What do you think?
Rate this book
Biblical Femininity: Discovering Clarity and Freedom in God's Design for Women
The Bible reveals that men and women were created in the image of God. This study aims to be a clear and distinct biblical voice amidst the confusion by providing a theology and language for what it means to be a female image-bearer. We believe that a basic understanding of femininity should be derived from scripture – scripture that is still culturally relevant today. We do not desire to create a caricature of femininity or an artificial cultural box, thereby depriving women of the power and glory of the image of God as it expresses itself through godly femininity. Defined standards such as those that require Christian women to work in the workplace, home school their children, or dress a certain way, marginalize women and flatten out the diverse ways in which God has designed women to reflect His image and glory. On the contrary, our goal is to provide women with CLARITY and FREEDOM. We strive to be as clear as the scriptures are clear and to provide women with freedom from rigid constructs, in order that they might be free to reflect and glorify God in their own distinctiveness.
168 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
9 people are currently reading
138 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 17, 2015
This lengthy review was a two part post on my personal blog. I do not recommend this book but will begin with positives. The end of the book has a couple chapters focused on the gospel of Jesus Christ, and how we should be living in light of the gospel. Some of this section could apply to anyone, and not distinctly to women. It is a good review of gospel truths. It is easy to revert to performance or works based living, and forget our secure position in Christ.
The book’s approach does attempt to be more inclusive to all women and not be quite so alienating. “Biblical femininity” (so-called) will look a little different in the lives of individual women. Not every woman must be a stay-at-home mom. An effort is made to include single women, and not make them feel less or deficient. Etc. Women are encouraged to not find their identity in their role in life (typically wife or mother) but rather in Christ. I agree with this wholeheartedly and find that it can be a major weakness for females. There are dangers in defining yourself by your role. Roles are temporary and can change, and then what do you do? You need an anchor outside of your role in life – that is Christ.
While Biblical Femininity attempts to be diplomatic and avoid extremes, the remainder of this review will be more critical. The book is based on faulty exposition of Genesis 1-3 and imposes things on the Scripture that is simply not there. Of course, we can all be guilty of this and no one is purely objective, yet I hope to graciously point out some major flaws and inconsistencies in the foundational principles this book is based upon. When the foundation is off it leads to conclusions that are also faulty.
The book is centered around woman being an ezer, as in ezer kenegdo from the Hebrew in Genesis 2:18. It actually does a good job explaining that this phrase means essential counterpart, corresponding strength, or indispensable companion. And that ezer is not a weak word, but a warrior word. It can refer to God or be used as a military word. An ezer brings needed help and strength. With this good beginning, the book goes downhill from there making assumptions or imposing things on the text.
Chapter 2 entitled “Back to the Beginning” looks at Genesis chapters 1-3. Genesis 1:26-27, 2:5-9, 15-17, and 18-25 are quoted and various points are made. Such as that Adam was created to work, and to be responsible. While Eve was created with a relationship orientation. Eve’s job, or core calling is fulfilled through her relationship with others. Women see what is lacking and fill the gap.
Hmm…really? Where is this in the biblical text? It seems to be based on the verses that say Adam was working in the garden, naming the animals, and establishing order over it. However, Eve did not exist yet so she could not have been described as doing any of those things in those particular verses! If Eve had been created already, I am quite certain she would have been right in there with Adam doing the same things along with him. Eve would have been working and taking responsibility along with Adam.
And furthermore, I found it very interesting that Genesis 1:26-27 is quoted but verse 28 is left out. While verse 26 does say “let them have dominion” some of the emphasis is lost that is elaborated upon in verse 28. It says that God blessed them and said to them, that they are to subdue and rule over the earth. The creation mandate is given to man and woman together. There is no hint of distinct roles or job descriptions here. Adam and Eve are commanded together to co-rule the earth.
My critique is not insinuating that I think there are no differences between men and women. Of course there are. The creation of the woman stemmed not only from the need for Adam to have a companion, but from ontological necessities rooted in the nature of the Godhead. Femaleness was also an aspect of the imago dei.
To give the book credit, it does briefly point out that the distinction between Adam working/taking responsibility and Eve being the relational helper does not mean that men are not relational and women should not work. But it does emphasize that these are the core callings of men and women. I hope it does not appear that I am being nit picky with this, but the book’s argument builds and grows – and I think it is important to point out impositions upon the text that only continue to expand.
