NOTE: Throughout this review, quotes from Why Can’t We Be Friends? will be cited by simply placing the page number in parentheses. Quotations from other works, even if they occur within Byrd’s quotes, will receive a full, footnoted citation.

This week marks the release of Aimee Byrd’s new book Why Can’t We Be Friends?, a work that brings together many of the arguments she has been making for the past few years.  Those who have been following her writings for some time will notice a definite progression. The author who began by encouraging every woman to be a Housewife Theologian and have a fighting faith (to borrow from another book subtitle) has now grown more pointed in her critiques, no doubt as a result of both natural thought development and further exposure to discussions in the Reformed and evangelical world.

Two years ago, we had the release of No Little Women, in which Byrd went into greater detail about the problems she sees with the way women in the Church are viewed, and particularly the kind of theological training they receive. Now she brings us her consideration of cross-sex friendships. The timing could not be more appropriate: the past year has seen this issue pushed to the forefront of conversations in the Church due to the now famous “rule” of U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and the #MeToo and #ChurchToo movements. The question of whether men and women should or even can be friends has never been more pressing.

As Byrd’s critiques have increased, so has the number of her critics within the Reformed world. In common with many Christian female authors who encourage women to be more active in their local churches and pursue a greater depth of theological knowledge, Byrd has long been suspected of harboring egalitarian convictions (in the strictly conservative Christian meaning of that word) or even promoting a feminist agenda. Some of this perception came from her willingness to make common cause with egalitarians in opposing the doctrine known as the “Eternal (Functional) Subordination of the Son” during the Trinity debate of 2016. This placed her at odds with some who are more closely aligned with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which many conservative Christians look to as one of the greatest defenders of complementarian ideals.

As Byrd has increasingly turned her attention to cross-sex friendships over the past year or so, she has become suspected of encouraging something particularly dangerous: a lack of accountability in cross-sex relationships that could make it more likely for Christians to fall into sexual sin. The somewhat provocative subtitle of her new book—“Avoidance is not Purity”—has served as a kind of Rorschach test. For those who support her, it causes them to respond, “Yes! Exactly.” To those who look upon her more warily, it suggests that she just doesn’t get it.

But what does Aimee Byrd herself think about her book? I had the chance to visit her earlier this month, as the anticipation for Why Can’t We Be Friends? was increasing. Full disclosure: Aimee and I are friends. We do not agree on everything, but I have a basic concern for her well-being. Therefore, I was more interested at that time with how she was doing personally than debating the finer points of her arguments. After all, she has come under a lot of criticism and anticipates much more after the book is officially released.

To see Aimee with her family and the members of her church is to understand much of her motivation for this book. Her personal life is rich and overflowing with loving relationships. I have heard her speak of times in the past when this was not always the case, and it is obvious that the growing depth of these relationships has had a positive impact on her life. It seems to be largely because of this that she set her mind on how to develop better friendships in the Church. As she told me herself, sibling relationships have long been one of her research interests, and she especially wishes to know just what it means for us to be brothers and sisters in Christ.

Thus, despite her protestations to me that she doesn’t like conflict, she is once again treading into waters that are typically marked on the conservative Christian map with the phrase, “Here there be dragons.” I know Byrd doesn’t view her writings that way. She simply wants us to be “free to be fervent and not a pervert” when we relate to our brothers and sisters in Christ, to borrow a section title from her new book.

“I am not calling for some kind of new movement within the church in which men and women begin flaunting their friendships,” she writes. “I want nothing to do with that. We don’t need a movement. We do need real friends.” (231)

Yes, Aimee Byrd sees a problem that she wishes to help fix by directing Christians back to God’s Word. The proof will come in the reading: does she succeed in her goal of setting forth a better way for Christian men and women to relate to one another? As it turns out, the main objection in some quarters is not that she doesn’t solve the problem, but that the problem doesn’t exist.

Is There a Problem Here?

In anticipation of writing this review, I posted a few blog articles related to the issue of cross-sex friendships in the Church. I also kept an eye on the initial responses to a preview chapter from Why Can’t We Be Friends? I was not surprised to come across differing opinions, even as I was not surprised to see people accuse her of promoting sexual immorality. For example, @PeterFHyatt asked me, “Is Aimee’s husband a divorce lawyer?”

However, what I found difficult to process was that several Christian brothers online, with whom I have enjoyed mostly positive communication, objected on the grounds that they had never witnessed any lack of appropriate friendships in churches: that is, they did not believe that there was any problem with the way men and women related to one another or how women were being made to feel. “Where are these churches she’s talking about where this is a problem?” they asked.

One of those articles I wrote examined how the way we talk about sexual purity can, in some cases, place too much of the blame on a woman and her body and too little on the man who chooses to lust after her, even as victims of sexual abuse are sometimes assumed to have invited what happened to them through their words, behavior, or dress. I received the following tweeted response:

It would help if you cited an example of what you’re challenging. I can only see assumptions and connections that you’ve made. Any reasonable Christian acknowledges he’s responsible for his own sin. Is there someone in particular you had in mind that teaches otherwise? / I can honestly say I’ve never heard a man solely blame a woman’s appearance for his own sin. I’ve heard many men ask why women have to dress a certain way, or why God allows the temptation to be so strong, but never ‘I was helpless and forced to sin.’ – @CooterP2

How does one respond to this? It reminds me very much of the debate about racism in the Church. Sure, there are people who disagree over how to talk about or respond to racial/ethnic partiality in churches, but how do you respond to someone who denies that the problem exists? I prefer not to name and shame too much in my writing, but had I been so inclined, I could have trotted out the examples this man sought. However, one wonders if it would have made a difference, since he is inclined to think that sinners don’t blame their sin on something or someone else. Even Adam blamed the woman!

