The Sexual Reformation: Restoring the Dignity and Personhood of Man and Woman

by Aimee Byrd

What does it mean to be a woman or a man created in the image of God? Many Christians don't have a good grasp of what their sexuality means. Many women in the church don't feel like their contributions matter. Why is this? The church is sadly still confused about what it means to be a man or a woman. While secular society talks about sexuality in terms of liberation, many in the church define manhood and womanhood in terms of reductive roles that rob us of the dignity of personhood, created in the image of God. In her poetic, theologically contemplative style, Aimee Byrd invites you to enter the rich treasure trove of the Song of Songs as its lyrics reveal how our very bodies are visible signs that tell us something about our God. This often-ignored biblical book has much to teach us about Christ, his church, man, and woman. And what it teaches us is not a list of roles and hierarchy. It is a love song. As it unfolds throughout the canon of Scripture, the meaning of our sexuality extends beyond biology, nature, and culture to give us a glimpse of what is to come. This meaningfulness reinforces our discipleship as we participate in the eschatological song. In The Sexual Reformation , you will discover the beautiful message that our bodies—and our whole selves—are part of the greater story in which Christ received the gift of his bride, the church. Within the context of that story, you'll rediscover your sexuality as a gift.

Genres: Theology, Nonfiction, Sexuality, Religion, Counselling, Gender, Audiobook

224 pages, Paperback

Published March 8, 2022

About the author

Aimee Byrd is just an ordinary mom of three who has also been a martial arts student, coffee shop owner, and Bible study teacher. Author of Housewife Theologian, she now blogs about theology and the Christian life and cohosts The Mortification of Spin podcast.

Reviews

[Suzannah Rowntree · Rating 5 out of 5]

Re-read 15 July, 2025. I think the two biggest things I've taken away from the book, that I hadn't really thought about before, was a) how feminine desire is dignified in the Song, when I've SO OFTEN only ever found it despised and distrusted in the church; and b) how God's desire for us as our Bridegroom is so much less impersonal and spiritual than the way it was always taught to me. "And our voice is sweet to him and our face is lovely."

--

This is it - the exposition of the Song of Songs I have been wanting to read all my life, one that neither reduces the Song to sex, nor sublimates the allegory to such a degree that it ignores the rich imagery of bodies and sexuality within it. There is too much in this extraordinarily rich book, as in the Song itself, to sum up in a single review. I want to flip all the way back to the beginning and re-read. There are few theological works I would reread for pleasure - St Athanasius' ON THE INCARNATION is one, and David Chilton's PARADISE RESTORED is another - but this one handily takes its place among them. (Oddly, all of these are connected by their positive and joyous eschatalogical vision).

This was a dangerous book to read because I could listen to the audiobook for half an hour and then come away and need to spend an hour journalling through the reflections and inspirations it sparked. For one thing, it deals with typological theology, which is absolutely my favourite thing for how open-ended and intuitive it is. For another, this book was incredibly healing. I grew up in a Christian tradition very similar to Byrd's and have had to struggle with deconstructing some of that tradition's deeply entrenched misogyny, an emphasis on marriage at the expense of faithful singleness, suspicion of genuinely deep platonic male/female friendships, and allergy to anything that smacks of emotion or romance. This book applies the balm of God's actual word to these wounds. In the pages of the Song we meet a God who is overflowing with passion for us (a sentence that still makes me cringe to write it, but I'm trying to get used to this language). We discover a typology of the sexes in which the single and platonic have as much to say about God's relationship with humanity as the married and sexual. And we find a whole book of the Bible in which women's voices and women's perspectives are paramount.

Earlier this year I read and was similarly blessed by Amy Peeler's WOMEN AND THE GENDER OF GOD. Together, these books have helped me begin reconstructing a truly orthodox theology of the sexes that goes far, far beyond tired questions of authority, submission, and ordination. For some years I have been working, in a small and rather inept way, at a quartet of fantasy romance stories which I once hoped would be my own TILL WE HAVE FACES. I had come to despair of this ambition. The conceptual/thematic substance simply wasn't there - but now I'm beginning to hope that in the Song, in the ways that Byrd has opened it up to me, I might now have a foundation on which to build.

[Matthew Manchester · Rating 2 out of 5]

Note: In 2020, I read Byrd's last book (Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: How the Church Needs to Rediscover Her Purpose) at the same time as Worthy: Celebrating the Value of Women by Elyse Fitzpatrick and Eric Schumacher. The books gave a synergy to one another that I found really great. So this time, since they both had new books out together again, I read this book and Jesus and Gender: Living as Sisters and Brothers in Christ at the same time. They definitely played off each other again, but differently this time.

SUMMARY

In this book, Byrd discusses Song of Songs as uses it to:
1. talk about the devotional quality of the book
2. discuss the gender roles debate (and rebuke CBMW)
3. attack the gay and (particulary) transgender community

I'll talk a bit more about of these things in reverse-order.

Also, I read the audiobook so I wish I could provide quotes or page numbers, but either I can't or it's too much work. Sorry.

THE BAD

I'm really sad and frustrated about this but I'm remembering that it's *me* who changed.

Byrd admits that she is not pleased with how our culture defines sexuality and gender, and says she is very careful with the words she uses in this book, mentioning "gender dysphoria" and never transgender people. I would love to talk about the chapters she devotes to why but she doesn't talk about it. She just assumes it's either sin or brain damage. She ignores the transgender Christians found in her (and my) church denominations. Listen, you can't just sweep gay and transgender people (not to mention Christians) out of the conversation, saying it's sinful and wrong, but never saying why. ESPECIALLY IN A SEXUALITY BOOK. It's dismissive. It's depersoning. They exist, so your theology needs to account for them. Full stop.

I didn't expect her to be a trans ally or anything but as I saw with Jesus and Gender: Living as Sisters and Brothers in Christ, you can state your beliefs in a loving & winsome way that even people who disagree with you will still find the hope and love of the gospel in your work.

And what sucks to say is that if you're gay or trans, I don't believe you will find hope, love, or the gospel for your life in this book. I don't want to say that. I hate saying it. I kept reading and looking, and while she talks about it almost every chapter, she only does it in the negative sense.

THE CHALLENGES

These angles made her gender roles and her criticism of CBMW tough and somewhat inconsistent to me. In order to help women out from under the oppression & hatred women get due to orgs like CBMW (something I agree with), she does the same to the LGBTQ community.

This is where Jesus and Gender: Living as Sisters and Brothers in Christ really highlighted a problem. In their book, the authors push that we don't need to focus on being masculine or feminine because Jesus is the perfect representation for BOTH genders. I don't think you'll get that point from this book which is weird since the book is about the Song of Songs where someone like me (cishet male) find themselves as the bride in the Song, not the groom (who is a type of Christ).

There are some points she makes that I loved and some that she made that I thought she severely undercut herself. I thought her last book Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: How the Church Needs to Rediscover Her Purpose did this better.

THE GOOD

I come from a Charismatic background and did some work with the International House of Prayer (IHOP) in Kansas City and some local prayer rooms in my state. I remember when I first listened to Mike Bickle talk about the Song of Songs and what it really represented. He talked about the devotional aspect of the book instead of how it's a sex manual for married couples like preachers I had heard before taught. (This was before Bickle was exposed as an abuser)

I remember my heart coming alive. It is still some of my favorite devotional scripture to read and remember.

When Byrd talks about her own awakening to the Song, these are easily the best points of the book. Her joy and wonder are infectious. I really do hope that people who read this book hear and take hold of these parts. I just wish she hadn't tried to use these parts to also attempt to teach sexuality using the Song.

CONCLUSION

I'm concerned that if you're Christian but not cishet, you'll find yourself like the bride does in SOS 5:6-7 (a section Byrd talks about in her final chapter),

"I opened for my beloved, but my beloved had left; he was gone. My heart sank at his departure. I looked for him but did not find him. I called him but he did not answer. The watchmen found me as they made their rounds in the city. They beat me, they bruised me; they took away my cloak, those watchmen of the walls!"

But I hope all people find hope and comfort in the Song of Songs. I know the end of the story: we come up from the wilderness leaning on our Beloved.

Two stars.

[Christina Baehr · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title suggests it is going to propose a striking solution to the cultural tribalism and gender theories currently in vogue, when to my mind this book is a lovely, lively commentary on one of the most lyrical but controversial books of the Bible.

Byrd finds that The Song of Songs fills her with joy and enthusiasm for the way God made humans and emboldens her to use her (embodied, female) voice to glorify and thank Him, and all of that spills out of this book. I especially appreciated her drawing out the well imagery and garden imagery—I will not soon forget those purposeful links to female heroes of the Bible, and how deeply they are knit into the whole Biblical narrative.

For reasons I can’t quite put my finger on, something about the style or format of the book didn’t connect to me personally on a deep level, but that is likely a personal thing.

Highly recommended for those who see deep purpose in God making humanity male and female but also would like to get away from hitching their wagon to neo-Aristotelian polarity.

[Anna Dempster · Rating 5 out of 5]

I always appreciate Aimee Byrd. It saddens me that people have written her off for saying that a women's (and men's) first role as a follower of Christ is to sit at his feet instead of being in the kitchen peeling potatoes. She's not against peeling potatoes but explains it's not our ultimate role as a woman.

I really enjoyed her exegesis of Song of Songs, and it has helped me to better see the book in light of the whole metanarrative of the bible.

[Becky · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a commentary on Song of Songs, this was helpful. I've certainly been in the camp of "well that was weird, let's read some epistles instead" regarding the Song, and Byrd teases out some really good points regarding the repeated use of certain metaphors and images through the Song, Revelation, Genesis, and more. Her sources are well cited and she clearly consulted a wide variety of scholarship from both Catholic and Protestant sources.

As a participant in the ongoing culture war regarding masculinity and feminity in the church, I think Byrd is asking the right question. What do these realities actually *mean* apart from the ongoing fights over who is allowed to preach or teach?

I think this book starts that conversation. I got a little lost in the organization of the book at times, as I felt the exegetical sections might have made more sense if they weren't mixed in with the application.


A couple points she makes

- woman in the Bible is shown as a gift, not a threat
- lots of controversy over interpreting Genesis 3:16- what is the woman's "desire" and is it really a bad thing?
- Feminine and masculine experiences give us pieces of understanding of the Church - we are each Sons and Brides, simultaneously
- Temple imagery ends up being important

[Jonathan Tomes · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Byrd argues that, patterned after Christ, the man in marriage, created first, is “authorized to be the first to love, the first to sacrifice, the first to serve, the first to give power to other persons, not to exercise power over them. We see this distortion of the gift as the effects of the fall, described in Genesis 3:16” (119–120). This is a headship of sorts, but it is a headship of responsibility to serve, not final decision-making power. It is not “servant leadership” as commonly understood today, where the emphasis is on leadership and “servant” just modifies it. Rather, it is the leadership of service, full stop.

While men symbolize God in this metaphor, because women and men are equally the image of God, what men are symbolizing is actually a very particular aspect of God: not his right to rule, but rather his self-emptying initiative in Christ to expend his strength and power to lift us up. The physically and socially more powerful partner images God not through holding onto that power, but by pouring it out to empower others."

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxious...

[Anna Bright]

read this for book club over a couple months so hard to sum up but was particularly taken by the author’s take on the multilayered purpose to the Song of Solomon, masculinity and femininity not existing primarily to assign roles but to express spiritual truths, and of the negative attitudes in some early church fathers’ writings as having come NOT from Scripture but from Aristotle—a lot of really interesting stuff there.

[Danita · Rating 3 out of 5]

Numerous approaches to the Song of Songs exist. This one was unique--theological but not academic, deep but accessible--in the spirit of, well, poetry. I enjoyed this one, but if you're looking for a more practical treatment of the personhood of man and woman, I'd recommend other books first (including Byrd's Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood).

[Kim W. · Rating 5 out of 5]

For all the people who wrote Aimee off due to her last book, "Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood," I just want to shout "WHY??!!!" There was absolutely nothing heretical or even doctrinally questionable in that book and this one is even better.

If you are like me and have tried - mostly unsuccessfully - to navigate the ambiguous world of "biblical" womanhood, you know that it's like trying to nail jello to a wall figuring out where the moving target has been placed each day. Aimee offers a better path for us all in this new book.

Instead of making arbitrary lists of rules to follow, Aimee takes her readers to the Scripture to see what our embodiment says about who God is. Specifically, Aimee uses her extensive research into the Song of Songs as a model for understanding a biblical theology of our enfleshed bodies. Why did God give us both male and female to reflect his image? Is there significance to my female body that types something about God to the world that my husband's male body doesn't/can't? Aimee says "yes" to that question and she makes a beautiful, eschatalogically-informed case for her position.

If you buy this book for no other reason than to have an exegetical resource for The Song, it is worth the cost of admission. But please go further and pay close attention to Aimee's application of the Song to the embodied Bride of the great Bridegroom. If we could just realize the significance of our femaleness and maleness, maybe we would stop tripping over infinitesimal matters like the "roles" of men and women in the home and the church, and instead, learn to show the glorious picture of oneness and partnership our enfleshed bodies represent in God's creation.

Again, to those who have maligned Aimee's character and misrepresented her work based on strawman assumptions about her, I implore you to invest the time to read this work and then engage with the content it contains. This book is the culmination of what she's been working towards in her previous books. You will find yourself wanting to study the Song of Songs like never before and you won't be able to stop yourself from worshipping God more fully because of it. I dare you to try it.

[Whitney Dziurawiec · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. I am mostly tired and bored of reading books about gender but when I saw this was actually an exegesis of the book Song of Songs I was intrigued. SoS is a book I've generally avoided after a traumatizing "purity retreat" watching Mark Driscoll teach this book in ways I will allow to be left to the imagination.

Byrd's exegesis of SoS is a delight: so much research! I love her use of intertextuality and her passion behind her writing. I needed this fresh perspective on SoS to get the bad taste out of my mouth. Her citations are a gold mine to dig further (I've added a lot of books to my "to-read" list). Some of her conclusions applied to the theology of gender I thought were a bit of a personal bias rather than a faithful outworking of the text, though it certainly gave me things to chew on. (For anyone wondering, I would say Byrd leans slightly *more conservative* than me, not liberal.)

Highly recommend for anyone: 1) complementation but sees gaps in their theology, 2) anyone looking for a non-creepy exegesis of SoS, or 3) anyone into biblical studies and intertextuality.

[Josiah DeGraaf · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book almost feels like two separate books bundled into one: a commentary/devotional on "Song of Solomon" and a critique of mainstream complementarian thought. At times, these two kinds of writing complemented each other really well. At times, it felt like this would have been better served by writing two different types of books.

At the end of the day, though, I think I did appreciate this book. Byrd effectively persuaded me that the older allegorical interpretations of the Song did have some real value to them, and I appreciated the ways in which she used the Song to paint a more holistic view of femininity than the tightly-constrained vision certain complementarians want to push women into. Her last chapter on abuse was especially good as well.

As someone who's still a confessional Presbyterian, I don't agree with all the places Byrd has gone in her theological journey these past couple years. Nor did I agree with everything she argued for in this book. But there was much to appreciate and reflect on in this work, and I'm glad I read it.

Rating: 3.5 Stars (Good).

[Jenny Lane · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed the many hours spent pondering and reflecting along with Aimee in her book on the Song of Songs. As I've found with her other books, I read this one with both a deepening joy in God and many more exciting and tough questions to pursue with Him. I may not agree with every thought presented in a book, but when I read to learn from (with?!) another person and thirst for more of God and His truth, I call it a smashing success.

This book is an exercise in reflection upon who God is and who we are, and a delightful aid in seeing the astounding reality of love that the holy, triune God shares with His people. Instead of seeing the Song of Songs as a mere textbook on moral living, we should notice the poetic depth that points to a bigger reality. The typological language and use of Old and New testament imagery (eg from Leviticus and Revelation) point to a more powerful reality beyond the already very powerful shadow of marriage between a man and woman. It points to the overflowing love within the Triune God that He chose from before creation to share with us. Christ is the true Solomon, the King of Kings, the redeemer of his people the Church, and the Church is the beautiful, glorified bride. We are made to glorify God and, what? Enjoy Him forever! When Christ finally returns for the final time to complete redemption, the Song will be fulfilled, and the Feast will begin.

On the ground level, Aimee calls for these realities to change how we view human sexuality, for fresh eyes to see what has been celebrated about the Song of Songs in ages past and allow it to reshape our valuation of men, women, marriage, singleness, the church, discipleship, and more. Our sexuality isn't a mere biological feature or scripts for us to role-play, but two complete and beautiful modes (male and female) of being made in God's image, and beautifully interdependent ways of loving one another. When we get to heaven, we won't lose our maleness or femaleness, but there will no longer be marriage between us, since Christ and the Church will fulfill that picture beyond our imaginations. So Aimee reflects on how our eschatological path makes a difference in how we live out the Imago Dei today.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

The good

1.This book brings Song of Songs to the consciousness of contemporary Christians. This is a huge plus.
2.It is not everyday that Christian books written for the non-academic reader talks about the grand symbols and echoes and images of the scripture. In that respect, the book is beautiful.

...

The not so good

1.The book from Chapter 3 reads like a stream of thought not an exposition. It feels more like wine tasting than a feast. The author skips around too much for the book to fulfill its stated purpose. If the aim of the book is to provide a metanarrative of scripture, to provide a theology behind our sexes, then it fails in its incompleteness and style. The reader has the feeling of standing beside Aimee as she discovers nuggets in scripture and excitedly shares them. As an exposition of an important and controversial topic, however, this book has too many holes.

2.Like one of those pictures from the Stalinist era wherein ‘disappeared people’ are erased, one can feel the gap in the picture she paints. If the woman is a type of the bride of Christ, then the man is a type of the Second Man. If the dignity of woman here on earth flows from that to which she points, then the dignity of man here on earth flows from that to which he points also. With these, very few Christians will disagree. She writes, “While men and women have a joint telos, women can learn from men what it means to be sons in the Son, and men can learn from women more about what it means to be the bride of Christ.” We will all say Amen to that.

But notice what is going on here? Women learn from men how to be sons in the Son, but men learn how to be the bride. Shouldn't it rather be that men model Christ while women model the bride? Aren’t the sons in the son the same thing as the bride? What is our distinctiveness if we are modeling the same thing in different imagery? Is this not the picture consistently presented to us in scripture? When the Bible wants to speak to us jointly as heirs, we are called sons, but when our distinctness and “roles” are being referenced, we see the picture of men and women as Christ and His bride.

3.But most importantly, what is the application here? We know what we are to become and what we are supposed to model, but how does it affect our lives here? According to Aimee, the picture of the beloved and the lover in the Song of Songs is a type of our relationship with Christ and should guide how we see and relate with each other here - whether in church, at home, or wherever. We should have a relationship of mutual power - which is trust - and the voices of the man and the woman should not be constrained. This is clear and seemingly uncontroversial until you begin to ask the questions generated when ideas come in contact with the hard ground of reality. And in the answer to this question we see the biggest weakness of the book; there is no concrete answer. What do I mean? Say you finish reading this book and you agree wholeheartedly that the voices of women should be dominant, should not be stifled, and that we should adopt the same joy and playfulness and freedom we see between the lover and the beloved in our lives. Now say your Church does not allow women to preach. What next? Can you challenge your church’s position using the concepts in this book? When you finish reading chapter seven and you realize that the Church should not hold back the voices of anyone based on gender, ethnicity, or age, what application can you make with that? Sure we cannot disqualify a person from being an elder by race but can we disqualify based on age? By gender? Does that count as stifling voices? If not, why not? Agree or disagree with the CBMW and organizations like them, but you have to accept that it is questions like this that they are trying to answer. Perhaps they are wrong, but we agree that between us and eternity stands the hard ground of everyday life, and everyday life demands answers to everyday questions. It is fine to know that our dignity can be restored by understanding our eschatological telos, but it is even finer to know how that understanding can help us here. In this respect, the book is lacking.

4.In fact, it is not just that the book does not offer concrete answers, it even throws up occasional confusions. What, for example, does it mean when the author says that the authority of the man does not consist in telling the woman what to do because it robs her of her dignity. In what other area of life does it make sense to say that when the one in authority tells the one under authority what to do it is robbery of dignity? Headship, we are told, is bottom up. But how? I know many people would cite Jesus as an example of a leader who served. This is beautiful and undeniable. He served, but he also commands. In fact, loving Him is keeping His commandment. He helps us, but we follow Him. He does not follow us. What is submission? Well, according to the book, it seems it is the power to unlock competence in the person in authority. But what does that mean exactly? Is this a man-woman specific definition or does it work in all other frameworks of authority? For example, she writes that men and women are not abstract categories but persons. The abstractions enslave, she writes, but our sexuality when viewed eschatologically frees us to run forward in freedom and not fall under cultural mores. But what exactly does this mean? If it is her opinion that men and women should be absolutely free to do anything they wish at home, in society, and in church, then she should say so and she should say it clearly. The vagueness becomes infuriating as you read on. If there is a role prescribed that is not in line with scriptural freedom, point it out exegetically.
She pits classical Christian piety based on sex polarity(I don’t know what that means) against integral complementarity that understands that our sexuality is anchored in eschatology( I honestly don’t know what that means), but I am told that the latter emphasizes the archetypes in light of the metanarrative by God’s grace to compel it forward. Here we see language used as a smoke screen instead of a tool for clarity.

[Elizabeth]

This read stretched me a good bit because I tend not
to be an imaginative reader of Scripture, and poetry naturally requires a bit more from us to understand its rich imagery and metaphors. Aimee unpacks Song of Solomon as an allegory for Christ and His Bride. There were times when I felt like an interpretation might be a stretch or wondered about the wisdom of applying a metaphor from the Song to other parts of Scripture. Ironically, I’ve been reading John Owens’s book, “Communion with God” simultaneously, and he also appeals to the Song…interpreted allegorically. Aimee’s book is well researched and should give any reader plenty of food for thought and addition resources to consult for further study. I’ve gotta “chew the cud” on this one…

[Stuart Chase · Rating 2 out of 5]

Potentially important … but misses the mark

I’ve appreciated Aimee Byrd’s writing for some time now. This book starts with an important premise—that too much of the church has misunderstood what it means for us to be male and female—but I can’t help but feel that she overcorrects in addressing the problem. While she offers some helpful insights, she tries to accomplish a little too much and, in the end, misses the mark in addressing a very real issue in the church.

[Phil Whittall · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not everyone will be as excited about the Song of songs as Aimee Byrd but this rewarding study has much to offer.

It is a passionate plea to hear the women's voice in Scripture and in the church. She also does a commendable job at trying to answer the question of meaning behind why God created us male and female. This takes it beyond the limited discussion of who does what & in what manner.

I suspect that the background of the feverish debates & often vicious reactions of US Christianity has shaped both the writing and reception of this book. Yet as a complementarian leader there is little here to object to but instead offers much in terms of how a complentarity view of church can advance in a world increasingly hostile to it.

One doesn't have to agree with all her claims or all the connections she sees between the song & the rest of Scripture to still appreciate that there is more here than we realised.

And despite her overuse of the word 'fructifying' and its various cognates this is a lively & engaging study that is worth reflecting on.

[Robin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Parts of this are really good - some stimulating and genuinely reforming observations around the eschatological nature of male and female. I appreciated a lot of this. Taking aim at the use of 'roles' and an overly dogmatic use of them. Byrd takes aim at an American complementarian culture which sees agreement as the test of orthodoxy and understandably there is some beef there. While there's much to learn and receive on this side of the Atlantic it did feel less relevant and too polemic to be quite do useful here. Would have felt a lot stronger without those aspects but understandable that they were included.

[Hobart · Rating 4 out of 5]

★ ★ ★ 1/2 (rounded up)
This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
---
THE BACK OF THE BOOK

Protestants have confessed that the church is always reforming.

But has this been the case when it comes to sexuality?

What if, in trying to be faithful to the beauty of God’s design for man and woman, the church has instead latched onto a pagan concept of our nature and missed the theological meaning of our sexes? We've inadvertently robbed both men and women of the dignity of personhood as created in the image of God. Then we miss the beautiful message that our bodies, and our whole selves as men and women, tell: the story of the great joy in which the Son received the gift of his bride, the church.

Through an exploration of the Song of Songs, Aimee Byrd examines what this often-ignored book can teach us about Christ, his church, man, and woman. The Church is ripe for a sexual reformation, and recovering a good theological footing is imperative to it. Byrd invites you to enter into the Song’s treasures as its lyrics reveal the point of it all—not a list of roles and hierarchy, but a love song.

THE SONG
Like many (most?) contemporary believers, I struggle with The Song of Songs. A lot of the allegorical interpretations seem a little off to me, but I can't rule them out. I definitely can't buy the idea that it's simply an erotic poem and/or erotic manual smack in the middle of the Old Testament.

Byrd draws on both older allegorical interpretations and more recent versions—shaped by the insights of Biblical Theology to come up with her observations on the Song. I found this material fascinating and wanted much more of it. I really should grab some of the works she footnoted and study them.

CALL TO REFORMATION
Along with—intermixed with—the Song material is Byrd's continuing work on re-evaluating the way that men and women relate to themselves in the Protestant Church—particularly the ways that groups like the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood or the Council on Biblical Equality call for. She critiques both poles of these disputed ideas (although she seems to have more to say about CBMW).

Her goal for the book is to bring insights from the Song to the ideas of roles, relations, and treatment of people of both genders—but primarily for women, because that's where most of the controversy lies.

Her contention is that as we better understand the Song, we'll better understand the telos of both sexes, which will lead to better—and more harmonious—relations between all the members of the church.

SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT THE SEXUAL REFORMATION?
If this book was only the material (expanded) on the Song of Songs, I think I'd really have enjoyed it. If the book was only the other materials, it'd have been thought-provoking—and maybe convincing. But the mix of the two...ehhhhh. I'm not sure. It felt like two half-books that didn't necessarily belong together. If one (or both) of them got a chance to be fully baked, that'd have been so much better.

Historically, the interpretation of the Song is so varied that it can easily be seen as a wax nose that can be used to say whatever an author wants. I'm not saying that Byrd did that. But I can see where it could be seen that way—yet another reason for the two books to be split.

It's an accessible read, relatable, and the issues it wants to focus on are very important for believers to wrestle with. Making this the kind of book we need more of (both those that agree with her and those who differ, so we can think about these things). Although we got a little more about what's going on with Byrd personally than the book really needed, and a lot of the sexual reformation material is a reiteration of her last couple of books, just presented through a different prism.

Ultimately, the Song gives me enough trouble that I'm not really sure what I think of what she says—but I liked it and want to read more like it to see it better. I'm generally on-board with her reformation ideas in broad strokes. So, I've got every reason to like this book, but I'm not wholly sold.

Still, I recommend the book for those who want to wrestle with these ideas—or to get pushed on the content of the Song.

[Joelle Lewis · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm a huge fan of Byrd, and I respect her theology. I understand the overall doctrinal points she was making, and I enjoyed seeing the way she found the Song throughout the Bible. The more you read the Bible, the more you find it's all One Author, expressed through different voices. Redemption flows like a river from beginning to end.

Theologically, I was hesitant to agree with all the references she makes linking the woman to the Bride of Christ. In a world where women's bodies are the root of all sin, knowing that our bodies are holy is much needed. And the Bible is read with a masculine voice, ignoring the beautiful femininity throughout. God is the essence and the source of both men and women, and it is a mistake to only apply masculine attributes to Him and Jesus. The nurturing language of motherhood is, I would argue, more prevalent than the "warfare" language of fatherhood. There is a depth and beauty to being the Bride that is overlooked or unwanted in many churches. While I support the premise, I felt some of the applications were possibly unsound. However, this may simply be a different interpretive paradigm. I did not find it heretical, nor did I find it Gnostic. There is no denying her Biblical scholarship, and her emphasis on Scripture as the base. I have not read the Song as she has, and I'm not sure I can. However, it has brought her deep joy, and that is only something that can be brought by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure I would have written a book about this perspective, yet I know she believed it was the right thing to do, and I can understand that.

I think I had the hardest time reading Chapter 3, because it felt too personal, and slightly off with the back and forth focus on sex and then salvation. It should have been a book about strictly one of those applications, not an interpolation. Reading it as a redemptive love story, almost in an esoteric sense, was enjoyable to me; when she brought in sex, I felt, honestly, "icky." Because she flipped back and forth, many of the aspects of what she referenced as sexual sin were not addressed. In "Why Can't We be Friends" she completely ignores sibling trauma, casting her entire premise around her sibling relationships. It's awesome that she had that, but coming from a family with siblings trauma, it felt hollow and assumptive. Many of her arguments about human sexuality read the same way here: a glossy finish over deep trauma and sexuality questions. You can't apply the Song as a solution in a blanket sense; people are far more nuanced. We all read Scriptures differently, a necessary part of a functioning Body. It felt like Byrd was trying to convince everyone of her perspective, without taking the time to listen. Many of her sources felt like an echo chamber.

Again, I have tremendous respect for Byrd, for her willingness to speak out, and fight back against insidious sin. She has endured abuse and persecution for refusing to toe the line. She has a solid history of affirming both men and women, aligning our worth back to Christ, and not with denominational by-laws. I just wish this book had been more academic and less a personal story.

[Eady Jay · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed Aimee’s exegesis of the Song of Songs in this book and would like to learn more about how to express this in my own marriage and my relationship with God and the church.

However, I did have some problems with this book. It seems as though Aimee is saying that both complementarianism (patriarchy) & egalitarianism (gender equality) are flawed. While both may be flawed, I can only err on the side of egalitarianism. Complementarianism doesn’t seem to believe that all people are equally valuable, and should have equal rights to teach and influence one another. While I believe there are biological differences between most males and most females, I do see gender as a social structure that has far more fluidity than complementarianism would ever allow for.

I also cannot agree with Aimee’s very straight hardline against queer relationships. Though the Song of Songs may predominantly describe a heterosexual relationship, I don’t believe God intends it to be to the exclusion of other sexual expressions.

Finally, I find the idea of Jesus coming back soon, ie “maranatha,” highly unlikely. Both Paul and Jesus seemed to think the end would come within a generation or so of their lives. They were mistaken, but the church has perpetuated this idea of “coming soon” for two thousand years. I’m not convinced that he’s coming at all. It's interesting that we use the word “coming” as a euphemism for sex. Perhaps Jesus is more likely to cum soon than to return.

[Nathan Marone]

Readers should approach this book as a theology of the Song of Songs. Though it is not a line-by-line commentary, Byrd uses the Song as a sort of prism through which to see the rest of scripture.

There have been competing views on how to interpret the Song and how to situate it within the canon. Byrd doesn't quite take an allegorical approach, but she comes as close to that as you can without crossing the line. To that end, I found this book a little frustrating. Her emphasis on intertextuality was at times insightful, but more often it seemed Byrd was stretching when trying connect the Song to some other far-flung part of the Bible.

That said, I agree with her approach to broader symbolism, which connects the Song with larger biblical frameworks of covenant and images of Christ and his Bride. Though I wish she had given more to exploring how the Song models and instructs on human romance, I did enjoy The Sexual Reformation as a sort of primer for digging deeper into the Song. And if you are looking for a contemporary "close-to-allegorical" reading, Byrd's book would be a good resource.

[Diane · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an extended meditation on the Song of Songs, and explores what it means to be a man or woman, married, single, etc from a Christian perspective. The book is also a critique of many of the ideas of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The author herself has generally been quite traditional, but lately has started to have second thoughts. Her writing is quite theologically rich and engaging. However, she had previously worked closely with many very conservative scholars, who have now turned against her (and vice versa). Although I really liked this book, she relies heavily on Roman Catholic theology, which I think falls into many of the same traps in thinking about woman as Protestants do. I'm surprised that someone of her knowledge and understanding would take until 2022 to realize that the Catholic writer Anthony Esolon is not really an ally. Still, her writing is very absorbing. I particularly liked how she compares the Song of Songs to the Psalms and the Gospels. She is truly bringing together Scripture from many different genres, in the style of a medieval sage.

[Paula Batton · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was so excited about this book. As a strong female presence and highly involved in my church. I really struggle with the "christian woman role" and balancing the God given gifts that I possess with that expectations of that role that I feel the church tries to cut me down with. I feel like I'm frequently asked to be "less."

Honestly I’ve never attempted to read a book that made feel so dumb. I felt like a second grader attempting to read Tolkien. I just started the third chapter and had no clue what she was speaking to 40% of the time, and opened my dictionary app more in the past week than I bet I have in the past 3 years totaled together. I really wish it was written in a way that the information Byrd wanted to share was more accessible to those of us without theology degrees.

[Andrea · Rating 2 out of 5]

Byrd attempts to discuss the sexual reformation through the lens of Song of Songs. While I agree with her assessment of CBMW, it irked me that she referred to CBE as "Council" for Biblical Equality (p. 9, Kindle). It's actually "Christians" for Biblical Equality. I know it's something small, but words matter.

I found myself skimming a lot of what she said because it seemed really repetitive. I'm still not sure if she did what she aimed to do, unless it was to denounce the CBMW, she certainly did that (and I'm grateful for it).

Bottom-line for me: This would be a good book for someone who is coming out of a very fundamental/traditional church background, and is deconstructing some toxic teachings. But for those of us who are further along in our deconstruction... I'm not sure it's worth the read.

[Alexandria Green · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing. Finally someone has a take on The Song of Songs that isn’t weird 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼 and it actually makes sense!

Byrd’s take on the woman’s desire in Genesis 3 is fascinating. The same Hebrew word shows up in the song I discovered in my interlinear app! Of course, I have never come across anyone showing that the same word is used positively in the song, only the negative connotation in Genesis which is itself an interpretation. Byrd argues that the desire is good which I think makes more sense too.

Love this whole book. My favorite of hers. Seeing the song as a metanarrative of all of scripture makes sooo much sense. It is a hermeneutical key 🔑 super fascinating. I sense that this will transform the way in which I read all of the Bible now and I don’t say that lightly.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have some misgivings about a couple of the things said or quoted in this book, and I strongly dislike her use of "B.C.E." for dating. But the insights into the Song of Solomon and the emphasis on sexuality as a gift, rather than a "role" we put on (which plays right into the way the world talks about sexuality!) are very valuable. The audiobook was not read very well - it was unclear in a couple of places if a sentence was read incorrectly or something was actually left out, and I ended up returning it. I've ordered a hard copy, as well as Pope John Paul's Theology of the Body which she referenced several times and I've heard recommended elsewhere (that will be a slow read!).

[Rebecca · Rating 5 out of 5]

Byrd's explanation of the Song of Songs is like a clean breeze, blowing away noxious clouds of error about the Song, sex, and the meaning of our bodies. Her work represents a healthy recovery of meaningful difference and equal dignity of male and female, correcting the patriarchal abuses inside complementarianism and affirming the good design of God in heterosexual, monogamous marriage and in male and female bodies as signifiers of glorious eschatological truth.

The text is scholarly but never dry and rewards the reader's efforts to understand as Byrd sings the glories of the heavenly Bridegroom. Highly recommended.

[Meredith Storrs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Loved the way Aimee teases out so many beautiful themes from Song of Songs and how they connect to the rest of scripture. So many points she makes drew me to worship in appreciation of the spousal imagery throughout scripture. I will be thinking back to themes of this book for the rest of my life. My only criticism (if you can call it that) is I’d love to see a follow up or recommended resources for how to study Hebrew poetry like the Song more closely. I know there is still so much in that book that I’m missing. Will have to read some of her references…

[Olivia Jones-Hatton · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Our bodies are theology.” I’m thankful for Aimee Bird’s ability to articulate the need for sexual reformation within the church, as well as how that sexual reformation is intrinsically linked to gender [roles], purity culture, etc. I’d say it was a good read but not great. It’s not new information or something that hasn’t been said before, but I think it’s a soft starting and conversation point for those that might not have already seen and experienced the need for sexual reformation within the Church.

[Jason Albertson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really good read on the Song of Songs

This book reshaped my approach to the Song of Songs, and I'm really grateful for it.

It's got some rough spots. In most places, it's 5 stars (the intertextuality portions, the critiques of how the CBMW rejects the blessings God intends for His Church from it's daughters and sons). In some, it's 2 stars (some portions seem to have lacked editing for clarity; points sometimes wander or are disconnected from the textual evidence).

One of the best things I've read this year.