An additional point is that in Genesis 1:26-28, there are only 2 authority structures: God over all creation, and man and woman’s joint authority over the earth and creation. Their dominion was directed towards creation, and not toward each other. Remember that this was before the Fall, and harmony characterized their relationship – not tension or intention of overthrow. Again, there is nothing in Genesis 1 and 2 to indicate that Adam was the responsible one, the leader, or authority figure. There was joint authority and they were to co-rule the earth as God’s representatives.
Chapter 2 of the book continues by moving into Genesis 3 and the Fall. Suddenly the book says that the serpent “turned the tables on God’s created order, circumventing Adam and addressing Eve instead.” (page 40) – Huh? Where does this come from? The phrase “created order” is used without explanation. The book does not elaborate, so this review will do so. Because Adam was created first, some see this as evidence of the man having special status and privilege (primogeniture). Yet, there is no evidence of primogeniture until a considerable time after creation, and this is retroactively imposed on the creation account. Furthermore, the biblical norm was often not primogeniture, but God blessing or specially using those born later such as Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and David.
Some will also state that because Adam named Eve that this shows him having some special authority. However, in the Bible, the act of naming does not necessarily imply authority. For example, Hagar (the Egyptian slave of Abraham and Sarah) gave God a name! Does that mean Hagar had authority over God? I hardly think so.
The book accurately points out (as can be overlooked by some commentators) that Adam was there with Eve when the serpent approached in Genesis 3:6. The book states that Adam was supposed to lead Eve through this but Adam failed to do so. And further says the Fall occurred because Adam was passive instead of taking authority, and Eve took initiative or authority that was not hers to take. Again, this is imposed on the text. Where is the evidence?
The book states “Where Satan reversed created order by approaching Eve, God affirmed his created order by going first to Adam.” (page 42) Because God went to Adam first after the Fall, is this proof that Adam was in charge of Eve? Note that God addressed Adam as an individual, and then God went to Eve separately and questioned her as an individual. (Genesis 3: 8-13). God did not hold Adam accountable for what they did, but for what he did. EVE DID NOT NEED A SPOKESMAN. They were both treated as separate moral agents.
Furthermore, if Adam was the authoritative leader in Genesis 1-2, then the judgment on Eve after the Fall of “he will rule over you” would have been pointless, since it would have brought no change in status. The clear implication of conferring rulership to Adam after the Fall is that he was NOT Eve’s ruler prior to the Fall! While man indeed emerges as ruler in Genesis 3, this is the sad result of their sin and their ensuing judgments. It is certainly not an ideal to be followed or emulated. In Christ, men and women are to move beyond the curse and be an example of relationships that have been redeemed.
A final point in regards to the statement that “God affirmed his created order by going first to Adam.” So does God always go to a man first? No. Even in the patriarchal Old Testament times, God spoke directly to women, or used an angelic messenger, such as with Rebekah in Genesis 25, Hagar in Genesis 16, or Samson’s mother in Judges 13. And God even used women to speak TO MEN on his behalf such as with Deborah in Judges 4, Huldah in 2 Chronicles 34, and the wailing women in Jeremiah 9. Was God being “satanic” by reversing the created order and approaching women?
The book states that “Genesis chapters 1-3 are foundational in our understanding about God, mankind, and sin. Each of these chapters provides detail about God’s intended design and purpose for the man and woman as well as their core sin. Adam was created and given authority over the earth. He was given responsibility to lead, but in Genesis 3 he demonstrated passivity…Eve asserted herself above God and Adam, rather than coming along side or coming under authority.” (page 43). – The book, in my opinion, fails miserably to provide evidence for that conclusion. The foundation is faulty thus the rest of the book is suspect.
Based on the faulty foundation, the book now states that a woman’s core capacity is to “invite, nurture, and partner” and the man’s is to “pursue, provide, and protect.” (They admit that the words are not used in Scripture, but say that the concepts are scriptural.) The man’s core temptation is to be passive, and the woman’s core temptation is to be autonomous. The book then has individual chapters on a woman being inviting, nurturing, and partnering.
The emphasis throughout the book, stated in different ways, is that women are designed to under-gird or bring strength to others. Women enable others to lead because they follow them. Women further the advancement of another person by contributing assistance to them. Etc. This is what women do for their husbands. If a woman does not have a husband, she will be helping her boss at work or the director at the place she volunteers in this way. This is what women were designed to do. We nurture and partner. The distinct implication is that women do not have positions of authority or leadership. Note the examples: a woman helps her husband, a woman helps her boss, a woman helps the director where she volunteers.
Okay. There is nothing wrong with serving and helping others. Jesus did it, and we are to imitate our Savior. It is a powerful opportunity to bring assistance and strength to others. This is actually what Christianity is all about! Christianity is about serving, not leading, no matter if we are male or female. Yet then, why is this book so obsessed with men being leaders and women falling under their authority? Jesus said we should not be obsessed with authority. It seems that certain Christian men, with their high level of concern for men being the leaders, have failed to heed the warning of Jesus.
The emphasis of this book limits women in their God-given abilities and potential. Instead of being encouraged to step out and serve God in bold ways, women are fearful of doing too much or overstepping their bounds as assistant. Can a woman even have HER OWN unique calling for God’s Kingdom if her “design” is to help others (particularly men) fulfill their callings?
And if they do step out, women are branded as pushy or troublemakers. Yep, they are guilty of that core temptation of autonomy! Gifted women who could be leading and advancing God’s Kingdom as unique female image-bearers of the Creator God are stuck between a rock and a hard place – the status quo or falling into the sin of autonomy!
There are too many “exceptions” in the Bible of women stepping out, leading, or exercising authority for women to be limited in this way.
While this book has some positives and has sincere intentions, it does not meet the objective of the subtitle to bring clarity and freedom in God’s design for women. I do not recommend it.
The book’s approach does attempt to be more inclusive to all women and not be quite so alienating. “Biblical femininity” (so-called) will look a little different in the lives of individual women. Not every woman must be a stay-at-home mom. An effort is made to include single women, and not make them feel less or deficient. Etc. Women are encouraged to not find their identity in their role in life (typically wife or mother) but rather in Christ. I agree with this wholeheartedly and find that it can be a major weakness for females. There are dangers in defining yourself by your role. Roles are temporary and can change, and then what do you do? You need an anchor outside of your role in life – that is Christ.
While Biblical Femininity attempts to be diplomatic and avoid extremes, the remainder of this review will be more critical. The book is based on faulty exposition of Genesis 1-3 and imposes things on the Scripture that is simply not there. Of course, we can all be guilty of this and no one is purely objective, yet I hope to graciously point out some major flaws and inconsistencies in the foundational principles this book is based upon. When the foundation is off it leads to conclusions that are also faulty.
The book is centered around woman being an ezer, as in ezer kenegdo from the Hebrew in Genesis 2:18. It actually does a good job explaining that this phrase means essential counterpart, corresponding strength, or indispensable companion. And that ezer is not a weak word, but a warrior word. It can refer to God or be used as a military word. An ezer brings needed help and strength. With this good beginning, the book goes downhill from there making assumptions or imposing things on the text.
Chapter 2 entitled “Back to the Beginning” looks at Genesis chapters 1-3. Genesis 1:26-27, 2:5-9, 15-17, and 18-25 are quoted and various points are made. Such as that Adam was created to work, and to be responsible. While Eve was created with a relationship orientation. Eve’s job, or core calling is fulfilled through her relationship with others. Women see what is lacking and fill the gap.
Hmm…really? Where is this in the biblical text? It seems to be based on the verses that say Adam was working in the garden, naming the animals, and establishing order over it. However, Eve did not exist yet so she could not have been described as doing any of those things in those particular verses! If Eve had been created already, I am quite certain she would have been right in there with Adam doing the same things along with him. Eve would have been working and taking responsibility along with Adam.
And furthermore, I found it very interesting that Genesis 1:26-27 is quoted but verse 28 is left out. While verse 26 does say “let them have dominion” some of the emphasis is lost that is elaborated upon in verse 28. It says that God blessed them and said to them, that they are to subdue and rule over the earth. The creation mandate is given to man and woman together. There is no hint of distinct roles or job descriptions here. Adam and Eve are commanded together to co-rule the earth.
My critique is not insinuating that I think there are no differences between men and women. Of course there are. The creation of the woman stemmed not only from the need for Adam to have a companion, but from ontological necessities rooted in the nature of the Godhead. Femaleness was also an aspect of the imago dei.
To give the book credit, it does briefly point out that the distinction between Adam working/taking responsibility and Eve being the relational helper does not mean that men are not relational and women should not work. But it does emphasize that these are the core callings of men and women. I hope it does not appear that I am being nit picky with this, but the book’s argument builds and grows – and I think it is important to point out impositions upon the text that only continue to expand.
An additional point is that in Genesis 1:26-28, there are only 2 authority structures: God over all creation, and man and woman’s joint authority over the earth and creation. Their dominion was directed towards creation, and not toward each other. Remember that this was before the Fall, and harmony characterized their relationship – not tension or intention of overthrow. Again, there is nothing in Genesis 1 and 2 to indicate that Adam was the responsible one, the leader, or authority figure. There was joint authority and they were to co-rule the earth as God’s representatives.
Chapter 2 of the book continues by moving into Genesis 3 and the Fall. Suddenly the book says that the serpent “turned the tables on God’s created order, circumventing Adam and addressing Eve instead.” (page 40) – Huh? Where does this come from? The phrase “created order” is used without explanation. The book does not elaborate, so this review will do so. Because Adam was created first, some see this as evidence of the man having special status and privilege (primogeniture). Yet, there is no evidence of primogeniture until a considerable time after creation, and this is retroactively imposed on the creation account. Furthermore, the biblical norm was often not primogeniture, but God blessing or specially using those born later such as Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and David.
Some will also state that because Adam named Eve that this shows him having some special authority. However, in the Bible, the act of naming does not necessarily imply authority. For example, Hagar (the Egyptian slave of Abraham and Sarah) gave God a name! Does that mean Hagar had authority over God? I hardly think so.
The book accurately points out (as can be overlooked by some commentators) that Adam was there with Eve when the serpent approached in Genesis 3:6. The book states that Adam was supposed to lead Eve through this but Adam failed to do so. And further says the Fall occurred because Adam was passive instead of taking authority, and Eve took initiative or authority that was not hers to take. Again, this is imposed on the text. Where is the evidence?
The book states “Where Satan reversed created order by approaching Eve, God affirmed his created order by going first to Adam.” (page 42) Because God went to Adam first after the Fall, is this proof that Adam was in charge of Eve? Note that God addressed Adam as an individual, and then God went to Eve separately and questioned her as an individual. (Genesis 3: 8-13). God did not hold Adam accountable for what they did, but for what he did. EVE DID NOT NEED A SPOKESMAN. They were both treated as separate moral agents.
Furthermore, if Adam was the authoritative leader in Genesis 1-2, then the judgment on Eve after the Fall of “he will rule over you” would have been pointless, since it would have brought no change in status. The clear implication of conferring rulership to Adam after the Fall is that he was NOT Eve’s ruler prior to the Fall! While man indeed emerges as ruler in Genesis 3, this is the sad result of their sin and their ensuing judgments. It is certainly not an ideal to be followed or emulated. In Christ, men and women are to move beyond the curse and be an example of relationships that have been redeemed.
A final point in regards to the statement that “God affirmed his created order by going first to Adam.” So does God always go to a man first? No. Even in the patriarchal Old Testament times, God spoke directly to women, or used an angelic messenger, such as with Rebekah in Genesis 25, Hagar in Genesis 16, or Samson’s mother in Judges 13. And God even used women to speak TO MEN on his behalf such as with Deborah in Judges 4, Huldah in 2 Chronicles 34, and the wailing women in Jeremiah 9. Was God being “satanic” by reversing the created order and approaching women?
The book states that “Genesis chapters 1-3 are foundational in our understanding about God, mankind, and sin. Each of these chapters provides detail about God’s intended design and purpose for the man and woman as well as their core sin. Adam was created and given authority over the earth. He was given responsibility to lead, but in Genesis 3 he demonstrated passivity…Eve asserted herself above God and Adam, rather than coming along side or coming under authority.” (page 43). – The book, in my opinion, fails miserably to provide evidence for that conclusion. The foundation is faulty thus the rest of the book is suspect.
Based on the faulty foundation, the book now states that a woman’s core capacity is to “invite, nurture, and partner” and the man’s is to “pursue, provide, and protect.” (They admit that the words are not used in Scripture, but say that the concepts are scriptural.) The man’s core temptation is to be passive, and the woman’s core temptation is to be autonomous. The book then has individual chapters on a woman being inviting, nurturing, and partnering.
The emphasis throughout the book, stated in different ways, is that women are designed to under-gird or bring strength to others. Women enable others to lead because they follow them. Women further the advancement of another person by contributing assistance to them. Etc. This is what women do for their husbands. If a woman does not have a husband, she will be helping her boss at work or the director at the place she volunteers in this way. This is what women were designed to do. We nurture and partner. The distinct implication is that women do not have positions of authority or leadership. Note the examples: a woman helps her husband, a woman helps her boss, a woman helps the director where she volunteers.
