I recently finished @bethallisonbarr 's book, The Making of Biblical Womanhood. It's a good book in that you don't have to work to get through it - it pulls you along. The book will dump a truckload of history - you probably didn't hear these things in church or seminary +

There are a lot of things to commend about this book, and I think it will be a force to be reckoned with in the church - shallow reviews do an injustice to the conversation about the role of women and the way womanhood is presented in the church. +

There are outrageous experiences that I know are true since I've seen them happen - the student who asks if Barr's husband approves her teaching material. The box of x-tra large t-shirts given to the 'improperly' dressed youth group girls. +

Probably the element that made me saddest was the loss of community and friendships over a shift in her beliefs about the roles of men and women in the church and home. When christians abandon their own, it always breaks my heart. +

One of the principles of the reformation, demonstrated Luther, is the idea that we must be convinced by scripture and by conscience. Whatever is not of faith is sin - and so I commend Dr. Barr for articulating her beliefs even if I find some of the arguments unconvincing +

I believe we've made being men and women weird. The trad fixed gender roles are 1950s stereotypes, and not biblical ones. The book jousts with ideas of biblical womanhood that aren't biblical, and that's a good thing. +

My wife stayed home when our kids were little, but that's what she wanted. We homeschooled, then stopped. Now she works out of the house, sings in a rock band, and drives when we go on trips since I tend to fall asleep in the car. Is this complementarianism? +

Evangelical men, the book says, didn't vote for Hillary because she was a woman. My issue during the 2016 election wasn't that she was a Democrat, or that she was a woman, my primary trouble was that she was a Clinton. +

On Paul, Barr points out that the emphasis is on husbands loving their wives, and this is radical. I agree and welcome that. Husbands should serve their wives. But does this emphasis negate the idea that wives are to be subject to their own husbands? This is unresolved. +

The book handles the issue of women speaking in the church (I've always felt that was an odd command, and never tried to 'enforce' that) very well - the explanation makes perfect sense. I'm looking up the books on that point - I need to know more. +

Ephesians tells us Jesus is the Lord of the Christian household. If the wife is to be subject to her husband in a manner that’s fitting to the Lord, what disposes of that subjection? The mutual submission of 5:21 makes sense among christians, but why bring it back up in 5:22?

This is the difficult territory for me. I don't recall her addressing 1 Timothy 2 or the issue of male eldership. I respect the repeated refrain of 'as a medieval historian' because it addresses why the textual issues aren't more of a feature. +

As a pastor, my concern is to show people Jesus in the scriptures and teach that the Bible is completely reliable. I remain unconvinced that eldership is an option for women, while at the same time not denying the gifting, intelligence, and ability of women all around me. +

The use of the word 'deacon' and not servant has always felt foolish to me. I have no issue with Phoebe being called a deacon or a servant. It would be nice if translations could get this issue right. If it's an office, use deacon. If a ministry function, use servant. +

I learned a lot of new names. Marjorie Kemp, Clotilda, Gunophipha. I was a bit horrified to hear that Paula left her children - I know some missionaries did that in the second great missions movement. Never liked that. Raise your kids, people. Don't leave them behind. +

The discussion of the virtue of virginity was interesting. Margaret wants to remain a virgin? I'm good with that. Forced marriages are weird.

At the same time, while motherhood is not a woman’s highest calling, it is a unique calling, and should be honored and respected. +

The section on the Mary & Martha Clean House Challenge is absurd, but I believe some publisher thought that was a great book idea. However, the ladies in my life like pretty & clean, so the idea of 'being a Martha' is part of some women's view on womanhood, without stereotyping+

There are some who believe only men should be elders, but have a broad view of all other aspects of women's roles. Unfortunately, the book conflates all possible views into one and calls it patriarchy While I think that is unfortunate, I understand it.

Some complementarian pastors and scholars have done a poor job defending the dignity and worth of women. They've demeaned them, called them names, and said horrible things about female writers and speakers - that bothers me intensely. +

While we have strong protections in place at the church I pastor, I feel that some prominent comp pastor's statements do a poor job showing that they care about this issue and a willingness to stand up to protect the vulnerable. +

Evangelicalism's obsession with the most recent mover and shaker (and soon to resign due to moral problems) continues to give prominent places to men with troubling views on women. That's got to stop.

I'm finding the word complementarianism to be an increasingly useless word. When people talk about comp lately, I find myself saying, "Well, that's not what I believe..." and it's not. Men and women are distinct and different - and equal in dignity and worth. I believe that.

I also believe that arguing for church practice based on history is not my preferred way to decide doctrine. If our rule is that we’re going to be ruled by the text, then that's the rule. I don't see any way to take Barr's position without ignoring what I see as God's plan. +

So, does that mean I hated the book? Nope. I loved it. There's a ton of stuff I didn't even touch on. The book highlights MeToo and points out connections between bad theology and abuse. It crushes the lie that women have done little of significance in the church. +

Complementarianism probably has more than one problem, but one of them is a massive lack of clarity on 'what women can do.' Comp adherents have at times made it weird to even discuss the idea of what women should do in the church, and that means the answer tends to be 'nothing.'+

That's absurd. I'm for deploying women in ministry. I think we should retire any notions that women aren't able to minister, or more easily tempted, or less than men. That's absurd.

Read the book. It's really good. I disagree with some things, but it really is delightful. Dr. Barr writes with tremendous conviction and her story is encouraging and troubling. It's been very thought-provoking. /end