What do you think?
Rate this book
Evangelical Feminism: A History
For most people, the terms “evangelical” and “feminism” are contradictory. “Evangelical” invokes images of conservative Christians known for their strict interpretation of the Bible, as well as their support of social conservatism and traditional gender roles. So how could an evangelical support feminism, a movement that seeks, at its most basic level, to redress the inequalities, injustice, and discrimination that women face because of their sex?
Evangelical Feminism offers the first history of the evangelical feminist movement. It traces the emergence and theological development of biblical feminism within evangelical Christianity in the 1970s, how an internal split among members of the movement came about over the question of lesbianism, and what these developments reveal about conservative Protestantism and religion generally in contemporary America.
Cochran shows that biblical feminists have been at the center of changes both within evangelicalism and in American culture more broadly by renegotiating the religious symbols which shape its deepest values.
Evangelical Feminism offers the first history of the evangelical feminist movement. It traces the emergence and theological development of biblical feminism within evangelical Christianity in the 1970s, how an internal split among members of the movement came about over the question of lesbianism, and what these developments reveal about conservative Protestantism and religion generally in contemporary America.
Cochran shows that biblical feminists have been at the center of changes both within evangelicalism and in American culture more broadly by renegotiating the religious symbols which shape its deepest values.
245 pages, Paperback
First published November 15, 2004
56 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 24, 2024
A MARVELOUS, AND OBJECTIVE/FAIR HISTORY OF ALL VARIETIES
Author Pamela D.H. Cochran wrote in the Introduction to this 2005 book, “in 1973… the seeds of ‘evangelical feminism’ were sown… the Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA) convened a conference … to which only a few women were invited… a second conference held in the following year involved a larger number of women and included a special seminar on the topic of women’s equality. This seminar led to … [an] ‘evangelical feminist’ movement characterized by the belief that when interpreted correctly, the Bible teaches the equality of women and men. The Evangelical Women’s Caucus (EWC) maintained a unified front more than a decade until a resolution recognizing a lesbian minority in the organization revealed fundamental differences among the members… that led to … schism.” (Pg. 2)
She continues, “although American evangelicalism may continue to survive and grow, it may not be thriving after all… analysis shows the increasing encroachment of a more individualized… conservative Protestantism… in which individuals had a ‘religious preference’ rather than a ‘confession of faith.’ This can be seen most clearly among… evangelical feminists who have come to rely on personal experience as authoritative … They have incorporated a broader array of theological, social, and faith perspectives, and … the Evangelical Women’s Caucus, is more inclusive… the story of evangelical feminism suggests that evangelicalism may have inadvertently contributed to the loss of its own dominance … because it does not challenge the increasing consumerist culture… evangelicalism … fits quite well in an increasingly consumerist American culture.” (Pg. 4-5)
She recounts, “In 1969 Nancy Hardesty… [taught] English at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School… [she] received a letter from … Letha Scanzoni… Scanzoni invited Hardesty to join her in writing a book on women’s liberation from a Christian perspective… when ‘All We’re Meant to Be: A Biblical Approach to Women’s Liberation’ was … published in 1974… [it] was a publishing hit… it helped show evangelical women around the United States that they could be both evangelicals and feminists. The book, along with the Evangelical Women’s Caucus… was instrumental in initiating a biblical movement for women’s rights in the church, home, and society.’ (Pg. 11-12)
She recounts, “In ‘Woman Be Free!’ [Patricia] Gundry… points out that Christian women have been treated as second-class citizens in God’s kingdom… That does not mean, however, that the subordinate treatment of women is necessarily biblical… there might have been reasons beyond biblical culture that caused conservative Christian men to keep women in their place.” (Pg. 46-47)
She says of Virginia Mollenkott that when she “wrote her first book on biblical feminism, ‘Women, Men and the Bible’… Mollenkott believed that certain of Paul’s writings were irredeemably influenced by his humanity… questions arose about [her] hermeneutics because of her opinion that the Bible, though a divine book, came through fallible human channels and reflected their foibles.” (Pg. 53-56) She continues, “Mollenkott mainly … argued that a male bias was read into evangelical beliefs on the creation, Trinity, incarnation, and regeneration.” (Pg. 58-59) She observes, “Two questions arise: just where did biblical feminism fit in the boundary divisions being debated in evangelicalism in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and where did they fit into the American feminist movement?” (Pg. 70)
