I tend to stay out of "complementarian" vs. egalitarian debates, in large part because they tend to generate more heat than light, but also because I find it difficult to take seriously anyone who doesn't realize how ridiculous they sound when they literally oppose equality. But one recent "contribution" (using the term as loosely as possible) to this ongoing conversation has attracted my attention, and this because it pushes two of my buttons: men who pick on women, and really bad sloppy "historiography" (using the term as loosely as possible). I refer to Denny Burk's "interpretation" (using the term as loosely as possible) of the life of Saint Paula, which he wields as an ill-fashioned cudgel against Beth Allison Barr.
Burk is greatly vexed by "Barr’s praise for 'Saint Paula,' a medieval catholic woman who abandoned her children." (I'm not entirely sure why Burk feels the need to put Saint Paul's name in quotation marks throughout his post, nor why he thinks that a fourth-century Christian lived during the Middle Ages, but there you have it). He references in his post a litany of others who are likewise vexed, as if somehow piling on eisegesis (not to mention abuse) supports his argument. In any case, as is often the case, things look different when we actually read (the text in question is a letter that Jerome wrote on the occasion of Paula's death to her daughter, Eustochium). Because here's the thing: Paula did not abandon her children. In normal English usage, "abandoned her children" suggests that she left them to fend for themselves, without support. In most jurisdictions of the modern world, it corresponds with some sort of criminal offense. This bears little resemblance to what Jerome actually reports about Paula (and by "little," please read "absolutely nothing"), and this for several reasons. First, her daughter Eustochium accompanied Paula set out from Rome (the occasion of the "abandonment"), thus already undermining the notion that she abandoned her children. Second, her daughter Rufina is said to be "grown up" and seems to be contemplating marriage in the near future, thus again undermining the narrative of "abandonment." Third, while her son Toxotius might well have been a juvenile (the description is ambiguous), the text explicitly mentions not only the presence of his older, "grown up" sister Rufina, but also Paula's brother and other kinsfolk. Fourth, Paula came from a fabulously wealthy and well-connected family. She was born into one of the oldest patrician families. Her daughter Paulina married Saint Pammachius, who served as senator and proconsul. Combined with explicit mention of Paula's extended family, it does not seem likely that she failed to ensure adequate care for her younger, still unmarried children.
It is of course true that Jerome speaks at length about how Paula gave away everything, how she left the family destitute, how she overcame any bonds of affection for her children, etc. One must of course remember that one is reading late antique hagiography, a genre hardly immune to hyperbole. But in any case, even if treated as a literal history, she maintained a constant relationship with Eustochium and moreover there is good reason to think that she still had considerable wealth at the time of her departure from Rome. According to Jerome, she built two monasteries in Bethelhem: one for women, and another for men. Although not spelled out explicitly, the implication seems to be that she was the primary if not exclusive source of funds for these constructions. Stating that Saint Paula abandoned her children would be sort of like suggesting that Melinda Gates abandoned hers: no one would seriously think that "abandoned" Gates children were left destitute. And if Melinda Gates literally lived the rest of her life with her daughter, it would make the narrative even more absurd.
For much of church history, the religious life was nearly the only way that women could undertake significant leadership roles. Saint Paula played an integral and indeed seminal role in extending this life to women in the first place. It is curious to me how some who would today seek to exclude women from leadership feel the need to spuriously attack this woman's character. Such attacks say little about Saint Paul, or indeed Dr. Barr for that matter.
Comments
Post a Comment