# Comprehensive Review of Aimee Byrd's Books



## mvdm (Nov 17, 2021)

An OPC minister has recently provided a thorough review of each of Byrd's books and gives a final summary. And he calls out the church officers who have promoted her more recent works and failed to disciple her to repentance. I would add that in the meantime, she continues to slander the denomination she is leaving.

_"My concern is that the writings of Mrs. Byrd have gradually drifted from helpful, orthodox, and godly, to harmful, heterodox, and worldly."_









The Published Writings of Aimee Byrd: A Summary Analysis


A final reflection on how a housewife theologian ended up recovering from biblical manhood and womanhood.




heritageopc.org

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 17, 2021)

Bump. This issue needs more attention for sure. May the Lord lead her to repentance. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 17, 2021)

How will this impact Trueman and others who did so much to push and advertise her?


----------



## mvdm (Nov 17, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> How will this impact Trueman and others who did so much to push and advertise her?


Would hope it would move them to a public apology, but I'm not optimistic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 17, 2021)

So is she no longer in the denomination?


----------



## Taylor (Nov 17, 2021)

jwithnell said:


> So is she no longer in the denomination?


That is correct.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 17, 2021)

jwithnell said:


> So is she no longer in the denomination?


Jean, I really haven't followed this much, but I found this:

https://aimeebyrd.com/2021/10/22/leaving-the-opc/


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 17, 2021)

mvdm said:


> An OPC minister has recently provided a thorough review of each of Byrd's books and gives a final summary. And he calls out the church officers who have promoted her more recent works and failed to disciple her to repentance. I would add that in the meantime, she continues to slander the denomination she is leaving.
> 
> _"My concern is that the writings of Mrs. Byrd have gradually drifted from helpful, orthodox, and godly, to harmful, heterodox, and worldly."_
> 
> ...


Thank you for the heads up. Are you able to sum up what is harmful, heterodox, and worldly about her? I'm just curious to be basically equipped in case she ever comes up in conversation and I have to warn someone.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 17, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Jean, I really haven't followed this much, but I found this:
> 
> https://aimeebyrd.com/2021/10/22/leaving-the-opc/


Victor
Thank you for sharing the link. Very disturbing.
The link you shared shows that she made the whole matter all about her. 
I hear her saying that she was misunderstood but, I do not hear her saying how she was misunderstood.
I do not read her and find an appeal to the clear teaching of the Bible.
"The process in seeking help made me feel less like a part of the household of God, less like a sister in Christ, and less like a gift." Poor me, it is all about me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 17, 2021)

"'_I hope and pray that publishing in biblical studies will become more diverse. Historically, the discipline has been dominated by white men (please understand that I have nothing against white men; many of my best friends among authors are white guys), but this must change…Zondervan Academic has made this commitment and, as our friendly competitors do so as well, we will begin to see the tide change for the better (emphasis original)._'"

If it's diversity they want, has it ever occurred to these people that I, a white male, have much more in common with an Anthony Bradley than a John Calvin? We at least share the same world. To say nothing of an Augustine.

Why is diversity so... skin-deep to some people?


----------



## JH (Nov 17, 2021)

Why does this thread keep fading in and out of the front page? I have to sift through my browser history just to get back to it


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2021)

I haven't noticed anything unusual. How are you accessing?


Jerrod Hess said:


> Why does this thread keep fading in and out of the front page? I have to sift through my browser history just to get back to it


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 17, 2021)

Same here. I usually use “What’s New” to see the latest. No disappearing threads.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 17, 2021)

Zach said:


> When the General Assembly has to instruct a Presbytery to apologize to her because they allowed reviling language to be used about her on the floor it's not laughable to think that she may have been the victim of abusive behavior.


Seconded. This fact is not mutually exclusive with the reality of her theological drift and does need to be included in the discussion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Nov 17, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> Why does this thread keep fading in and out of the front page? I have to sift through my browser history just to get back to it


I have had threads do this to me in the past, I think. Not sure why.


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 17, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Jean, I really haven't followed this much, but I found this:
> 
> https://aimeebyrd.com/2021/10/22/leaving-the-opc/


Thanks for the link. This is really close by me.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 17, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I have had threads do this to me in the past, I think. Not sure why.


If you use “New Posts” to refresh, posts that you’ve read disappear until a new post comes up.

“What’s New” shows all of the active threads in chronological order.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## JH (Nov 17, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I haven't noticed anything unusual. How are you accessing?


I was accessing via Chrome on a Pixel 4a. I figured maybe PB was hiding the thread


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 17, 2021)

Thank you for sharing this!


----------



## bookish_Basset (Nov 18, 2021)

Thanks for this link. I recommend reading through the entire series of book reviews if one has the time. I'm impressed that he took the time to thoughtfully review all her published work.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Nov 18, 2021)

Whatever I see her pop up on some video, she always comes across as a Beth Moore 2.0. to me.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Nov 18, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> Seconded. This fact is not mutually exclusive with the reality of her theological drift and does need to be included in the discussion.


I see Zach's message was deleted, but the "reviling language" in question was calling her a wolf, and I have a hard time seeing how that is not an accurate descriptor of someone who remained in the OPC with heterodox teaching, attempting to spread it among the laity through books and conferences, and has since left for more feminist waters. She is a wolf, and that so many coals were heaped on Rev. Spangler's head because he was willing to point that out is a real embarrassment.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Zach (Nov 18, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> I see Zach's message was deleted, but the "reviling language" in question was calling her a wolf, and I have a hard time seeing how that is not an accurate descriptor of someone who remained in the OPC with heterodox teaching, attempting to spread it among the laity through books and conferences, and has since left for more feminist waters. She is a wolf, and that so many coals were heaped on Rev. Spangler's head because he was willing to point that out is a real embarrassment.


I should note that I deleted my post not because I don't stand by it but by request of the person whose post I originally quoted, who wished their post to be deleted. 

It should be noted that Mrs. Byrd was never charged with any offense, sin, or false teaching, let alone convicted of such, and that Mr. Spangler was tried and convicted by his Presbytery for his sin, at least in part for calling her a wolf. Such language should not be used about her and shouldn't be posted or tolerated on the Puritan Board.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## mvdm (Nov 18, 2021)

By that narrow logic, would the minister who authored the articles in the OP have to wait for charges and/or conviction before characterizing her writings as "_harmful, heterodox, and worldly."_ ?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Nov 18, 2021)

Zach said:


> I should note that I deleted my post not because I don't stand by it but by request of the person whose post I originally quoted, who wished their post to be deleted.
> 
> It should be noted that Mrs. Byrd was never charged with any offense, sin, or false teaching, let alone convicted of such, and that Mr. Spangler was tried and convicted by his Presbytery for his sin, at least in part for calling her a wolf. Such language should not be used about her and shouldn't be posted or tolerated on the Puritan Board.


I'm sure you'd join me in condemning Machen then, who was defrocked by the courts of the Presbyterian Church, and in exonerating Peter Leithart of federal visionism, as the presbytery of the northwest did. We have no right to disagree with the courts of the church, after all.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 18, 2021)

Moderation....

Let’s keep this thread on the topic of the reviews and not derail into church polity.


----------



## kodos (Nov 18, 2021)

Zach said:


> I should note that I deleted my post not because I don't stand by it but by request of the person whose post I originally quoted, who wished their post to be deleted.
> 
> It should be noted that Mrs. Byrd was never charged with any offense, sin, or false teaching, let alone convicted of such, and that Mr. Spangler was tried and convicted by his Presbytery for his sin, at least in part for calling her a wolf. Such language should not be used about her and shouldn't be posted or tolerated on the Puritan Board.



This is a very strange measure. You do not find any false teaching or feminist theology in her (especially latter) works?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 18, 2021)

Sorry for the interruption. After conferring with other admins, the thread remains public.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Zach (Nov 18, 2021)

mvdm said:


> By that narrow logic, would the minister who authored the articles in the OP have to wait for charges and/or conviction before characterizing her writings as "_harmful, heterodox, and worldly."_ ?


I didn't say that. Rev. Myers is free to engage in substantive criticism of her work and draw his own personal conclusions about Mrs. Byrd's work. But calling her a wolf is a judgment about Mrs. Byrd and her standing in the Kingdom, something that is entirely different. In the interest of following the Moderator's comment about not derailing the thread with the subject of polity I won't say more than that.



kodos said:


> This is a very strange measure. You do not find any false teaching or feminist theology in her (especially latter) works?


I haven't read Mrs. Byrd's books and I am not interested in defending what Mrs. Byrd has written. My point is simply that those with such substantive concerns did not ever file charges against her to prove their allegations in the courts of the church, something they ought to have done if they seriously thought she was a false teacher. It also means that we should refrain from speaking about Mrs. Byrd as if the church has passed judgment on her and her work.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos (Nov 18, 2021)

Zach said:


> I haven't read Mrs. Byrd's books and I am not interested in defending what Mrs. Byrd has written. My point is simply that those with such substantive concerns did not ever file charges against her to prove their allegations in the courts of the church, something they ought to have done if they seriously thought she was a false teacher. It also means that we should refrain from speaking about Mrs. Byrd as if the church has passed judgment on her and her work.



