Considering that God views his church, clearly made up pf both men and women, as his 'bride', I find it odd that anyone belonging to that church would view Christianity as having a 'masculine feel'!
Greetings, I hope you'll write a second response in which you deal with the substance of KDY's review. You're first two points are ad hominem and inaccurate, and the third is responding not to KDY but to John Piper.
KDY summarized his own main points not as "Barr is unqualified and untrustworthy," but as "Barr is highly qualified, but she's doing bad scholarship and bad history" (my language). Will you respond to his assessment that she is treating her opponents unfairly (bad scholarship) and treating the historical sources unfairly (bad history)?
1) Gaslighting: I don't think KDY is *at all* saying "Beth Ann Barr has an axe to grind; therefore, she is unqualified to evaluate complementarian theology." He *is* saying that he finds significant evidence that she is not giving her opponents a fair hearing, and he wonders if her personal trauma might be the reason. This is a vital difference. He does not dismiss her arguments on the basis of her personal history; rather he demonstrates his objections to her arguments and offers the explanation of her personal history as to how such a well-qualified scholar could be so sloppy.
Additionally, you're pretty unfairly measuring KDY's public scholarly response to a work of public scholarship by pastoral standards. You recognize that Pr. 18:17 is valuable for legal and forensic situations. Well, which is scholarly debate more like, a courtroom or a pastor's office? KDY is not Barr's pastor, and her husband's former employers are not his underlyings. She brought her personal trauma into a scholarly debate. He is not wrong to point out that it muddies the waters.
Now, I'll admit that he probably shouldn't have bothered, if for no other reason than it gave *you* an opportunity for ad hominem. The lion's share of your response goes to this point instead of to his actual arguments.
Since he *is* also a pastor, yes, he ought to point out the difference himself, at least parenthetically. It doesn't add a lot to his review. The paragraph in which it appears is about how the book blends historical scholarship with personal history, which is true, and while it may broaden the appeal, it does distract from and undermine the scholarship.
2) Credentialism. Again, you're (a) not addressing the substance and (b) being dishonest (unintentionally, I hope). KDY is not accusing Barr of credentialism, nor is he "playing to man and not the ball" (which is, ironically, exactly what you are doing). He thoroughly lays out her appeal to her own credentials in order to show clearly that, in spite of its blended genre, the book needs to be evaluated as a work of historical scholarship. Far from dismissing her because she is "bragging," he's taking her seriously as a scholar.
3) The "masculine feel" of Christianity. You seem to be deliberately missing the point KDY is making here. KDY is not "defending" Piper's position substantively. He is attacking Barr's dishonest treatment of him. He is asserting and attempting to demonstrate that Barr has misrepresented her opponents, and he is examining her interaction as evidence. Again, I hope you will offer a rebuttal! Show us that Barr really is treating Piper fairly and that KDY is wrong. What you've done instead is show us why you think *Piper* is wrong. Maybe he is, but that's not really relevant to KDY's argument.
KDY's point was that Barr is presenting a work of historical scholarship and that the history and scholarship are both badly done. Will you consider writing a response to that argument?
I was hoping this response would convince me that DeYoung has mischaracterized the book and that it was worth reading, but TBH, the engagement here was so unsubstantive that I have to conclude that Barr's own allies cannot defend her work on the merits. Accusing DeYoung of being an abuser/fostering abuse is gaslighting. Paragraph on paragraph about analogical language is gaslighting. Dismissing the actual textual evidence of historical error and also of an overbearing credentialism and accusing those who bring up the latter of abuse is gaslighting. This was one written for the choir.
“Let me be clear, this does not mean that God is some kind of gender-neutral deity, the cosmic monad without a gonad.” Sounds cute but I’d be asking an editor to remove this sentence I reckon… sounds like you do want to say God is male - which I’d be surprised if you did!
I work in a Christian organization, and the gaslighting of female employees is the norm. The leader stated that sexism will not be permitted there, but he defined it as a legally actionble event. No, it's the mindset behind such an event. Meanwhile, we daily experience "smaller" sexism. The female executive editor had her regular column cut from the magazine. Women aren't allowed to write for the devotional booklet. When a female employee disagrees with a male employee, the man is upheld. I'm glad my faith is in Christ and not male leaders.
Thank you for this reply to DeYoung's review. I just read his review (part of it) and the wording towards victims is still there as of July 3, 2023. Really frustrating that if he's going to insist on patriarchy that he can't supply all the other things that would support and protect women if we indeed can only rely on men. Thank God he's the one I turn to and not men!
Regarding the gaslighting: This is from DeYoung's own book "But besides convincing, I also hope my case is considerate. The Lord’s servant “must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness” (2 Tim. 2:24–25). ". How could he write such a review after writing that in his book. Did he ask the basic question: Did I cross my own line here?
In response to Dark Hei, I don't take the "men are assholes" setting as my default. Any person can be so, regardless of gender. Nor do I think Barr or her defenders (the ones I've read, anyway) are gaslighting. Barr is using her specialization to point out distortions in our historical understanding of men and women and their operation in the church setting. My experience in such settings is that many church organizations have adopted an anti-biblical male-dominated hierarchy in which women can be mistreated and then not allowed a voice to speak against it. Not all organizations do this, but those that do base it on a flawed theology in which men rule and women submit. That's a recipe for abuse, just as it would be if it were the other way around.
Hi Michael, thank you for this - much appreciated. I've come across that analogy, “If God is male, then the male is God” before, and it troubles me because it's not logical. I've always felt the feminists were dishonest in using it. That said, it's probably a leap that many patriarchal theologians have been happy to make.
I have Beth's book on Audible. It has helped me with a lot of passages especially the one in Corinthians.
Yet it isn't just a book on theology or exegesis.
What I hear in the background is that all men who translated the bible in the past are assholes out to subjugate women because they are assholes who translated the bible to subjugate women.
And that is the bottom line because the historian is speaking.
Personally I feel that one's theological position does not translate to whether one is abusive. If you want to be an asshole, you will become one. Complementarian theology does not transform a person into an asshole. I don't think John Piper or Tim Keller are assholes either. I might not agree with them on this point but I take it that they are merely trying to be faithful to scripture.
There are of course real life assholes as S Mull points out below, but lets not take the position by default.
Thank you for a substantive and appropriately direct challenge to some poor form and some poor thinking and a poor pastoral example that needs to be called out.
I understand the objection since gonads are specifically related to reproductive function. I've heard a strong man praised as having "balls." Women actually have balls too, just internally.
DeYoung pastors in the south, where the long-standing honor culture of the south is read into biblical texts on gender roles. They like him at Christ Covenant because he pronounces his blessing on their cultural ideals they’ve made a religion out of. So, so sad.
If KDY ever reviews one of my books, I definitely want you in my corner!! Thank you for this.
Considering that God views his church, clearly made up pf both men and women, as his 'bride', I find it odd that anyone belonging to that church would view Christianity as having a 'masculine feel'!
Greetings, I hope you'll write a second response in which you deal with the substance of KDY's review. You're first two points are ad hominem and inaccurate, and the third is responding not to KDY but to John Piper.
KDY summarized his own main points not as "Barr is unqualified and untrustworthy," but as "Barr is highly qualified, but she's doing bad scholarship and bad history" (my language). Will you respond to his assessment that she is treating her opponents unfairly (bad scholarship) and treating the historical sources unfairly (bad history)?
1) Gaslighting: I don't think KDY is *at all* saying "Beth Ann Barr has an axe to grind; therefore, she is unqualified to evaluate complementarian theology." He *is* saying that he finds significant evidence that she is not giving her opponents a fair hearing, and he wonders if her personal trauma might be the reason. This is a vital difference. He does not dismiss her arguments on the basis of her personal history; rather he demonstrates his objections to her arguments and offers the explanation of her personal history as to how such a well-qualified scholar could be so sloppy.
Additionally, you're pretty unfairly measuring KDY's public scholarly response to a work of public scholarship by pastoral standards. You recognize that Pr. 18:17 is valuable for legal and forensic situations. Well, which is scholarly debate more like, a courtroom or a pastor's office? KDY is not Barr's pastor, and her husband's former employers are not his underlyings. She brought her personal trauma into a scholarly debate. He is not wrong to point out that it muddies the waters.
Now, I'll admit that he probably shouldn't have bothered, if for no other reason than it gave *you* an opportunity for ad hominem. The lion's share of your response goes to this point instead of to his actual arguments.
Since he *is* also a pastor, yes, he ought to point out the difference himself, at least parenthetically. It doesn't add a lot to his review. The paragraph in which it appears is about how the book blends historical scholarship with personal history, which is true, and while it may broaden the appeal, it does distract from and undermine the scholarship.
2) Credentialism. Again, you're (a) not addressing the substance and (b) being dishonest (unintentionally, I hope). KDY is not accusing Barr of credentialism, nor is he "playing to man and not the ball" (which is, ironically, exactly what you are doing). He thoroughly lays out her appeal to her own credentials in order to show clearly that, in spite of its blended genre, the book needs to be evaluated as a work of historical scholarship. Far from dismissing her because she is "bragging," he's taking her seriously as a scholar.
3) The "masculine feel" of Christianity. You seem to be deliberately missing the point KDY is making here. KDY is not "defending" Piper's position substantively. He is attacking Barr's dishonest treatment of him. He is asserting and attempting to demonstrate that Barr has misrepresented her opponents, and he is examining her interaction as evidence. Again, I hope you will offer a rebuttal! Show us that Barr really is treating Piper fairly and that KDY is wrong. What you've done instead is show us why you think *Piper* is wrong. Maybe he is, but that's not really relevant to KDY's argument.
KDY's point was that Barr is presenting a work of historical scholarship and that the history and scholarship are both badly done. Will you consider writing a response to that argument?
I was hoping this response would convince me that DeYoung has mischaracterized the book and that it was worth reading, but TBH, the engagement here was so unsubstantive that I have to conclude that Barr's own allies cannot defend her work on the merits. Accusing DeYoung of being an abuser/fostering abuse is gaslighting. Paragraph on paragraph about analogical language is gaslighting. Dismissing the actual textual evidence of historical error and also of an overbearing credentialism and accusing those who bring up the latter of abuse is gaslighting. This was one written for the choir.
“Let me be clear, this does not mean that God is some kind of gender-neutral deity, the cosmic monad without a gonad.” Sounds cute but I’d be asking an editor to remove this sentence I reckon… sounds like you do want to say God is male - which I’d be surprised if you did!
I work in a Christian organization, and the gaslighting of female employees is the norm. The leader stated that sexism will not be permitted there, but he defined it as a legally actionble event. No, it's the mindset behind such an event. Meanwhile, we daily experience "smaller" sexism. The female executive editor had her regular column cut from the magazine. Women aren't allowed to write for the devotional booklet. When a female employee disagrees with a male employee, the man is upheld. I'm glad my faith is in Christ and not male leaders.
Thank you for this reply to DeYoung's review. I just read his review (part of it) and the wording towards victims is still there as of July 3, 2023. Really frustrating that if he's going to insist on patriarchy that he can't supply all the other things that would support and protect women if we indeed can only rely on men. Thank God he's the one I turn to and not men!
Regarding the gaslighting: This is from DeYoung's own book "But besides convincing, I also hope my case is considerate. The Lord’s servant “must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness” (2 Tim. 2:24–25). ". How could he write such a review after writing that in his book. Did he ask the basic question: Did I cross my own line here?
In response to Dark Hei, I don't take the "men are assholes" setting as my default. Any person can be so, regardless of gender. Nor do I think Barr or her defenders (the ones I've read, anyway) are gaslighting. Barr is using her specialization to point out distortions in our historical understanding of men and women and their operation in the church setting. My experience in such settings is that many church organizations have adopted an anti-biblical male-dominated hierarchy in which women can be mistreated and then not allowed a voice to speak against it. Not all organizations do this, but those that do base it on a flawed theology in which men rule and women submit. That's a recipe for abuse, just as it would be if it were the other way around.
Hi Michael, thank you for this - much appreciated. I've come across that analogy, “If God is male, then the male is God” before, and it troubles me because it's not logical. I've always felt the feminists were dishonest in using it. That said, it's probably a leap that many patriarchal theologians have been happy to make.
I have Beth's book on Audible. It has helped me with a lot of passages especially the one in Corinthians.
Yet it isn't just a book on theology or exegesis.
What I hear in the background is that all men who translated the bible in the past are assholes out to subjugate women because they are assholes who translated the bible to subjugate women.
And that is the bottom line because the historian is speaking.
Personally I feel that one's theological position does not translate to whether one is abusive. If you want to be an asshole, you will become one. Complementarian theology does not transform a person into an asshole. I don't think John Piper or Tim Keller are assholes either. I might not agree with them on this point but I take it that they are merely trying to be faithful to scripture.
There are of course real life assholes as S Mull points out below, but lets not take the position by default.
Thank you for a substantive and appropriately direct challenge to some poor form and some poor thinking and a poor pastoral example that needs to be called out.
I understand the objection since gonads are specifically related to reproductive function. I've heard a strong man praised as having "balls." Women actually have balls too, just internally.
DeYoung pastors in the south, where the long-standing honor culture of the south is read into biblical texts on gender roles. They like him at Christ Covenant because he pronounces his blessing on their cultural ideals they’ve made a religion out of. So, so sad.