She notes, “in the work of Virginia Mollenkott versus Patricia Gundry … there were differences … in their understanding of biblical authority. The more liberal evangelical feminists … [argued] that passages that appeared to subordinate women were concessions to the culture of their day and were not binding for all times. More conservative evangelical feminists … thought such a solution … gave up too much of the authority of scripture … whenever it contradicted contemporary mores.” (Pg. 76)
“In 1978, Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott … publish[ed] ‘Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?’… The topic… eventually fractured the biblical feminist movement and led to the creation of an alternative organization, Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE).” (Pg. 77) She adds, “The heart of Scanzoni and Mollenkott’s argument is that scientific research has proved that a homosexual orientation is involuntary and irreversible. This was a turn in their argument with which many evangelicals could not agree. Most accepted… that homosexuality was at least partly innate. But they did not agree that it therefore cleared homosexuals from all responsibility for their actions.” (Pg. 86) She reports, “the issue of lesbianism finally split the biblical feminist movement at [EWC’s] biennial conference in 1986.” (Pg. 96)
She explains, “Traditional biblical feminists … [suggest that] it is not Jesus’ maleness that saves… Jesus’ sex says no more about his divine nature than did his Galilean accent or occupation. Cornelius Plantinga Jr…commented that ‘ one might as well argue that because God incarnate was Jewish, [and] single… that Jewishness, bachelorhood, and thorough knowledge of sheep are all basic to Jesus’ saving us.’” (Pg. 117)
She points out, “Molllenkott’s book ‘Godding: Human Responsibility and the Bible’ offered a good study of the progression of her theology from a historical-critical methodology to liberation theology.” (Pg. 122) “Mary Hayter, a chaplain at Cambridge University, addressed [1 Cor 1]… does not think that women today should be forced to wear their hair bound up when in church. Rather, the church today should encourage women to participate in worship in a way that does not offend the broader cultural norms. In the modern world, women being silent in church would be more likely to repulse than to attract them… biblical feminists believe that strict gender roles within the church are an accommodation to social forces.” (Pg. 141-142)
She notes, “Inclusive language is … a biblical issue, because how a scholar translates the original language … may make it appear more sexist than it really is. For example, Mollenkott pointed out that ‘the New Revised Standard Version translation committee reports literally hundreds of places where English translations have been more sexist than the original usage. They’ve given us a man instead of a person, he instead of one, and brothers instead of siblings or relatives.” (Pg. 143) She continues, “That the use of inclusive language was not considered trivial by most evangelicals can be seen in the response by some segments of the evangelical community to an announcement in 1987 that the International Bible Society was going to release an inclusive-language edition of the New International Version Bible… it was heralded as ‘the Feminist Seduction of the Evangelical Church.’” (Pg. 144-145)
She summarizes, “Progressive evangelical feminists began to turn to other sources of authority, such as science reason, and experience, in addition to the biblical witness… Traditional biblical feminists, like those in Christians for Biblical Equality, however, remained committed to the external, definable, and transcendent authority of the biblical witness.” (Pg. 147-148) She continues, “Who were the women and men joining Christians for Biblical Equality?... most members were well-educated, middle-class, married women with children, who worked outside the home… 25 percent were men… The CBE’s affirmations state: … *We believe that men and women are to diligently develop and use their God-given gifts for the good of the home, church, and society. *We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and heterosexual marriage as the patterns God designed for us.” (Pg. 151-153)