I see. I must have missed the context of your statements due to gaps in the thread. You are speaking to the being called a wolf issue. Frankly I haven't followed that.

But her works and words merit serious alarm. In some quarters calling attention to it is seen as out of bounds. Which baffles me.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 19, 2021)

kodos said:


> But her works and words merit serious alarm. In some quarters calling attention to it is seen as out of bounds. Which baffles me.


Where have you experienced it as out of bounds to call attention to it?


----------



## kodos (Nov 19, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> Where have you experienced it as out of bounds to call attention to it?


Social media mostly. Facebook and the Twitter mob. Maybe the well is poisoned a bit by the Geneva Commons controversy, which I never was a part of. But I have seen even the most fair critiques of her work incur wrath.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 19, 2021)

I've been doing a little bit of research, but I can't find out exactly what she specifically believes and practices that is against biblical Christianity. From what I have read, from her side and from her opponent's side, things are left to be pretty vague. Can anyone give some concrete specific examples of how she would counsel someone against the Bible?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## mvdm (Nov 19, 2021)

Did you read all the material linked in the OP?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 19, 2021)

mvdm said:


> Did you read all the material linked in the OP?


I read the article, read her blog post, and watched some videos of hers. I'm curious but I don't really have the time to devote to the topic to look deeply into it.


----------



## kodos (Nov 19, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I've been doing a little bit of research, but I can't find out exactly what she specifically believes and practices that is against biblical Christianity. From what I have read, from her side and from her opponent's side, things are left to be pretty vague. Can anyone give some concrete specific examples of how she would counsel someone against the Bible?



This is precisely the point. Things are left vague _on purpose _when someone creeps towards the unorthodox. A plain example of what she has done is placing the thought that there was a female apostle (http://heritageopc.org/2021/10/26/recovering-2/) in her readers' minds. What does that do? It opens up the door to endorsing women ministers without having to explicitly endorse them. That should be enough - but there is enough material throughout her writings compiled on that site to sound the alarm. Her use of feminists and feminist imagery to make points should also be a warning to the church.

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 1 | Amen 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 19, 2021)

kodos said:


> This is precisely the point. Things are left vague _on purpose _when someone creeps towards the unorthodox. A plain example of what she has done is placing the thought that there was a female apostle (http://heritageopc.org/2021/10/26/recovering-2/) in her readers' minds. What does that do? It opens up the door to endorsing women ministers without having to explicitly endorse them. That should be enough - but there is enough material throughout her writings compiled on that site to sound the alarm. Her use of feminists and feminist imagery to make points should also be a warning to the church.



I'm undecided on the Junia claim. It is fairly standard in modern research and commentaries on that passage, even conservative commentaries. Moreover, one can affirm that Junia is an apostle while still rejecting female ministers, since we all admit that the apostolate has ceased.

As to using feminist and feminist imagery, I admit that can be problematic. On the other hand, anti-wokists are using atheists like James Lindsay to promote biblical doctrine. Eve worse, some patriarchalists promote the pedophile-enabling Pelagian "Transformed Wife."

Of course, that's technically the tu quo que fallacy, but it bears noting.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos (Nov 19, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm undecided on the Junia claim. It is fairly standard in modern research and commentaries on that passage, even conservative commentaries. Moreover, one can affirm that Junia is an apostle while still rejecting female ministers, since we all admit that the apostolate has ceased.
> 
> As to using feminist and feminist imagery, I admit that can be problematic. On the other hand, anti-wokists are using atheists like James Lindsay to promote biblical doctrine. Eve worse, some patriarchalists promote the pedophile-enabling Pelagian "Transformed Wife."
> 
> Of course, that's technically the tu quo que fallacy, but it bears noting.



You know me, brother, you know I have no love for the ESS, hyper-patriarchists, Doug Wilson, and that crowd. I am staunchly opposed to them all. I can be opposed to the hyper-patriarchy men and also towards egalitarians at the same time.

However, in Byrd's work targeted towards laypeople _of both sexes, _and towards elders - we must consider what the outcome of her material is when you view it as a whole. In my estimation, she certainly plants seeds of doubt (if not more than that) concerning male only leadership that are there to be watered. When coupled with the general thrust and evolution of her work, it tends towards an egalitarian view of men and women in the church (see who follows her on Twitter, she certainly does not seem to offend feminists and egalitarians, who are very supportive of her project - that should be a red flag in itself - if NT Wright ever supported a work of mine on justification, I would either have to believe he repented or I am in terrible error).

The Bible speaks of the subtilty of the serpent and to not be deceived by the deceitfulness of sin. These things are not so plain. Which is why whenever there is fog or confusion concerning a teacher (even putting aside the question if she _should_ be teaching) - we must be on guard. Lest anyone misunderstand - I am not saying she is a serpent. Strange that I do not have to caveat my anti-Doug Wilson rhetoric in that way!

Reactions: Like 9 | Edifying 1


----------



## bookish_Basset (Nov 19, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm undecided on the Junia claim. It is fairly standard in modern research and commentaries on that passage, even conservative commentaries. Moreover, one can affirm that Junia is an apostle while still rejecting female ministers, since we all admit that the apostolate has ceased.
> 
> As to using feminist and feminist imagery, I admit that can be problematic. On the other hand, anti-wokists are using atheists like James Lindsay to promote biblical doctrine. Eve worse, some patriarchalists promote the pedophile-enabling Pelagian "Transformed Wife."
> 
> Of course, that's technically the tu quo que fallacy, but it bears noting.


I do think it's possible to use non-Christian and questionable sources to support one's arguments. I just think it takes delicacy and skill to do it really _well_ and effectively -- especially when writing for a popular audience. 

I was a bit dismayed when I read about some of the sources being drawn upon in her more recent books. I went to college and even took biblical studies courses in a feminist/progressive environment, so it's possible that it's a bigger red flag for me than it needs to be. Maybe she incorporates and critiques that material very deftly. Having been down the feminist path myself, I just know how disorienting it can be for a reader to encounter that material while lacking a strong foundation for engaging with it (which was certainly my situation, and it led nowhere good).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Zach (Nov 19, 2021)

kodos said:


> I see. I must have missed the context of your statements due to gaps in the thread. You are speaking to the being called a wolf issue. Frankly I haven't followed that.
> 
> But her works and words merit serious alarm. In some quarters calling attention to it is seen as out of bounds. Which baffles me.


Yes. I was speaking narrowly to the issue of her being called a wolf and my earlier post was responding to the particular claim that it is laughable to assert that she is a victim of abusive behavior.

As for her work and words, I largely agree with what Jacob said. One of the reasons I haven't read her books is that when I read her shorter writing and listen to her on the subjects I find plenty that I disagree with even though I also think she raises other very valid points and criticisms. But, and this really should go without saying, I do think that one can be wrong without being a wolf! I'm personally not particularly alarmed by the areas where I happen to have disagreement with her nor do I necessarily think that she is embracing entire systems of unbelieving feminist thought or interpretations when making a point with some of their observations. 

I understand why some others do have concerns about her work. But my primary concern is that people engage with her work in a substantive way and make judgments about her work and not her personally and that they also engage with her respectfully as our sister in Christ deserves.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 19, 2021)

kodos said:


> You know me, brother, you know I have no love for the ESS, hyper-patriarchists, Doug Wilson, and that crowd. I am staunchly opposed to them all. I can be opposed to the hyper-patriarchy men and also towards egalitarians at the same time.
> 
> However, in Byrd's work targeted towards laypeople _of both sexes, _and towards elders - we must consider what the outcome of her material is when you view it as a whole. In my estimation, she certainly plants seeds of doubt (if not more than that) concerning male only leadership that are there to be watered. When coupled with the general thrust and evolution of her work, it tends towards an egalitarian view of men and women in the church (see who follows her on Twitter, she certainly does not seem to offend feminists and egalitarians, who are very supportive of her project - that should be a red flag in itself - if NT Wright ever supported a work of mine on justification, I would either have to believe he repented or I am in terrible error).
> 
> The Bible speaks of the subtilty of the serpent and to not be deceived by the deceitfulness of sin. These things are not so plain. Which is why whenever there is fog or confusion concerning a teacher (even putting aside the question if she _should_ be teaching) - we must be on guard. Lest anyone misunderstand - I am not saying she is a serpent. Strange that I do not have to caveat my anti-Doug Wilson rhetoric in that way!


Would she say men and women are permitted to serve in the same capacities in the Church? If so, this is a clear violation of God's design and is concrete.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 19, 2021)

Rom, I know you aren't an ESS guy and we are on the same page. I've read maybe 40 pages of her Biblical Womanhood book. I generally don't read non-theological Christian lit, whether by men or women. My interest was that ministers in a denomination shouldn't use the kind of language that was used on Geneva Commons.

I wonder if her use of "feminist" literature is a reaction against certain Aristotelian interpretations of anthropology, where women were seen as defective men. I know Christian Patriarchalists don't officially believe that, but I suspect they kind of want to.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 19, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Would she say men and women are permitted to serve in the same capacities in the Church? If so, this is a clear violation of God's design and is concrete.


As of last year that was a clear no. I've not seen her say that.


