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

[Paul Henebury]

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.

No doubt, but what is our hidden agenda when we say that someone (say Ms. Byrd) has one? Why do we say that? In my experience, it’s generally because we want to dismiss someone’s ideas without addressing them.

In this case, the axe she has to grind is clear—she did after all title her book indicating a “recovery” from “Biblical manhood and womanhood” (ie. complementarianism), and really logically speaking, the only way she can go is to some degree of egalitarianism or even matriarchy, no? So instead of “she has an agenda”, we might instead smile and say “don’t be so coy, Aimee—we have an idea about what you’re about, out with it.”—and then approach her argument. It’s actually easier, as we can simply say “the evidence for a complementarian position is pretty pervasive in Scripture, as is documented by Piper and Grudem and others, and her argument simply does not acknowledge that, and the evidence she presents falls short because of this.” More or less, you want to engage the argument, let’s engage it.

(I read Grudem’s work about ten years back, per Jay’s comment….I am sure that if I re-read it, I would find things I would agree with and things with which I totally disagree, but going back a bit further, I remember going through the breadth/depth of Scripture for myself when confronted with Ephesians, and the very image of courtship and marriage that Byrd mentions is one of the most pervasive arguments against her position, IMO—the Prophets love it)

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.

Fair enough - I’ve listened to MoS for a while but haven’t read her other books.

I would be curious to hear your feedback after you read it, though. Please post to SI when you do.

My copy of her book arrives Thursday. I’ve skimmed Naselli’s review and noted a couple of issues with it already that I commented about on Twitter. Once I read both, I’ll post some thoughts…listening to the MoS podcast now.

[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”?

Uh… I read that one years and years ago. Have you?

Uh, yeah. I bought it in the ’90s while at a conference I attended. It’s sitting on a bookshelf about 10’ from my desk. Want a photo with the highlighted pages as proof?

I can also probably find the notes from when Jim Berg used it for CIT training at the Wilds as well, if you’re worried about it that much. I have to admit that I don’t really refer to those too much since we used some of the material at NBBC as well, and then used it a third time at BJU when I went back for my Master’s Degree.

You know what I meant. Come on, man.

I haven’t read any of Aimee’s books and very few of her blog posts. My reaction is based on reading Andy’s review and her response.

Regardless of author or topic, when someone provides a thorough and robust review of your book and the best you can say is…

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…

… then you shouldn’t have published your book without doing your homework first. From Andy’s review and Aimee’s response, she concedes Andy’s assertion that her book doesn’t add anything substantial to the conversation about complementarianism. Instead, her book is just Aimee voicing her opinion that Piper / Grudem’s version of complementarianism is bad because some Catholics and egalitarians say so.

So Bert is bent on correcting my use of terms. I obviously have an agenda because, well, Bert believes everyone has an agenda. The magisterium that is Bert’s experience concludes that by expressing my “gut feeling” which is based on “my concerns about Aimee Byrd for some time,” I am among those who accuse others of having an agenda owing to the fact (ascertained through Bert’s rigorous logic) that I “want to dismiss someone’s ideas without addressing them.”

Please excuse me for feeling somewhat insulted for offering my opinion, which, as with others, is founded upon years of reading Mrs Byrd’s blogs, listening to MoS regularly (until I got tired of Aimee’s stridency), and her book promo video and reading reviews and her responses to them (Naselli notices how swiftly she replied to his). This should allay Jay’s concerns a bit. As for dismissing her ideas without addressing them, well, I might point out that I have a pretty decent track record of addressing ideas and backing up my assertions. I have had very many articles and reviews published at SI, plus comments where I do just that. Bert prefers to reserve his opinions to the comments section. I was simply giving my opinion, which was stated tentatively.

As an example of dismissing someone’s ideas without addressing them we need look no further than Bert. He wants to correct me with his experience, not with objective proof. He opines condescendingly, “So instead of “she has an agenda”, we might instead smile and say “don’t be so coy, Aimee—we have an idea about what you’re about, out with it.”—and then approach her argument.” He will forgive me if I choose to express myself in different words.

Bert obviously doesn’t think he ought to practice what he preaches because he states, “logically speaking, the only way she can go is to some degree of egalitarianism or even matriarchy, no?” Did he read Aimee’s response? Where is his proof of that assertion other than his gut feeling? And what is it based on? Years of reading and listening to Aimee Byrd (like yours truly)? We don’t know. He doesn’t “approach her argument.”

I think I ought to be able to state my suspicions in this forum without fear of the thought police swooping in to tell me “you have an agenda and you won’t admit it because you want to dismiss Aimee Byrd’s ideas without addressing them.” Really? If Bert wants to convince me that I have an agenda (apparently along with everyone else), let him actually prove it instead of considering his experience a sufficient authority.

[Jay]

Uh, yeah. I bought it in the ’90s while at a conference I attended. It’s sitting on a bookshelf about 10’ from my desk. Want a photo with the highlighted pages as proof?

I can also probably find the notes from when Jim Berg used it for CIT training at the Wilds as well, if you’re worried about it that much. I have to admit that I don’t really refer to those too much since we used some of the material at NBBC as well, and then used it a third time at BJU when I went back for my Master’s Degree.

You know what I meant. Come on, man.

I knew what you meant.

I used to listen to MoS fairly regularly until Aimee became a regular co-host. I have nothing against her. I just don’t feel she has anything insightful to offer, and I don’t like listening to her.

” I have nothing against her.”

You must have an agenda. ;-)

[Jay]

You know what I meant. Come on, man.

of course. I just thought it was funny in a very ironic way.

your humourless reaction says something, though.

maybe you have an agenda?

Byrd refused to answer clarification questions from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelical’s board, and is now terminated. She is no longer part of MoS and has resorted to her personal blog.

Wow that’s surprising. I wonder if Trueman has weighed in yet.

Trueman and Pruitt did not provide endorsements for her book. I suspect that was deliberate. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Byrd’s book appears to be in search of a coherent thesis and purpose. I have visited the book website and listened to her MoS episode about the book. I still do not know what she wants, what she proposes, or what her problem is.

My take: goodbye.

Let’s see who she aligns herself with. It seems obvious to me that the yellow wallpaper is about to receive renewed attention.