She reports, “A backlash within American evangelicalism to both secular and biblical feminism… could be seen in a number of places… some supporters of evangelical feminism suffered in their jobs… several organizations were forced to defend ‘the traditional family.’” (Pg. 157) She observes, “The most vexing question… pertinent to biblical feminists, was how to differentiate universal from culturally limited principles… Conservative evangelicals claim that women cannot teach because Paul told the women in Corinth to keep silent… Biblical feminists claim, however, that the eternal principle … is that women should keep silent until they have been properly trained in the faith.” (Pg. 166) She adds, “The shift from inerrancy to hermeneutics as the theological key to setting evangelical boundaries allowed biblical feminists, like those in the CBE, to help establish those boundaries… [This] positioned Christians for Biblical Equality to make a significant impact on contemporary evangelicalism.” (Pg. 169) She also points out, “Between …. 1986 and 1987, individual membership in the Evangelical Women’s Caucus fell to half their earlier number.” (Pg. 170) Ultimately, “some members of the EWC… did not want to relinquish the term ‘evangelical’ in their name… a compromise solution was reached, and members voted to change their name to the ‘Evangelical and Ecumenical Women’s Caucus’ (EEWG)… most EEWC members … were split between positions of limited inerrancy and neo-orthodoxy.” (Pg. 177)
She concludes, “Despite the progressive biblical feminists’ attempts to place themselves symbolically within evangelicalism… to the American evangelical community [they] were no longer evangelicals.” (Pg. 183) “Traditional evangelical feminists have not been left unaffected… by the changes in American culture… First… traditional evangelical feminism has tended to tailor the message of the gospel to the felt needs of the listener… Second… the modern ideals of individualism and rationality have made a greater impact on American evangelicalism in general.” (Pg. 186-187) “Traditional biblical feminists… illustrate that the strength of American evangelicalism lies in its adherence to exclusive truth claims and transcendent authority at the same time that it reveals the inroads on American evangelicalism of modern ideals of pluralism and individualism.” (Pg. 189) “the story of evangelical feminism suggests that evangelicalism may have inadvertently contributed to the loss of its own dominance in contemporary American society, by not challenging its culture when it was the dominant religious perspective, but by fitting into it so well.” (Pg. 194)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying evangelical feminism.
Author Pamela D.H. Cochran wrote in the Introduction to this 2005 book, “in 1973… the seeds of ‘evangelical feminism’ were sown… the Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA) convened a conference … to which only a few women were invited… a second conference held in the following year involved a larger number of women and included a special seminar on the topic of women’s equality. This seminar led to … [an] ‘evangelical feminist’ movement characterized by the belief that when interpreted correctly, the Bible teaches the equality of women and men. The Evangelical Women’s Caucus (EWC) maintained a unified front more than a decade until a resolution recognizing a lesbian minority in the organization revealed fundamental differences among the members… that led to … schism.” (Pg. 2)
She continues, “although American evangelicalism may continue to survive and grow, it may not be thriving after all… analysis shows the increasing encroachment of a more individualized… conservative Protestantism… in which individuals had a ‘religious preference’ rather than a ‘confession of faith.’ This can be seen most clearly among… evangelical feminists who have come to rely on personal experience as authoritative … They have incorporated a broader array of theological, social, and faith perspectives, and … the Evangelical Women’s Caucus, is more inclusive… the story of evangelical feminism suggests that evangelicalism may have inadvertently contributed to the loss of its own dominance … because it does not challenge the increasing consumerist culture… evangelicalism … fits quite well in an increasingly consumerist American culture.” (Pg. 4-5)
She recounts, “In 1969 Nancy Hardesty… [taught] English at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School… [she] received a letter from … Letha Scanzoni… Scanzoni invited Hardesty to join her in writing a book on women’s liberation from a Christian perspective… when ‘All We’re Meant to Be: A Biblical Approach to Women’s Liberation’ was … published in 1974… [it] was a publishing hit… it helped show evangelical women around the United States that they could be both evangelicals and feminists. The book, along with the Evangelical Women’s Caucus… was instrumental in initiating a biblical movement for women’s rights in the church, home, and society.’ (Pg. 11-12)
She recounts, “In ‘Woman Be Free!’ [Patricia] Gundry… points out that Christian women have been treated as second-class citizens in God’s kingdom… That does not mean, however, that the subordinate treatment of women is necessarily biblical… there might have been reasons beyond biblical culture that caused conservative Christian men to keep women in their place.” (Pg. 46-47)
She says of Virginia Mollenkott that when she “wrote her first book on biblical feminism, ‘Women, Men and the Bible’… Mollenkott believed that certain of Paul’s writings were irredeemably influenced by his humanity… questions arose about [her] hermeneutics because of her opinion that the Bible, though a divine book, came through fallible human channels and reflected their foibles.” (Pg. 53-56) She continues, “Mollenkott mainly … argued that a male bias was read into evangelical beliefs on the creation, Trinity, incarnation, and regeneration.” (Pg. 58-59) She observes, “Two questions arise: just where did biblical feminism fit in the boundary divisions being debated in evangelicalism in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and where did they fit into the American feminist movement?” (Pg. 70)
