Biblical? Womanhood?

I’ve seen several articles lately on the new book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood. The author, Rachel Held Evans, decided to abide by unpopular teachings based on the Bible, write about her experiences, and make money off them. In her own words:

I started a yearlong journey in which I found myself growing out my hair, making my own clothes, covering my head whenever I prayed, caring for a computerized baby, abstaining from gossip, remaining silent in church, calling my husband "master," and even camping out in my front yard during my period to observe the Levitical purity laws (even though such laws are generally understood by Christians to no longer apply).
Taken from her article “‘Too Bad You’re a Girl’: Testing the Biblical Teachings I Grew Up With”

This “journey” was a reaction to her confusion on conflicts in teaching about and treatment of women in evangelical circles. In the title of her article, the “Too bad you’re a girl” comment was based on 1 Timothy 2:12, which says “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet,” implying that despite her gift for public speaking, her options of serving in church would be limited. Evans didn’t understand why this is taken literally, while comments on headcoverings and calling one’s husband “master” are not.

When faced with confusion about the Bible, one may react in several ways: 1, ignore one’s concerns, 2, take the Bible less seriously, 3, leave the faith, 4, research the source of the confusion to have better understanding.

The last two options are legitimate, with #4 being the best option, but #4 could lead to #3. Ignoring ones concerns ranges from laziness to foolishness, both of which lead you to conflicts with the Bible as bad as your original concern. Option #2 is a popular reaction to confusion about the Bible, and Evans seems to be putting herself forward as a leader of it.

Despite claiming to take the comments about women in the Bible more seriously than other churchgoers, she really just decides to take peoples’ comments about comments in the Bible literally, thereby mocking both them and the Bible. If she had taken the Bible seriously, she would have noticed that there is no command to call one’s husband “lord,” there is just the example of Sarah honoring Abraham by doing so. Any cultural connotations of lordship are ignored, despite this title being foreign to Americans, who associate it with oppression. Evans decides to add a few Levitical laws to her list of “Biblical womanhood” but ignores the rest, thereby cheapening her mission and joining the chauvinists in separating women from the rest of society. She sleeps out in a tent while on her period, inane kudos for that, but why does she not abstain from pork? Make fruit sacrifices to God? Slaughter a pigeon or two? (As she made her own clothes) only use kind of material for garments?* Stand up whenever an old person walks in the room? Order her steaks well done? Make friendship bread for people at the French consulate? Instead of taking care of her computerized baby, show dedication to her cause and honor her husband by having a real baby? **

Evans claims she didn’t pick and choose which commands she would keep, but obviously did. I accuse her of joining the chauvinists in treating women differently from the rest of society, because a real Levitical woman would have followed the gender neutral rules plus the rules for females. This doesn’t matter to Evan’s cause, however, since her point in living a year of “Biblical womanhood” was not to follow all the rules, it was to mock those who might follow them.

Now, I don’t want to ignore Evans’ concerns with churchgoers who have frightening opinions about what a Christian woman can or can’t do. She is accurate when talking about the option women are given in some churches: to marry and bear children, or to be a failure at life. This, I believe, is a dreadful confusion about the purpose and abilities of women. There have been amazing women of faith whom God used to glorify himself (think Amy Carmichael or Elizabeth Eliot). God did not use them despite a "defect" of not being married, but because they were his servants. God uses people wherever they are in life or situation, and if you think your ability to serve him is “on hold” for any reason (marriage status, illness or otherwise), that’s your personal misunderstanding and you shouldn’t blame God for it.

The role of women in church can be confusing, probably because humans do a lot to confuse it. I believe that it is a lot more flexible than we make it out to be, but I’m still working through this. Ask me in five years.

My biggest problem with Evans’ book is that she has used Christianity to make others feel better for not being a part of it. I understand having personal searches and struggles, but if you look at the comments she has received from her book reviews, she has encouraged non-believers to think the Bible is a string of antiquated rules with a few stories and nice truisms mixed in. She embraces the idea that you need to pick the parts you like out of the Bible, and mocks those who dare to struggle with the whole of it. Her “journey” seems less like growth, and more like hopping from one philosophy to another.

*To accomplish this in modern times, you’d have to buy polyester fabrics, unless you, by some fortune, found thread that wasn’t polyester.
**Most of these laws were taken from Lev. 19.
***All quotations from the Bible are taken from the ESV.