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

Naselli is working from what I’d call a much sounder Bibliology than does Byrd in that he’s really working from the depth and breadth of the Biblical argument, as do Piper and Grudem. One can point to certain uses of the word for “apostle”, “deacon”, and the like to support women in ministry and in authority, and the general response ought to be “yes, but consider that these words were common words with non-church-related meanings, and there is a wealth of evidence that suggests that what’s going on is not merely cultural”.

It’s a good illustration—the book and its defenders and detractors—of the importance of engaging one’s opponents’ best arguments (no straw men, please) and noting things in as much context as possible, Biblically speaking. Along the same lines, I don’t agree with everything AIG has done, but they also at least attempt to proceed from a more “systematic/Biblical/OT/NT theology” instead of a prooftexting argument.

One side note is that as we move along, I’m becoming more and more persuaded that if we continue to offer prooftexting arguments in any number of areas, we are simply training ourselves to lose the big theological arguments, because we’re simply not engaging the best arguments. Kudos to Mr. Naselli for illustrating this.

I have had my concerns about Aimee Byrd for some time, and her latest book does nothing to alleviate the problem. She has grown more strident in her opinions and I see red flags. Her excuses for not interacting with the key passages in e.g. 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 11 are unconvincing in view of her book title. It will be intersting to see where her present momentum takes her.

Yes Josh, that thread is spot on.

Here’s the link to Naselli’s review on his blog.

I agree that Naselli’s review was strong, well reasoned, and well argued. After reading Aimee’s response, specifically her last paragraph, I wondered why she even wrote her book to begin with.

This is the most important point: I am learning and still learning. My book certainly isn’t without need of improvement and it is a meager contribution to a growing concern in the church…

Tom,

Indeed. My gut feeling is that she has an agenda.

[Paul Henebury]

Her excuses for not interacting with the key passages in e.g. 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 11 are unconvincing in view of her book title.

I had the same thought. She titles her book as a direct challenge to Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, but when critiqued for not actually addressing the core arguments of that book, her response is, “Well, that’s not what I was trying to do.” Huh?

In her favor as an author advancing an argument, her response to Naselli’s review (while still glaringly inadequate) isn’t as whiny and emotional as her response to critiques of her previous book on male/female friendships. Back then, her response was basically, “Those mean men are picking on me.”

I am surprised every time it’s mentioned that she’s in the OPC. Her agenda is more in line with Beth Moore and others on the egalitarian side of the SBC, which is by definition a bigger, looser tent. If I were in her OPC church or presbytery, I’d be strongly suggesting she change denominations. And, I can’t help it, I feel sorry for her husband.

Aimee Byrd had some great thoughts in Housewife Theologian.

She really should have stopped with her success there, however; she strikes me as a one-book author. (No offense intended, since I’m a “no-book” author. ;) )

I have no problem reading and learning from different perspectives—and hers isn’t even that different from mine—but she doesn’t have much interest or depth to contribute to what seems to be her pet issues.

She clearly wants to shake up the conservative, evangelical church. But she ends up becoming just one more voice among many, with little of significance to share, neither from the Bible, nor from profound or careful thought. Not even from a particularly interesting or compelling point of view.

Ultimately, Aimee is a smart, talented individual, but without much to add to this conversation beyond a good reading list.

[josh p]

Read her response and this paragraph reinforces my opinion that way too much is made out of the idea of the church being Christ’s bride. I see a lot of this kind of thing in, primarily, reformed camps and I believe it’s dangerous. This is pure isogesis and I believe nonsense.

“Instead of creating man and woman at the same time, God creates woman from man, not from the dirt, and he creates her second. What is significant about this? She is the crown of creation. She is not from the dirt, but an eschatological marker. When Adam sees woman, he sees his telos, what he is to become–part of the collective bride of Christ in union with her Groom. In creation, we see in woman a typology of the church, flowing from Christ’s side. Our distinctions are not only biological, but typological. As Christopher West put it in the title of his book, our bodies tell God’s story.”

What a load of bunk! It verges on Catholic mysticism.

[Paul Henebury]

josh p wrote:

Read her response and this paragraph reinforces my opinion that way too much is made out of the idea of the church being Christ’s bride. I see a lot of this kind of thing in, primarily, reformed camps and I believe it’s dangerous. This is pure isogesis and I believe nonsense.

“Instead of creating man and woman at the same time, God creates woman from man, not from the dirt, and he creates her second. What is significant about this? She is the crown of creation. She is not from the dirt, but an eschatological marker. When Adam sees woman, he sees his telos, what he is to become–part of the collective bride of Christ in union with her Groom. In creation, we see in woman a typology of the church, flowing from Christ’s side. Our distinctions are not only biological, but typological. As Christopher West put it in the title of his book, our bodies tell God’s story.”

What a load of bunk! It verges on Catholic mysticism.

From Byrd’s Ref21 response:
“I also interact with and have learned from Roman Catholics on this matter. It doesn’t mean I am an egalitarian or a Roman Catholic. I think it’s important to have meaningful discussions across these aisles.”

….doesn’t the fact that Jesus happens to be “God” kinda put the kibosh on an egalitarian position? And if Byrd is proceeding from a Catholic position, um, I’m having trouble thinking of a more “patriarchal” system than the one where the clergy are called “Father”.

Not bothered at all that Byrd may have an “agenda”. Don’t we all? (cue Bing Crosby and Rosemary Clooney in “White Christmas” arguing over whether the sisters have an “angle”. The most biased people I’ve ever met are those who pretend not to have one.)

What bothers me is that she apparently isn’t seeing (or at least confronting) the strongest arguments of those with whom she disagrees, and for that matter, she doesn’t seem to see obvious conclusions of her own logic, and the utter desolation the model she chooses would wreak in all of theology.

But by saying I think Byrd has an agenda I mean that she is not being quite honest with what’s driving her. I think she omits or fails to interact with material deliberately because she is driving at a certain (partially masked) issue.

In that sense I don’t think we all have an agenda. We all have a bias, but that is not the same thing.

This thread has been interesting to read. Is anyone actually planning on reading Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood or are you all too busy looking for suspicions and “evidence” to confirm what you’ve already decided about her “agenda”?

Proverbs 18:17 would seem to apply here.

[Jay]

This thread has been interesting to read. Is anyone actually planning on reading Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood or are you all too busy looking for suspicions and “evidence” to confirm what you’ve already decided about her “agenda”?

Proverbs 18:17 would seem to apply here.

I can’t speak for others on the thread, Jay; and I wouldn’t personally vouch for any agenda on her part (other than a vague, squishy, conservative-feminist sort). I’m also not certain you are even addressing me.
But to speak my own defense for my opinion above, if reading her first two books (the second of which was on a similar topic to this one), following her blog posts, and listening to her weekly on the MOS podcast (without missing a download) for the past 5 years isn’t enough to give a pretty good sense of the contents of her latest book, I’ll give you my favorite n95 respirator mask.

I would be curious to hear your feedback after you read it, though. Please post to SI when you do.
*Edit* Ooh, just saw the latest MOS is more response from her to book criticisms. I’ll have a listen shortly.