She notes, “in the work of Virginia Mollenkott versus Patricia Gundry … there were differences … in their understanding of biblical authority. The more liberal evangelical feminists … [argued] that passages that appeared to subordinate women were concessions to the culture of their day and were not binding for all times. More conservative evangelical feminists … thought such a solution … gave up too much of the authority of scripture … whenever it contradicted contemporary mores.” (Pg. 76)
“In 1978, Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott … publish[ed] ‘Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?’… The topic… eventually fractured the biblical feminist movement and led to the creation of an alternative organization, Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE).” (Pg. 77) She adds, “The heart of Scanzoni and Mollenkott’s argument is that scientific research has proved that a homosexual orientation is involuntary and irreversible. This was a turn in their argument with which many evangelicals could not agree. Most accepted… that homosexuality was at least partly innate. But they did not agree that it therefore cleared homosexuals from all responsibility for their actions.” (Pg. 86) She reports, “the issue of lesbianism finally split the biblical feminist movement at [EWC’s] biennial conference in 1986.” (Pg. 96)
She explains, “Traditional biblical feminists … [suggest that] it is not Jesus’ maleness that saves… Jesus’ sex says no more about his divine nature than did his Galilean accent or occupation. Cornelius Plantinga Jr…commented that ‘ one might as well argue that because God incarnate was Jewish, [and] single… that Jewishness, bachelorhood, and thorough knowledge of sheep are all basic to Jesus’ saving us.’” (Pg. 117)
She points out, “Molllenkott’s book ‘Godding: Human Responsibility and the Bible’ offered a good study of the progression of her theology from a historical-critical methodology to liberation theology.” (Pg. 122) “Mary Hayter, a chaplain at Cambridge University, addressed [1 Cor 1]… does not think that women today should be forced to wear their hair bound up when in church. Rather, the church today should encourage women to participate in worship in a way that does not offend the broader cultural norms. In the modern world, women being silent in church would be more likely to repulse than to attract them… biblical feminists believe that strict gender roles within the church are an accommodation to social forces.” (Pg. 141-142)
She notes, “Inclusive language is … a biblical issue, because how a scholar translates the original language … may make it appear more sexist than it really is. For example, Mollenkott pointed out that ‘the New Revised Standard Version translation committee reports literally hundreds of places where English translations have been more sexist than the original usage. They’ve given us a man instead of a person, he instead of one, and brothers instead of siblings or relatives.” (Pg. 143) She continues, “That the use of inclusive language was not considered trivial by most evangelicals can be seen in the response by some segments of the evangelical community to an announcement in 1987 that the International Bible Society was going to release an inclusive-language edition of the New International Version Bible… it was heralded as ‘the Feminist Seduction of the Evangelical Church.’” (Pg. 144-145)
She summarizes, “Progressive evangelical feminists began to turn to other sources of authority, such as science reason, and experience, in addition to the biblical witness… Traditional biblical feminists, like those in Christians for Biblical Equality, however, remained committed to the external, definable, and transcendent authority of the biblical witness.” (Pg. 147-148) She continues, “Who were the women and men joining Christians for Biblical Equality?... most members were well-educated, middle-class, married women with children, who worked outside the home… 25 percent were men… The CBE’s affirmations state: … *We believe that men and women are to diligently develop and use their God-given gifts for the good of the home, church, and society. *We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and heterosexual marriage as the patterns God designed for us.” (Pg. 151-153)
She reports, “A backlash within American evangelicalism to both secular and biblical feminism… could be seen in a number of places… some supporters of evangelical feminism suffered in their jobs… several organizations were forced to defend ‘the traditional family.’” (Pg. 157) She observes, “The most vexing question… pertinent to biblical feminists, was how to differentiate universal from culturally limited principles… Conservative evangelicals claim that women cannot teach because Paul told the women in Corinth to keep silent… Biblical feminists claim, however, that the eternal principle … is that women should keep silent until they have been properly trained in the faith.” (Pg. 166) She adds, “The shift from inerrancy to hermeneutics as the theological key to setting evangelical boundaries allowed biblical feminists, like those in the CBE, to help establish those boundaries… [This] positioned Christians for Biblical Equality to make a significant impact on contemporary evangelicalism.” (Pg. 169) She also points out, “Between …. 1986 and 1987, individual membership in the Evangelical Women’s Caucus fell to half their earlier number.” (Pg. 170) Ultimately, “some members of the EWC… did not want to relinquish the term ‘evangelical’ in their name… a compromise solution was reached, and members voted to change their name to the ‘Evangelical and Ecumenical Women’s Caucus’ (EEWG)… most EEWC members … were split between positions of limited inerrancy and neo-orthodoxy.” (Pg. 177)
She concludes, “Despite the progressive biblical feminists’ attempts to place themselves symbolically within evangelicalism… to the American evangelical community [they] were no longer evangelicals.” (Pg. 183) “Traditional evangelical feminists have not been left unaffected… by the changes in American culture… First… traditional evangelical feminism has tended to tailor the message of the gospel to the felt needs of the listener… Second… the modern ideals of individualism and rationality have made a greater impact on American evangelicalism in general.” (Pg. 186-187) “Traditional biblical feminists… illustrate that the strength of American evangelicalism lies in its adherence to exclusive truth claims and transcendent authority at the same time that it reveals the inroads on American evangelicalism of modern ideals of pluralism and individualism.” (Pg. 189) “the story of evangelical feminism suggests that evangelicalism may have inadvertently contributed to the loss of its own dominance in contemporary American society, by not challenging its culture when it was the dominant religious perspective, but by fitting into it so well.” (Pg. 194)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying evangelical feminism.
December 24, 2014
This was a fascinating look at the history and development of evangelical feminism in the late 70’s and early 80’s. It should be noted that from the outset that I am not an evangelical feminist, nay, from the author’s perspective, I’m a neo-hierarchialist (let the reader understand). That being said, I found the history and development of evangelical feminism to be very intriguing.
This book seemed to operate on a continuum: on the one side, history and critique of evangelicalism with the other side essentially being an apologia for evangelical feminism. Each chapter sits at a different point on the continuum, with the introduction and conclusion being most on the “history and critique” side and the middle chapters pushing toward feminist apologia. Aside from some of the research now being a bit dated (this was published in 2005), I found this to be insightful and helpful for understanding evangelical feminism, especially in the late 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s.
Now a few meandering thoughts:
1. I had never heard the story about the split within the EWC (Evangelical Women’s Caucus) in 1986 that ultimately led to the creation of CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality). In terms of the narrative of the book, it’s interesting to see the divergent paths between the two organizations, especially in regards to the homosexuality question. These days, EWC’s “evangelicalism” ends at the the “E” in their name as they now seem, to me at least, like a radical feminist group. Meanwhile the CBE has created for themselves a niche in that they both oppose the extreme feminism on the left, and the “patriarchal hierarchialism” on the right. In terms of a future for CBE, I do wonder if that niche will be harder to hold as the increasing pressure to accept homosexuality will only grow hotter. From where I’m sitting, the revisionist arguments of CBE imply a reconsideration of homosexuality, and thus the reconsideration of the pressure that originally burst the EWC into two separate coalitions.
2. Cochran spends a considerable amount of time in the introduction and conclusion talking about the “individualism” and “consumerism” of evangelicalism as a lamentable trend in evangelicalism — hear, hear. Yet, she also seems to point to CBE as a brave organization that essentially says that we’ve been misinterpreting Paul until now. “The impact of a consumerist, therapeutic culture can be seen in the way that traditionalist evangelical feminism focuses on using the Bible to meet the perceived needs of the individual and in its reliance on individual reason to judge the truth of scripture, without the assistance of an institutional or historical church.” (193) I, for one, can’t see how this is a good thing. With the catholic turn in evangelicalism, this will not be a help, but a hindrance. Sure, not everything in antiquity is good and there are things that ought to be cast off, but to say we’ve been getting Paul wrong for millennia should raise at least a few questions.
