Let me start by saying that I'm not sure I'm the target audience for this book. I wasn't raised as a southern Baptist. However, this book was eye opening from an outsider's perspective. While it's apparent that those within the community feel attacked by the arguments the author makes, it was clear to me that the author wrote this book as both a love letter and plea to the church. The author is not trying to denigrate anyone's religion, she's trying to make it more equitable and (in her opinion) more accurate to the original teachings. She makes a compelling argument for why the modern church doesn't need to operate in ways that marginalize in order to achieve their purpose. It's also quite palpable to the reader how the author has been dismissed and marginalized throughout her life in the church by virtue of being a woman, despite the fact that she was actually more qualified and knowledgeable than many of the men she interacted with. Many of the negative reviews use this hurt and abuse to invalidate the author's arguments, but I think it actually makes her arguments stronger. Those who haven't been hurt by an institution cannot see the ways in which the institution is set up to hurt people. No one needs to agree with the points made. But I think if Christians can read the book and be open minded about the points made (even if they don't agree), then they would definitely learn something about church history.

This book tends to contradict itself. I was very much looking forward to it, but felt that it had more potential than it lived it up to. I understand this is a wide topic that is difficult to fit in one book, but it’s such an important and charged discussion.

A thought-provoking historical perspective on women, their roles in the church, and why the complementarian model is more based on conforming to the culture rather than leaning into Jesus who sets us all free from the structures of the world. Well researched and annotated.

Barr does a wonderful job of simplifying something we already know in our souls; the subjugation of women in the evangelical church is a product of culture, not the gospel. Her history chops are clearly on display when she systematically points out the ways in which culture influenced religion, rather than the religious beliefs disrupting culture. Complentarianism isn't doing anyone any favors, and too often relegates women into a subservient role in their own lives. Her narration is accessible to the average reader, and overall this is a book I would recommend to almost anyone with a passing interest in the topic of sex/gender in religious practice.

I really enjoyed this book! Barr effectively traces women's roles in the Christian church and religion from the early Church to modern-day Evangelicalism, and she clearly explains how the ideals of "Biblical" womanhood spring from political movements rather than good doctrine or theology. Barr writes with authorirty. As a historian at Baylor University, Barr has both the credibility as well as access to research to support her ascertations. She has a clear voice, down-to-earth, and she cites freely, bringing voices from historians and theologians to support and expand her points. Barr's organization and transitions help make her argument more cohesive and easily understood by laypeople as well as scholars. I also apprecaite how she references her personal convictions, yet can bring in Scripture, historical tradition, orthodoxy, and long-held sound doctrine (although not always considered in the 21st century) to support what otherwise could seem like wishy-washy feelings.

Barr masterfully weaves historical record and evidence with her own personal stories and experiences, creating both a narrative and a scholarly argument for women to serve the Church in roles gifted by God-- which may include leading men in a pastoral, teaching, or decon-type role. While I already agreed with Barr's argument, I was pleasantly surprised by the wealth of historical evidence pointing to women taking leadership roles in the early Church, Medieval Church, and the early 20th-century church. While each period had its own view of gender roles, knowing that God has always called and equipped women to lead and to minister to others encouraged and inspired me.

Thoughtful and well researched. I am grateful for this book. I found like Beth Allison Barr provided a great grouping of other works that have been done on Biblical interpretation regarding gender roles. I guess, once again, what it shows is that we need more humility to admit the texts that are not clear and that yes, the church has done wrong. I guess I expected more from Barr regarding her studies. Still, great book.

This is a very important book! Combining rigorous academic study with painful personal experiences that challenged her assumptions and pushed her to dig deeper into her research, Beth Allison Barr unpicks the history of the Biblical Manhood and Womanhood movement to show how complementarian theology arose from cultural and historical contexts. Rather than presenting a 'timeless biblical truth' as so often argued, it actually was influenced by and promotes patriarchal worldviews that contribute to the oppression of women and even veer dangerously close to heretical theology.

As a feminist theologian and minister in training, this book was essential reading. A few years ago I was writing my MA dissertation on feminist theology, and this book would have been invaluable to me at that time...! Nevermind, though, I am so glad it exists now! And even though it couldn't help me with my MA, it will certainly be reread in support of my doctoral research into evangelical culture and its effect on women. I have already bought myself a hard copy and I recommend this book to everyone at every opportunity.

This book will be helpful for anyone (women especially) who grew up in or were affected by evangelicalism, purity culture, or a patriarchal institution or system.

If you're looking for a robust dissection of the system of patriarchy and its effects on modern evangelical Christianity, this is the book you need to read. Barr shares her difficult personal journey of belonging to a Baptist church where her husband was the youth pastor. When she challenged the denomination's rules about women teaching over men or male teens, her husband was fired. As a Baylor University professor with her Ph.D., teaching is her professional calling. While she sat on the sidelines of the complementarian debate for many years, Barr found herself at a crossroads.

For a deeper dive into historical Christianity, the role of women, the modern church, and how the evangelical world must adapt and change to reflect historical Christianity and not continue to mold itself by the pagan patriarchal standards that have been adopted and deeply ingrained in evangelical Christianity.

Personally, this book challenged me not to overlook some of the issues I took on faith - such as the argument for women to stay out of the pulpit. I was a member of a PCA church for 16 years. PCA is quite conservative and doesn't allow women to be elders, deacons, or pastors. Our church had a trustee board where women could serve. In looking at other conservative denominations where women are allowed to preach and serve over men, I'm seeing a more accurate reflection of how God created us to be - equal servants of the Lord.

An exploration of history and the author's personal story casting significant aspersions on the construction of "Biblical womanhood" as understood in American (white) Evangelicalism, and denunciation of the patriarchy which established it.

The author intersperses episodes of her and her family's experiences within Evangelicalism within a historical exploration of the questions at hand.

There are many aspects of the work that stand strongly and demand reckoning. She discusses a lot of the Biblical passages and the various ways they have been understood. The work is strongly reliant on history, not surprising since the author's primary discipline is medieval history, and she does demonstrate the presence of women in preaching and ministry throughout Christian history, and even in many of the denominations which presently uphold the "Biblical womanhood" construct.

The author is inarguably correct that patriarchy has been a thing and remains a powerful force in many parts of Christianity. She lands many blows against arguments that would suggest that history speaks consistently against women in ministry. She is not wrong to point out the alignment with Arianism that has taken place with those who make much of the "eternal subordination of the Son," and the willingness to uphold an ancient heresy in order to keep a subcultural construct. The toxic effects of upholding patriarchy and the construct of "Biblical womanhood" is real, although this is all spelled out in far greater detail in Kristin Kobes du Mez's "Jesus and John Wayne" than it is here.

I would like to be sympathetic to a lot of the arguments the author makes. I absolutely sympathize with the vast majority of her critiques, and those who would consider themselves "complementarians" do well to grapple with them. All of Evangelicalism needs to grapple with how much of their belief and practice is rooted in particular cultural constructs vs. truly what must be upheld to serve the Lord Jesus.

But when it comes to the positive argument for egalitarianism, the author seems to think it becomes the natural conclusion of all she has stated. But it is not at all the natural conclusion of what she has stated.

Because the issue of women in Christianity is extremely complicated. Such is why we are at this point at which "complementarians" and "egalitarians" are much better at tearing down each other's arguments than they are to fully uphold their own.

Since the author does not come out and say it in the end, I must imagine that her argument for egalitarianism would be: "while the passages in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and 1 Timothy exist, there is also Galatians 3:28, the work of Junia, Phoebe, and Priscilla, and the historical testimony of women doing work of ministry and service, and therefore we can remain within Christian historic orthodoxy while finding space for Christian women to serve and work in any role a Christian man could do."

That is certainly an argument, and for many it might be persuasive. But it gets no closer to finding harmony in the witness of the New Testament than that against which it argues.

The author makes much of Phoebe as the letter-bearer of Romans. She absolutely is a woman, a servant of the Lord, and of great influence. She might well have carried Paul's letter to the Romans to the brethren in Rome. Anything beyond that? Wouldn't we love to know? It's all speculative, and will tell you more about the expositor's posture than anything that took place in the 1st century. As to whether she is a "servant" or "deaconness": either is entirely possible. The vagary in the use of diakonos in the NT is quite frustrating. Yes, there were deaconnesses in the ancient church...but do you hear from this work that their role was in serving and providing for the sisters in Christ? Nope. Because even a cursive glance at the sources in the notes all point to a certain conclusion, and do not seem to be well rounded.

The author makes much of Junia as an apostle. And she is absolutely a woman; any argument to the contrary is not well rooted in what we know of ancient nomenclature. But what does it mean that she is an apostle (granting Paul's purpose is not to suggest she is notable among the apostles)? Like diakonos, apostolos has vagary in use. She's certainly not one of the Twelve; neither is Paul, for that matter. What was the commission with which she was sent, to whom, and to what end? Again, wouldn't we all love to know! Whatever conclusion is brought forth tells you about the expositor more than anything going on in the first century. I did find it interesting how the author was very quick to appeal to Origen and John Chrysostom in their affirmation of Junia as a woman and as some kind of apostle. That is well and good; but did we hear anything about the views of Origen or John Chrysostom about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, where they would not give any quarter to the author's argument? Or are sources only to be considered when they support one's arguments?

The author's take on 1 Corinthians 14 is interesting - it was the first time I have come into contact with the view that vv. 34-35 might be a quotation. It's an interesting thesis; there's almost certainly some quoting going on in 1 Corinthians (7:1 especially, and in 6:12-13 even if quotations aren't involved, one is compelled to interpret as if they were, also maybe in 10), the exegesis of other passages is not affected whether it's a quote or if it's not, but much more is riding on the line for 14:34-35 as a quote. When I try to put it together thus, to me it makes 14:34-35 sound more like an interpolation than a quote that then generates a response, since what Paul says afterward makes much more sense in terms of what had been said beforehand. Yet one can tell that even the author does not invest everything in understanding 14:34-35 as a quote.

But when it comes to the main texts not a lot else is said. Yes, much is made of how Paul's "household code" puts more of the burden on the head of household than the Greco-Roman moralists, and that he expects all to submit to one another; but none of this changes the text of Ephesians 5:22-23, in which Paul says the wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. As ought to be emphasized - Paul does not demand for men to get their wives to submit, for the submission is to be a freewill offering, but for Paul there is no contradiction in saying what he does in verse 21 and what he does in verses 22 and 23. What is expected of the husband is not exactly the same as what is expected of the wife, and vice versa. And this is the case every time this relationship is considered in the text. 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy get very little consideration whatsoever.

The author relies a lot on the weight of historical witness. As an Evangelical, that makes sense: she has a commitment to the witness of the entire history, and expects an audience of Evangelicals like her to have to concede the same. As one skeptical of Evangelicalism, and of a Restorationist mindset, I expect history to display a series of people not following what God intended in terms of leadership and hierarchy. Sure, even in my own tradition I can find people who affirmed essentially an egalitarian position. It's one thing to point fingers at a particular view of inerrancy, as the author does, but does this mean that any attempt to take all of what Paul says seriously means that we are beholden to a 19th century construct of inerrancy?

Historical witness is not consistent one way or another, because the...ambivalence? inconsistent witness? various emphases? present even within the New Testament have played themselves out in various ways in Christian history. Yes, the New Testament affirms the full equal value of women as made in God's image and of equal worth in God's sight. The New Testament also says they should not teach men and be in authority over them in the assembly. Yes, the New Testament says there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female, for all are one in Christ Jesus - and the same New Testament spoke to people in each condition and how they were to live and relate to one another in life. Yes, the New Testament extends the hope of a new way of life in the resurrection, yet it also recognizes that we are still subject to various aspects of the curse until the fullness of redemption arrives in the resurrection, and the same author who made so much of the resurrection also grounded male and female association in the church in terms of the fall. Yes, women learned from Jesus and supported Him and His ministry, as well as the work of the early church; yes, Phoebe was prominent in Cenchreae, and Junia was highly regarded and might well have had a particular commission. Yet the same author will also speak of elders as entirely male, preachers among the people of God as entirely male, and provided no explicit characterization of women in leadership, even when he could have when speaking to Timothy about "women likewise."

The author does a great takedown of complementarianism, "Biblical womanhood," and the patriarchy. But that doesn't mean that egalitarianism is the default option, because there's a lot about the New Testament witness that egalitarianism rewrites or ignores. Should 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy be the only passages we consider? Of course not. But they cannot be so easily ignored or dispensed with, either. And so the disagreements, and the challenge, remain.

The Making of Biblical Womanhood couldn't be more timely or more needed. In the midst of #MeToo and #ChurchToo, there's an entire history of how women are thought about in the Christian world that many women today don't realize hasn't always been this way. Barr sheds light on what is thought to be biblical, but is in fact highly cultural, empowering women and educating men in the process to confront the grave injustices built into the Evangelical way of defining womanhood. Necessary reading!

Recommend pairing with Jesus & John Wayne by Kristin Kobes Du Mez and The Great Sex Rescue by Sheila Gregoire.

Dr. Barr, a history professor at Baylor University, writes from both a historical perspective and a Christian perspective. She tells us that,

“Christians are, historically speaking, pretty late to the patriarchy game. We may claim that the gendered patterns of our lives are different from those assumed in mainstream culture, but history tells a different tale.”

She says that Christian patriarchy has long mimicked the patriarchy of the non-Christian world.

And she asks that if Christians are called to be different from the world, shouldn’t we treat women differently, too? This is the world’s way:

“From the ancient world through the modern world, history told a continuous story of patriarchy—of women suppressed, oppressed, devalued, and silenced.”

But in Christ there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, but all are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

“This is what is radical. This is what makes Christianity so different from the rest of human history.”

As I reflect back on my own past in the church, I look ahead to a brighter future. Barr suggests we all should.

“Historically, one of the greatest problems for women is that we do not remember our past and we do not work together to change our future. We do not stand together. But what if we did?”

What if we all did?

I highly recommend this most interesting and important book by Beth Allison Barr.

My thanks to NetGalley, Baker Academic & Brazos Press for the review copy of this book.

It's one part history, one part memoir, and one part theology: Dr Beth Barr unwinds her story of how her changing views on women in the church changed her life. As she does so, she lays out a compelling history (it is her specialty as a prof at Baylor U), showing how the early and medieval church treated women, what women did and why their place in leadership devolved into the current "complementarian" movement. Her chapters on the Bible passages critical to the issue are merely introductory, for she traces the development of a theology, concentrating on the post-biblical evolution of the church's attitude toward women. The early church had women deacons? (Yes) The medieval church had women leaders and teachers? (Yes) What happened to women in leadership after the Reformation? And what are our Bible translations teaching us about women? Barr's history lesson will open the eyes, or step on the toes, of evangelical leaders and churchgoers. Honest conversations about this issue must include a willingness to look to the past in order to understand the present.

I've reconsidered a lot about the trappings of my faith in the last few years. After reading Jesus and John Wayne (which Beth Allison Barr quotes several times) recently, I was even more receptive to what Barr has to say in The Making of Biblical Womanhood. For a well-researched and fairly scholarly take on how modern biblical womanhood, I was surprised at just how readable this book was. Barr offers a great mix of her personal story and a clear overview of women's role in church history. If you come from a tradition where women are not allowed to teach or lead in any capacity (beyond children or other women), this is going to rock your world. If you come from a tradition where the patriarchy is a little less in your face, this will give you a good springboard to ask more questions of your church leadership and really hone in on what you think.

As they say, the truth will set you free but first it will piss you off.

“In a world that didn’t accept the word of a woman as a valid witness, Jesus chose women as witnesses for his resurrection.”

Baylor professor @bethallisonbarr uses her training as a medieval historian to deftly cut through any excuse for continuing to accept patriarchy in the church. While the backlash on the conservative side is predictable, a few progressive theologians have critiqued the book as not going far enough because there are even stronger biblical arguments against the silencing of women. I think they don’t entirely understand the audience that Barr is writing to as an evangelical woman. Her arguments are made as an expert historian and should be viewed through that lens.

I received an @netgalley of this but appreciated it so much I ordered a print copy.

In The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became the Gospel Truth</em>, Beth Allison Barr takes a stand against the Evangelical status quo’s ideas regarding Biblical femininity. An Evangelical herself, she confronts a truth many are intent on ignoring: men’s power in certain churches rests on folks’ commitment to misinterpreting scriptures. The truth has the power to change religious power structures, and for many, this reality remains uncomfortable.

As a Medieval scholar and professor, Barr’s perspective is solid. She’s aware of the Bible’s context. She acknowledges the way that both the scriptures and women’s leadership within the church were perceived throughout history. Her evidence-based argument is compelling. At this point those who choose to ignore it seem to have nothing logical to stand on other than their commitment to biased thinking regarding women who love the Lord and have been gifted to lead others.

If you’re tired of religious-based lies related to women, there’s no doubt that you’ll find this a refreshing read.

Beth Allison Barr is a Professor and Phd at the University of North Caroline Chapel hill who specialization in Medieval Women’s History. She grew up in the Southern Baptist church, married a pastor, did all the good church girl things, until she began to question and was promptly tossed out by her church family of 14 years. This book is clearly the work of a history, with cited notes and references approximately 1/3 as long as the text. 

Two things that I love about this book is that one, it is not written by a woman in response to be scorned, but rather a woman who uses her professional skills to speak a truth the church was not willing to hear. Second, she brilliantly defines, contextualizes, proves, and builds her claim using the scope of history and biblical text rather than write purely from her emotional experience, but does intertwine and acknowledge how it frames her thoughts. 

She fleshes out actual evidence that proves what I already have known in my spirit about Jesus and God; that he loves and believes in women just as much as he believes in men. That the church has long been “using biblical texts that does not reflect biblical truth” and that ignoring historical context creates deep, deep harm which we see not only in the church but in every aspect of life. "Staring at that little table, I realized that most people in our church knew only the theological views that the leaders were telling them." I love that this book, although it shines a light on how churches have created and allowed a cultural of sexual assault to thrive through silencing and subordinating women, does not cancel churches or the Bible or blame Christianity or God.  It is not meant to be a take down of the church, but rather an expose on toxic masculinity that has infiltrated society and inserted itself into the Bible since the beginning against the intentions of Jesus and even (gasp) Paul. "Roots of this gender hierarchy had more to do with politics and economics than with divine order."

She deep dives into complimentariansim vs. egalitarianism, the post Reformation ideals of elevated status and holiness of marriage, the rise of purity culture, translation controversies, the evolution of leadership in the church, sexual assault culture in churches, racism, and the encounters of Jesus and women and what that shows those looking for truth in scripture instead of an interpretation that suits men look for ways to secure their power.

I am so incredibly glad this text exists. It gives voice to what I’ve seen and known to be inbred into the vary bones of the ideology that was passed to me. It validates my own experience of harm from sexual misconduct of a church leader and how that staff turned their eyes other way for the sake using his talent for their purpose rather than accountability of the darkness they knowingly let reside in power. It confirms that men in power who believe it is their right to take advantage of women and girls “under their authority” at many many churches, not just mine. And that this toxic theology embedded in shaping girls brought up in the church then form women complicit in dangerous silence and subservience because it is “biblical.”

Jesus set women free. He gave the most important message in all of history to woman to give to men. He sees me as equal to another believer even though we have different sex organs, and does not confine me to certain roles because of mine. I am so grateful and relieved to see evidence that affirms that the God I believed in looks more than love than a patriarch, and the things that other people claim He believes so obviously serve themselves rather than the truth

"Peppiatt concludes that the problem with female leadership is not actually the biblical texts; it is the "relentless and dominant narrative of male bias' in translations."

Jesus has always loved women and men equally and alike. Yet our human misunderstanding and stubborn blindness often veil His intentions for all of us. The current popular understanding of biblical womanhood in many US churches is not actually biblical. This book shows us why. This is a fantastic resource that is extremely well researched. I love the conversational tone, yet there are deep and rich historical and biblical nuggets to consider and ponder. I plan to purchase my own physical copy of this book and am eager to carefully study God’s plan for women today. Thank you to NetGalley and the publisher for the e-arc. All opinions are my own.

Timely and relevant as church and Church topics continue to enter cultural and political discourses. Barr's extensive research will for sure open up the dialog on how Biblical womanhood has impacted the roles of women within ministry, from historical contexts to the future of what stewardship can look like

There’s been a good bit of buzz around this book, and it is VERY well-deserved. Dr. Barr, a medieval historian at Baylor, thoughtfully and graciously and convincingly lays out her case: that “biblical womanhood,” this concept that so pervades conservative evangelicalism, isn’t biblical at all, but an attempt at fitting the wider cultural norms of patriarchy into the Christian tradition through efforts like the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the ESV translation of the Bible, etc., etc.

I hope and pray this book changes hearts and minds.