John Piper and Wayne Grudem edited Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1991, and now Aimee Byrd has written Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood some thirty years later.
I just reviewed Byrd’s new book:
Andrew David Naselli. “Does Anyone Need to Recover from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? A Review Article of Aimee Byrd’s Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” Eikon: A Journal for Biblical Anthropology 2.1 (2020): 109–51. PDF | web version
Here’s what I argue:
- Summary: The gist of Byrd’s book is that biblical manhood and womanhood—especially as John Piper and Wayne Grudem teach it—uses traditional patriarchal structures to oppress women.
- Context: On the spectrum of views on men and women, Byrd’s position overlaps partly with the far left side of narrow complementarianism and partly with egalitarianism.
- Evaluation: Byrd’s book is misleading because she misrepresents complementarianism, and it is misguided because she shows faulty judgment or reasoning.
Here’s the outline:
1. Summary: What Is the Gist of Byrd’s Book?
2. Context: Where Does Byrd’s Book Fit on the Spectrum of Views on Men and Women?
3. Evaluation: Is Byrd’s Book Fair and Sound?
3.1. Misleading: Byrd Misrepresents Complementarianism
-
-
- Byrd Asserts That Complementarianism Teaches That All Women Must Submit to All Men
- Byrd Asserts That Complementarianism Teaches That the Key Aim of Discipleship Is Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
- Byrd Presents a Particular View of the Trinity as Essential to Complementarianism
- Byrd Implies that Complementarianism Inevitably Leads to Abuse
- Byrd Argues against Broad Complementarianism without Substantively Engaging Its Strongest Exegetical and Theological Arguments
- (1) Genesis 1–3
- (2) 1 Corinthians 14:29–35
- (3) Ephesians 5:21–33 and Colossians 3:18–19
- (4) 1 Peter 3:1–7
- (5) 1 Corinthians 11:7–9 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15
-
3.2. Misguided: Byrd Shows Faulty Judgment or Reasoning
-
-
- Byrd Focuses on Stories (While Largely Ignoring Direct Teaching on Men and Women)
- Byrd Constructs Overimaginative and Unlikely Scenarios
- Byrd Supports Her Conjectures by Citing Evangelical Feminists
- Byrd Does Not Specify How Men and Women Are Different
- Byrd Uses the “Biblicist” Hermeneutic She Denounces
-
4. Conclusion and Four Exhortations
-
- 1. Study this issue for yourself.
- 2. Beware of the ditches on either side of complementarianism.
- 3. Discern which ditch you are more prone to fall into.
- 4. Love and celebrate how God has designed men and women.
My article is more than a book review. I attempt to orient Christians to the current conversation. For example, this table from §2 compares narrow and broad complementarianism: [Read more…] about Does Anyone Need to Recover from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? A Review Article of Aimee Byrd’s Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood