian. I realize that some in the Christian community equate Biblical with Evangelical or Christian, but in the scheme of things we are relative late comers to the party.Sarah Flashing even quotes the relevant part of what Ms. Evans has stated what she was planning on doing:
“On October 1, 2010, I committed one year of my life to following all of the Bible’s instructions for women as literally as possible—from the *Old* Testament to the *New* Testament, from Genesis to Revelation, from the Levitical purity codes to the letters of Paul.”
To quote Ms Flashing: “This could have been an opportunity to discover and experience some aspects of complementarianism not otherwise understood.”
That was not her stated purpose. She was not examining complementarianism she was examining a comprehensive, Old and New Testament Biblical view. Please re-read Ms Evans quote again. No where does she state that she will be looking at any view except for a Biblical view encompassing both Testaments. To that end, she has spoken with Orthodox Jews about the Old Testament teachings on Biblical womanhood.
To quote Ms Flashing again: “Not only did she not live it consistently, she added practices that don’t belong (camping out in her front yard, for example). She was not faithful to biblical womanhood as taught by its adherents.”
I worked in a town for several years where there was a Hasidic Yeshiva nearby. I can’t comment on the camping out part. However, it was not uncommon to see Hasidic Jewish families around town. The father always drives, the son (even younger sons around 8 or 9) were always in the front seat. The wife was always in the back.There are still people who live out Old Testament Biblical Womanhood.
The biggest problem is that Ms Flashing (and several commenters) have assumed that Ms Evans was writing about a completarian view of Biblical Womanhood. When ,in fact, she was speaking about a much broader view.This allowed Ms Flashing to create a straw argument about Ms Evans attacking complementarianism through the Biblical Womanhood project. The post that she refers people to about Complementarians picking and choosing scripture was actually not at all a part of the project. It was instead in response to a question that was posed to John Piper whether or not it was permissible for a man to listen to Beth Moore for scripture teaching. Context is important since Piper had given the gentleman permission to listen to Beth Moore.
Finally, Ms Flashing spent the whole first paragraph without even mentioning Ms Evans name. Yes, Ms Flashing, it is a good idea to wait for the book to come out. It might help you to understand context and what the purpose of the book was. Hint: it was not only about a complementarian view. Ms Evans meant Biblical to be Biblical NOT just Evangelical or Complentarian.
Second hint: it was just this sort of criticism that pushed Rob Bell’s book in sales. I would have thought that might have been in the back of your mind when you wrote this piece.
October 8th, 2011 | 11:22 pm | #83
“The father always drives, the son (even younger sons around 8 or 9) were always in the front seat. The wife was always in the back.There are still people who live out Old Testament Biblical Womanhood. ”
Where in the Old Testament does one find a teaching that women are to do something parallel to always sitting in the back seat of a vehicle?
Either she wants to be strictly biblical, or she doesn’t. Bringing the practices of Hasidic Jews that aren’t actually found in scripture even if they fit with Hasidic interpretive schemes that she doesn’t share, doesn’t really work here.
And that’s the other thing — if she wants to be “strictly biblical,” then it has to be according to *someone’s* interpretation. I’m fairly sure Rachel Held Evans doesn’t believe that the Bible should be applied in fits and starts, some places literally, some places not, and some places (frankly) fancifully. So evidently she’s not going by her *own* interpretive method.
And since she’s not going by any other recognizable method of interpretation, nor according to any scheme any recognizable group uses (including, but not limited to, complementarians) how much sense does it say that she’s actually spending a year “practicing biblical womanhood?” How can she be practicing what biblical womanhood is according to nobody, not even herself?
October 8th, 2011 | 11:37 pm | #84
From the NPR article:
“As an evangelical Christian, Rachel Held Evans often heard about the importance of practicing “biblical womanhood,” but she didn’t quite know what that meant. Everyone she asked seemed to have a different definition.
Evans decided to embark on a quest to figure out how to be a woman by the Bible’s standards”
(Comments are allowed on this article and my search revealed no responses from Evans or any of her supporters claiming that this mischaracterizes the project)
From FAQ #1:
“For the past few years I’ve been hearing a lot about gender roles as evangelicals debate the place of women in the home, church, and society. (See Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Christians for Biblical Equality) While many hail “biblical womanhood” as the ideal, few seem to agree on exactly what it means, so women like me receive mixed messages about how to honor God with our decisions. I was thinking about this in the shower one morning, when I got a crazy idea. What if I tried it all? What if took the notion of biblical womanhood literally to show how we all pick and choose when it comes to applying the Bible? ”
From Oprah’s website:
“What’s so compelling about this project is that while it could easily sound like a way to poke fun at Evangelicals who claim to live by the book, Evans is herself a Christian with a thoughtful relationship to her religion.”
The following quotes are from Rachel’s website under the listing, “Project Posts”:
“Complementarians want to frame the debate as being between those who support the authority of Scripture and those who reject the authority of Scripture. But it seems to me that the actual debate is between those who believe that Scripture most consistently presents hierarchy as the ideal and those who believe that Scripture most consistently presents hierarchy as less than ideal.”
“This most recent turn of events has reminded me of why I took on this crazy project. It seems to me that this whole notion of “biblical womanhood” has become so distorted among its evangelical advocates that no one knows what it means anymore”
Let me repeat that lest there be any remaining doubt about the context of this project Of Mrs. Evans’:
“This most recent turn of events has reminded me of why I took on this crazy project. It seems to me that this whole notion of “biblical womanhood” has become so distorted among its evangelical advocates that no one knows what it means anymore”
Now, Steve, your opinion of what “biblical womanhood” refers to is rather beside the point, given that Evans has clearly and repeatedly placed the project within the context of an Evangelical/Complementarian use of the term. Do you really want to continue to maintain that that project is *not* placed within that context by Evans herself?
October 9th, 2011 | 2:42 pm | #85
Steve, I understand how this can appear–angry, complementarian women who are threatened by alternative views :-)–but trust me, it’s not that. At least for me the issue is deeper.
RHE is conflating two conversations into one and causing a great deal of misunderstanding in the church and in the world at large. Doing this will also inhibit her from getting valid answers to either question. 1)The first one is what does the Bible teach about biblical womanhood? (and that’s what’s got Sarah up in arms here and the rest of us too.) Sarah’s point is that if you are seriously investigating the Bible’s teaching, as RHE says she is, you have to do so with a consistent hermeneutic not a helter-skelter approach.
2) The second question is how have different faith cultures interacted with and applied the Biblical teaching in view of their own hermeneutic? This is an entirely different conversation and RHE’s process has unfortunately mixed the two. So my frustration is not about conclusions but of reasoning and rhetoric. When you don’t separate the two as distinct issues, you end up misrepresenting opposing views and misunderstanding that even people who disagree with you CAN still be consistent and logical in their thinking.
But RHE seems to have already decided that the differences are a result of everybody “picking and choosing” and then sets up her project in a way to prove that this is the case.
FWIW, one of my closest friends is a secular Israeli Jew and you can just imagine the conversations that have resulted. Yet we both respect the others choices and have spent the time in honest conversation to understand where the other one is coming from. This has led not to dismissing the differences between us but to a more robust, multi-layered friendship because of the trust and honesty.
The irony is that I think RHE is capable of that same kind of discussion but everything she has written and said so far has come up very short.
October 9th, 2011 | 3:53 pm | #86
“Steve, I understand how this can appear–angry, complementarian women who are threatened by alternative views :-)–but trust me, it’s not that. At least for me the issue is deeper.”
Exactly. And what follows — exactly. It’s so easy (and we may all be guilty of it at different times, except for some exceptionally wise, temperate people) to claim that all opposition to our own position and/or those who advocate such opposition comes from feeling “threatened” by it.
But really, I’d never heard of Rachel Held Evans until recently, yet I’d been quite aware there were people who thought much like she does, and I went calmly through my life without really feeling threatened by that reality (though troubled by what I think is a detrimental point of view, for those who hold it and for the wider church.) However, the subject having come to my attention within the last couple of months, and having followed it a bit, I have certain reactions to what I’ve seen of her self-explanation, mainly negative. I’ve sought to explain the nature and source of those reactions. That is all — no being “threatened,” no sense that my position is undercut by her project, just the idea that when the topic comes up in a forum like this one, I have some thoughts on it.
October 11th, 2011 | 11:56 pm | #87
[...] is right. Read the rest here. Share [...]
October 12th, 2011 | 10:07 am | #88
[...] Christian and who not. Then where politics and religion are, can sex and gender be far behind? Sarah J. Flashing has a go at Rachel Held Evans about "Biblical Womanhood". What Flashing fdoes not tackle is that everyone – everyone – cherrypicks the Bible, and there is [...]
October 12th, 2011 | 10:26 am | #89
Very well said Sarah! While this type of investigation could have been a great opportunity, it was performed poorly. I am so thankful for godly women, like yourself, for taking the time to so intelligently speak on your observations of this.
October 16th, 2011 | 4:19 pm | #90
Rachel Held Evans, while well read in theology, is not a theologian. She is a young woman on a faith journey, trying to better understand scripture, God’s commandments, and her calling as a woman of Christ. What is remarkable about Rachel is that she has invited the public to join her in this journey; what’s doubly remarkable about her is that she has a secular readership, as well as a Christian one. And while there may be holes in her theology, she’s honest about her doubts, her prejudices, and her predilections. I have been very blessed by her writing, even though I don’t always agree with her.
I feel like a couple of things are happening in this conversation that are worth pointing out.
First, I think some folks are interpreting Rachel’s sense of humor as a form of mockery. I get that. It’s always troubling when one’s point of view is on display. But I’m sure Rachel knows that using a baby doll for a weekend in no way, shape or form could teach one anything about parenting. I suspect she’s sending herself up, as a non-parent trying to write about motherhood, more than anything else.
But more importantly, there seems to be a disconnect between how you perceive this project being marketed and the actual tone and intent of Rachel’s body of work. Whenever Rachel writes deeply about a particular faith tradition, the investigation ends with a graceful and well-reasoned summary of what she has learned from that tradition and how it has blessed her understanding of womanhood. Those of us familiar with Rachel’s work know that, far from mockery, she is always headed towards a place of grace and understanding. Thus, to a regular reader of RHE, this post feels like a fundamental misunderstanding of her work and intent.
I would urge you to give a sister in Christ the benefit of the doubt and give her work its full due before reviewing it in a public forum. You may still have serious problems with her project but at least you will have demonstrated greater grace and wisdom, and therefore, authority in your reproach.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact