From Beth Allison Barr’s wonderful blog post — I grab a bit for your eyes — gets us all ready for her wonderful new book, The Making of Biblical Womanhood:
Beth's book is very well done and is so grounded in history that even those who might still not be fully persuaded of "egalitarianism" but are aware of some of the pervasive ills of patriarchy and toxic masculinity, could be moved closer to a middle ground with Beth's perspective. It was very helpful for me and one of my next reads is Lucy Peppiatt's "women and worship at corinth"
Looking forward to reading it. In response to your "who's deciding this?" question, I want to say, "Amen," and point out how "done" I am with the fear-mongering around inerrancy/ egalitarianism/embracing of LGBTQ folks into the full life of the church. Speaking only for myself here: I embraced "egalitarianism" well before I rejected inerrancy, and my rejection of inerrancy has nothing to do with my embracing of sexual minorities as fully participating members of the church. I arrived at all three views through my efforts to take the text more seriously.
@Deacon Godsey, of course you are not going to convince Denny Burk of what you consider the error of his ways by re-arranging the order in which you arrived at egalitarianism, an errant Scripture and an embrace of sexual minorities as fully participating members of the church. I don't think he is at all interested in which came first or caused the others; his main point is that they are all related, and I would say you just proved his point.
I wouldn't try to convince Denny Burk of anything. And I am totally comfortable with those things being related, but I'd still argue they're not *inherently* related. Not all who reject inerrancy embrace sexual minorities into the full life of the church, nor do all egalitarians. Also: I do think he thinks the one (rejecting inerrancy) leads to the others; I would simply argue that embracing the one (inerrancy) leads to a whole host of problems too numerous to mention. Denny Burk and I just genuinely disagree on a whole host of things, which I am okay with.
Thank you for this post as I seem to keep running afoul of comps. Are you going to do any posts on how to positively interact with comps who feel that spiritual, verbal and emotional abuse is rightly deserved to those who disagree with them? (My response is those who commit this type of abuse are not fit for ministry).... Or does this book assist with that?
Beth's book is very well done and is so grounded in history that even those who might still not be fully persuaded of "egalitarianism" but are aware of some of the pervasive ills of patriarchy and toxic masculinity, could be moved closer to a middle ground with Beth's perspective. It was very helpful for me and one of my next reads is Lucy Peppiatt's "women and worship at corinth"
It is a very good book and manifests the new scholarship that shows that complementarianism must be admitted to be a social construct (too).
Looking forward to reading it. In response to your "who's deciding this?" question, I want to say, "Amen," and point out how "done" I am with the fear-mongering around inerrancy/ egalitarianism/embracing of LGBTQ folks into the full life of the church. Speaking only for myself here: I embraced "egalitarianism" well before I rejected inerrancy, and my rejection of inerrancy has nothing to do with my embracing of sexual minorities as fully participating members of the church. I arrived at all three views through my efforts to take the text more seriously.
@Deacon Godsey, of course you are not going to convince Denny Burk of what you consider the error of his ways by re-arranging the order in which you arrived at egalitarianism, an errant Scripture and an embrace of sexual minorities as fully participating members of the church. I don't think he is at all interested in which came first or caused the others; his main point is that they are all related, and I would say you just proved his point.
I wouldn't try to convince Denny Burk of anything. And I am totally comfortable with those things being related, but I'd still argue they're not *inherently* related. Not all who reject inerrancy embrace sexual minorities into the full life of the church, nor do all egalitarians. Also: I do think he thinks the one (rejecting inerrancy) leads to the others; I would simply argue that embracing the one (inerrancy) leads to a whole host of problems too numerous to mention. Denny Burk and I just genuinely disagree on a whole host of things, which I am okay with.
Thank you for this post as I seem to keep running afoul of comps. Are you going to do any posts on how to positively interact with comps who feel that spiritual, verbal and emotional abuse is rightly deserved to those who disagree with them? (My response is those who commit this type of abuse are not fit for ministry).... Or does this book assist with that?