Thread by @bethallisonbarr

As a medieval historian, I understand concerns about presentism. My dissertation advisor, Judith Bennett, argued convincingly for how much history today needs the distant past in her History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism. historians.org/publications-a…

My public facing #MakingBiblicalWomanhood clearly shows how much the modern world has forgotten the distant past and how much remembering history matters.

But is my scholarship "presentist" because it uses history to explain systemic patriarchy to modern evangelicals

in a public-facing narrative that appeals to readers?
This is a question I have asked myself.
Am I being faithful to my historical guild using my knowledge as a medieval historian to tackle the very recent manifestation of patriarchy by modern evangelicals (complimentarianism)?

Is activist history what we should be doing, or is it merely presentism that cheapens our guild?

I confess these are questions I still ask myself.
Asking them helps me think critically about why I write what I write and check myself to make sure I am faithful to the historical

context of my evidence (medieval sermons).
Indeed these questions lay at the heart of my third book with @BrazosPress, tentatively titled Losing our Medieval Religion: The Cost of Forgetting History for Modern Evangelicals.

Do you know how I got interested in medieval sermons?

It was because I was reading John Mirk's Festial & Instructions for Parish Priests to help shed light on clerical attitudes toward medieval women as I worked on clerical financial records from the fifteenth century (my MA thesis).

I was Southern Baptist at the time and

my evangelical world was expressing outrage about a potential new bible translation introducing gender inclusive language. World magazine called it a 'stealth bible' influenced by modern dangerous liberal feminist ideas (I am simplifying).

Their outrage amused me

because the medieval sermons I was reading not only used gender inclusive language but also translated scripture in gender inclusive ways (I've published quite a bit on this).

Their outrage caused me to realize two important things:

First, modern evangelicals knew little about medieval history or biblical translations between Jerome & Geneva (simplifying again). The history they claimed & taught was based less on historical scholarship & evidence & more on how they imagined their past.

(which worked to their advantage as it supported claims like 'gender inclusive language is a modern feminist invention'). This historical ignorance field, at best, bad history and, at worst, dangerous theology.

Second, my own evangelical context (my standpoint)

gave me a different perspective on the past than others in my field. I still remember the very first time I presented some of this research at the NACBS, Joel Rosenthal complimented me during the Q&A, saying, "you ask good questions."

This is how I felt last semester while

teaching Womanist theory for the first time. Their questions were different from my usual approach and they made me think more critically about my own field.

I agree we have to be careful & not read into our evidence. But our modern and diverse contexts also help us see the past

differently & ask questions that can illuminate the past better.

Indeed,I have found that my skills as a historian can help the present. Thousands & thousands of women have read #MakingBiblicalWomanhood by now. They have learned about the reality of systemic patriarchy & it has

opened their eyes.

Is using my skills as a historian to help women presentism?
Or maybe, when we do our work carefully, this type of history is what more of us should be doing: making our research accessible to the present &, when relevant, using it to make humanity better.

*fueled, at best,