Okay. There is nothing wrong with serving and helping others. Jesus did it, and we are to imitate our Savior. It is a powerful opportunity to bring assistance and strength to others. This is actually what Christianity is all about! Christianity is about serving, not leading, no matter if we are male or female. Yet then, why is this book so obsessed with men being leaders and women falling under their authority? Jesus said we should not be obsessed with authority. It seems that certain Christian men, with their high level of concern for men being the leaders, have failed to heed the warning of Jesus.
The emphasis of this book limits women in their God-given abilities and potential. Instead of being encouraged to step out and serve God in bold ways, women are fearful of doing too much or overstepping their bounds as assistant. Can a woman even have HER OWN unique calling for God’s Kingdom if her “design” is to help others (particularly men) fulfill their callings?
And if they do step out, women are branded as pushy or troublemakers. Yep, they are guilty of that core temptation of autonomy! Gifted women who could be leading and advancing God’s Kingdom as unique female image-bearers of the Creator God are stuck between a rock and a hard place – the status quo or falling into the sin of autonomy!
There are too many “exceptions” in the Bible of women stepping out, leading, or exercising authority for women to be limited in this way.
While this book has some positives and has sincere intentions, it does not meet the objective of the subtitle to bring clarity and freedom in God’s design for women. I do not recommend it.
August 13, 2024
really encouraging read. Gives language to complementarianism that I think is needed. Wished they explained where they got references in scripture more and their thought processes behind them. Overall a really good read!
Read
July 25, 2018p. 169 "True repentance begins with a change of mind, acknowledging actions are sinful and offensive to God, then choosing to believe in His truth. Next step is to change direction by ending and moving into biblical community to work through her struggle. As a result of this change in mind and direction, her heart begins to change, and the result is a transformed life."
p 22 "ezer kenegdo means essential counterpart or corresponding strength."
p29 Core capacities: inviting, nurturing, and partnering. "A capacity is simply the instilled ability to reflect an attribute of God."
p 68 "A gentle and quiet spirit is not about being soft-spoken. It is not a personality type, nor is it a temperament. It is about being approachable and open to others, like a comfortable front porch that draws others to come to you and find rest. It is a God-given spirit, a disposition that gives women the capacity to welcome others into relationship with them. A quiet spirit makes a customized invitation, meeting others where they are. A quiet spirit draws others to a safe place."
Matthew 11:29 "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."
p 187 "A gentle and quiet spirit.... is rooted confidently in God's goodness, has correct view of God - who He is and who I am not, is settled and at peace with God's directions, plans, uncertainties, and mysteriousness, has an abiding trust in God's goodness and eager expectancy of His unpredictability."
p 22 "ezer kenegdo means essential counterpart or corresponding strength."
p29 Core capacities: inviting, nurturing, and partnering. "A capacity is simply the instilled ability to reflect an attribute of God."
p 68 "A gentle and quiet spirit is not about being soft-spoken. It is not a personality type, nor is it a temperament. It is about being approachable and open to others, like a comfortable front porch that draws others to come to you and find rest. It is a God-given spirit, a disposition that gives women the capacity to welcome others into relationship with them. A quiet spirit makes a customized invitation, meeting others where they are. A quiet spirit draws others to a safe place."
Matthew 11:29 "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."
p 187 "A gentle and quiet spirit.... is rooted confidently in God's goodness, has correct view of God - who He is and who I am not, is settled and at peace with God's directions, plans, uncertainties, and mysteriousness, has an abiding trust in God's goodness and eager expectancy of His unpredictability."
December 5, 2021
I would certainly recommend this more than Captivating by John and Stasi Eldridge. This is way more biblically rooted/gospel-centered, more widely applicable, and meatier.
Disciplines of a Godly Woman by Barbara Hughes is also good and looks at all the disciplines, not just those that are especially tied to women.
Disciplines of a Godly Woman by Barbara Hughes is also good and looks at all the disciplines, not just those that are especially tied to women.
May 19, 2017
For some reason, I had a hard time getting into this book. Great concepts which I agree but was hard to read
December 31, 2017
Gave great definitions for roles and identities, but overall was very vague.
March 24, 2021
Want to stop feeling pigeon-holed in your role as a Christian woman? Discover the incredible ways God created women in his own image.
August 4, 2023
Good book about the essence of who we are as women, created by God to nurture, invite and partner with men.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews