Ideas have consequences. Good ideas have good consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences. Racism reaps a whirlwind of inequities and injustices. Sexism reaps the same. Aimee Byrd, in her wonderful new book Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, asks at one point who pays the tab for the ideas that shape the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [=CBMW]?

It begins with how one its leading voices, John Piper, defines what it means to be masculine and what it means to be feminine.

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.

Say what they want now, the CBMW folks seemed either to state, defend or not criticize the anchoring of submission of the female in the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father, which has been shown to be unorthodox if not worse. No apologies have been offered by CBMW for the views of Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, and Owen Strachan. Don’t look for them either. It’s not in their DNA to be wrong. (Last three sentences are entirely my own thoughts.)

Image: Cover Photo

Byrd now:

I have the opportunity to speak in many churches. I get to speak at women’s retreats and coed conferences, as well as at universities and seminaries. I do this as a laywoman. And I see the toll that the yellow wallpaper is taking on my friends from countless churches, my loved ones, and all those I meet through these engagements and who seek me out online.

She’s right about what’s next: who gets hurt? Not the primary voices of authority:

You see, it doesn’t hurt many of the top names in certain evangelical circles to endorse these books teaching ESS or ERAS, to affirm the orthodoxy of errant teaching on the Trinity, complementarianism, and gender roles, and to continue to headline together at conferences. But I see who picks up the tab for this irresponsibility – the regular churchgoing people who are trying to honor God in their singleness or as wives and . husbands.

My experience is that such persons are lauded for the countercultural (so-called) fidelity to the Bible. I now reformat.

I have seen the cost in my own experiences, and I am seeing it in all the emails I am getting from women who can’t use a word like career, lest it sound too ambitious;

women who have no voice in their churches the men are the leaders who have all the valuable input;

women who are stuck in ministries that teach “true womanhood” and are considered divisive if they point out heretical teaching on the Trinity in their book study;

women who are frustrated because they do not fit into the “biblical womanhood” box of nursery duty and potlucks and feel marginalized in their own church;

women who have expressed their conflict of desiring to be “good complementarians" while wanting to cry when they read some of the material marketed to them by so-called trusted Christian resources;

and women who are encouraged to go to seminary for a master of arts degree but then discover doors closed for most paying jobs for which they are qualified.

Worse, I hear from women who are in and who have come out of abusive situations under this kind of irresponsible teaching.

When this so-called complementarian teaching, advocating such poor theology and environment for women, is presented as our design from creation and part of the gospel structure, I’m not surprised that some end up questioning their faith.

So Aimee Byrd concludes her chapter with these words of exhortation:

We need to peel off this yellow wallpaper and reveal our true biblical aim. We are not directed to biblical manhood nor biblical womanhood; we are directed to Christ. Our aim is to behold Christ, as his bride, as fellow sons in the Son.