Bluestocking Feminism Print
Culture and Politics - Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Wednesday, 31 October 2012 07:03

Rachel Held Evans was recently on the Today show, promoting her new book A Year of Biblical Womanhood. Rather than address the whole stunt (designed to see if, in the grand tradition of Rocky III, this particular cash cow has any milk left), I thought I would just riff off one thing she did with one verse, make my point, and then go home. Jacobs' book has been out for 4 years, and it is still selling briskly, and so here's hoping that A Year of Biblical Womanhood fails to live up to its gimmicky potential. But this is contemporary America, so we can't promise anything. But if we could promise something, it would likely be that Thomas Nelson will have a pile of money that they are embarrassed by.

Proverbs 21:9 says this: "It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house." The ESV has quarrelsome for brawling, and the NKJV has contentious. One gets the idea. Still, it is a verse with a woman in it, and so one must do something.

What Evans did was this. Whenever she caught herself being verbally inappropriate, she put a penny in a jar, and every penny represented a minute she had to go up and sit on the roof of her house.

This is where I clear my throat tentatively, not sure I could have heard this right. But I did, and there are three obvious things that can be mentioned right off the top. First, the text says that it would be better for the husband to be up on the roof than downstairs with Rachel Held Evans when she is being bad. So what's she doing up there?

Second, the text says nothing about penny jars, or each penny being worth one minute of penance time on the roof. Her suggested mechanism for biblical applications can be illustrated on this wise. The Bible says to be anxious for nothing (Phil. 4:6), and so what if I arbitrarily penalize myself with a minute of hopping on one foot on my front porch every time I find myself being anxious? How about that? But such hopping on one foot, waving at the traffic, is not making the apostle look silly. So we may conclude from this aspect of it that when Rachel Held Evans set up shop to teach us what the Bible says about womanhood, it took her about ten minutes to start producing Talmudic arcana and extra rules instead of straight Bible. Not only extra rules, but dumb ones.

But of course, making it look silly is a central part of her whole project. But here is the difference. The rabbis wanted people to take their Talmud as seriously as they took the Scriptures. Evans wants people to be as dismissive of the Scriptures as they are of her arbitrary little Talmud.

And this leads to the third point. The Bible prohibits silly women from being led astray by false teachers. "For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:6-7). The silly women here are perpetual students -- bluestockings -- and they are constantly learning, but never getting the point. It would be hard to come up with a better modern example of this than the evangelical feminists. They are the sort of people who might think that a badgered husband preferring the roof to his wife means that the wife should be exiled up there.

But that is not what it says, and that is not what it means. So I think we have better things to do than learn about biblical womanhood from someone who is having trouble with distinguishing subjects from predicates. This is a caliber of exegesis that thinks that Jesus went to Capernaum might mean that Capernaum went to Jesus. Who can be sure? Scholars differ on this controversial point.

 

 



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Rick Davis  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:57 am
Quote:
This is a caliber of exegesis that thinks that Jesus went to Capernaum might mean that Capernaum went to Jesus. Who can be sure? Scholars differ on this controversial point.


I love this line! It sounds like it could have come straight from the pen of G.K. Chesterton.
Ben Bowman  - question  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 9:30 am
Doug, how do you decide what fights to pick?
Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:29 pm
Ben, I hope by "pick" you mean "select," rather than "provoke."
Phil Jones  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 9:51 am
I really like your writing which I hope does not become the sin of envy.

Rachel Held Evans should be held up for ridicule at every oppurtunity.
Tim Etherington  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:11 am
The fact that the world is digging her stuff but Christians are pointing out the problems should worry her. But it won't.
Melody  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:16 pm
Any woman who has actually read the Bible wouldn't waste her time or money on such silliness - but I believe the point of her book is similar to those books written by politicians who merely want to say that they have written a book. There is also that circle of liberal christians who seem to exist solely to attend conferences, write books, and then publicize and purchase each others books. It's actually some sort of odd subculture. They live in their own bubble thinking they are popular in the eyes of the world - when in actuality the world simply doesn't know that they exist.
Michael Hutton  - Literal  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:04 pm
It's a shame she didn't literally keep Psalm 119, but that seems to be one she "pick and choosed" right out of her literal experiment.


God bless,
Michael
Kirsten Miller  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:24 pm
Rachel Held Evans is one of those kind of snakes that has a big, noisy rattle so you can tell right away it's a poisonous one.
Kamilla  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:11 pm
Kirsten, can I quote you? :lol:

Doug,

I'm so glad to see someone else make the connection. The bluestocking streak runs straight through 2nd wave Feminism with their consciousness-raising groups and the self-consciously named but short-lived Red Stockings to today's religious feminist with their emoblogs and listening parties.

The biggest question I have now is: does Mimi Haddad and the CBE crowd understand they've been co-opted/eclipsed by the duplicitous theological trainwreck that is Rachel Held Evans?
Keith  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:46 pm
She's just a scoffer. Psalm 1 says you'll be blessed if you don't sit in her seat!
Lisa B  Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:46 am
Regardless of where people stand in agreement or disagreement with this sister, the sarcasm here towards Rachel Held Evans is out of hand. As fellow believers, we need to stop assigning motives to her that she has not expressed.

Only by learning to treat each other respectfully instead of disdainfully can we keep open healthy conversations between those who disagree.

Perhaps a re-reading and living out of John 13:35 would be appropriate instead of inciting each other to participate in "holding up others for ridicule," a practice that is repulsive not only to believers, but even to watching unbelievers.
David Nilsen  - 'Round These Parts  Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:58 am
Lisa, you must be new here. :wink:
Taylor  Thursday, November 01, 2012 5:21 pm
I don't get the sense Rachel Held Evans and others of similar views are very charitable to those whom they disagree with.

In my view, the undercurrent of what Evans and people like Brian McLaren and others have written about is a deep antagonism and scorn for what the Bible actually teaches. Evans admits as much when she says she harbors a grudge against the Apostle Paul.

I don't presume to know people's hearts, but there are legitimate questions as to why Evans would write a book about so-called "biblical womanwood" (as she picks and chooses, almost arbitrarily, what this phrase means or not) if not to denigrate what the Bible teaches.
holmegm  - re:  Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:51 am
Lisa B wrote:
Regardless of where people stand in agreement or disagreement with this sister, the sarcasm here towards Rachel Held Evans is out of hand. As fellow believers, we need to stop assigning motives to her that she has not expressed.

Only by learning to treat each other respectfully instead of disdainfully can we keep open healthy conversations between those who disagree.

Perhaps a re-reading and living out of John 13:35 would be appropriate instead of inciting each other to participate in "holding up others for ridicule," a practice that is repulsive not only to believers, but even to watching unbelievers.


And yet ... did Jesus never use ridicule? Paul? Elijah? Are they repulsive?

Apparently, ridicule is one tool in the toolbox ... appropriate for some situations. Figuring out which, now ...
Michael Hutton  - Pick and Choose  Thursday, November 01, 2012 8:14 pm
to Lisa B,

Keep reading. If I have understood Held-Evans correctly one of her points was to keep all the Bible, and not to pick and choose, as many often accuse conservatives of doing. Well, let's do that, let's keep reading the Bible.

What are you going to do with Jesus' words, "You will know a tree by it's fruit."
Jesus tells us we can make judgements about a person on the basis of their lives. The truth is, sometimes you see a person's heart on their hands and in their words better than they see it themselves.

So, RHE publishes a book - out there in the public domain, trying to influence Christianity or the world or something. It is entirely reasonable, no it's right, it's good, it's LOVING for Wilson and others to point out how deeply flawed the book is.

Also, I suggest you are building on the wrong foundation. You say Only by learning.. treat... respectfully... healthy conversation...
There's some value in that but why aren't you concerned about RHE's mocking attitude toward God and his word? Respectful dialog is valuable but what about real wisdom?

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
GraemeMark  Friday, November 02, 2012 2:21 am
I have to admit.. I was of the crowd that thought you went a bit far with your language when you were criticising RHE before.. And threats of physical violence from your family were somewhat gratuitous as well. You're spot on here, though. This entire project was ill-thought through and, despite here apparently sincere appeals that she did not intend to mock the Bible.. It certainly appears to all outsiders that is exactly what she's doing.
Roger Ball  Friday, November 02, 2012 6:16 am
If anyone is interested, Kathy Keller (Tim Keller's wife), wrote an excellent review of A Year of Biblical Womanhood. Here's a quote:

"However, you have become what you claim to despise; you have imposed your own agenda on Scripture in order to advance your own goals. In doing so, you have further muddied the waters of biblical interpretation instead of bringing any clarity to the task."

http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/a_year_of_biblical_womanhood

elisabeth thunderberry  - Rachel Held Evans  Saturday, November 03, 2012 4:00 am
Bright eyed and bushy tailed this is what big girls are made of! She was so offensive when I saw her on the VIEW...what a loser! I was offended! period!
Jeremy Baines  Tuesday, November 06, 2012 4:07 pm
Page 54 of her rant, er, book bemoans the women who have “suffered abuse at the hands of Bible-wielding literalists.” I keep hoping that someday a feminist book will actually provide an example of "abuse," but this one sure doesn't. If you're walking down a dark street, a Bible-wielding literalist is the last person you'd want to meet.