Thread by @bethallisonbarr

I've seen a few folk write that I set up complementarian strawmen in #MakingBiblicalWomanhood. I would ignore this, as it isn't true, but folk seem to really misunderstand the term "strawman". So let me explain my methodology👇🧵

Strawman is a term used when someone intentionally misrepresents an argument so that their take-down is easier to make. Here is a clear, quick overview of strawman arguments: grammarist.com/rhetoric/straw…

As a teacher of history, one of my jobs is to simplify complex topics so that students who have very little knowledge of the topic can get a basic understanding. This doesn't mean the simplified explanation is all there is to it; it is just an entry point.

There is a difference between simplifying a topic and misconstruing it.

For example, I simplify the Arian debate in ch 7. There is no way else I could do this, as it is just 1 small section of a chapter. Folk like @mbird12 & Kevin Giles have written entire books on the topic.

Is there more to say on the topic of Arianism, ESS, etc.? Yes, of course! Just go ask @aimeebyrdPYW @RachelGMiller97 @mbird12 etc. Which is why I have endnotes...so you can look it up.

However, the main place I have been accused of strawman arguments is w/ the ESV, the CBMW, & Russell Moore. I am not tagging these guys bc I hate it when folk drag me into arguments I don't want to be in. But I'm not hiding this discussion (if I was it wouldn't be on twitter).

I think I covered the ESV accusations here patheos.com/blogs/anxiousb…

So let's talk about Russell Moore. First, I like Russell Moore. He is a kind man and faithful Christian. He stood against Trump at great cost. Second, despite liking him, I do think he is wrong about complementarianism.

I was very concerned about the article he wrote in 2006 calling for a stronger patriarchal (complementarian) vision for the church. You can read the whole article here: etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDF…

In the conclusion, he writes that if complementarians are going to strengthen biblical patriarchy, which he says "is good for women, good for children, and good for families," then complementarians must present a better vision "that sums up the burden of male headship under the

cosmic rubric of the gospel of Christ and the restoration of all things in him. It must produce churches that are not embarrassed to tell us that when we say the "Our Father," we are patriarchs of the oldest kind."

His argument is pretty clear to me.

At least his argument from 2006. As a historian (y'all that is what I am!) I know that people can change their positions. So my question for #MakingBiblicalWomanhood was if this 2006 article simply represented one moment of Moore's theology...

or if it was still representative.
If it was a position he no longer held, I could still use the article as evidence of a complementarian frame of mind as long as I recognized he had moved from it.
So I jumped to his book that won the CT award in 2019 amazon.com/dp/B07GL9Z9ZN/…

Guess what? I found that while his position seemed to have softened somewhat, he had not moved from complementarianism. So this is what I wrote in MBW, "Moore has softened his discussion of patriarchy...yet he still clings to male headship."...

Moore rejects teachings like John MacArthur that argue all women should submit to all men, but he argues that wives should have a "voluntary attitude of recognition toward godly leadership".

In other words, to make sure I wasn't making a strawman argument:

I fully read the 2006 article before summing up its argument. I then compared what he wrote in 2006 with what he had argued most recently (I wrote the chapter in 2019) and found that while there was more nuance in his argument, his argument was still the same.....

Complementarianism is God's design for the family and it is good for women; however there is a difference between hyper-complementariansm (or pagan patriarchy) and biblical complementarianism. Christians need to support the latter and reject the former.... churchleaders.com/news/331090-ru…

I represented his position, as I drew from his writings across more than a decade, accurately in #MakingBiblicalWomanhood. I also continuously expressed hope that Russell Moore might change on this over time. I like him. I think he is honest in his defense of complementarianism..

But I still think he is wrong. That isn't a strawman argument; that is me presenting reasoned evidence for what I think his position is and why I think he is wrong.

I did the same w/ all the other complementarians I mentioned in the book as well.....

Although, honestly, most were much easier. I didn't find much nuance with CBMW......

And there ends the lesson. Sorry for it being so long!

BTW, Russell Moore once wrote my husband a thank you note after hearing my husband quoted @NPR with @KatelynBeaty; it meant a lot to both of us. He is a good man. npr.org/2020/08/21/904…