Beth Allison Barr’s “Making of Biblical Womanhood”–A Book Analysis Series (Part 2): Patriarchy, Baptists, Calvinists, and Genesis 3:16

As I begin to go through Beth Allison Barr’s book, The Making of Biblical Womanhood, I’m going to the same kind of thing I’ve done with my past book analyses: (1) provide a brief summary of a chapter, and then (2) offer my thoughts on that chapter. So, it will be a “running conversation” of sorts with the book. The book itself is eight chapters, so I’m going to my best to cover at least two chapters per post, maybe three. I’m pretty sure in this initial analytical post I’m only going to get through the first two chapters. Let’s dive in and find out.

ONE: The Beginning of Patriarchy
The first chapter in Barr’s book, “The Beginning of Patriarchy,” pretty much sums up what the chapter is about, doesn’t it? Specifically, in this chapter, Barr (1) defines what she means by “patriarchy,” (2) points to a number of Protestant (primarily Baptist/Reformed) pastors/scholars who promote the idea of “Christian patriarchy,” and then (3) argues that patriarchy is part of a larger system of oppression that oppresses not just women, but other minorities as well. Of all the chapters in the book, this first chapter got the most “ughs” and “ehhs” in written in the margins. Basically, I agree with most of what Barr says in her book, but I had an issue with some of the comments and framing of her argument here in the first chapter.

In any case, the main thing Barr does in this first chapter is highlight the views of a host of “biblical complementarians” like Owen Strachan (former president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), Bill Gothard, Russell Moore, Paige Patterson, Albert Mohler, John Piper, and Wayne Grudem. Basically, according to these men, (1) God ordained men to lead and women to follow; (2) Christian patriarchy means wives should submit to their husbands, but not to all men; (3) patriarchy was not a result of “the fall” in Genesis 3—God’s ordained good patriarchy got corrupted because of “the fall.”

Quite obviously, Barr argues that such a view is wrong and unbiblical—and she’s 100% correct. She goes on to discuss various other things within the church—more specifically within Baptist and Calvinist churches—that emphasize and promote male superiority and female submission. She argues it goes beyond just the question of whether or not women should be allowed to be pastors. It encapsulates an overall “patriarchal” view that women should be meek and submissive to their husbands, and that husbands should take control and lead. And that should be the structure not just in families, but in churches as well.

Now, I couldn’t help but notice that almost all of Barr’s examples of this view come from Baptists and Calvinists. I was never either one. In the world in which I grew up, although there were no women head pastors, and although my mother would tell us that even though both she and my father would work out family issues together, that ultimately, she let him make the “final call” on things, I just have never been part of the world that Barr describes. I’ve known some people who now lament that they ever listened to guys like Piper or Gothard, and I silently think, “Why did you in the first place? They sound kind of kooky to me.” Although I didn’t live in a full-blown egalitarian church culture, I certainly didn’t live in the more “hard core” complementarian church culture of the Baptist and Calvinistic world that Barr lived in.

That being said, there were a few of things in chapter 1 that gave me pause. The first problem I saw (and it becomes obvious in the course of the book) is that the real problem Barr exposes and highlights, as I’ve just said, is within extreme conservative Baptist and Calvinist circles. Indeed, throughout her book, Barr contrasts this modern Baptist/Calvinist point of view with that of the medieval Church. But her ultimate conclusion is a somewhat broad-brushed accusation that the Church as a whole—all of it—is guilty of the kind of “patriarchy” of Piper and Grudem.

Not only that, but she expands this accusation of patriarchy to virtually everything in modern society. Patriarchy, Barr says, isn’t just about women: “it also defines subjugated peoples and races as ‘the others’ to be dominated. …Patriarchy walks with structural racism and systemic oppression and it has done so consistently throughout history” (33). Patriarchy is a part of an oppressive system across the board, from women to racism to basic economics and the work force. She goes on to say that the reason the Bible is “riddled with patriarchal attitudes and actions” is because the Bible was written in a patriarchal world.

What I’ve just summarized in the previous paragraph makes me wince. When you expand “patriarchy” to basically the root cause of everything in the world, you’ve expanded it too much. I’ll try to explain why doing this is a problem later on in the series. Right now, though, I’ll just say that expansion lays one wide open to intellectual manipulation, both with societal issues and the Bible itself. I’ve heard too many people conflate patriarchy, racism, capitalism, colonialism, and probably a dozen other things together and then rant about how “we need to tear the whole system down,” that system being Western society and American society. I don’t think Barr is saying that at all—nowhere in her book does she even hint of taking things that far. Still, I get nervous whenever anyone starts to conflate what I feel are different issues.

A second problem is related to the issue of male church leadership. Again, I’ll expand on this issue as I go through the book, but it is clear Barr is viewing the issue through the lens of the Baptist subculture in which she grew up. Because of that, I think there is a small blind spot with some of her observations of Church history and the Catholic and Orthodox church structures. But more on that later.

Her ultimately point is that the world of “Christian patriarchy” (found primarily in Baptist and Calvinist circles) too often looks like the patriarchy of the world around us. Basically, women have always had to take a back seat to men—that’s her point. And yes, that’s true. I scratched my head, though when she tried to equate the patriarchy in the United States to the patriarchy in ancient Babylon. Barr tells us that in Babylonian law, husbands were allowed to drown their wives for adultery—that’s bad. But then she seems to parallel that practice that was written into law, with the sad reality that in the US 94% of domestic violence victims are women, and 25% of women have been physically abused by a partner in some way.

Again, that is obviously bad as well, but can you see the even more obvious problem with that parallel? In Babylon, the drowning of wives for adultery was legal, whereas in the US, domestic violence is against the law. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen—it obviously does. But in the US, men who abuse or kill women are guilty of breaking the law and are subject to punishment. Domestic violence is not legally sanctioned in the US. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that “patriarchy” in the United States doesn’t really look exactly like the “patriarchy” in ancient Babylon.

The third problem I had in chapter one was with Barr’s discussion of Genesis 3:16. She correctly notes that Genesis 3:16 (along with Genesis 3:14-19) details the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin  (i.e. “the fall). On the most basic level, what Barr argues—that male dominance over women—is a direct result of “the fall” is absolutely correct. When Barr says, “Patriarchy wasn’t what God wanted; patriarchy was a result of human sin” (29), she is 100% correct.

That being said, her overall take on Genesis 3:16 is still wanting in two ways. First, I think her take on the phrase “your desire will be for your husband” is simply wrong. When discussing this phrase, Barr refers to Katharine Bushnell, who claims that the word “desire” means “turning away.” Therefore, Genesis 3:16 is basically saying that because of their sin, Eve will turn away from God, toward her husband, and that he will rule over her. Barr also quotes Kristen Kobes Du Maz, who also speaks approvingly of Bushnell’s take: “For Bushnell, male authority over women contradicted God’s will and perpetuated man’s original rebellion against God.” Women thus “continued to commit the sin of Eve when they submitted to men, rather to God” (30). Barr ends by saying that patriarchy, for Bushnell, was not just a result of the curse; it was embedded in the fall itself.

Before we even get to the exegetical issue of how to interpret “desire,” I have to say that take on Genesis 3:16 strikes me as telling women, “Hey, if you submit to men, you’re sinning…and therefore have it coming to you!” Does Barr mean that? I doubt it, but bad exegesis leads to bad interpretation—and interpreting “desire” as “turning away from God to your husband” is bad exegesis. That’s not what Genesis 3:16 is saying.

Basically, in Genesis 3:16, God highlights two things that will happen with women as a result of “the fall.” The first is pain in childbearing. This is paralleled to Adam bringing from his crops by painful toil. The point is that new life is still going to come in God’s creation, but it is going to come through suffering. Secondly, God tells the woman that her “desire” will be for her husband, but that he would rule over her. Context is the key here. And in the very next chapter, when God warns Cain about his jealousy of Abel, God tells Cain that “Sin is crouching at your door. Its desire is for you, but you must master it.” It’s the same word: desire. God isn’t saying that sin is “turning away from me and wants to submit to you, Cain.” God is saying that sin wants to dominate and rule over Cain, but that Cain has to fight against it. Basically, when seen in the context of the larger passage, the woman’s “desire for her husband” is parallel to sins “desire for Cain”—in both cases, the “desire” is to dominate and rule over the other.

Ultimately, even though the ultimate result God describes in Genesis 3:16 does, in fact, lead to patriarchy and man’s domination over women, the immediate consequence of the fall is the battle of the sexes. It’s the BATTLE that is the result of the fall—it is the fighting and divisiveness. And THAT is what characterizes this world and this age. So, I wouldn’t so much say that patriarchy is embedded in the fall itself, but rather the BATTLE and hostility is what is embedded. It might seem like a nitpicky thing to say, but I think it has significant implications for how we understand and approach the man argument and idea Barr puts forth in her book.

Conclusion Thus Far
Look at that. I’m nearly my usual 2,000-word limit for my posts. Looks like I will save Chapter 2 for the next post and see if I can tackle chapters 2-4 in one swoop. Like I said earlier, I agree with a majority of what Barr argues in her book. Most of my disagreements, though, are here in chapter 1. All that said, I want to reiterate two things.

1. We can’t let “patriarchy” as championed by modern day Baptists and Calvinists be a broadbrush to paint all of Church history and Church branches in the same light. Practically speaking, Barr consistently contrasts the Medieval world’s attitude towards women, and that’s good. So, she doesn’t broadbrush…much. Still, in a controversial topic like this, we need to make sure we don’t give that impression. It’s sort of like when I wrote The Heresy of Ham about young earth creationism. Yes, some Evangelicals are divisive and militant over that issue, but I made sure to emphasize that I didn’t think every Evangelical who rejects evolution is a Ken Ham clone.

2. As I explained, I think her explanation of Genesis 3:16 is problematic and her fundamental claim about what “desire for your husband” means is just wrong. Yes, Genesis 3:14-16 emphasizes that the husband ruling over the wife is a consequence of sin, but that doesn’t go far enough. Genesis 3:14-16 says it’s the battle between the sexes that is a consequence of sin, and the result of that battle is male dominance. There is a difference there that I think is crucial to see.

Hopefully my look at The Making of Biblical Womanhood will provoke further thought and discussion. This post will probably be the “most negative” of my posts, because like I said, I agree with most of what Barr says.