I like to people watch. And I like to wrestle with ideas. So one of my favorite things to do is watch people wrestle with ideas.
It’s been fascinating watching the reactions to Rachel Held Evans’ A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband “Master. I confess I have not been able to read it yet although I hope to at some point. I did watch the promo video as well as videos of Evan’s appearances on The View and The Today Show. I’ve read many reviews of the book and in the end found myself much more interested in reading the book than I was before (mostly because of all the reactions to it). While Evans and I have some substantial differences regarding the Scriptures and key doctrines, I think she would be a fun and interesting person to meet for coffee. I think our husbands are a lot alike (which means we’re both super blessed!).
When I first viewed the information about the book, I told a friend in an email that I thought the premise sounded silly. Frankly, I didn’t think the promo did the best job in preparing people for what the book was about. Even as someone very interested in the issue of women in the church, the premise as it was presented just didn’t grab me.
I also admit to cringing a bit with the interviews on secular media. The question about women in the church is hard enough for those who have a knowledge of the Scriptures. To bring forth silliness about the Scriptures in hopes of making a point made me wonder more than once if this was doing more harm than good.
Regardless of how it is received in the secular world, the book has caused lots of words in the Christian online world. Very few of the reviews have actually been helpful (at least from my perspective). Most of them have revolved around how Rachel wrote the book rather than the actual content of the book. Some of the reviews have been downright snarky and judgmental. The condescending attitudes are really something to behold.
I’m going to respond briefly to one of the reviews. The review is by Mary Kassian (Wayback Machine). If you don’t know who she is, here is what she writes about herself in her review:
Someone alerted me to Rachel’s Year of Biblical Womanhood early on in the project. Since I’ve been associated with the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) in one way or another since the early 1990s, since I helped coin the term complementarian, since I’ve written and spoken extensively on the topic of biblical womanhood, have taught courses on biblical womanhood at evangelical seminaries across North America, have blogged and written books about biblical womanhood, have published a resource entitled, True Woman 101: Divine Design – An eight week study on biblical womanhood, and since I’ve spoken to tens of thousands of women about biblical womanhood, I figured I was in a unique position to help Rachel understand what complementarians mean by the term “biblical womanhood.”
I wanted to give her direct, personal access to a woman at the forefront of the contemporary biblical womanhood movement. I hoped to answer her questions about complementarity, give her the opportunity to verify her perceptions, and challenge her to avoid false caricatures so that she might honestly and accurately represent our position.
Kassian then goes on to basically dismiss Evans’ book because she didn’t use Kassian’s definition of complementarianism. And because Evans didn’t define complementarianism the way Kassian defines it, then the entire book is worthless. (Yes, I’m generalizing here but you read the review and come back and tell me if you think I’m wrong.)
The problem is that Kassian either doesn’t understand how the term complementarian has evolved over the past twenty years or she doesn’t want to acknowledge it. She chastises Evans for using Edith Schaeffer, Debi Pearl and Stacy McDonald as voices for the complementarian movement. Really? Can Kassian really be that out of the loop regarding the larger views of complementarianism to not realize the impact these women have had on this viewpoint? Among conservative Christians (and especially the homeschool movement) Pearl and McDonald have had a HUGE impact on shaping the definition of biblical womanhood. If Evans had thrown Vision Forum into the mix, she would have been even more spot on in her assessment.
This goes back to the point I made previously. I wrote back in July in Doug Wilson, Jared Wilson, The Gospel Coalition and the Logical Conclusions of Complementarianism:
Complementarians have a serious problem in getting out their message in an accurate way. Prominent comps don’t even agree on how to define their views and the most radical comps are the ones getting the most coverage. Complementarianism is suffering from a serious identity crisis that has gotten significantly worse over the past year.
The prominent complimentarians just don’t get it. They may have coined the term twenty years ago, but they don’t get to require everyone to use that definition now. And there are some really far out teachings out there in the name of biblical womanhood that have gone completely mainstream in large portions of the church. Kassian can continue to write blog posts about how that’s not what complementarianism means and that’s not what she means by biblical womanhood, but she doesn’t get to define the terms. And until the people at The Gospel Coalition and their friends start to grasp the reality of who is in their camp I don’t see anything changing. They can deny it all they want, but that’s not how the average Christian woman is seeing it.
On her blog, Evans responded to a less than charitable review by Kathy Keller. While I’m assuming Keller meant well, the tone of the review just completely turned me off. It was more like a lecture of Keller telling Evans what she did wrong and it just rubbed me the wrong way even if I thought she had some valid points to express. Evans was extremely gracious in her response. In her response she wrote:
I agree with Keller that it’s pretty clear that sitting on one’s rooftop is not a requirement of “biblical womanhood.”
What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco-Roman household codes represent God’s ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul’s instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation—appealing the creation narrative— to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why “wives submit to your husbands” carries more weight than “submit one to another”; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.
Focusing on the most hyperbolic elements of the project, and totally ignoring the legitimate questions I raise throughout the book, Keller and others have chastised me as silly, unable to handle basic biblical hermeneutics. But here’s the problem: In her review, Keller appeals to a common-sense hermeneutic of “biblical womanhood” to which I should have deferred, and yet fails to explain in any depth what this common-sense hermeneutic is. She suggests I have muddied the waters, but provides no real clarity in her response.
This is why the phrase “biblical womanhood” has been such an effective weapon in the gender debates. By its nature, it implies clarity, simplicity, and finality. By its nature, it is immune to questions.
These are the same kinds of questions I would like to see answered.
I really think it is too bad that these questions aren’t going to be answered, at least for now. I understand why Evans wrote the book she did. But given her propensity to really push the boundaries and the style in which the book was written, I think she dug herself a hole before the ink dried on the paper.
I wish someone would write a book that deals with all these questions in an accessible way and doesn’t rely on playful circumstances to try to bring them to light. Again, I know Evans was trying to raise a discussion in light of her book and I’m sure it raised lots of discussions among those who follow her. But there are too many complementarians who will not take this approach seriously and it undercuts the importance of this debate. Maybe this doesn’t matter to some. But this does matter to me because I come out of the conservative complementarian arena and I care that the truth reach these men and women.
In the end, I don’t think much has changed in the broader picture of this debate. Evans will be demonized by those who oppose her. They won’t take seriously the very valid and important questions she is raising. And in demonizing her, they continue to alienate themselves from people who are truly searching for real answers. My level of respect for some of the people responding to her has continued to plummet. The name calling and condescension is unreal.
If Evans is a sister in Christ, they owe her every respect while they kindly point out where they think she is wrong. If they truly believe she is a heretic, how in the world do they think their snarkiness is going to impact her and those who read her? My level of respect has really dropped in the past few months for some of the people associated with The Gospel Coalition and those linked to by TGC.
Who will people find more trustworthy and look to for spiritual help? The woman who is honest about her struggles with her faith and dares to ask questions out of her love for Christ and others? Or the people who rip her to shreds, turn off the comments on their posts, and dismiss the questions being asked by thousands? I suspect the overall end result of this book is the further entrenching of each side which is really unfortunate when so many need the love and truth of Christ.
No Fun Reading With Dick and Jane (or Sally and Spot)
“I wanted to give her direct, personal access to a woman at the forefront of the contemporary biblical womanhood movement.”
Humble, isn’t she.
You make some excellent points. If Mary Kassian isn’t aware of the influence that these voices have had on the complementarian movement, she needs to be.
I would like to add two thoughts that also make it clear Kassian in completely out of the complementarian loop. First, she seems to be completely unaware that Patterson’s words quoted by Rachel and included in her review are from RBWM ed 1991 AND 2006. (I don’t have this volume but found the info in an online search.) That is hardly “wiping the dust off” arbitrary antiquated quotes. If complementarianism is new and is not patriarchy as Kassian claims, it is a new ideology of only about 20 years, so what else with which does one have to work with but their literature of the last 20 years or so? However, and, second, Kassian wants to disassociate with the term patriarchy and considers that isolated to the “fringe” groups like Vision Forum. She seems to be oblivious that Denny Burk, who linked to her review on his blog, Owen Strachan, and CBMW (even in its most recent journal) all folks in “her backyard” equate complementarianism with patriarchy.
Kassian writes, “I pointed out [to Rachel] that though complementarians agree on the principle of complementarity, we often differ as to its application in the home and the church. I emphasized that even those involved in CBMW have a divergence of opinion as to the specifics of how to apply the principles of manhood and womanhood. Even Nancy and I don’t land in exactly the same place on every point of application.” From everything I have read of RHE and about YBW (haven’t read book, not sure I will) this IS the point of the book. How everyone’s ideas of what is “biblical” womanhood is different. Based on reviews and RHE own words about the book, it doesn’t seem as though Kassian got the point.
Angie – Thank you for bringing out those excellent points. Yes, this is what I found especially frustrating about all these reviews (including Kassian’s). Pick, pick, pick and deflect, deflect, deflect but never really address the substance of the issues being raised. Even if someone doesn’t agree with Evans on everything, it is ridiculous to continue to try to minimize her and pretend like she doesn’t matter.
One other thought about Angie’s comment. The CBMW, TGC and all of those associated with them are going to have to deal with the complementarian versus patriarchy question at some point. It will be interesting to see the new alliances that form and who falls where.
Excellent, excellent post, Sallie.
Unfortunately my respect for some associated with TGC has also decreased lately.
Here is an excellent comment by Caleb over on Tim Challies’ blog about Kassian’s review and the problems with it. He especially takes on Kassian’s protest that homemaking isn’t declared to be the highest calling by complementarians. And yet…
Including Mary
I just wanted to briefly tell you that I didn’t like the tone of Keller’s review, either. And you know that *I* identify myself as complementarian, so it had nothing to do with bias. 🙂 Generally, I think that book reviews need to review the ideas and not the authors. Keller’s review was an attack on the author personally–at least, that is how I viewed it because she insisted on addressing the *author* (rather than her own article’s audience) in her review, saying “you” this and “you” that… I cringed!
Thanks, Brandy, for offering your perspective. Glad to know I was in good company regarding my reaction even if we don’t agree on all the particulars. 🙂
Suzanne has written an excellent post about Kassian’s review:
Mary Kassian on Rachel Held Evans
Here are the thoughts I posted on Denny Burk’s blog last night but they were deleted.
“Poor Mary! As I read her review, what kept coming to mind was Alexander Haig in the White House on the day Reagan was shot as he kept proclaiming “I’m in charge!” She needs to stop reminding everyone of her role in complementarianism a generation ago and recognize that the more she tries to address the present day confusion, the sillier and more hypocritical she looks!
“Either Mary is being disingenuous or she has no communication with her complementarian colleagues who now embrace the term “patriarchy;” it is also apparent she has not done her research into the influence both Debi Pearl and Stacy McDonald have had on women in conservative circles. Had she done so she would have discovered that solid Bible teaching churches in a variety of denominations have handed out the Pearl marriage books by the case! She also would have discovered that McDonald’s book was not only endorsed by Nancy Leigh DeMoss but McDonald and her co-author, Jenny Chancey (who also does not believe in woman’s suffrage), were guests on DeMoss’s radio program. What Mary considers straw men are teachings that have been made central to the Gospel and are even behind the creation of new and questionable doctrines. Until she stops dismissing the truth of this, she has no credibility!”
Google it, but Lifeway dropped “A year of Biblical Womanhood.”
Rachel Held Evans denies Biblical inerrancy. As she said on the issues of gender and sexuality, “I think Peter and Paul were struggling, perhaps imperfectly, to apply Jesus’ teachings to their contexts” ( http://rachelheldevans.com/mutuality-household-codes#comment-548147621 )
Once one denies inerrancy, what authority do they have?
Dr. Peter Held, Professor of Christian Thought and Biblical Studies
http://www.saintsbibleinstitute.org/academics/#faculty
Look at Rachel Held Evans father.
Evolving in Monkey Town (2010)
Though adept at defending her Christian worldview against doubters and skeptics during her high school and early college years, everything changed when she began experiencing doubts of her own. The most potent ones involved questions concerning (you guessed it) why God would allow horrific human suffering or send millions of non-Christians to eternal torment in hell. Frustrated with the simplistic answers she knew so well, Rachel questioned her dad one Friday afternoon describing the quandary this way:
“It’s like God runs some kind of universal sweepstakes with humanity in which all of our names get thrown into a big hat at the beginning of time… Some of us are randomly selected for famine, war, disease, and paganism, while others end up with fifteen-thousand-square-foot houses, expensive Christian educations, and Double Stuf Oreos. It’s a cosmic lottery, luck of the draw.” (p. 99)
The book is divided into three sections, Habitat, Challenge, and Change, the names of these sections echoing the central metaphor of the book: namely, her faith required adaptation, change–in short, her faith needed to evolve in order to survive.
The book you are discussing is another attempt for Rachel to extrapolate the brainwashing she feels she has received growing up in conservative christian circles.
In “Paradise Lost” by Milton (considered one of the greatest literary works of English) Life is too short, and time too precious to read every new book, to find that it’s not worth the reading.
Be careful and have good sense–some books carry much a nonsense.
We should all find our own “Naomi’s” and say, “your God will be my God. … Ruth had enough faith in Naomi, probably based on the way that Naomi lived.” We need women we can touch, hug, and see the fruits of life lived.
Hi Joella,
Thank you for stopping by and taking the time to comment.
I would encourage you to read my post again. My post is not an endorsement of YBW or Evans. My post is an observation about how complementarians are doing a poor job of engaging Evans and others in the substance of her questions.
If you look back through what I write here on my blog, I’m somewhere in the netherland between comp and egal view. The main reason I started to question the comp view that I had always held was because there are too many questions that don’t get answered, logical inconsistencies, and inconsistencies in practice. Inconsistencies in practice is the one that I find most troubling. Most of my posts here are focused on those topics.
Again, TGC, Kassian, and others are not doing their comp cause any good by the way they are interacting with Evans and others asking real questions. Mocking her, talking down to her, etc. is not helpful to anyone. It makes them look small.
If they really think she is teaching a false gospel, then they should start by going through her list of questions I quoted above and give real answers to them without all the emotional add-ons. The problem is there aren’t easy answers to those questions. The issue of biblical womanhood is not cut and dried. I believed that long before Evans ever wrote her book. And it is easier for people to attack her and her struggles than to engage in substantive answers.
Re: being selective about what we read… Yes, I agree. My time is very limited when it comes to reading, especially since I have shoulder and neck issues that make it almost impossible to sit and read a book any longer. (In the past I would read two or three books a week!) But I don’t think being selective means we only read people with whom we know we will agree. If our faith in God and His Truth is so weak we can’t read others from time to time then we should ask ourselves why. In the case of the people reviewing this book, many of them are “professional” Christians and so it is a part of the work they do all the time. I think it is totally appropriate to question their reviews when they presume to speak for so many (see Kassian’s description of herself).
Warmly,
Sallie
Sallie:
I hope it goes without saying that it’s good to see you back with a new blog post!
And especially one that finally brings some balance to this RHE-vs.-her-critics story.
I was struck by one thing you brought up in the post: this issue of playfulness. I harkened back to the whole Wilson-Wilson kerfuffle back in May, when some of Doug Wilson’s defenders — I remember Alistair Roberts particularly — who claimed that a certain degree of playfulness–and even mockery–in the type of adversarial discourse in which DW traffics is to be expected, and that the over-the-top reactions of those who were offended by Jared Wilson’s post showed that they did not understand this playfulness, thus weakening their criticisms and in some cases invalidating them.
Now, I share as many objections to RHE as you do — maybe more. But I can’t help but notice that none of the advocates of “playfulness” are defending RHE’s right to deploy this tactic in her own work. If anything, it is summarily dismissed as mockery.
If I’m reading you correctly, your point that this playfulness — irrespective of which side uses it — can be a substantial obstacle to productive discourse, perhaps especially in the comp/egal debate, in which one of the salient points of contention is the refusal of one side to even answer certain questions.
Just a thought. And again, welcome back.
SMG
Sallie, just wanted to mention that you are in good company……I cannot believe how many blogs are publishing Mary’s review and with glowing support! Pulling hair out here…………..
A W Sanderson wrote a brilliant response to J M LaRue who objected to the idea that complementarianism and patriarchy are the same thing. LaRue insisted this a falsehood that is trotted out by egalitarians and that Kassian was right to say they are not the same as no one in the complementarian camp is putting forth this idea.
Here’s the evidence.
Hi Sergius,
Thank you for your words of encouragement. They are appreciated.
That is a very interesting point you brought up about the playfulness aspect. I was not aware of that comment in the previous dustup.
Like I said, the inconsistencies of practice are what drove me to really question complementarianism. Do as I say, not as I do and all that…
Sallie, I thought I would clarify for you that A W Sanderson is me. I hope J M LaRue is satisfied that I was not making a baseless claim but only stating what is easily found via the internet.
Sallie,
You should read the book. I cannot align myself with RHE, no matter how egalitarian I am. She cherry picks the Bible for her own benefit. She pretty much says it’s a “good book” but not real. I might be egalitarian, but I do believe the Bible is the authority & Word of God.
Angie –
It is amazing what can quickly be found online. I don’t think people are used to being thoroughly fact checked. Your list was brilliant. Thank you for taking the time to put it together.
Lindsey –
I hear you. I know I’ve ragged on the complemetarians a lot here, but the egalitarians have their own problems as well. If RHE is seen as the spokesperson/most prominent egal out there (and she is in the minds of many), it causes all sorts of problems for egalitarians. And if egalitarians rally around RHE and support her because of their shared concern regarding complementarianism, I do think egalitarians undermine their stand.
On the other hand, TGC and John Piper are fully welcoming Doug Wilson into the fold so maybe they will balance each other out?
I get turned off by RHE & Hatmaker and those progressives because they try so hard to be controversial in a “hipster” kind of way. Like you said, the book’s premise was just silly and weird. But silly and weird sells in those circles.
I like some of what RHE & Hatmaker, et al have to say. I do. But when they start talking about the Bible being a “good story” they lose me.
It’s like this – they try so HARD to be “out of the box” for Jesus they forget who Jesus is and was along the way. Or that’s my take. It seems like a constant reinvention of being hip, cool, whatever.
Readers of this thread might be interested to learn that some new criticism of Ms. Kassian has come from what might be considered unlikely quarters: our good friends, the Brothers Bayly.
Hi Sergius,
Actually it’s really not that surprising. The Bayly Brothers have been quite vocal in their opinion that the CBMW doesn’t go far enough. They fully embrace the term patriarchy. You can read more about their views here.
Given their list of ten failures includes having women on the council, I’m sure they probably don’t approve of Kassian.
Actually #8 on their list is quite interesting. They reference Doug Wilson and his book Reforming Marriage as being a critical piece in the patriarchy view. Granted this post was written back in 2005, but Doug Wilson has since (it would seem) become integrated into the CBMW and TGC fold. I would assume the Baylys would not be thrilled to see Doug Wilson guest writing on TGC and Desiring God websites. Unless there is a plan to move TGC and such to the full patriarchy end of the spectrum. Then their embracing of Wilson might make more sense.