Feminism Triumphant in the Evangelical Sphere

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/15/987552105/the-making-of-biblical-womanhood-tackles-contradictions-in-religious-practice

Extra-Biblical ecclesiology, bad hermeneutics, and bad doctrine in general have opened the door to feminism and they are now triumphant in the Evangelical world. So triumphant in fact, that things are beginning evolve.

Once derided, 1950's-style feminism has now become the norm and the movement is in the process of taking things to the next level. Allied with the demons of culture these anti-Biblical forces already winning many battles within the larger sphere of the Church.

For generations American Evangelicals have been taught that American values are Christian values. This too has played a role in the rebellion as now heretics like Beth Barr in the NPR piece can easily conflate Enlightenment Liberal idealism with Christian ethics. Church leaders have in many respects tied their own hands because to effectively challenge the feminist narrative they need to deconstruct the entire Christian-America narrative. It's desperately needed but unlikely to happen.

Barr equates so-called Complementarianism with Patriarchy. From my standpoint – at least functionally – I see Complementarianism as little more that Egalitarianism with conservative inclinations. Far from being a full-blown Patriarchalist, nevertheless I would argue the Scriptures paint a picture of New Testament ethics and family dynamics quite at odds with not only the culture at large but even much that passes for conservative Evangelicalism.*

Barr also betrays her hand in focusing on 'Pauline' verses and in doing so reveals the influence Higher Criticism has had on her and the larger Evangelical movement as a whole. While Paul is indeed the human author of his epistles, ultimately the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture. There is a unity to the message and I say that knowing full well that there are Scholastic-oriented theologians that will abuse this fact and functionally subsume the revelatory text beneath a coherentist grid that they create by means of prioritising (via inference and deduction) certain theological or systematic heads of doctrine. As always we're fighting a multi-front war.

In other words both the unifying at atomistic approaches can be abused but Barr demonstrates that not only is she a feminist – she's a theological liberal and thus is out of line with historical Christian views of the Scripture – a concept I appeal to in the broadest sense.

Unfamiliar with basic hermeneutics she also falls prey to feminist theology in taking Old Testament episodes which are actually forms of judgment and making them ideals and narrative-driving episodes. She reads not through a Christo-centric or even New Testament lens but through a feminist one.

Her comments on inerrancy are disingenuous and erroneous. There are problems with inerrancy as it appeared in the late nineteenth century. It marked a defection in its approach to the Greek text of the New Testament. But it was not some kind of novel turn toward taking the Bible literally. On the contrary it marked a distrust in the Bible and a bait-and-switch which took away confidence in the historical text and replaced it with Textual Criticism's attempt to reconstruct the autographs. Barr is not alone in misunderstanding these events and issues. Many conservative Evangelicals exhibit the same confusion and in seeking to retain standing within the academy they have undermined their own position. Barr presents it as if before the twentieth century people didn't read the Bible literally. That's not the issue when it comes to inerrancy. Inerrancy was a nod to Higher Criticism's attack on the Bible and an attempt to triangulate the issue. It marked a compromise of sorts.

Even most of the theological liberals of the nineteenth century would have repudiated her views.

Even her account of the Syro-Phoenician woman in Matthew 15 misses the mark. The issue wasn't patriarchy and women's equality but the fact that the event (along with many others) foreshadowed the coming Gentile inclusion.

Barr's hermeneutics aren't new. They've been in the apostate mainline churches for years. What's new is that this sort of thing is becoming normative in Evangelical circles. It's a harbinger of what's to come and again demonstrates how deeply entrenched feminism already is.

Barr and her husband should face church discipline and if unrepentant they ought to be excommunicated from their congregation. The Southern Baptist Convention has been tolerating this sort of thing for decades and the recent shake-ups only demonstrate the chickens have come home to roost. Not only is she in the SBC she teaches at Baylor – the university associated more than any other with Baptists in the American South.

But given that the university made Ken Starr its president for many years and now is dominated by female leadership – its compromised testimony in the realm of ethics and Biblical fidelity is plain for all to see.

----

*The Patriarchy movement has usually been tied with extreme forms of Dominion Theology and other Postmillennial-fueled movements such as Quiverfull which desires to breed an army of culture warriors to capture the culture. In addition to rejecting the very premise of Dominionism and all it entails, I also see no basis for the notion that all women must submit to all men. My wife is called to submit to me – not to other Christian men in general. We are to submit to elders within the context of the Church but the elders as men do not possess some special dynamic with my wife etc.