This book seemed to operate on a continuum: on the one side, history and critique of evangelicalism with the other side essentially being an apologia for evangelical feminism. Each chapter sits at a different point on the continuum, with the introduction and conclusion being most on the “history and critique” side and the middle chapters pushing toward feminist apologia. Aside from some of the research now being a bit dated (this was published in 2005), I found this to be insightful and helpful for understanding evangelical feminism, especially in the late 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s.
Now a few meandering thoughts:
1. I had never heard the story about the split within the EWC (Evangelical Women’s Caucus) in 1986 that ultimately led to the creation of CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality). In terms of the narrative of the book, it’s interesting to see the divergent paths between the two organizations, especially in regards to the homosexuality question. These days, EWC’s “evangelicalism” ends at the the “E” in their name as they now seem, to me at least, like a radical feminist group. Meanwhile the CBE has created for themselves a niche in that they both oppose the extreme feminism on the left, and the “patriarchal hierarchialism” on the right. In terms of a future for CBE, I do wonder if that niche will be harder to hold as the increasing pressure to accept homosexuality will only grow hotter. From where I’m sitting, the revisionist arguments of CBE imply a reconsideration of homosexuality, and thus the reconsideration of the pressure that originally burst the EWC into two separate coalitions.
2. Cochran spends a considerable amount of time in the introduction and conclusion talking about the “individualism” and “consumerism” of evangelicalism as a lamentable trend in evangelicalism — hear, hear. Yet, she also seems to point to CBE as a brave organization that essentially says that we’ve been misinterpreting Paul until now. “The impact of a consumerist, therapeutic culture can be seen in the way that traditionalist evangelical feminism focuses on using the Bible to meet the perceived needs of the individual and in its reliance on individual reason to judge the truth of scripture, without the assistance of an institutional or historical church.” (193) I, for one, can’t see how this is a good thing. With the catholic turn in evangelicalism, this will not be a help, but a hindrance. Sure, not everything in antiquity is good and there are things that ought to be cast off, but to say we’ve been getting Paul wrong for millennia should raise at least a few questions.
March 17, 2020
Since Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is on my 2020 reading list, I wanted to read a history of evangelical feminism, the movement to which that book responded. This history by Pamela Cochran met my needs quite well. I would recommend it to anyone who wants to better understand the origin and development of the evangelical feminist movement. What started as a reaction against the so-called "fundamentalist" view on women (more on that in my observations below) eventually morphed into two distinct feminist camps: traditionalist and progressive (the latter so extreme that it moved entirely outside the boundaries of evangelicalism). One caveat: Cochran, as far as I could tell by her tone in this book, is not sympathetic toward any sort of fundamentalist/conservative/complementarian perspective on women. So be on guard for periodic comments that reveal her bias.
Two main observations:
1) The evangelical feminist movement, while specific in its focus, speaks to deeper issues of biblical authority, biblical inerrancy, and hermeneutics. Once you understand both feminist camps' positions in these three areas, every particular they present about God, the church, women's roles, etc., makes sense. The latter flows naturally from the former. The progressives, for example, show what happens when you 1) elevate reason, culture, personal experience, etc., to the same authoritative level as Scripture and 2) deny or limit inerrancy: You affirm homosexuality, attack the Trinity as being "too male," add a fourth member to the Godhead (Sophia, the feminine personification of Wisdom in Proverbs), reject penal substitutionary atonement for encouraging women's passivity, and more. In other words, you theologically trainwreck yourself.
2) Evangelical feminism failed to accurately understand the biblical position against which it reacted. The feminists accused their more conservative counterparts of teaching women's subordination to men (this constant use of the term subordination is significant, as it implies the idea of women's being lesser or inferior), of not viewing women as equals. While those accusations are sadly true in certain pockets of fundamentalism/conservative evangelicalism/complementarianism, they are not true on the whole. On the contrary, the traditional view is very pro-women, just not in the way the feminists wanted. Evangelical feminism, in seeking to restore "equality," misunderstood what biblical equality between the sexes even is.