More to the point, arguments that amount to “it’s never happened to me personally” or “it doesn’t seem to exist in my church” are not only logically poor, but they attempt to invalidate the pain of others. “I’m not hurt by this, so you shouldn’t be either,” is no way for us to thoughtfully engage, yet I have experienced this so many times in the past year and a half that I carry an open wound in my soul. Whenever I say, “That hurts!”, there is always someone to tell me I’m overreacting, I’ve misunderstood, it was a joke, etc. But I am not a typical overreacter, and it does hurt…whether you think it should or not.

The fact is that we do have a problem with developing proper brother/sister relationships in the Church. Why wouldn’t we? If we have problems with how we relate to spouses, children, pastors, friends, and co-workers, then why wouldn’t we struggle to relate as brothers and sisters in Christ?

To make matters worse, certain teachers and organizations have stretched what the Bible says about the sexes into a highly developed and rigid system of “manhood” and “womanhood” that complicates our understanding of friendship. I have heard too many stories from women who have suffered as a result of this ideology and experienced too many painful comments myself to believe that there is not a problem in the Church.

If you don’t see it, perhaps you have been unwilling to humble yourself and listen to what your sisters (and brothers) are saying. Too often, the warnings are ignored and everyone refuses to see the problem until it blows up spectacularly, as was the case with Paige Patterson.

The very fact that we are having such a debate over Byrd’s book, and the slanderous comments that have been made against her and others (such as a “parody” account touting a supposed book titled Why Can’t We Be Naked?), demonstrate the necessity of a work like this. You may not agree with her conclusions, but there is most certainly a need for discussion and improvement. After all, when was the last time we did anything perfectly?

Byrd writes, “Reductive behaviors demean both men and women and inhibit our call to grow in Christ and love one another. I can’t tell you how many times I have felt less like a human being, a sister in Christ, and more like a threat. This is humiliating and wrong.” (47)

She is not alone. I too have felt like this. I have wondered how I, a Christian woman, can rightly relate to my brothers in Christ. As a person who worries too much, I have questioned both my actions and motivations, at times carrying a load of guilt that I did not truly deserve. This became especially difficult for me last year, as I was dealing with significant illness and depression. The more I entered into discussions about theology, the more I found myself asking what my role was amid all those men. Too often, women in such circles can be viewed as tokens, accessories, nuisances, or worst of all…temptations.

Byrd rightly notes that the Church has bought in to what she calls the “Billy Crystal Rule”. Taken from the popular late-80’s film When Harry Met Sally, it posits that when men and women try to be friends, “the sex part always gets in the way.” This reduction of friendship, in which platonic affection cannot be separated from sexual urges, is one of the chief targets of Byrd’s criticism: not simply that it exists, but that it exists within the Church.

“In a complete contradiction of our fight to uphold a biblical understanding of sexuality, Hollywood became our teacher on relationships and gender after all. The church sent messages that a woman’s attractiveness serves the purpose of landing a husband, then becomes a threat to all other men,” Byrd says. (23)

Therefore, she promotes the biblical description of Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ, a notion that is prominent in the writings of the Apostle Paul. In the interest of emphasizing this point, Byrd often quotes from the Christian Standard Bible, which translates the frequently used Greek word adelphoi as “brothers and sisters” rather than simply “brethren”. As the Greek implies siblings of either gender, this seems appropriate, though some will no doubt bristle at her decision to drop the term “opposite sex” in favor of “other sex” throughout the book.

For Byrd, friendship between Christians has its basis in this sacred family relationship: a spiritual reality that is greater than any purely physical bond. Our status as people united to Christ not only causes us to love freely, but allows us to oppose sin and promote holiness.

“Are we opposed to friendships? No—we are opposed to sin, and we are for holiness. And for this reason, men and women are called to be more than friends. We are called to Christ, in whom we become brothers and sisters.” (229)

Why We Fear

The sentiments Byrd promotes are honorable, but those who raise the alarm about lust are not simply crying wolf. We live in a society that has sought to obliterate any notions of “rightness” and “wrongness” in sexual activity—where the autonomous individual stands sovereign over his or her own affairs, and creates a personal morality based upon that thing Carl Trueman so often derides as “taste”. And lest I simply heap scorn upon the world, it must be said that the Western Church has bought into much of this. The same sinful tendencies we bemoan in the hearts of unbelievers live within us, for we are only partially sanctified.

Byrd does not seek to downplay that which we fear. Her book is divided into two parts, the first of which considers all the reasons we struggle to achieve God honoring cross-sex friendships and why some are simply not ready for this type of relationship. On several occasions, she acknowledges the elephant in the room and seeks to assure her readers that she is taking the severity of sin into account.

Christians who caution against friendship between the sexes warn against something very real: sin. But they let the fear of sinning reduce the virtue of friendship. Friendship isn’t sin. But sin in friendship is devastating…If we take sin lightly, we can’t expect to have holy relationships, so any case for brother-sister relationships must include a call to spiritual maturity. A man and a woman can’t be friends if one or both of them are deadlocked in immaturity and fear. Without spiritual maturity we are back to catering to immature notions of sexuality. (79-80)

Yes, temptation exists and sin is real, she writes. However, she consistently pins the blame not on the friendships themselves, but on sinful tendencies within the heart that have not been properly addressed.

Oddly, this reminded me of the debate over guns in the United States: yes, guns. Advocates of gun control believe that reducing the number of weapons in circulation will help to reduce deaths from gun shots. Those who champion gun owners’ rights will often retort, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” The gun control crowd points out that there are less firearm-related deaths in the United Kingdom. Their opponents say there are more British people are killed with knives. On and on the cycle goes, with the two sides firmly disagreeing on the source of the problem.

Jesus Christ famously said (hyperbolically) that if your eye causes you to sin, you should pluck it out. (Matthew 5:29) However, immediately before making that shocking statement, he placed the blame for lust at the core of human existence. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (v. 27-28, NASB, emphasis added) The body doesn’t sin unless the person wills it in their heart. Therefore, Byrd’s argument could be deemed entirely biblical by some, while others will no doubt object that gouging out an eye is rather different than avoiding a potentially compromising situation.

