Does Anyone Need to Recover from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? A Review Article of Aimee Byrd’s Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

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:

Narrow vs. Broad Complementarianism

	Narrow (or Thin) Complementarianism	Broad (or Thick) Complementarianism
Manhood and womanhood	Men and women are equally in God’s image, biologically different, and complementary.
Manhood and womanhood	Narrow application: God requires men and women to relate differently to each other in only two specific areas: marriage (a husband is the head of his wife) and ordination (only men may be elders/pastors). Reluctant to define manhood and womanhood Reluctant to specify differences between men and women beyond the obvious biological ones Quick to point out that broad complementarians typically include cultural stereotypes in their definitions Reluctant to treat manhood and womanhood as significant for Christian discipleship	Broad application: The way God created and designed males and females applies in some way to all of life in the home, church, and society. John Piper: “At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships. At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.” Matt Merker: “Biblical masculinity is displayed in a sense of benevolent responsibility to tend God’s creation, provide for and protect others, and express loving, sacrificial leadership in particular contexts prescribed by God’s word. Biblical femininity is displayed in a gracious disposition to cultivate life, to help others flourish, and to affirm, receive, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in particular contexts prescribed by God’s Word.” Bobby Jamieson: Manhood and womanhood are “the potential to be a father or mother, in both biological and metaphorical senses. . . . To father is not only to procreate but to provide, protect, and lead. To mother is not only to nurture life physically but to nurture every facet of life, to care comprehensively and intimately.”
Marriage	A husband should lovingly lead his wife (which entails unselfishly and sacrificially serving her), and a wife should submit to her husband (which entails gladly and intelligently following him).
Marriage	Tends to emphasize “mutual submission” and not that a husband has authority Tends to be more open to a mother pursuing vocations outside the home while putting the children in daycare	Tends to emphasize that a husband leads and that a wife submits Tends to advocate living on the husband’s income so that a mother can better nurture the children at home, especially when they are young
Church	Only qualified men should be ordained.
Church	An unordained woman may do anything an unordained man may do (e.g., teach an adult Sunday school class to men and women).	Only qualified men should teach and exercise authority over the church. This includes the function and not merely the office of elder/pastor.
Society	Reluctant to specify how men and women should function differently in society	The different ways that God designed men and women apply to how men and women function in society. For example, some vocations are appropriate for males only (e.g., military combat).
Theological instincts, intuitions, and burdens	The biggest problem facing the church’s understanding of manhood and womanhood today is that men abuse their authority in the home and church. So we should emphasize that men and women are equal. Affirms but does not emphasize that men and women are different and that God has given men authority in the home and church Tends to criticize broad complementarianism rather than to make a positive case for complementarianism	Agrees that we should emphasize that men and women are equally made in God’s image and that it is sinful for men to abuse their authority. Sinful men and women use any advantage they have to get their way (e.g., privilege, wealth, strength, beauty, brains). Men abusing their authority has been a perennially urgent and major problem since Adam and Eve first sinned. The most generationally urgent problem facing the church’s understanding of manhood and womanhood today is that our culture rejects God-designed differences between men and women. So while our culture is emphasizing an unbiblical androgyny and egalitarianism, Christians should emphasize that God has made men and women with complementary differences and that God has given men authority in the home and church.
Theological Method	Tends to be more biblicist: narrowly affirms that God requires men and women to relate differently to each other in only two areas (marriage and ordination) because the Bible explicitly addresses those areas	Tends to include nature: broadly affirms different roles for men and women because of exegesis, theology, and natural revelation