The question that deserves examination is: Does the fact that women were directed to carry out roles in various ways during the course of redemptive history provide a sound basis for the proposition that women in this present time are not just to carry out those similar roles but, in fact, different roles altogether? In other words, should these former ways of living be summarily set aside for the sake of furthering discussions of biblical womanhood as a whole?

When women talk outside the church, are they plotting to assume the power men hold within the church? The simple answer is – sometimes yes, sometimes no, and sometimes we just don’t know.

However, the thought is never too distant when a contemporary egalitarian Christian female writes about ‘biblical womanhood.’ And it is even more so when that writer is Rachel Held Evans, a prominent evangelical author, blogger, and speaker, who has built a following by capitalizing on controversy, who makes no bones about being an egalitarian, and is a “vocal advocate of increasing the ranks of women within church leadership.”[1]

Evans previously published a spiritual memoir entitled “Evolving in Monkey Town,” and now has contracted with Christian publisher Thomas Nelson to write an experimental memoir tentatively titled, “A Year of Biblical Womanhood.”[2]

Evans suggests the book’s goal is to encourage discussion and to help women reach common ground on women’s issues by creatively addressing the problem she sees as substantive differences between people’s views and opinions as to what it means to be a biblical woman, a problem she suggests arises from varying interpretations of Scripture.[3] Undoubtedly, such help would also spill over and have some effect on the church.

After laying the root of the problem at differing interpretations of Scripture, Evans suggests that a solution will come about when there is “less judgmentalism” based on greater acceptance of views and applications of others. This sense of acceptance will be realized when we understand that interpreting the Bible can be difficult, and that women are doing their best to apply what they believe the Bible’s teachings.

In Evans’ own words, “We all pick and choose,” but “if we can admit that behind every claim to a biblical lifestyle or ideology lies a complex set of assumptions regarding interpretation and application, … we can have more productive conversations about the role of women in the church.”[4]

This book will certainly captivate many readers and gain significant attention in the broader conservative Christian community, especially among women. It will also be of interest to a score of groups outside the church.

The appeal in this book arises by addressing a contemporary church issue, one that is curious and sensitive. Also, the appeal is strengthened through a relational and substitutional connection in the way the narratives are framed, as Evans tells her story of her experiences. She examines issues and struggles common to herself and other Christian women as they seek clear answers.

While having on at least one occasion expressed her fear of motherhood,[5] Evans has given birth to the “womanhood project” in which she is committing to personally following all the Bible’s instructions for women for the period of a year. For example, in following what is termed as a literal interpretation of the Bible, she has done things like grow her hair long, use head coverings, taken up sewing, abstaining from sex or even touching her husband at certain times, and dwelling in a tent in her back yard over an Easter weekend.[6]

Evans suggests these activities have been good preparation for her writing. They also will help publicize her book.

Based on comments prior to the book’s publication, several issues should be considered when evaluating Evans’ project and book.

The core fault in the book lies either in a flawed understanding of biblical interpretation or a flawed application of biblical understanding. My assumption is that the fault touches more with the latter than the former.

Since Evans herself claims that she is not a biblical literalist, I assume she doesn’t really believe that all the commands given to women in the Bible (including those of the Old Covenant) are applicable to women today. If this were the case, women today would have a greater reason to reject her premises and teachings other than just concerns over her egalitarianism or who may serve as church officers.

Consequently, attention should focus on the approach she uses to lead women to set aside differences in interpretations and positions in order to further the discussion of women’s issues.

The question that deserves examination is: Does the fact that women were directed to carry out roles in various ways during the course of redemptive history provide a sound basis for the proposition that women in this present time are not just to carry out those similar roles but, in fact, different roles altogether? In other words, should these former ways of living be summarily set aside for the sake of furthering discussions of biblical womanhood as a whole?

The issue in this discussion, then, is really hermeneutical, which has resulted in faulty or less consistent methods of interpretation on the one hand, and cultural influences and pressures rather on the other. It appears Evans is comparing apples and oranges and then asking women to consider them the same. Her assertions certainly do not provide a solid foundation for women to overlook or to treat matters related to spousal relationships and ecclesiastical offices as unimportant.

While Evans is correct that some problems surrounding women’s issues today can be linked to various interpretations of Scripture[7], this does not mean all interpretations of Scripture are equally valid or should be uncritically accepted, approved, or put aside.

Just as in science, where there are various methods of interpretation but not all produce similar or even desirable results, and some methods and results are obviously better than others, so it is with methods of biblical interpretation. Not all methods and results are the same. Neither should they be uncritically evaluated and accepted just so there might be “more productive discussions about the role of women in the church.” The better solution is to include the methods of interpretation in the discussions, lest people,particularly the less learned, be deceived and led to embrace unbiblical views.

Consider, first, Evans’ approach for her ‘biblical womanhood project.’ Evans’ proposal suggests she is following as precisely as possible all the biblical instructions for women. Is this really true? While she is sewing, and growing her hair long and following Levitical laws for menstruating women, stunts which have already attracted attention, is she also sacrificing animals to cleanse herself?

Beyond even the issue as to whether she is consistent in her literal approach to what the Bible commands for women, there is the question as to whether her interpretation is sound. In her use of “literal” she implies all commands given to women under any phase of redemptive history apply to all women everywhere without distinction. Evans’ approach does not allow for or take into consideration distinctions between the Old Covenant and New Covenant. Surely she would not suggest that typology be overlooked? So while Evans’ womanhood project is drawing attention in major media outlets, evaluation into the details of her work reveal significant flaws.

Perhaps Evans chose this interpretation to make her point, but in the end it defeats her argument by showing that one’s interpretation does matter! For example, Evans is quoted in Christianity Today as saying, ‘… technically speaking it is ‘biblical’ for a woman to be sold by her father to pay off debt, ‘biblical’ for her to be forced to marry her rapist and ‘biblical’ for her to be one of many wives!”[8] I don’t know of any evangelical women today that could in good conscience, even in the name of being “less judgmental,” overlook the errors or interpretation leading to such conclusions.

Evans is right however in stating, “When the term ‘biblical’ can mean anything, it means nothing.”[9] At the same time, for something to be ‘biblical’ it depends all the more on the solidity of one’s method of interpretation, not less!

By broadening her womanhood project to include women’s roles throughout different periods of redemptive history and then suggesting this should lead women to broaden their acceptance of other views not only suggests that she might not understand even the basics of biblical interpretation and in the process shooting her own major premise in the foot!

I offer the following reflections:

For reasons stated above, while I applaud efforts aimed at raising awareness of the struggles and encouraging discussion regarding “biblical womanhood,” I am not pleased at all that Evans is planning to present these issues with the premises stated above. There is potential for deceiving the unlearned and doing damage to the health of family relationships and to the welfare of the church. While today’s Christian evangelical women are legitimately seeking answers to questions surrounding biblical womanhood, a popular appeal with a short sighted suggestion does not change the fact that Evan’s premises are misdirected and dangerous.

Many good works have already been written on biblical womanhood and more can be done to provide woman more biblically informed guidance they desire and need. The church would be negligent if it doesn’t continue to address these issues,

Second, readers should be aware and take note that those with unbiblical agendas want us to overlook methods of interpretation and just get along and be “less judgmental.” This methodology has been used by feminists as well as homosexual activists.

While Evans has not stated her intent to push her egalitarian beliefs or to influence the church with regard to female inclusion among its officers, we will do well to keep our eyes open and closely listen to what is being promoted. Evans has been clear in her egalitarian position and she advocates for it. Scripture does teach equality among all believers; it also provides qualifications for church officers and sets forth a distinction of roles between men and women, thus informing our understanding of biblical manhood and womanhood.

Third, my hope is that women in the church will grow in the understanding that there can be great diversity when it comes to the ways women express themselves and carry out their roles within the confines of biblical womanhood. However, care should be taken, based on the principles of sound hermeneutics, not to violate or overstep the bounds of biblical womanhood.

Fourth, I encourage Evans to do studies in the area of hermeneutics (biblical interpretation). Further study in the area of covenant theology would also be beneficial. Recognizing the influence Evans has, it behooves her, for her own good and for the church that she ensure she has a good grasp of the principles of biblical interpretation if she is going to publish a book on this subject. A project which fails to draw any distinctions when it comes to biblical womanhood is not a sound basis for women to set aside or discount legitimate distinctions informing biblical womanhood.

Fifth, it should be noted that while humility and being less judgmental are admirable goals, uncritical acceptance of methods and results can lead to great error and even heresy. The better solution is to help women understand the place and value of sound interpretative methods and encourage and train them to apply them.

Sixth, the mindset that “all Christians pick and choose the parts of the Bible that suit them”[10] is not sound. While this may be true for some individuals, it denies the rightful place of the authority of Scripture and therefore ends up concluding that methods of interpretation are unimportant.

Seventh, the suggestion, “there’s a fear among conservatives… of exposing what it means to follow the Bible literally,”[11] is not a valid assessment. Those who understand biblical interpretation realize all the Bible is not to be interpreted “literally” but according to various factors related to the passage which aid in understanding the meaning of the text (such as context, genre, grammar, etc.). Complementarians and egalitarians alike, if acting on conviction, should hold their positions based on the result of biblical interpretation rather than on the basis of preconceived notions.

Eighth, Evans should keep the various components of her readership in mind when writing. While observations and comments may be taken one way by those in churches holding to complementarianism, those same comments can be used against the church by those outside her membership. Therefore, given the nature of the subjects Evans intends to discuss, she should exercise diligent care in qualifying her statements so as to avoid potential mishandling and abuse.

Ninth, women do not have to become discouraged by Evans’ book. For example, Evans tells of trying to live up to the example of the Proverbs 31 woman and states women should be kinder “since none of them are actually practicing biblical womanhood.”[12] The point of Proverbs 31, she claims, is to set the high standard of a biblical woman before females that they might in seeing how far they fall short look outside themselves to the Lord for both forgiveness and grace, which will enable and strengthen them in this role. At the same time, women should not discount the character, noble actions and examples being expressed daily by many females within the church. There are many women today living out “biblical womanhood.”

Finally, I encourage women, including Evans, who seem to fear “losing themselves” or at least part of themselves through submission[13] to consider Sarah’s example in 1 Peter 3. She, along with the holy women of the past, made themselves beautiful (and complete) by putting their hope in God and submitting to their husbands. Peter writes, “You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.” While it’s true that women do not have to fully deny themselves or forsake all which God has made them to be in submitting to their husbands, faith must supersede and supplant fear if a married woman is to achieve God’s full purpose for her life.. While this may be tough for one like Evans who identifies herself as a “strong willed, independent, egalitarian woman,” all things are possible and profitable through Christ!

Tim Muse is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Brandon Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Brandon, Miss.

[1] Mari-Anna Stalnacke, “Christian Woman Follows the Bible Literally for One Year,” Christianpost.com, June 20, 2011, http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-woman-follows-the-bible-literally-for-one-year-51377/ (accessed September 6, 2011)

[2] Rachel Held Evans, http://rachelheldevans.com/about, (accessed September 6, 1011)

[3] Rachel Held Evans, http://rachelheldevans.com/womanhood-project, (accessed September 6, 2011)

[4] Mari-Anna Stalnacke, “Christian Woman Follows the Bible Literally for One Year,” Christianpost.com, June 20, 2011,
http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-woman-follows-the-bible-literally-for-one-year-51377/ (accessed September 6, 2011)

[5] Mari-Anna Stalnacke, “Christian Woman Follows the Bible Literally for One Year,” Christianpost.com, June 20, 2011, http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-woman-follows-the-bible-literally-for-one-year-51377/ (accessed September 6, 2011)

[6] Ruth Graham, “A Year of Biblical Womanhood,” Slate.com, September 1, 2011, http://www.slate.com/id/2302892/ (accessed September 6, 2011).

[7] Mari-Anna Stalnacke, “Christian Woman Follows the Bible Literally for One Year,” Christianpost.com, June 20, 2011, http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-woman-follows-the-bible-literally-for-one-year-51377/ (accessed September 6, 2011)

[8] Mari-Anna Stalnacke, “Christian Woman Follows the Bible Literally for One Year,” Christianpost.com, June 20, 2011, http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-woman-follows-the-bible-literally-for-one-year-51377/ (accessed September 6, 2011)

[9] Ruth Graham, “A Year of Biblical Womanhood,” Slate.com, September 1, 2011, http://www.slate.com/id/2302892/ (accessed September 6, 2011).

[10] Ruth Graham, “A Year of Biblical Womanhood,” Slate.com, September 1, 2011, http://www.slate.com/id/2302892/ (accessed September 6, 2011).

[11] Ruth Graham, “A Year of Biblical Womanhood,” Slate.com, September 1, 2011, http://www.slate.com/id/2302892/ (accessed September 6, 2011).

[12] Mari-Anna Stalnacke, “Christian Woman Follows the Bible Literally for One Year,” Christianpost.com, June 20, 2011, http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-woman-follows-the-bible-literally-for-one-year-51377/ (accessed September 6, 2011)

[13] Mari-Anna Stalnacke, “Christian Woman Follows the Bible Literally for One Year,” Christianpost.com, June 20, 2011, http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-woman-follows-the-bible-literally-for-one-year-51377/ (accessed September 6, 2011)