Byrd calls us not to think of friendships this way, essentially arguing that we are throwing out the baby with the bath water. “Temptation is real, and sin is evil. It may sound wise to avoid friendship between the sexes so that we can avoid sin. Yet we end up fearing disobedience more than having a zeal for obedience.” (93) She argues that spiritual friendship rooted in our common identity in Christ is the solution rather than the problem. “With all the sexual brokenness, sin, and confusion in the world, we need to learn to be good friends.” (228)

Our Identity

Byrd seeks to make the case for biblical cross-sex friendships by appealing to matters of anthropology, Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. She writes that the issue at hand boils down to a series of essential questions: Who are we? Why are we here? What are we supposed to be doing? What is our destiny? These questions are related to the ever-important issue of identity.

I recently had a Twitter exchange with Karen Swallow Prior in which she argued that identity is a relatively new concept. I agreed with her regarding the semantics of the issue, but nevertheless stated that the question, “Who am I?” has been asked by every human since the dawn of time. It is a question that cannot be answered in isolation: identity is always found in relation to something else, either positively or negatively, e.g. “I’m so and so’s mother,” “I work with these people,” “I worship this God,” “I don’t like such and such.” For the record, Prior replied that she never meant to suggest otherwise, I apologized for coming off as anti-semantic, and we both had a chuckle. (Please pray for Karen’s healing as she continues to recover from literally being hit by a bus.)

Christians too are asking the question, “Who am I?” However, we do not find our answer in the philosophies of man or a kind of self-created, subjective reality. We point back to Creation and the fact that we are made in the image of God. When we become united to Christ through faith, we take on an even greater identity by joining a sacred family.

According to Byrd, this is the basis for friendship between Christians. She borrows heavily from Kelly Kapic and Michael Horton to make her case, as in this quote: “We were not designed to be isolated worshipers of God. We were designed ‘for communion with God, neighbor, and the earth.’ This changes the way that we think about our whole beings. Reoriented, ‘we see [our bodies and their faculties] relationally rather than reductively.’ We find our purpose in Scripture.” (59, quoting Kapic[1], brackets in original)

She argues that this identity is one in which Christians are to pursue a godly communion that helps them grow in holiness and serve as witnesses to the world. “Kelly Kapic argues that God’s declaration shows a ‘dynamic or relational view of the human person….Just as God planted the garden to grow, so he planted Adam in the midst of that garden—to grow….We were created good with the expectation of growing in that goodness.’ This point is key.” (65-66, quoting Kapic[2])

The goal in all of this is to view brothers and sisters in Christ holistically: not as potential temptations, but as fellow pilgrims on the way and family members with whom we grow in holiness. It’s hard to argue with that description, even while one must admit that temptation is a reality. Byrd warns that focusing overly on the temptation aspect without also considering the purposes for which the Church was brought into being is overly reductive and even demeaning to fellow image bearers.

“When we look at people as holistic, relational beings, we don’t reduce them to their bodies—specifically to their genitalia and sexual urges,” she writes. “Our femininity and masculinity are more than that….To view the other sex as constant temptations to sin and threats to purity merely perpetuates the thinking and behavior of the unredeemed.” (38)

The Meaning of Friendship

Having established our identity as Christians, Byrd also considers the purpose and significance of friendship. This hits at the heart of the manner, because the fact is that many Christians will freely acknowledge that friendship between men and women in the Church is a positive and even necessary thing, while disagreeing over the details of exactly how that ought to play out in day-to-day interactions. Throughout the book, Byrd avoids reducing things to a discussion of situational ethics. She starts at the macro level, establishing the purposes for which Christian friendship exists, and then makes her way down to the micro level. This is a good decision that makes the book more meaningful than the million and one online discussions about this topic.

Rather than providing one definition of friendship and repeating it ad nauseam, Byrd highlights different aspects of friendship throughout the book. It is variously “one of God’s gifts” (171) and “something we do”. (96) It is “not disposable” (98), involves “solidarity” (199), allows for “complementarity” (227), and helps to fulfill our needs: whether social, emotional, or intellectual (102). In a typical passage, she writes, “Friendship requires moral excellence because it is not primarily for our own benefit but is formed through our sacrifices for another. Others-centered virtue creates a friendship that enhances the souls of all participants.” (97)

One of the roots of our problem, according to Byrd, is that we simply haven’t properly understood what friendship is. “On the one hand, we have trivialized friendship through technology; on the other, we warn against real friendship between the sexes. On the one hand, any stranger can be our friend; on the other, we are suspicious and protective of those who could actually be close to us.” (96) Our fear of others’ perceptions has caused us to discount something that was meant to be a fundamental part of who we are as Christians. “The strange part is that many Christians today are afraid to publicly acknowledge before our fellow evangelicals any affection or friendship with the other sex, denying altogether this gift and the responsibilities that come with it.” (171-2)

While it would be difficult for anyone to argue that Christians were not created for community, there is a great divergence when it comes to how unmarried men and women should interact. The fear of sin or even the appearance of it is powerful, and many would point out that a sin like sexual infidelity does not occur in the blink of an eye: it takes place by degrees, with each small compromise and each lowering of the defenses moving the Christian closer and closer to ultimate destruction. Therefore, it is necessary to stop compromise before it starts and maintain a healthy distance from any potential temptation.

Byrd is aware of these arguments and feels that they lose sight of the grander aspects of God’s intention. “Sure, we’re told, friendship is biblical and sounds good, but it isn’t necessary and isn’t worth the trouble of fighting the sin in my own heart. Your body is a threat to me, and I must protect myself from you…But if friendship doesn’t matter, then a lot of other parts of our design don’t matter either.” (36) She is convinced that, “We are not autonomous beings—we were made for communion with God and others. We aren’t just individual selves but ‘covenantal selves’ who are summoned by the great King. We can easily get caught up in our own stories, but God has cast us into his great drama.” (55)

It is certainly true that if that is our identity, then we ought to be acting in line with it, but what exactly does the mandate regarding communion require of us, and what specifically does God expect? After all, Jesus had women who traveled with Him and ministered beside Him, but none of them were in His core group of three (Peter, James, and John) or even among the twelve apostles. Some would argue that Jesus’ relationships with these women were more peripheral, and that the true intention of scripture is for men to seek out their closest friendships with other men rather than pursuing one-on-one interactions with women.

That is one interpretation, but Byrd has another. She argues that the complementary natures of men and women mean that their friendships will necessarily provide something that can’t be achieved through same-sex friendships, and this was intended by God for our growth in holiness. “Man and woman are made in the image of God, so we should long for complementarity in our friendships as we seek God above all things,” she writes. (227) “Everyone is unique in our combination of traits, and our relationships with the other sex complement what we lack. We weren’t created to exist independently, and rich friendships need to extend beyond same-sex boundaries.” (226)

Byrd considers how such friendships affect the greatest of all male/female interactions that occurs in sacred marriage. “While my husband is the only one I look to for romantic affection, it is unfair of me to look to him alone to fulfill all my social, emotional, and intellectual needs. We need good friends. That’s why God has given us brothers and sisters as well.” (102) In response to the fear that such friendships will necessarily diminish the special bond of marriage, she says, “Having another lover would dishonor and diminish a marriage, but additional friends actually enhance the friendships that we already have. God has fashioned friendship in such a way that we can learn different facets about one friend from another.” (100) Elsewhere, she concludes, “If you don’t know how to love well in friendships, you will never be satisfied with a spouse.” (143)

I agree that neither marriage nor even the biological family can fulfill all of our relational needs. The question is, can our same-sex friendships fill the gap? Is there something about close cross-sex friendships that is so important that our relational growth is stunted without it?

Byrd argues “yes” and I am inclined to agree. Indeed, it is difficult for me to imagine how I could have been properly prepared for my relationship with my husband if I had not previously enjoyed friendships with Christian males. I did not grow up with biological brothers, and I benefited greatly from these friendships with men—most of them brothers in Christ.

Now, it must be said that there were certain things I did not share with these male friends that I did share with my very closest female companions. I never got the sense in reading this book that Byrd was arguing for our friendships with men and women to be exactly the same in all respects. Rather, even as cross-sex friendships were instrumental in my own development, she argues that cross-sex friendships can benefit all Christians.

The Nature of Purity

We have a better idea of what not to do with our spiritual siblings than what we should be doing. The fact is, we have responsibilities in both directions: a responsibility to maintain holiness, yes, but also a responsibility to build holiness. Byrd’s argument is not that we shouldn’t be active regarding the former, but that we cannot be passive about the latter. Purity is not simply about protecting something. It is also about generously giving to others and building them up in holiness.

“Purity is not a static state that holds something back and waits for a change in marital status, it’s not a great exchange for marital bliss and the safety of our society, and it’s not an individualistic expression or path to self-improvement,” she writes. “Purity is relational and giving, never stagnant and passive.”

In her description of purity, Byrd is heavily indebted to both Kelly Kapic and Dietrich von Hildebrand. However, the best summation of her argument, and likely the best definition of purity I have ever read, comes from this quote by Charles Chaput, Catholic archbishop of Philadelphia, which Byrd includes in Why Can’t We Be Friends?

Purity is about wholeness or integrity. It means that the body, mind, heart, and soul are rightly ordered toward God. Every element of who we are is doing its part to bring us to union with God, which is our ultimate happiness. Given the strength of the sexual desires we all feel, rightly acting on those desires is a key part of maintaining purity. For single people and celibates…it means offering those desires up to God and seeking to channel them in our love and service to others.[3]

Byrd seizes this concept of being “rightly ordered” and runs with it. This, she argues, is the key to defeating lust: not so much cutting down on externals, but mortifying the sin inside. It is also just as much about what we give as what we refuse. “Our purity is from God and through God, and we respond by offering it back to God. Purity isn’t merely abstaining from sexual activity; it isn’t even having sex within marriage. It is offering our whole selves back to the Giver.” (72)

This is the meaning of the subtitle of Byrd’s book: “avoidance is not purity”. While she acknowledges that there are certain situations (and people) that must be avoided, she calls us to consider a more holistic definition of purity, even as we consider human beings more holistically.

Purity isn’t merely abstention. It isn’t practiced by avoidance. Purity isn’t just a physical status for a virgin, nor is it even the success of a faithful marriage. Purity is preeminently about our communion with God—a fountain that overflows into our other relationships. This doesn’t soften the warning against temptation but acknowledges and confesses it to God, so that we can see as he sees and love as he loves. Then our desires are rightly ordered. (69)

Along with keeping us from showing proper affection for our brothers and sisters in Christ, Byrd states that complete avoidance, rather than keeping us pure, can simply mask the sinfulness within until we reach a crisis point. Here she quotes from Hildebrand: “Since they have never uprooted and overcome this attraction, nor even struggled against it in open combat, every other department of their life is infected and poisoned by this disposition.”[4]

Hildebrand had a point, and so does Byrd. There are completely unrepentant sinners who have never committed certain sins because they have never had the opportunity. But whether the person is regenerate or not, sin is as much about their heart condition as anything else. That is why Christ said that sexual immorality begins in the heart.

“When we avoid relationships with others, we are not dealing with the sin in our own hearts, confessing temptations, offering them to God, and choosing obedience and holy, purifying love,” Bryd says. “Doing these things is much more difficult than avoiding people.” (93) She goes on to make an application to specific situations.

Table fellowship doesn’t cause affairs. Sexual impropriety arises from affections that are not rightly ordered. When this is the case, then yes, ordinary activities such as lunch, texting, and traveling in the same car can be avenues for bad behavior. But the table isn’t the problem. The problem is the heart. (105)

Here it is possible to anticipate the response. Returning to my gun analogy, most gun control advocates would freely admit that a person filled with hate fires a fatal shot, and the gun is simply the instrument they use. The only way to truly bring an end to murder is to make people stop desiring to murder one another. Even so, such an individual would also argue that evil in a person’s heart is less damaging to society than evil actions. Making it harder for people to shoot each other by restricting the number of guns doesn’t actually make us better people, but it might just reduce the number of firearm-related murders, and surely that would be a positive thing.

In the same manner, most Christians don’t blame the table itself, but given that unmarried persons who gather at a table sometimes end up having an affair, wouldn’t it be better to just not gather at tables? Perhaps, but that still leaves a wide variety of furniture-related options. If we’re going to blame the table, then just imagine what we ought to say to the bed!

Byrd writes, “If we can’t be trusted to have enough integrity to show one another common decency, then our souls are far from purified, and we certainly can’t have a sincere or fervent love for one another.” (215) The natural response is that no one is saying we shouldn’t show common decency: they’re saying we shouldn’t eat alone with the opposite sex or engage in other activities that might lend too much intimacy. Well, Byrd admits that there are times when we shouldn’t do those things, but she also rejects the notion that we should impose hard-and-fast rules that don’t allow for the kind of flexibility that is necessary in order to pursue other goals: hospitality, generosity, and the like.

When Attraction Still Comes

Now it’s time to get real. (Yes, now: 5,600 words into this article. Go refill your popcorn.) As much as we might like to avoid the issue, it is an established fact that after marriage, a person does not magically lose the ability to be attracted to anyone but their spouse. Similarly, a single person is not magically protected from ever developing romantic feelings for a person who is married. This is just as true for Christians as it is for those outside the Church. Though many believers thankfully are protected from most temptations of the flesh, the fact remains that at some point in the course of an average marriage, it is entirely likely that one or both partners will feel a certain level of attraction to someone else.

For me, this is a terrifying fact. I take my marriage vows very seriously, as well I should. I have no intention of falling into an affair of either the physical or emotional variety, and indeed my fear of such an occurrence probably decreases its likelihood. Nevertheless, I did not become blind when I married. I can still distinguish between men based on outward appearance, intelligence, character, humor, power, wealth, and any of the other things that might factor into whether a woman is attracted to a man or not.

This is not to say that I go around fantasizing about being with other men: far from it. While God will call me to account if I ever commit such a sin and hopefully bring me to repentance, I do realize that there is a difference between stating that (choosing an actor from a film I recently saw) Ryan Gosling is an objectively good-looking person and being romantically attracted to him. At no point in the course of an average day does his existence even cross my mind.

Therefore, the first question we have to ask about attraction is what we mean when we use the word. When considering this issue, I could not help but see a parallel with the ongoing debate over same-sex attraction. A number of Christians now identify as “gay but celibate” or something along those lines. Is this a valid statement for a Christian to make? That is, is it possible to be attracted to someone of the same sex without committing a sin? Is the attraction itself a violation of God’s law, or does it only become a sin when it is allowed to develop into lust? Is there even a difference between attraction and lust?

The answers to these questions depend on whom you talk to and how you phrase them. Different passages of scripture are raised to defend one view or the other. I am not going to attempt to answer them here, but I think it is a useful comparison when we consider what Aimee Byrd has to say about attraction. She begins by stating that some people fear romantic attraction when it does not truly exist because our culture has taught us to view all affection in a sexualized context.

When immature people have feelings for someone, they interpret them as sexual and romantic. But that is a reductive way to handle affection….Is it possible that we misread appropriate feelings due to the overly sexualized messages we hear, don’t know how to recognize or maturely handle them, and resist the intimacy that we could experience as brothers and sisters? (87)

She then moves on to discuss the issue further.

The truth is that we are attracted to more people than our spouses. Attraction is not impurity. Many things make a person attractive besides mere physical appearance. We should be attracted to godliness in a godly way. We can delight that someone is attractive without impure thoughts figuring in. Finding someone attractive doesn’t mean that we should pursue them romantically, however, or allow our thoughts to wander into sexual fantasy. That is self-absorption, not love. Love is so much more than romantic passion. If we are weak in this area, or with a particular person, we should certainly not put ourselves in situations where we know we will stumble or cause a brother or sister to stumble. We should never feed temptation to sin. Doing so is a red flag that you are not genuine in godly fellowship. (87-8)

It seems to me that Byrd is distinguishing between two different understandings of what it means to be attracted to someone. On the one hand, there is the way our culture usually thinks of it: being attracted to someone means you might be interested in having sex with them some day. On the other, it is possible to be attracted to someone in a platonic manner: to admire their good qualities and desire their friendship without wanting anything romantic. It seems that Byrd is using the latter understanding when she says, “Attraction is not impurity.” However, at another point in the book, Byrd uses an example that seems to point to a more romantic definition of attraction.

A quadriplegic woman explained to me that several years ago some men had taken her to the hospital to visit her husband. She said she had experienced inappropriate feelings of attraction during this ride, and that this was a challenge to her purity. She concluded that she had done the wrong thing by accepting a ride. But is this woman less pure because she felt attracted to other men? It sounds to me like she acted rightly on her desires, maintaining her purity by offering them back to God through loving her husband well. (74-5)

I bring this passage up because I suspect that others will do so. Taken out of context and viewed with an uncharitable eye, it could be seen to make light of a very real situation of temptation that a Christian woman faced. I do not believe that is the case, both because I have read the entirety of the book and because I had the opportunity to follow-up with Aimee about the issue. I asked her how she understood the concept of attraction. Did she distinguish external temptation from internal temptation? What exactly did she mean when she said the woman “acted rightly on her desires”?

I will not share all the details of that private interaction, but rather than distinguishing between types of temptation, Byrd seems more inclined to distinguish between types of reaction to temptation. The persons whose affections are “rightly ordered” will not allow their friendship with someone of the opposite sex to be taken over by lustful thoughts, for that would be an inherently selfish way to relate. Instead of offering one’s self to the other person in generosity, such a mindset only involves taking. The moral of the story in Byrd’s mind seems to be that the woman described did experience a form of attraction that she felt was tempting, but rather than allowing it to overtake her and lead her either to sin or fear, she surrendered it to the Lord and relied upon the power of the Spirit to help her remain true to her marriage vows.

It is an odd couple of paragraphs, but when viewed in context, Byrd clearly did not mean to suggest that there is any such thing as pure temptation. Later on in the book, she writes, “We are tempted because of the sin in our own hearts. We need to offer it to the Lord as a sacrifice and properly orient our affections. We need to rehearse the truths of who we are and where we are, so that we can be obedient to that truth and purify our souls.” (88)

Byrd does not tell women to refuse rides from men who are not their husbands, and she does not believe the quadriplegic woman was wrong to accept one. Nevertheless, she does acknowledge that, “Discernment is vital in all our relationships….Our relationships are a gift from God, lived out before God and offered to God. Therefore, we should never entertain inappropriate thoughts or behaviors in any relationships. Our actions overflow from our hearts.” (90) She stresses that cross-sex friendships that are rightly viewed in light of our common union with Christ are less likely to become troubled by inappropriate thoughts, but she also supports the use of sanctified common sense in all our endeavors.

If you are married and find yourself romantically attracted to someone other than your spouse, or if you are single and find yourself romantically attracted to someone who is off limits for any reason, they you need to confess this to the Lord in prayer and not put yourself in situations that fuel romantic feelings. You may need to avoid car rides or eating together with this specific person. The same applies if you discern that others have inappropriate romantic feelings toward you. However, this doesn’t mean that you need to apply a blanket rule against accepting rides from all friends. (91-2)

When it comes to the issue of potential attraction, Byrd concludes as follows: “Do we seek self-indulgence and reduction, or do we seek sacrifice and honor? Rather than assuming that friendship is impossible and walking away—or, worse yet, plowing forward to indulge or seduce—we will acknowledge and confess any wrongful ruling passions to the Lord and will ask him for wisdom and power in order to deeply care for our siblings in Christ.” (125)

Keeping Up Appearances

The question of what other people will think when they see us fellowshipping is both common and important. Byrd notes that the earliest Christians were the subjects of nasty rumors because they referred to one another as “brother” and “sister” and had “love feasts”. Today, the concern over such familial interactions is coming from within the Church more than without.

“What will people think if they see me joking with someone of the opposite sex?” we ask. Ditto for sharing rides, eating together, or hugging. Byrd agrees that appearances are important and we should care what others think, but she takes it in a different direction. She asks us what the world will think if we claim to be equal and united in Christ, then proceed to distance ourselves from one another.

…we claim to have a different allegiance, a different agency and purpose, and a different love than the world offers. Outsiders should sense that they really are on the outside of holiness and godly love when they see this in action. They should see that we aren’t just talking talk and building a false image. The values of the world should be contrasted with the values of God’s people in our relationships. They are looking for this. (216)

Many people champion the Pence Rule and its equivalents as ways to avoid malicious gossip or even criminal accusations. In the wake of the #MeToo and #ChurchToo movements, I have seen Christian men state that any accusation a woman makes is now taken as gospel truth and can destroy a person’s life. Men, they argue, are all portrayed as predators. Even if a man is not accused by the woman with whom he converses, other people might see the two of them talking, dining, or sharing a ride and assume that there is inappropriate behavior taking place.

Such thinking tends to ignore the fact that the people most likely to suffer from false accusations are the rich and powerful, even as they are most likely to be blackmailed. More to the point, research suggests that most sexual assaults never get reported, and even when the right people are informed, the victims are often disbelieved or the punishment is slim. (Such statistics can be found here, here, here, here, and here.) It took many years before either Larry Nassar or Harvey Weinstein were made to pay for their crimes. While the opposite case does occur, as in the infamous false accusations against the Duke lacrosse team, the perception that a man can be taken to court for simply conversing with a woman in a public place is based on fear more than facts. What kind of fear? Not the fear of God, but the fear of man…or in this case, the fear of woman.

Most Christians are more worried about gossip than allegations of criminal behavior, and in this they are correct. It is sadly possible that a man and a woman sitting at Starbucks to discuss the upcoming Church picnic could be seen by another member of the church, who then reports to the spouse of one of these individuals that their partner has been behaving inappropriately. It is also possible that this person could simply start telling everyone at the church, “I saw Michael and Rachel at Starbucks together. What do you think that means?”

Now, there are two possible conclusions when evaluating this situation. One is that Michael and Rachel should not have met at Starbucks to discuss the picnic. Perhaps the church should have appointed two women to handle it, or maybe they should have discussed the matter on speakerphone with their spouses present. The second possible conclusion is that Michael and Rachel did nothing wrong and their fellow church member is a gossip. Honestly, I think option #2 is the correct one, though if Rachel and Michael were holding hands or making lovey-dovey eyes at one another, I would change my tune.

When we choose not to meet at Starbucks with a member of the opposite sex who is not our spouse, why do we do so (besides not liking overpriced coffee)? Is it because we believe it to be a violation of God’s law in and of itself? Is it because we believe that doing so will cause us to be tempted to lust? Is it because it will make our spouse uncomfortable? Or is it because we are worried about what other people think? If it is all about what the rest of the world thinks, then we are less concerned with doing the right thing and more concerned with keeping up appearances.

Consider this much maligned tweet from Douglas Wilson: “I could see giving a woman a ride. To the hospital. If the bone was sticking out.”[5] Reading those words brings to mind a certain biblical passage.

Jesus replied and said, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.’ (Luke 10:30-32 NASB)

Jesus doesn’t tell us why those religious men refused to help the injured person, but it is clear from the context that they were not obeying the command to “love your neighbor as yourself”. Can you imagine what Douglas Wilson would think if he came across a woman lying on the side of the road, clearly injured but hardly clothed? Would he do anything to help, or would he drive by on the other side?

Byrd writes, “Some of the very men who preach biblical manhood and chivalry do nothing when it will actually cost them something—and that cost is usually ‘appearances.’” (26) Now, I understand the desire of Christian men in prominent positions to avoid compromising situations and those that could bring disrepute upon the name of Christ. A basic level of caution and a consideration of the woman’s character is warranted. However, at a certain point, you have to trust that God is in control, and that if we do what is commanded in scripture and show love to our neighbors, He will see that His will is done in our lives. As Byrd points out, we need to think less about protecting our ministries for their own (or our own) sakes, and more about allowing God to use them as He wills.

It is honorable of leaders to carefully consider their influence on others and the effects of their actions on their ministry. But it’s interesting to note that it’s not their ministry—it’s Christ’s ministry. And Jesus did not use this guideline. His friendships with women were downright scandalous during his ministry on earth….This same Jesus said that looking at a woman with lust is adulterous. This same Jesus preached about plucking out your eye if you keep using it to lust. He is serious about sin. Yet he doesn’t pander to any of the superficial gender tropes or situational sociability structures imposed by the culture. So what was more important to Jesus: appearances or reality? (82-3)

Byrd wants us to consider “which person expresses more value for who we are in Christ and who our spouse is—someone who can’t offer a service for a person in need because they can’t deal with attraction, or someone who properly orients their affections in a godly way?” (75) While some may feel uncomfortable speaking about “affections” in such a context, Byrd sees it as a natural part of our brother/sister relationships.

While she acknowledges the possibility of inappropriate attractions, Byrd maintains that the fear of such things and an inability to deal with them in a rightly ordered manner are the greater problems. “Do we take pride in being unstained by the thought of inappropriate interaction to the point that we cut ourselves off from our call to love one another and therefore starve to death as a community? Is this how we attain holiness?” (105) Again and again, she asks us to consider not what we will lose by developing godly friendships with the opposite sex, but what we will lose if we don’t.

An Eternal Reality

Byrd is passionate about championing friendships because she believes they have a value that extends into eternity. “Friendship is not a downgrade from erotic love. Unlike our marriages, friendship will last to the new heavens and the new earth.” (109) Not only does she want us to know who we are (spiritual brothers and sisters), but she emphasizes that we don’t have to wait until heaven to enjoy familial fellowship. “Our surrogate family in God’s household is superior even to our natural families. And it doesn’t form in the future; it begins now.” (122-3)

The present age is not merely a holding period before the real kingdom of God, Byrd says. It has broken in to the here and now. “In this new age, Christ’s kingdom has been inaugurated; the future breaks into the present as the Spirit leads and empowers us, as new creations, to live according to who we are!” (139) She states that this has a direct effect on how we think about things like dining together.

When we sit with our brothers and sisters in Christ for a meal, we rehearse for our eternal life in the new heavens and the new earth. Having lunch shouldn’t feel like a challenge to marital fidelity. Eating together is a platonic practice intended to bring joy to our friendships. Table talk is not the same as pillow talk, so let’s not treat it that way. (191)

I believe this description of our relationships as part of the kingdom of God breaking into history is helpful. However, the kingdom of God is famously “already and not yet”, and thus it is easy to anticipate the objection. It goes something like this…

In heaven, we will be fully sanctified. We will not even marry or be given in marriage. There will be no potential perversion to our love. But we are currently living on planet Earth, where sin is pervasive. All of us still struggle with fleshly desires. Attempting to act on earth as one would in heaven is therefore naive. We are not yet perfected. We must take steps to protect our marriages, even as marriage itself helps to protect us from lust and fornication.

Such a line of thinking is entirely understandable given the very real problem of sin in our world. It acknowledges that marriage is a sacred covenant worth protecting, and that no Christian, however mature, is beyond the possibility of temptation. It calls us to know ourselves and our weaknesses.

However, there are some things this argument doesn’t do. It acknowledges weakness, but has nothing to say about the power of the Spirit, which enables us not only to endure temptation, but to positively build one another up in holiness. It sacrifices the covenant community of the Church for the covenant bond of marriage. Yes, we have responsibilities to our spouse, but we also have responsibilities to our spiritual siblings, and we lack faith if we do not believe that the Spirit can empower us in this work as well.

It was the Lord Himself who taught us to pray, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven”. (Matthew 6:10) In the interest of avoiding an over realized eschatology, some of us emphasize the “not yet” aspect of God’s kingdom to the point that we barely acknowledge the “already”. We act as if certain parts of scripture are merely ideals to strive toward, rather than divine commands.

Yes, it is true that while we live here sin will keep us from reaching the perfection of Heaven, but by the Spirit within us and the intercession of the Son before the Father, we have a chance to do something incredible: to build a community of love that points others to its Head.

In this as in so many things, we have a bunker mentality when we ought to have a lighthouse mentality. If the kingdom of God is separate from the kingdom of this world, then let us live according to the dictates of the kingdom to which we belong. We are a family, so let’s start acting like one.

And when men and women view and treat one another as holistic people made in the image of God who are investing in something more than the here and now, they show that friendship points to something more permanent than what this world offers. Friendship looks beyond our finitude to what we expect to be in eternity. Friendship points to our truest friend and advocate, Jesus Christ. And he cannot be cheapened. Furthermore, friendships points to the mission of our triune God: eternal communion with his people. (232)

Getting Practical

All of this high-minded discussion is good, but it will disappoint those who hoped to get a 243-page list of do’s and don’ts. “What does it look like in practice?” we all want to know. Fortunately, Byrd does give some practical suggestions, though she emphasizes the need for basic discernment in all situations. After all, it would not be possible for any author to speak to every possible circumstance.

She makes the key statement that, “Promoting holiness in a sibling presupposes discernment of his or her strengths and weaknesses.” (181) This means that we can’t simply rely on famous people to tell us how to apply godly wisdom. We have to actually get to know our brothers and sisters and discern what the best path in each situation is.

On some issues our faith may be stronger or weaker than our brothers’ or sisters’, and we are responsible to take care ‘never to put a stumbling block or pitfall in the way of [our] brother or sister’ (Rom. 14:13 CSB). We exercise our faith in different areas, and some of us have more liberty that comes with a stronger knowledge of or conscientiousness in the faith. (179, brackets in original)

According to Byrd, boundaries are sometimes necessary, but they must not be arbitrary or legalistic. We should not constantly give in to fear, but rely upon the Spirit to help us discern the truth.

When it comes to relationships between the sexes, we don’t combat evil with constant suspicion, regulations, and avoidance. In fact, we sin when we allow a ruling passion or sensual desire to determine our relationships, grieving the Holy Spirit and quenching his work to develop the affection of godly siblingship. While it’s necessary to establish proper boundaries with those who relate in a sinful manner, we must also know the proper way to relate with our brothers and sisters. Knowing what is good builds our discernment. Promoting what is good invests in the holiness of others. (181)

In addition to calling for basic discernment, Byrd makes some concrete suggestions for promoting cooperation between the genders and mutual encouragement in godliness.

• Investing in the theological training of women (44)
• Actively providing opportunities for women to serve in all positions open to them (45)
• Having pastors keep an open door when counseling women, or having a windowed door (90)
• Inviting women to session meetings and encouraging them to share their thoughts (156)
• Properly equipping those who lead women’s ministries (157)
• Having women in the church who can serve as conduits for victims of abuse (158)

Just in case you feared that this Byrd wasn’t doing enough to ruffle feathers, she makes the obvious but no doubt controversial statement that an organization with all-male leadership can struggle to respond properly to the concerns of women.

It is intimidating for a woman to face a session of male authority with intimate details of abuse. This too exposes her vulnerability. A responsible confessional church will recognize and acknowledge this. If it does not, a church with exclusive male governance is more vulnerable to patriarchy, weak relationships, bad doctrine, enabling of abuse, and immature men and women. (158)

Before you pronounce “case closed” on the question of whether or not she is an egalitarian, take note that Byrd does not say that churches with exclusive male governance are prone to patriarchy, bad doctrine, and abuse. She says that churches with exclusive male governance that do not recognize the need to respond properly to the women in their midst will be more prone to these things. That is the key difference. Rather than arguing for a change in leadership, she is arguing for a change in the way that leaders respond.

On the whole, Byrd’s approach is a very practical one. She does not call for universal prohibitions on male/female interactions, and she does not tell us to let down our guard either. She attempts to chart a middle course that is informed by biblical truth.

Our call to Christian love and fellowship as brothers and sisters doesn’t call us to ‘the false modesty of the prude’ but to a ‘humble sincerity’. Of course we promote one another’s holiness, take sin seriously, and realize that we can easily fall into it. We don’t think of a bunch of reasons to be alone with the other sex, we don’t naively assume that everyone is safe, and we don’t overestimate our own virtue. But, rather than creating extrabiblical rules, we are to do the hard work of rightly orienting our affections and exercising wisdom and discernment with others. We live before God in every situation. And in this manner, we will be able to perform ordinary acts of kindness and business without scandal. (77)

Does the Book Succeed?

This has been a very long review, so let me remind you that I stated at the beginning that Byrd’s goal was to set forth a better way for Christian men and women to relate to one another. In this, I think she mostly succeeds. She does not give us a ten-point plan, but focuses instead on the biblical concepts that form our understanding of who we are and how we ought to behave. She stresses the value of Spirit-enabled discernment over man-made rules. I believe this is a good strategy, or at least a much better one than most of what I have seen pop up on social media and the Christian blogosphere.

I felt that the ideas in this book were well developed, with the possible exception of her understanding of attraction. This is a hot button issue in Christianity today, and the way she discussed it sometimes created ambiguity. I do not believe that there was any kind of heretical or deceptive intent behind this, and it would be possible to write an entire book on this issue alone. Nevertheless, I would have appreciated a bit more explanation of how Byrd understands the difference between attraction and lust (if indeed there is one), and how attraction and/or affection can be properly channeled in a godly manner.

I would highly recommend this book for those seeking to understand the importance of friendship within the Church and how to relate to spiritual brothers and sisters. Whether or not you agree with all her conclusions, I think the arguments that Aimee Byrd has presented are worthy of serious consideration. She is clearly passionate about this issue and seeks to make her case from scripture.

Therefore, if you are looking for a nice summer read with a bit of controversy thrown in, you could do worse than Why Can’t We Be Friends? Available from P&R Publishing and Amazon.

[1] Kelly M. Kapic, “Anthropology,” in Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, ed. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 177-8.

[2] Kapic, 181.

[3] Charles J. Chaput, Strangers in a Strange Land: Living the Catholic Faith in a Post-Christian World (New York: Henry Holt, 2017), 180.

[4] Dietrich von Hildebrand, In Defense of Purity (Steubenville, OH: Hildebrand Press, 2017), 24. Originally published as Reinheit und Jungfräulichkeit (Köln: Oratoriums Verlag, 1927).

[5] Douglas Wilson, (@douglaswils), “Pence Rule: Case by Case Dept.,” Twitter, April 6, 2017, 4:20 p.m., https://twitter.com/douglaswils/status/850126155546062848.