Two main observations:
1) The evangelical feminist movement, while specific in its focus, speaks to deeper issues of biblical authority, biblical inerrancy, and hermeneutics. Once you understand both feminist camps' positions in these three areas, every particular they present about God, the church, women's roles, etc., makes sense. The latter flows naturally from the former. The progressives, for example, show what happens when you 1) elevate reason, culture, personal experience, etc., to the same authoritative level as Scripture and 2) deny or limit inerrancy: You affirm homosexuality, attack the Trinity as being "too male," add a fourth member to the Godhead (Sophia, the feminine personification of Wisdom in Proverbs), reject penal substitutionary atonement for encouraging women's passivity, and more. In other words, you theologically trainwreck yourself.
2) Evangelical feminism failed to accurately understand the biblical position against which it reacted. The feminists accused their more conservative counterparts of teaching women's subordination to men (this constant use of the term subordination is significant, as it implies the idea of women's being lesser or inferior), of not viewing women as equals. While those accusations are sadly true in certain pockets of fundamentalism/conservative evangelicalism/complementarianism, they are not true on the whole. On the contrary, the traditional view is very pro-women, just not in the way the feminists wanted. Evangelical feminism, in seeking to restore "equality," misunderstood what biblical equality between the sexes even is.
August 1, 2020
For a complementarian this is a very valuable book. Cochran ably traces the history of the feminist movement in evangelicalism as a sympathetic outsider, demonstrating that traditional biblical feminists have changed the nature of evangelicalism by modifying its views of inerrancy and shifting the discussion to matters of interpretation. I think this move has been detrimental to the health of local churches and American Christianity's doctrine of Scripture, whereas it would appear Cochran sees it as an overall step of progress - but as a matter of insightful historical narrative and analysis, this book was great.
November 28, 2014
The history this book attempts to cover is a fascinating one in terms of the internal struggle within the Protestant world concerning the equality of women in the church and home. It describes the rise of the Evangelical Women's Caucus (now the Evangelical & Ecumenical Women's Caucus), the split within the movement over tolerance of homosexuality, and the formation of the more conservative Christians For Biblical Equality. It focuses in on several key figures within these organizations and explores their personal stories as well as the hermeneutics they utilized to arrive at the conclusion that Christianity and feminism were not antithetical to one another.
While the book is generally engaging and well written, I give it four stars out of five because I think it could have been better. For starters, the title is a bit misleading. I expected this to be a history of the more conservative CBE movement. While that is covered, the author spends more of her time on the progressive figures who formed and ultimately stayed with the EWC/EEWC, admitting at the end of the book that these women are not really "evangelicals" as of the book's writing. Since it devotes so much time to women who eventually parted ways with evangelicalism, *Protestant Feminism* or *Christian Feminism* probably would have been a more accurate title.
I would have liked to have seen more coverage of the rise of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as a counter-movement and the reactions of male headship advocates to egalitarian arguments. More interaction with contemporary secular feminist thought would have been good as well, and the book's concluding chapter about how individualism is eroding evangelical Christianity comes off as a rather disjointed, last-minute potshot.
Nevertheless, it remains a solid read and a valuable contribution to the field for anyone who wants to learn about this movement within Christianity.
While the book is generally engaging and well written, I give it four stars out of five because I think it could have been better. For starters, the title is a bit misleading. I expected this to be a history of the more conservative CBE movement. While that is covered, the author spends more of her time on the progressive figures who formed and ultimately stayed with the EWC/EEWC, admitting at the end of the book that these women are not really "evangelicals" as of the book's writing. Since it devotes so much time to women who eventually parted ways with evangelicalism, *Protestant Feminism* or *Christian Feminism* probably would have been a more accurate title.
I would have liked to have seen more coverage of the rise of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as a counter-movement and the reactions of male headship advocates to egalitarian arguments. More interaction with contemporary secular feminist thought would have been good as well, and the book's concluding chapter about how individualism is eroding evangelical Christianity comes off as a rather disjointed, last-minute potshot.
Nevertheless, it remains a solid read and a valuable contribution to the field for anyone who wants to learn about this movement within Christianity.
July 30, 2007
Fascinating, but at times long-winded. All men and women should read this and know, however.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews