As I said last time, Aimee Byrd’s Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood uses the theme of Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s novella, The Yellow Wallpaper. So then, the question becomes: what “yellow wallpaper” is Aimee Byrd trying to peel away? To answer that question fully, we must look at the roots of the “biblical” manhood and womanhood movement.
The Reason for the Yellow Wallpaper
There are several aspects to the book, but the overall goal is to show how women have been limited in unscriptural ways in complementarian churches. Aimee Byrd believes in male-only ordination,[1] but she uses scripture to show that women should be allowed to teach and serve in the same capacities men are – even teach.[2]
This seems to verge on blasphemy in many Evangelical churches, and it’s because of the “yellow wallpaper” still up. The problem has it’s roots in the damaging beliefs and writings of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). In her book, Aimee Byrd calls out CBMW’s literature, their Danvers Statement, and their theological stance on the Eternal Subordination of the Son (sometimes called the Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son, and a host of other similar names).[3]
She doesn’t touch too much on the last point (I think because she does so extensively on her blog); but she effectively dismantles the sexist and damaging views put forward by CBMW. Although much has changed in society since its inception, the roots of the definition put forth in Piper and Grudem’s book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are still alive and active today.
“Biblical” Manhood and Womanhood
CBMW was founded in the late 1980s by Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and a host of others. A book edited by Grudem and Piper entitled Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood came out in 1991 with chapters written by various individuals, including Piper and Grudem. In it, Piper defines what manhood and womanhood should look like:
“’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.’”[4]
Although Piper includes odd applications that I don’t think are actively being taught (for example, how a woman should receive packages from a male postal worker),[5] it still serves as the basis for much of what is taught to men and women in the Evangelical church. After all, CBMW has been compiling Bible Studies propaganda[6] for thirty years; you better believe it’s seeped into our men’s and women’s ministries, as well as the overall church experience.
Aimee Byrd’s Analysis
Aimee Byrd has a gift for saying things eloquently and passionately. I thought about giving her rebuttals in bullet point form, but thought it might be lazy writing on my part. So I’ll add my own comments occasionally.
But her analysis of the definition is spot on and shows how the roots of this definition permeate most (if not all) Evangelical ministries:
“These definitions appear to say that all men lead all women. A man needs to be leading a woman, many women, to be mature in his masculinity. A woman’s function is to affirm a man’s, many men’s, strength and leadership…Do you see the yellow wallpaper here? Manhood and womanhood are viewed through a filter of authority and submission, strength and neediness, and “to the degree that a woman’s influence over a man is personal and directive it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order.’”[7]
Byrd echoes the troubling views of women that Kristin DuMez describes in Jesus in John Wayne, saying that in this definition, “masculinity is active and potent, and femininity is merely an affirmation of this fact.”[8]
If women are just masculinity affirmers, they are not equals.
Maybe you don’t believe this particular teaching, or have issues with how this is presented. Great! Maybe you take issue with the statement that a woman must submit to all men; you say she must only submit to her father and then husband. I don’t agree, but I understand where you get that interpretation from.
But if women aren’t teaching, by default every man is over her. And what’s more, I can guarantee you that if you go to a complementarian church, the roots of this movement have impacted your congregation. I can give my own testimony of how this has impacted my life before I was even aware of the “yellow wallpaper.”
Second Class Citizen
A large group of my friends got married around the same time. I was excited to be part of a new, married class with them on Sunday mornings. We’d shared our lives together for years, and here we were about to embark on this amazing adventure of marriage together.
I was not prepared for the change in them. They were serious, when once they had been full of fun and laughter. They were silent, when once they shared their opinions freely.
I was used to speaking up in Bible studies; I did the same after I got married. After all, why would that change?
The leaders – generally the other husbands, as husbands were encouraged to take turns teaching – nodded absently and then pointed to the next speaker. Which was almost always another husband. Very few of the other women spoke.
I started thinking that my “outspokenness” – which was really just sharing what God has taught me – was the reason my husband wasn’t getting nominated for various leadership positions. So, I tried to curb my voice and stifled my desire to share what God revealed to me.
I wept almost every Sunday. I couldn’t put words to the yellow wallpaper keeping me behind bars. But I do remember feeling like a failure. Both as a wife and as a Christian.
I lost my voice in church. I lost my autonomy. It was as if I was a second-class citizen. I’d always thought I was equal. To be fair, I don’t think they did this consciously or maliciously. But after 30 years of not hearing a woman speak, I don’t think they knew what to do when one did.
That is how the roots of “biblical” manhood and womanhood infiltrates and poisons the church. The feeling that every man has a right to speak to you about the Bible – and you have no right at all to speak to them – is damaging and oppressive.
It’s the yellow wallpaper we’re trying to rip down.
Where do We Go from Here?
And how do we do rip the wallpaper down? There are two ways in my mind.
First, Emphasize Jesus
First, we begin by re-thinking what it means to be a biblical person. Aimee Byrd says it several times, and I’m going to list two of her quotes – just so it’s clear:
“Christian men and women don’t strive for so-called biblical masculinity or femininity, but Christlikeness.”[9]
“We are not directed to biblical manhood nor biblical womanhood; we are directed to Christ.”[10]
I’m not saying the distinction between a man and a woman isn’t important; but it is less important than following Jesus. The virtues we’re exhorted to exhibit are universal. They are not masculine or feminine. I hesitate to say they even play out in masculine or feminine ways.
We must focus less on the differences between men and women and more on Christ and the Gospel. If we do that, I’m convinced we will change society as never before. Jesus didn’t fit into many of the stereotypes of a Jewish man. He didn’t let the culture of the past dictate what he did; so why are we?
Tear out the roots. Tear down the wallpaper. Focus on the Gospel.
Second, Encourage Women to Speak
If you’re in a co-ed small group, take your next meeting to really see how many women speak, and how often. Then encourage more women to speak – and more often.
This is going to be difficult. Many women say they don’t like speaking. This may be true for some, but I do think much of it is conditioned. All complementarians say they believe men and women are equal; that means they should be speaking equally in a small group setting. After all, they are not in a teaching capacity. They are simply sharing their revelations.
To put it another way, women should account for 50% of the small group discussion.
Do they?
This is literally the bare minimum of how women should participate in the church. And it’s the only way to truly glean a “complimentary” view of the Gospel.
Tear out the roots. Tear down the wallpaper. Focus on the Gospel – and how women uniquely tell it.
Last Post on this Book
After a lot of prayer, I’ve decided this will be my last post on Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. This decision surprised me, as I had planned on another couple of posts next week. However, I felt a strong “no” from God, and after looking ahead at my next book, I think it’s because there’s a lot of overlap between the two. So, I look forward to continuing this theme and discussion when I blog through Beth Allison Barr’s The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth.
Notes
[1] Aimee Byrd, Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Zondervan, 2020), 122.
[2] Ibid., 174-175, 188, 233.
[3] Byrd, 120-124.
[4] Ibid., 22, quoting John Piper.
[5] Byrd, 22.
[6] For those of you who think this seems harsh, (don’t) go to their website (https://cbmw.org/). You will instantly be bombarded with their “Gender and Sexuality Curriculum”. And it will pop up on EVERY new page you visit, unless you click “Never See This Message Again” at the very bottom of the pop-up in tiny letters. That, my friends, is propaganda.
[7] Byrd, 22, quoting Piper
[8] Ibid., 105.
[9] Byrd, 114.
[10] Ibid., 132.
This is interesting. I’m curious to see how people’s experiences break down by denomination. From middle school on I was raised in “bible” or non-denominational churches and I’d say there, you almost experienced the opposite challenge. When I was in co-ed small groups, I’d be so annoyed by how needy women dominated the conversation and seemed to try to turn a bible study into a counseling session. Fortunately, the small group I was in the longest and most consistently was led by a very mature man who was obviously striving to grow in Christlikeness. He was very patient, but also… Read more »