----------



## kodos (Nov 19, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Rom, I know you aren't an ESS guy and we are on the same page. I've read maybe 40 pages of her Biblical Womanhood book. I generally don't read non-theological Christian lit, whether by men or women. My interest was that ministers in a denomination shouldn't use the kind of language that was used on Geneva Commons.
> 
> I wonder if her use of "feminist" literature is a reaction against certain Aristotelian interpretations of anthropology, where women were seen as defective men. I know Christian Patriarchalists don't officially believe that, but I suspect they kind of want to.



Yes, I wonder if there are many issues intertwined here. That intemperate language directed towards her at Geneva Commons and cruel things were said also muddies these waters, I think. That we can no longer "distinguish" between those issues and the issues concerning her teaching (seen clearly on this thread) is certainly unhelpful both to her and to the church.

I also have grave problems with the "b-r-o culture" we are finding more and more in the Reformed churches: just as obnoxious and as deadly as feminism. So, as always, I am happy to take fire from all sides. 

EDIT: I had to add hyphens to b-r-o otherwise the software here seems to autoconvert it to brother.

Reactions: Like 5 | Edifying 1


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm undecided on the Junia claim. It is fairly standard in modern research and commentaries on that passage, even conservative commentaries. Moreover, one can affirm that Junia is an apostle while still rejecting female ministers, since we all admit that the apostolate has ceased.
> 
> As to using feminist and feminist imagery, I admit that can be problematic. On the other hand, anti-wokists are using atheists like James Lindsay to promote biblical doctrine. Eve worse, some patriarchalists promote the pedophile-enabling Pelagian "Transformed Wife."
> 
> Of course, that's technically the tu quo que fallacy, but it bears noting.


The Transformed Wife gives better marriage advice than 90% of Reformed pastors. She just needs to stay in her lane (which she mostly does) and speak only on marriage and the family. You are down on "partriarchalists" but their version of patriarchy is an over-reaction against feminism. Both are detestable. The OT was patriarchal, if you have a quarrel with patriarchy per se, go talk to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2021)

I think the West is suffering a see-saw of reaction and over-reaction: 

Feminism has won, even in the church for the most part. In the Old Days even movie heroes were very manly. Not more muscular but more rugged and manly. Now things are feminized. So many men in the church over-react the other way like Driscoll and Douglas Wilson and the Vision Forum guy, and become a caricature of manliness. Burning grass in a field with gasoline and smoking a cigar is their cringy over-reaction...but just makes me laugh...it almost looks like a parody of masculinity. From one extreme to another. I had one pastor just tell me that he is an "Alpha Male" but I had to reply to him, "I hate to break it to you, dude, but if you have to say you are alpha male...then you really aren't an alpha male..."

Women in the church often see this parody of masculinity and then react against it. But they do so using feminist language and categories and thus the cycle is perpetuated further. 

In the jungle were I worked I was called a "Women's Rights Activist" a couple times. Women are basically property and if a wife is beaten then maybe it is her fault, and we struggled to get little girls into school. Anyone who knows me should snort and laugh hysterically at me being called a Women's Rights Activist, but I then am called "misogynist" in the West. So it is a lot about perspective. The West is unmoored from historical norms and tries to re-invent everything.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2021)

And what is hilarious is when some of these little theology nerds straight from seminary hold "Manhood Studies" in churches in their little bow ties and uncalloused hands and no life accomplishments except bookstudy in seminary. They need to, instead, invite an old guy in his work boots and rough hands who stayed married to the same woman 30 years to teach these things. Otherwise, these guys are like fish trying to study about flying. No wonder women in church are disillusioned over their potential mate-choices and don't want to submit (that dreaded s word).

Reactions: Like 7 | Funny 1


----------



## kodos (Nov 19, 2021)

I wonder if chicken sandwiches to @Pergamum are like spinach to Popeye. He must have eaten some, because he is on a roll.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 19, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> The Transformed Wife gives better marriage advice than 90% of Reformed pastors. She just needs to stay in her lane (which she mostly does) and speak only on marriage and the family. You are down on "partriarchalists" but their version of patriarchy is an over-reaction against feminism. Both are detestable. The OT was patriarchal, if you have a quarrel with patriarchy per se, go talk to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.



I have a quarrel with people who enable pedophiles.

Reactions: Like 1 | Wow 1


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I have a quarrel with people who enable pedophiles.
> View attachment 8620


Ouch. Fair point. Another reminder that nobody is infallible. 

In like manner, I support many of the women calling out abuse, even when I would never trust these women with any other theological issue.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2021)

kodos said:


> I wonder if chicken sandwiches to @Pergamum are like spinach to Popeye. He must have eaten some, because he is on a roll.


I don't eat rolls. Modern bread is poison.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 19, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Ouch. Fair point. Another reminder that nobody is infallible.
> 
> In like manner, I support many of the women calling out abuse, even when I would never trust these women with any other theological issue.



She is also a Pelagian, as she denies a sin nature. It's on her blog somewhere. She also promotes the Pearls, whose methodology has actually killed kids. She is a nut. I put her and Doug Wilson in the same category for largely the same reasons (bad theology, promoting pedophiles, etc)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> She is also a Pelagian, as she denies a sin nature. It's on her blog somewhere. She also promotes the Pearls, whose methodology has actually killed kids. She is a nut. I put her and Doug Wilson in the same category for largely the same reasons (bad theology, promoting pedophiles, etc)


Lots of people support the Pearls. And Doug Wilson with his advocacy for a pedophile. But again, she is mostly good on marriage and the family. For that matter Owen Strachen says many good things as well, just don't trust him on the Trinity. Nobody is infallible. But I find her views refreshing on marriage.


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 19, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Lots of people support the Pearls. And Doug Wilson with his advocacy for a pedophile. But again, she is mostly good on marriage and the family. For that matter Owen Strachen says many good things as well, just don't trust him on the Trinity. Nobody is infallible. But I find her views refreshing on marriage.


Pearls? Can someone fill me in?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 19, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> Pearls? Can someone fill me in?








Nonreligious Questions


Whether you’ve been turned off by religion in the past or have a question about one of the world’s religions, check out what Patheos has to offer.




www.patheos.com

Reactions: Like 1 | Wow 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 19, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> Pearls? Can someone fill me in?



Michael and Debi Pearl. They wrote "To Train Up a Child".









To Train Up a Child - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 19, 2021)

Can someone detail exactly what is objectionable? I don't view spanking as objectionable, nor do I take issue with, say, using a degree of hunger to guide children toward eating what's put in front of them (i.e., if they don't eat it they have to wait until the next meal). Does the book advocate for starving or freezing a child into submission as the Wiki article implies, or were the nutjobs using the book as cover for their child abuse? Both sources cited appear to have a negative view of Biblical discipline which they conflate with its abuses. I'd like to know what the book itself says.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> Can someone detail exactly what is objectionable? I don't view spanking as objectionable, nor do I take issue with, say, using a degree of hunger to guide children toward eating what's put in front of them (i.e., if they don't eat it they have to wait until the next meal). Does the book advocate for starving or freezing a child into submission as the Wiki article implies, or were the nutjobs using the book as cover for their child abuse? Both sources cited appear to have a negative view of Biblical discipline which they conflate with its abuses. I'd like to know what the book itself says.


Jacob has good advice about the Pearls. In their book they advocate spanking babies and doing rigid sleep schedules and ignoring cries at night. Maybe start a new thread about their dangers...they are substantial.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 19, 2021)

The sheer amount of unrelated stuff that comes up when Aimee Byrd is being discussed is amazing. It's like she's become a proxy for all our intra-Reformed wars.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 3


----------



## Miss Marple (Nov 19, 2021)

I think this criticism of the Pearls is terribly unfair. They never advocated severe beating or killing a child or any such thing. I don't see where it is their fault that a child died whose parents went horribly overboard. 


Irenaeus said:


> Can someone detail exactly what is objectionable? I don't view spanking as objectionable, nor do I take issue with, say, using a degree of hunger to guide children toward eating what's put in front of them (i.e., if they don't eat it they have to wait until the next meal). Does the book advocate for starving or freezing a child into submission as the Wiki article implies, or were the nutjobs using the book as cover for their child abuse? Both sources cited appear to have a negative view of Biblical discipline which they conflate with its abuses. I'd like to know what the book itself says.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 19, 2021)

Miss Marple said:


> I think this criticism of the Pearls is terribly unfair. They never advocated severe beating or killing a child or any such thing. I don't see where it is their fault that a child died whose parents went horribly overboard.



I'm sure they don't advocate killing a child. That sad consequence should be seen in their overall bad theology and general train wreck.


http://www.elizabethesther.com/search?q=pearls

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 23, 2021)

Zach said:


> I should note that I deleted my post not because I don't stand by it but by request of the person whose post I originally quoted, who wished their post to be deleted.
> 
> It should be noted that Mrs. Byrd was never charged with any offense, sin, or false teaching, let alone convicted of such, and that Mr. Spangler was tried and convicted by his Presbytery for his sin, at least in part for calling her a wolf. Such language should not be used about her and shouldn't be posted or tolerated on the Puritan Board.



It is the duty of watchmen to sound the alarm. The pope was never tried so I suppose we are sinning in calling him the Antichrist? Process is very important but it has often been the tool used by the compromisers and moderates to allow heresy in by the back door. Whilst they dither in process the wolves are left to devour the sheep. It is also ironic to be extolling due process in relation to Aimee Byrd who, when the process didn't go her way, attacked it as unjust and basically set up to protect the abusers and punish the victims. And then she stormed off to another denomination. That should tell you how much that side values the process.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 2


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 23, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> It is the duty of watchmen to sound the alarm. The pope was never tried so I suppose we are sinning in calling him the Antichrist? Process is very important but it has often been the tool used by the compromisers and moderates to allow heresy in by the back door. Whilst they dither in process the wolves are left to devour the sheep. It is also ironic to be extolling due process in relation to Aimee Byrd who, when the process didn't go her way, attacked it as unjust and basically set up to protect the abusers and punish the victims. And then she stormed off to another denomination. That should tell you how much that side values the process.


I feel the same way. What are we thinking? Why spend the time reprimanding a brother for calling a wolf a wolf? Are we not shepherds? We should be on the lookout as watchmen ourselves!

It's like people are saying "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck...lets refrain from calling it a duck or else you will be held in contempt. It's not polite to assume they are a duck until the final day..." That dog won't hunt! 

In this dangerous day we live in, we've got to be on watch and not leave the sheep to be devoured.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Zach (Nov 23, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> It is the duty of watchmen to sound the alarm. The pope was never tried so I suppose we are sinning in calling him the Antichrist? Process is very important but it has often been the tool used by the compromisers and moderates to allow heresy in by the back door. Whilst they dither in process the wolves are left to devour the sheep. It is also ironic to be extolling due process in relation to Aimee Byrd who, when the process didn't go her way, attacked it as unjust and basically set up to protect the abusers and punish the victims. And then she stormed off to another denomination. That should tell you how much that side values the process.


As I said earlier, surely the first duty of serious watchmen who believed our sister in Christ was in serious error would have been to file charges in the courts of the church. Instead, they cried wolf on the internet.

As our brother Rom has pointed out, all of what has subsequently played out is colored by that and the serious sins regarding what was said about Mrs. Byrd online.

Nobody, on either side, is saying that the process always arrives at the right conclusions, but I believe it is necessary out of respect to Mrs. Byrd to reiterate that she was never charged with, let alone convicted of, error or sin while Mr. Spangler was. To simply write her out of the Kingdom by way of personal judgment, especially without filing charges against her, was to deprive her of the rights to which she was entitled as a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I wish Mrs. Byrd remained in the OPC and was sad to see her leave.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 23, 2021)

Zach said:


> As I said earlier, surely the first duty of serious watchmen who believed our sister in Christ was in serious error would have been to file charges in the courts of the church. Instead, they cried wolf on the internet.
> 
> As our brother Rom has pointed out, all of what has subsequently played out is colored by that and the serious sins regarding what was said about Mrs. Byrd online.
> 
> Nobody, on either side, is saying that the process always arrives at the right conclusions, but I believe it is necessary out of respect to Mrs. Byrd to reiterate that she was never charged with, let alone convicted of, error or sin while Mr. Spangler was. To simply write her out of the Kingdom by way of personal judgment, especially without filing charges against her, was to deprive her of the rights to which she was entitled as a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I wish Mrs. Byrd remained in the OPC and was sad to see her leave.


OK, thats fair. I will admit...I am on the outside looking in, being from a Baptist background and all. 

So what you are saying is that we should be laboring to help pull her out of the fire instead of casting her out? And there is a process to help restore her and a process to excommunicate perhaps? Is there a resource I can review to help me understand the way the OPC would handle this? I am truly interested and genuinely would like to know. Blessings from St. Louis, MO.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 23, 2021)

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> OK, thats fair. I will admit...I am on the outside looking in, being from a Baptist background and all.
> 
> So what you are saying is that we should be laboring to help pull her out of the fire instead of casting her out? And there is a process to help restore her and a process to excommunicate perhaps? Is there a resource I can review to help me understand the way the OPC would handle this? I am truly interested and genuinely would like to know. Blessings from St. Louis, MO.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk



Try this. I think the relevant section is "The Book of Discipline" pages 91 through 119.



https://opc.org/BCO/BCO_2020.pdf

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zach (Nov 23, 2021)

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> OK, thats fair. I will admit...I am on the outside looking in, being from a Baptist background and all.
> 
> So what you are saying is that we should be laboring to help pull her out of the fire instead of casting her out? And there is a process to help restore her and a process to excommunicate perhaps? Is there a resource I can review to help me understand the way the OPC would handle this? I am truly interested and genuinely would like to know. Blessings from St. Louis, MO.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Well, I also said earlier that while I disagree with a number of Mrs. Byrd's conclusions I also don't think that there is serious error that would warrant discipline. I think that she affirms the authority of Scripture and is on record saying that ordination to the office of Pastor and Elder is restricted to men. To reiterate what I said earlier, I understand why some have concerns with some of her interpretations and the way she was interpreting the Scriptures but I personally do not share their concerns.

That being said, those who disagree with me and think that there was serious enough error to warrant discipline should have handled it according to the process in our Book of Discipline. Sean beat me to it, but here's a link specifically to the Book of Discipline. Mrs. Byrd had rights according to our book that were disrespected by those claiming she was a wolf.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 23, 2021)

Zach said:


> Well, I also said earlier that while I disagree with a number of Mrs. Byrd's conclusions I also don't think that there is serious error that would warrant discipline. I think that she affirms the authority of Scripture and is on record saying that ordination to the office of Pastor and Elder is restricted to men. To reiterate what I said earlier, I understand why some have concerns with some of her interpretations and the way she was interpreting the Scriptures but I personally do not share their concerns.
> 
> That being said, those who disagree with me and think that there was serious enough error to warrant discipline should have handled it according to the process in our Book of Discipline. Sean beat me to it, but here's a link specifically to the Book of Discipline. Mrs. Byrd had rights according to our book that were disrespected by those claiming she was a wolf.


In all respect, let me ask you this: do you believe feminism is a threat to the church today?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 23, 2021)

@Zach I almost forgot to say thank you for the links you posted. Apologies!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zach (Nov 23, 2021)

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> In all respect, let me ask you this: do you believe feminism is a threat to the church today?
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Certain strands of feminism and feminist thought are absolutely a threat to the church and undermine the clear teaching of the Scriptures and the Reformed Confessions. But I also don't think Mrs. Byrd is that kind of a feminist (if that label can be fairly applied to her at all) even if she does cite certain feminist observations as helpful. I think I said earlier in the thread that while I disagree with a number of her conclusions, I also think she raises a number of valid points and criticisms.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 23, 2021)

Zach said:


> Certain strands of feminism and feminist thought are absolutely a threat to the church and undermine the clear teaching of the Scriptures and the Reformed Confessions. But I also don't think Mrs. Byrd is that kind of a feminist (if that label can be fairly applied to her at all) even if she does cite certain feminist observations as helpful. I think I said earlier in the thread that while I disagree with a number of her conclusions, I also think she raises a number of valid points and criticisms.


Here's the thing. What she is doing is similar to the issue that is happening in the SBC. It is being ravaged by false teaching regarding egalitarianism, feminism, intersectionality, and so-called "social justice". They are even promoting CRT as being a "helpful tool" and having "valid points" as well. When does it stop? When do we cut off ties with the teaching and defend against it? The SBC played with fire and are now stuck on life support because of it. 

All I'm saying is when we are very clearly wounded, when do we stop the bleeding? If the bride of Christ is attacked, when do we take up arms and defend her? I personally believe it should be stamped out before it is too late. No doubt about it.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 23, 2021)

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> Here's the thing. What she is doing is *similar to the issue that is happening in the SBC*. It is being ravaged by false teaching regarding egalitarianism, feminism, intersectionality, and so-called "social justice". They are even promoting CRT as being a "helpful tool" and having "valid points" as well. When does it stop? When do we cut off ties with the teaching and defend against it? The SBC played with fire and are now stuck on life support because of it.
> 
> All I'm saying is when we are very clearly wounded, when do we stop the bleeding? If the bride of Christ is attacked, when do we take up arms and defend her? I personally believe it should be stamped out before it is too late. No doubt about it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


I'd call *that *false equivalence. There are problems in the SBC that certain folks with an agenda are exploiting, there's no doubt about it. However, that doesn't mean that the problems are being dealt with appropriately by others.

Problems that look very similar are cropping up (coming into view) in other denominations as well, OPC included. The question for us is whether we're going to faithfully address them, carefully deal with them according to a biblical mind; or if we're going to take the tried-and-true route of papering over an issue expecting it to die away for lack of interest.

The devil is making hay while the sun shines in churches all over the land. If "feminists" (and that term is being applied rather broadly today) are the ones sounding an alarm, it doesn't do the church any favors when those who hear it merely "consider the source" and move on blithely trying to take the bell out.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## mvdm (Nov 23, 2021)

Zach said:


> surely the first duty of serious watchmen who believed our sister in Christ was in serious error would have been to file charges in the courts of the church. Instead, they cried wolf on the internet.


This standard apparently did not apply to the signatories of the "Open Letter" published on Byrd's website who condemned Genevan Commons members based on a sketchy doctored doxxing site.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## kodos (Nov 23, 2021)

mvdm said:


> This standard apparently did not apply to the signatories of the "Open Letter" published on Byrd's website who condemned Genevan Commons members based on a sketchy doctored doxxing site.


Perhaps @Zach and @Contra_Mundum could explain why they signed that letter. They do give some reasons in the letter itself - but maybe further clarification would be helpful especially given the way that the names/identities of those in the group were exposed.


----------



## Zach (Nov 23, 2021)

mvdm said:


> This standard apparently did not apply to the signatories of the "Open Letter" published on Byrd's website who condemned Genevan Commons members based on a sketchy doctored doxxing site.


To quote the open letter, which as Rom points out I gladly signed: 


> Neither does this letter constitute formal charges against those who have committed these sins. Rather, we hope that this letter will encourage those who have committed these sins to repent publicly and to seek reconciliation promptly with those whom they have wronged. *A fraternal appeal must precede any judicial charges, with honest hope and sincere prayer that it will be heeded. We therefore appeal to these brothers, by the mercies of Christ, by his blood shed both for them, for us, and for those whom they have maligned, to listen, heed, and repent.*


The letter does not call these men wolves, write them off as enemies of the gospel, or deprive them of their rights in the courts of the church. Rather, it was a call to our brothers to consider their words and/or involvement in a group where such serious sins occurred and to repent and remove themselves from the Geneva Commons group.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## mvdm (Nov 23, 2021)

Zach said:


> where such serious sins occurred and to repent and remove themselves from the Geneva Commons group.


Public accusation of serious sin and a call to repent-- things you said should be brought to the church courts first. Not a single thing on that doxx site was brought via charges.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 23, 2021)

Zach said:


> To quote the open letter, which as Rom points out I gladly signed:
> 
> The letter does not call these men wolves, write them off as enemies of the gospel, or deprive them of their rights in the courts of the church. Rather, it was a call to our brothers to consider their words and/or involvement in a group where such serious sins occurred and to repent and remove themselves from the Geneva Commons group.


In like manner, has anyone called Aimee Byrd to consider her words and/or involvement in a group where such serious sins occurred (like publicly using coarse language like "white men" that the CRT and social justice pushers use) and to repent and remove themselves from the sphere of modern day feminism? This entire ordeal she is involved in with her reeks of insincerity and bitterness... Have we not any discernment to spot it by now?

I mean this in all respect BTW. It's challenging to appear sincere and kind on a black screen with letters. Bear with me!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 23, 2021)

I wish I could find the link, but I recently read an article whose main point was that we are, as a society, rejecting process in favor of all-out efforts to achieve a desired outcome. I see this very much in evidence here where people have been eager to see AB judged in the court of public opinion based on a judgment of her that, to listen to some of us, surely must be evident to any half-wit.

It's a tragedy of the digital age that the speed of information far surpasses the speed of sound reasoning and reflection. The pace of judgment in this society works to Satan's great advantage as he draws us away from operating in the way God designed us to work. These things take time to ponder and ought to be thought through carefully, not by twitter mobs or whatever the Reformed equivalent is. Those of us who have made up our minds about AB ought, perhaps, to ponder our position in the debate, and perhaps some of the opinions could be seasoned with a little bit of "it seems to me" and "can you help me understand why you think that". To those urging the immediate condemnation of AB here and now let's remember that God designed a church polity that works by due (and often slow) process, not by mob rule, and let's not forget that the Holy Spirit is at work in the background and that he protects his church in ways that we can't.

For the record, I still largely stand by criticisms of AB voiced in earlier threads (though with the benefit of some helpful perspective from private conversation with @Contra_Mundum to give me some pause on the matter)... I do think she is in error and drifting into strange waters. But I'm rather equally repulsed by some of the conduct directed at her, especially coming from ministers of the Word. Is one more of a threat to Christ's church than the other?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 23, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> I wish I could find the link, but I recently read an article whose main point was that we are, as a society, rejecting process in favor of all-out efforts to achieve a desired outcome. I see this very much in evidence here where people have been eager to see AB judged in the court of public opinion based on a judgment of her that, to listen to some of us, surely must be evident to any half-wit.
> 
> It's a tragedy of the digital age that the speed of information far surpasses the speed of sound reasoning and reflection. The pace of judgment in this society works to Satan's great advantage as he draws us away from operating in the way God designed us to work. These things take time to ponder and ought to be thought through carefully, not by twitter mobs or whatever the Reformed equivalent is. Those of us who have made up our minds about AB ought, perhaps, to ponder our position in the debate, and perhaps some of the opinions could be seasoned with a little bit of "it seems to me" and "can you help me understand why you think that". To those urging the immediate condemnation of AB here and now let's remember that God designed a church polity that works by due (and often slow) process, not by mob rule, and let's not forget that the Holy Spirit is at work in the background and that he protects his church in ways that we can't.
> 
> For the record, I still largely stand by criticisms of AB voiced in earlier threads (though with the benefit of some helpful perspective from private conversation with @Contra_Mundum to give me some pause on the matter)... I do think she is in error and drifting into strange waters. But I'm rather equally repulsed by some of the conduct directed at her, especially coming from ministers of the Word. Is one more of a threat to Christ's church than the other?


Fair enough and well said. I will be honest and say I don't have an iota of faith in men to handle this appropriately. I'm a bit shaken and it shows in my speech (or typing for that matter). This, my friend, is sin on my part. I may be lacking in prayer and need to hit the prayer closet on this issue ASAP.

I have seen what this same subject matter has done to entire denominations, and I am terrified. I'm not a part of the OPC, but I have immense respect for them. May the Lord be with them.

As we know, theological liberalism is always standing at the door waiting to devour us. May the Lord be with us in battle. As for the processes established to fend off this error in the OPC, I hope and pray for it's success.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 23, 2021)

Jn.3:20, "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."​​Eph.5:13, "But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light."​​Rev.3:17-20 " Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me."​
The "knock on the door" is _mercy._ It is Christ's alert to those within, that the Master is coming in. If he comes in without that door being opened to him, he is not going to sit down and dine; but he will first bring the lumber.

The open letter was a call to repentance, it was a call to those in the church whose position is such that there is absolutely no excuse to offer: _they didn't know better._ The standard is as high as it gets for ordained churchmen. Frankly, I have great respect for the pastor and session of the church the Byrds were so recently members of, and their work of shepherding during this fraught season for their sheep. And it's good to remember: those in the pew are the sheep, not the sheepdogs.

There are "respectable organs" like Big City Newspaper, and National Television Company, that make editorial decisions all the time for publishing material the producers of which do not appreciate it. And there are lesser outlets lacking "respect" that scoop them, sometimes. If you cancelled your subscription or deleted a channel from your TV service, because of the Pentagon Papers, the Snowden revelations, or any one of the dozens of major exposés that have brought matters to light that were once hidden; I guess outrage at yet another ripping-down the curtain is consistent, at least.

Whatever the merits of AB's product, it wasn't done in a corner. The blog-review of AB's books that started this thread would still stand forth as public, measured, and reasoned criticism of public work; both products would stand or fall by each's own quality, by perceived fidelity to a church's authoritative text (the Bible) and its constitution (Confession).

It's one thing to have people outside of your communion do what is in their power to confront you, or make commentary about you as proxy for addressing your work and making specific and general charges against it for its alleged harm. It is another thing for parties who bear a formal association to you, and are covenanted over you in the ministry of Christ's church, to use you as a whipping boy (note the once-Standard English use of the generic masculine). Attacks on sheep were made, not on sheep's work; and made by those covenanted to shepherd.

I just saw a news report about chants of "LetsGoBrandon" echoing in the confines of a megachurch in the American South. If I may be blunt, that sort of ugliness deserves to be publicized, and it should scandalize the whole church. If the chanters had been just a little more brazen, a little more honest, and a little less ashamed of themselves, they would have just gone ahead and chanted the Real Phrase. At least the mask would slip a little further.

Why is it embarrassing--at least to anyone with a sense of propriety, decorum, reverence, and a biblical mind for worship? Because, even if it isn't "my" congregation, it is shameful behavior, a shameful chant, a borrowing of the world's manners and deep vulgarity for expressing revulsion, disgust, and contempt for the sworn chief executive of the land and all that surrounds him: coming from a place and a people who profess to exemplify the attitude of the King of Kings.

Here is the clear command of Scripture: " ...let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no... idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." Those people are putting idolatry on display in a meeting that is advertised (in some sense) as an official gathering of the saints of the kingdom in the presence of their God. They are flaunting their 3rd Commandment violation _in the holy assembly._ Either their leaders can't control such behavior, or call it out; or else they were participating or even leading it.

Those leaders know better, or they should. They are held to a higher standard. We should know about this, in spite of the fact it took place "indoors, among friends." We should repudiate it, and further reduce any connections we have with those unrepentant. We could call them to repentance, especially the leaders. But should we refer to them as a "brood of vipers?" More pointedly, should we gather here on the PB, in one of the private fora, and make jokes on the "rubes, fools, and tools" of that assembly?

Would that be edifying? Certainly not to them (being excluded), and certainly not to any of our number. It would be self-congratulatory and stinking with pride. I put my name on that Open Letter precisely because it was a public notice. That website? The genie is out of the bottle, the stink is out of the skunk. At this point, cursing the media outlet, telling people "Don't look at it!" all the while waving blankets around frantically trying to dispel the sulfuric odor would serve no one. It isn't like the stench wasn't there when it was confined to the gasbag of GC. Guys were in there playing with matches.

We don't pretend that evils come to light aren't there, and aren't evils, because exposure was made by someone other than the perpetrators, or other than some badged or uniformed official, or by media other than the "sanctioned" press. Courts that pass "official verdict" on bad behavior are duty bound to hold prosecutors and their sworn investigators, and as far as possible their witnesses, to _unimpeachable _conduct. Or else the evidence gets tossed, the investigation is nullified (fruit of the poison tree), and the witnesses rendered unreliable.

Assuming for a moment that AB was guilty-as-charged (if not proven), those who would be her stoners fall under Jesus' silent rebuke. There was a charge that came of all this business, and a conviction from the charge, as well as a sustained complaint stemming from the conduct of the trial. It appears to some observers that the GA's directions for granting relief were barely fulfilled, "healing the wound of my people lightly."

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 23, 2021)

Contra_Mundum said:


> ​
> I just saw a news report about chants of "LetsGoBrandon" echoing in the confines of a megachurch in the American South. If I may be blunt, that sort of ugliness deserves to be publicized, and it should scandalize the whole church. If the chanters had been just a little more brazen, a little more honest, and a little less ashamed of themselves, they would have just gone ahead and chanted the Real Phrase. At least the mask would slip a little further.
> 
> Why is it embarrassing--at least to anyone with a sense of propriety, decorum, reverence, and a biblical mind for worship? Because, even if it isn't "my" congregation, it is shameful behavior, a shameful chant, a borrowing of the world's manners and deep vulgarity for expressing revulsion, disgust, and contempt for the sworn chief executive of the land and all that surrounds him: coming from a place and a people who profess to exemplify the attitude of the King of Kings.
> ...


Just for the record, I haven't done a deep dive into the information yet, but it does seem the situation wasn't quite as horrible as it sounded at first (at least to me). https://www.relevantmagazine.com/cu...-lets-go-brandon-chant-at-cornerstone-church/

Namely, it seems the event was overtly political ("Reawaken America"), not connected to the church, and the pastor has also apologized and said it shouldn't have happened and won't happen again. ( “'It was not appropriate to allow this event at our church,' [Matthew Haggee] wrote in a message posted to the church website. 'The Church is not associated with this organization and does not endorse their views.'”)

I don't say this to lessen any sense of disgust or to defend the church or the pastor, but because some investigation revealed the situation does appear to be a little different from what I previously understood (i.e., people chanting this in a worship service or an approved church gathering). For which I am grateful.

Maybe someone here has done more reading on this and can give a fuller picture.


----------



## Zach (Nov 23, 2021)

mvdm said:


> Public accusation of serious sin and a call to repent-- things you said should be brought to the church courts first. Not a single thing on that doxx site was brought via charges.


Bruce responded much more thoughtfully and thoroughly than I am capable of in his reply. I'll only add two things by way of direct engagement. 

First, the kind of conduct going on in Geneva Commons wasn't serious engagement with Mrs. Byrd's work along with substantiated allegations of sin or error with a call to repent. They simply decided to serve as judge, jury, and excommunicator! It also wasn't, as Bruce so importantly pointed out, public engagement with Mrs. Byrd's public teaching for the good of the church at all. It was a private group!

One also does not have to agree with exactly how the sin was exposed to call those who sinned to repent of their sins. That being said, it still is not the same situation you describe. Mrs. Byrd's teaching was public all along. The opportunity to respond publicly through the right channels was available to those in the group. While the person who exposed Geneva Commons could have simply responded by filing private charges, I don't think they were out of line for exposing what was going on in the darkness and drawing the attention of unaware church officers to what was going on and just how many officers, including many who would sit in judgment of cases concerning conduct of those in Geneva Commons, were engaged in this kind of behavior or were members of the group. Saying that what was going on in Geneva Commons and what was exposed on the website revealing the screenshots is an apples to oranges comparison. One was sin, the other was calling attention to that sin.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 23, 2021)

Why don't denominations just put their stances on these issues in the bylaws or statement of faith, and if anyone seeks to change them, they have to leave the denomination? It seems weird that people would want to remain in a denomination to stir up controversy, and that there aren't measures to stop that from happening. They should just leave and go do their own thing and keep peace.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 23, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> Just for the record, I haven't done a deep dive into the information yet, but it does seem the situation wasn't quite as horrible as it sounded at first (at least to me). https://www.relevantmagazine.com/cu...-lets-go-brandon-chant-at-cornerstone-church/
> 
> Namely, it seems the event was overtly political ("Reawaken America"), not connected to the church, and the pastor has also apologized and said it shouldn't have happened and won't happen again. ( “'It was not appropriate to allow this event at our church,' [Matthew Haggee] wrote in a message posted to the church website. 'The Church is not associated with this organization and does not endorse their views.'”)
> 
> ...


OK, so the reports are still coming in... inasmuch as it be demonstrated this was not a "church-function," I guess I have to walk back any obviously directed criticism (I avoided naming names, so let's just go with a "if the shoe fits..." criticisim).

I am on the record as opposing--whether to the left or the right--all confusion of the church's aim and secular political goals. The fact a church's building is used for such things means that when the situation spins out of control, it is the church that gets the egg on its face. Distance itself all it likes, the fact is the church turned its auditorium into a "venue," and those attending may or may not reflect the "values" of the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 23, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Why don't denominations just put their stances on these issues in the bylaws or statement of faith, and if anyone seeks to change them, they have to leave the denomination? It seems weird that people would want to remain in a denomination to stir up controversy, and that there aren't measures to stop that from happening. They should just leave and go do their own thing and keep peace.


Agreed.

Like I said earlier, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck...lets hold a comittee meeting to determine if it is appropriate to identify this unknown being as something close to a duck without passing judgment". This is what it looks like to us looking on the outside in. It boggles my mind.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 23, 2021)

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> lets hold a comittee meeting to determine if it is appropriate to identify this unknown being as something close to a duck without passing judgment". This is what it looks like to us looking on the outside in. It boggles my mind.


I’m an outsider, too. But I appreciate sobriety in evaluating such things. I’m reminded of an actual statement made during the Abu Graib fiasco: “why should they get due process when we know they’re guilty?”


----------



## Charles Johnson (Nov 23, 2021)

Zach said:


> First, the kind of conduct going on in Geneva Commons wasn't serious engagement with Mrs. Byrd's work along with substantiated allegations of sin or error with a call to repent. They simply decided to serve as judge, jury, and excommunicator! It also wasn't, as Bruce so importantly pointed out, public engagement with Mrs. Byrd's public teaching for the good of the church at all. It was a private group!


Not true. Spangler wrote five public articles criticizing Byrd, the admins of the group kept a public page promoting their viewpoints and criticizing feminism, and all of the prominent members of the group were and are public with our views. In fact, I'm publicly engaging here, and publicly calling Byrd a wolf. I also sense that the irony escapes you that you accuse the GC group of excommunicating Byrd (which we deny; what does it even mean for private individuals to excommunicate someone? You don't talk at the potluck? If that's the case, Anderson and Castle reached out to Byrd to settle their disputes privately and she refused. So did she excommunicate them?), but she excommunicated herself from the OPC by leaving. Even if the charge were true that they "excommunicated her", they apparently didn't have a different assessment of where her heart was at than she came to manifest within a short time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Nov 23, 2021)

As a former, recovering keyboard warrior with keys of steel, I appreciate Pastor Bruce’s sobriety and wisdom. I think if we cut through the thrill of the culture war and the politics, we can take a more thoughtful, sober and charitable approach toward addressing theological drift on every side. Ms. Byrd was a member of the OPC who was loved and embraced. That’s our starting point from the inside….


----------



## Zach (Nov 23, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> Not true. Spangler wrote five public articles criticizing Byrd, the admins of the group kept a public page promoting their viewpoints and criticizing feminism, and all of the prominent members of the group were and are public with our views. In fact, I'm publicly engaging here, and publicly calling Byrd a wolf. I also sense that the irony escapes you that you accuse the GC group of excommunicating Byrd (which we deny; what does it even mean for private individuals to excommunicate someone? You don't talk at the potluck? If that's the case, Anderson and Castle reached out to Byrd to settle their disputes privately and she refused. So did she excommunicate them?), but she excommunicated herself from the OPC by leaving. Even if the charge were true that they "excommunicated her", they apparently didn't have a different assessment of where her heart was at than she came to manifest within a short time.


The articles written by Mr. Spangler were public, that's true, but it is my understanding that the content of the articles, far from being a respectful engagement with Mrs. Byrd's views, were attacks on her that formed the very basis of the charges of sin for which he tried and convicted by his Presbytery, specifically his attacks that Mrs Byrd was a wolf. This is now the second time you have called Mrs. Byrd a wolf in this thread, a sin for which Mr. Spangler was convicted and admonished by his Presbytery. As I said earlier in the thread, such language should not be tolerated on the Puritan Board.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Nov 23, 2021)

Zach said:


> The articles written by Mr. Spangler were public, that's true, but it is my understanding that the content of the articles, far from being a respectful engagement with Mrs. Byrd's views, were attacks on her that formed the very basis of the charges of sin for which he tried and convicted by his Presbytery, specifically his attacks that Mrs Byrd was a wolf. This is now the second time you have called Mrs. Byrd a wolf in this thread, a sin for which Mr. Spangler was convicted and admonished by his Presbytery. As I said earlier in the thread, such language should not be tolerated on the Puritan Board.


What do you mean "it is my understanding"? You already said in this thread you haven't heard Byrd's books, have you not read Spangler's articles either? Are you entirely working off of hearsay when you implying I'm sinning by calling Byrd a wolf, and when you criticize us? Here is a list of reviews of Byrd's books, many from folks in GC. Is it really true that none are thoughtful? Don't you have at least a little shame in signing a letter accusing us of nastiness without taking the time to understand our point of view?

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Nov 23, 2021)

Zach said:


> The articles written by Mr. Spangler were public, that's true, but it is my understanding that the content of the articles, far from being a respectful engagement with Mrs. Byrd's views, were attacks on her that formed the very basis of the charges of sin for which he tried and convicted by his Presbytery, specifically his attacks that Mrs Byrd was a wolf. This is now the second time you have called Mrs. Byrd a wolf in this thread, a sin for which Mr. Spangler was convicted and admonished by his Presbytery. As I said earlier in the thread, such language should not be tolerated on the Puritan Board.


I agree. I think we need to exercise better self control. There are good and proper ways to engage.


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 23, 2021)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I am on the record as opposing--whether to the left or the right--all confusion of the church's aim and secular political goals. The fact a church's building is used for such things means that when the situation spins out of control, it is the church that gets the egg on its face. Distance itself all it likes, the fact is the church turned its auditorium into a "venue," and those attending may or may not reflect the "values" of the church.


As much as I hate to pull a thread farther off-topic, I am compelled to sound my strong agreement with this sentiment. I've found myself guilty of looking with more and more lightheartedness at the "Let's Go Brandon" matter, but my heart sank when I heard DeSantis allude to it in a public speech. What's happening to him is no different than what's happened to me - everyone around us does it, and without serious determination, I get swept up in the current.

@Contra_Mundum, thank you for your thoughts on the AB matter. I recently wrote a heartfelt appeal to an excommunicated family member - a final letter, since out of a heavy burden for this person's soul I had long since consigned the first and second admonitions of Titus 3 to the rear view mirror and needed to bring closure. This person could not carry on a conversation without pointing to the sins of another party as proof of his own innocence. I pleaded with him to consider that one person's sins do not exonerate another* and that it is possible for a dispute to have two guilty parties. Sadly, my entreaty fell on deaf ears and was greeted with scorn and derision.

I see the same thing happening here. No mention can be made of the sins committed in GC or by people associated with it without generating a retort that boils down to "yeah well AB did this". Whatever was misleading about the screenshots and whatever was wrong on AB's end _fails to impact the sinfulness of the other party in any way. _It's a shirking of responsibility to do that, and it sheds light on the situation in a way that does not help AB's detractors. There's no remorse and no humility, no evidence of sober reflection, only the bared fangs of vengefulness. As if someone's sins are less wrong because the other side also sinned - as if!

*What a ridiculous notion - by that logic Christ could have saved us by throwing rocks at children and stealing from widows.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Nov 23, 2021)

I notice P&R publishing has its share of female authors. I’m of the understanding that a female author has much to offer as far as the Christian experience. When it gets into the teaching realm (biblical exposition) is where it obviously gets dicey. Wolves are cool animals, but instead of all this wolf talk, maybe we should consider when an author’s manuscript should be accepted by a reputable albeit small and influential publisher..…


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 23, 2021)

Moderation again. 

This is not the place for settling scores. Focus on the reviews and related matters.

Please....


----------



## A.Joseph (Nov 23, 2021)

My question is sincere. I guess confusion ensues about who is qualified to be published and platformed and are there limits as far as subject/topic/content is concerned? I think Ms. Byrd should be left alone, prayed for, and spoken of with care and concern from here on out.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph (Nov 23, 2021)

I don’t believe women should feel excluded or
discouraged from expressions of faith and biblical discussions, so I’m not trying to lead or influence this discussion in that direction. I know there’s a balance, it just seems tricky to navigate.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 23, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> I think Ms. Byrd should be left alone, prayed for, and spoken of with care and concern from here on out.


Just to clarify moderation guidance, Ms. Byrd is a public figure who has written many books. Review and criticism of those books is fair game. If one is out in the public square, he or she should not expect to be left alone.

Discussion of public book reviews, or your own personal review of her books, is fine. Let's not get sidetracked on the topic of church discipline/procedure/ and how things were handled related to those topics. Maybe another thread.

The "settling scores" warning is focused on publicly calling one or another out for things they did in the past, especially when most of us don't know about those dynamics.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Nov 23, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Just to clarify moderation guidance, Ms. Byrd is a public figure who has written many books. Review and criticism of those books is fair game. If one is out in the public square, he or she should not expect to be left alone.
> 
> Discussion of public book reviews, or your own personal review of her books, is fine. Let's not get sidetracked on the topic of church discipline/procedure/ and how things were handled related to those topics. Maybe another thread.
> 
> The "settling scores" warning is focused on publicly calling one or another out for things they did in the past, especially when most of us don't know about those dynamics.


I was just reacting to the wolf talk. I too try to guard myself against the more personal turns these discussions can seem to take (or at least the impression of personalizing our critiques), thanks for clarifying. I hope I’m learning these distinctions more clearly.


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 23, 2021)

Just an observation: I find all the insular topes and confirmation bias odd...


----------



## A.Joseph (Nov 24, 2021)

Interesting:

_“Her Editor_​_Why Can’t We Be Friends? proved to be Mrs. Byrd’s final work with P&R. Her new editor at Zondervan Academic is Katya Covrett (Recovering, 11). In a May 18, 2020 interview with The Christian Post about Recovering, Mrs. Byrd said:_


> _But as a woman writing about these things I found a roadblock — this whole woman thing. Me being a woman talking about it and also discipling women alongside of men and the differences in separation that are so saturated now in our church culture. In talking with my editor, we decided that the roadblocks need to be addressed directly, and I kind of have that more direct voice in my writing anyway. So she encouraged me to do that. The book is sort of presented as an alternative to all the resources we have marketed to us in this evangelical so-called ‘biblical womanhood’ culture._


_She clearly connected the input of her editor with the thrust of her book, i.e., addressing roadblocks (she reiterates her editor’s influence on the title here at 33:45-34:35). This is understandable in principle, but it begs the question, what are the convictions that Mrs. Covrett holds that would lead her to encourage Mrs. Byrd in this direction?

When asked in an August 13, 2020 interview“about how publishing in biblical studies can and/or should change in the next ten years,” Mrs. Covrett responded,_


> _I hope and pray that publishing in biblical studies will become more diverse. Historically, the discipline has been dominated by white men (please understand that I have nothing against white men; many of my best friends among authors are white guys), but this must change…Zondervan Academic has made this commitment and, as our friendly competitors do so as well, we will begin to see the tide change for the better (emphasis original)._


_This is entirely consistent with what Mrs. Covrett wrote five years earlier in 2015:_


> _Try as we might, the ‘lack of balance’ in the academy continues to constrain us. Everything I’ve said here about women can also be said about ethnic minorities and global voices, which have been other significant areas of publishing for Zondervan Academic. Whether we like it or not, the White Male Club that is the Christian academia—no offense, guys—is the context in which we acquire and publish. The uphill battle continues. And so we continue to seek balance and diversity—not out of a sense of political correctness, but because as members of the body of Christ we all complement one another. When we do not have the voices and perspectives of women, ethnic minorities, and scholars from the Majority World, we all suffer—men, women, biblical scholars and theologians, students, and the church as a whole._


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 24, 2021)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'd call *that *false equivalence. There are problems in the SBC that certain folks with an agenda are exploiting, there's no doubt about it. However, that doesn't mean that the problems are being dealt with appropriately by others.
> 
> Problems that look very similar are cropping up (coming into view) in other denominations as well, OPC included. The question for us is whether we're going to faithfully address them, carefully deal with them according to a biblical mind; or if we're going to take the tried-and-true route of papering over an issue expecting it to die away for lack of interest.
> 
> The devil is making hay while the sun shines in churches all over the land. If "feminists" (and that term is being applied rather broadly today) are the ones sounding an alarm, it doesn't do the church any favors when those who hear it merely "consider the source" and move on blithely trying to take the bell out.



What problems are you referring to? It seems to me it is the crypto-feminists who are the problem. But if you are referring to the many allegations of "abuse" then these people (such as Byrd) who have been pushing this narrative cannot be trusted in this area either. Byrd cannot be trusted because the claims she has made of being abused do not amount to abuse, they amount to criticism which she doesn't like. Byrd's claim of victimhood trivialises true abuse. As to the alleged widespread abuse we are hearing about well this is very suspicious. It is always suspicious when there is a deluge of claims of abuse suddenly out of nowhere. It is usually because there is an environment which is conducive for unsubstantiated accusations. We are living in a time when women are allowed to make all sorts of accusations against men- sometimes relating to events which happened many, many years ago- and we are told it is our duty to believe them. Are we seriously meant to believe the OPC, the PCA, the SBC is overflowing with sexual and domestic abuse? Nonsense. And if that were the case then maybe those ministers in the OPC who found time to write an open letter to a few gentlemen in a private Facebook group could have found time to do something about the alleged abuse which is apparently all around them?

Is it a surprise that these allegations coincide with the rise of CRT and social justice in the churches? With the rise of egalitarianism in the churches? No of course its not. Its part of the program.



Contra_Mundum said:


> The open letter was a call to repentance, it was a call to those in the church whose position is such that there is absolutely no excuse to offer: _they didn't know better._ The standard is as high as it gets for ordained churchmen. Frankly, I have great respect for the pastor and session of the church the Byrds were so recently members of, and their work of shepherding during this fraught season for their sheep. And it's good to remember: those in the pew are the sheep, not the sheepdogs.



By calling for someone to repent you impute sin to them. The authors of the letter by doing so had already passed judgment on these gentlemen, with no formal charges, no trial, no due process. So it is disingenuous to say that the open letter was operating in a different way than any allegations against Byrd. Mr. Spangler saw a problem and he warned his flock against it. The authors of the letter saw a problem (in their opinion) and warned publicly against it. Of course the difference is that Mr. Spangler was referring to public statements, articles and published books by Byrd whereas the authors of the letter were responding to _private_ conversations which had been leaked and the gentlemen's identities doxxed. Anyone who was interested in pursuing _Christian_ justice and propriety should have condemned the leaking and doxxing and those who facilitated these (such as Byrd) should have been rebuked in no uncertain terms. The authors of the letter, if they wished to rebuke or counsel their brethren, could have contacted them privately. They should not have responded to the immoral action of leaking these comments and doxxing these gentlemen. To do so- and to allow their letter to be published on the website of one of the persons responsible for this immoral and potentially harmful action- was a dereliction of duty and made them complicit in the act. Further accusations of misogyny were also levelled at the gentlemen on the website. No evidence was provided. Byrd et. al. cry misogyny against even the most basic Christian beliefs about the roles of men and women in society so a non-specific charge of misogyny in the context of Byrd is meaningless and even serves to further her own agenda.


Contra_Mundum said:


> Those leaders know better, or they should. They are held to a higher standard. We should know about this, in spite of the fact it took place "indoors, among friends."...I put my name on that Open Letter precisely because it was a public notice. That website? The genie is out of the bottle, the stink is out of the skunk. At this point, cursing the media outlet, telling people "Don't look at it!" all the while waving blankets around frantically trying to dispel the sulfuric odor would serve no one. It isn't like the stench wasn't there when it was confined to the gasbag of GC. Guys were in there playing with matches.
> 
> We don't pretend that evils come to light aren't there, and aren't evils, because exposure was made by someone other than the perpetrators, or other than some badged or uniformed official, or by media other than the "sanctioned" press. Courts that pass "official verdict" on bad behavior are duty bound to hold prosecutors and their sworn investigators, and as far as possible their witnesses, to _unimpeachable _conduct. Or else the evidence gets tossed, the investigation is nullified (fruit of the poison tree), and the witnesses rendered unreliable.



Yes the Lord sees and hears all and all will come to light at the day of judgment. But until then many things remain hidden. And I find it very troubling that the notion that it is appropriate for members of sessions and presbyteries to pry into the most private of activities even to private conversations in one's own home is being promoted on a Reformed forum (as it was in the letter). The session is not the KGB. If someone has an accusation of sinful behaviour let him make it and let charges be filed and due process followed. But gossip, rumour and devious behaviour should not be encouraged or rewarded and they certainly should not be used as the basis for making public accusations of sin against one's brethren.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 24, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> Byrd cannot be trusted because the claims she has made of being abused do not amount to abuse, they amount to criticism which she doesn't like.



Depends on what you mean by abuse. A presbytery took the claim seriously enough to discipline a minister.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 24, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> Anyone who was interested in pursuing _Christian_ justice and propriety should have condemned the leaking and doxxing and those who facilitated these (such as Byrd) should have been rebuked in no uncertain terms.



Byrd didn't facilitate the leaking and doxing. It was done without her knowledge.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 24, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Byrd didn't facilitate the leaking and doxing. It was done without her knowledge.



She promoted the doxxing site on her twitter and her blog.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos (Nov 24, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Byrd didn't facilitate the leaking and doxing. It was done without her knowledge.



First, a disclaimer: I have no desire to be part of _Genevan Commons_, and never was a part of it. So, these remarks are more general and the general tendency our society has now in "fighting fire with fire".

So, a few things about doxing _in general and morally_. It is telling that even pagans understand it is *wrong*. Second, selective leaking (Proverbs 18:17) is no basis on which to chastise an entire body of men, release their names, and ecclesiastical membership! Third, it is very easy to manipulate digital media. I am not saying it was, but we must always be cautious around leaks of digital media.

To be party to doxing does not exonerate someone, it actually inflames the problem. It is clear that the leaking of this material would let loose social* agitators *(the Twitter mob) upon these men. The open letter should have urged the pulling down of this material. Those who leaked the information did enough work to trace the ecclesiastical bodies the men belong to - so it would have been best to send it to their Presbyteries / Sessions and let them deal with it rather than let loose the fury of the mob. Doxing has real consequences in the real world. A person's livelihood can be in jeopardy as well as their family.

Lastly - I would exhort all of us to _not be ignorant_. There is *no such thing *as *privacy *on social media. There is no such thing as a "private" group. All correspondence on a device connected to the internet should be treated as public. If you want to have a private conversation do not do it on Facebook. Even if people do not screenshot information - data leaks and dumps through hackers happen all the time. Look at how RC Sproul Jr. was exposed - through hacking. I suppose the root exhortation is this - do not do in secret what you would not do in the light.

*Walk in holiness before the face of God and you will never have to fear what comes into the light*.​

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 24, 2021)

kodos said:


> First, a disclaimer: I have no desire to be part of _Genevan Commons_, and never was a part of it. So, these remarks are more general and the general tendency our society has now in "fighting fire with fire".
> 
> So, a few things about doxing _in general and morally_. It is telling that even pagans understand it is *wrong*. Second, selective leaking (Proverbs 18:17) is no basis on which to chastise an entire body of men, release their names, and ecclesiastical membership! Third, it is very easy to manipulate digital media. I am not saying it was, but we must always be cautious around leaks of digital media.
> 
> ...



I generally agree. Doxxing is a leftist tactic and should usually be avoided.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 24, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> She promoted the doxxing site on her twitter and her blog.



I understand that. My reading of your previous comment was that you said she was part of the actual doxxing. I agree doxxing is bad, but I can only cry so hard for Geneva Commons. Some of the moderators are sociopaths and I got the left foot of Christian fellowship when I attacked Doug Wilson.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 24, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> I see the same thing happening here. No mention can be made of the sins committed in GC or by people associated with it without generating a retort that boils down to "yeah well AB did this".





alexandermsmith said:


> What problems are you referring to? It seems to me it is the crypto-feminists who are the problem. But if you are referring to the many allegations of "abuse" then these people (such as Byrd) who have been pushing this narrative cannot be trusted in this area either.


I find this juxtaposition of quotes interesting and worth reflecting on.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 24, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> I find this juxtaposition of quotes interesting and worth reflecting on.



The two statements you've quoted are in reference to two different things. Yours is about the Genevan Commons issue and mine is about the issue of alleged abuse in various denominations. I was responding to Contra Mundum's point that there are alarms being raised by feminists which should be heeded but are being ignored because of who is raising them. Now he didn't say what issues he was referring to but I assumed he was referring to the abuse allegations which have been a prominent part of Byrd's recent writing. Now maybe he wasn't referring to that issue but either way the point I was making in the statement of mine you quoted is that we have to be very sceptical about such allegations from a person like Byrd because of her clear agenda, her own claims of victimhood which are nonsense and the wider phenomenon we are seeing of weaponising victimhood and demanding allegations be believed without any shred of evidence being provided.

As to the Facebook group I may not agree with every comment which was made. That is beside the point. The comments should never have been leaked and they should never, subsequently, have been used to harass and persecute the gentlemen involved. And elders and ministers in the church certainly shouldn't have used them as the basis for passing judgment and demanding public apologies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 24, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> The two statements you've quoted are in reference to two different things. Yours is about the Genevan Commons issue and mine is about the issue of alleged abuse in various denominations. I was responding to Contra Mundum's point that there are alarms being raised by feminists which should be heeded but are being ignored because of who is raising them. Now he didn't say what issues he was referring to but I assumed he was referring to the abuse allegations which have been a prominent part of Byrd's recent writing. Now maybe he wasn't referring to that issue but either way the point I was making in the statement of mine you quoted is that we have to be very sceptical about such allegations from a person like Byrd because of her clear agenda, her own claims of victimhood which are nonsense and the wider phenomenon we are seeing of weaponising victimhood and demanding allegations be believed without any shred of evidence being provided.
> 
> As to the Facebook group I may not agree with every comment which was made. That is beside the point. The comments should never have been leaked and they should never, subsequently, have been used to harass and persecute the gentlemen involved. And elders and ministers in the church certainly shouldn't have used them as the basis for passing judgment and demanding public apologies.


Why not? Private deeds are sometimes brought into the light. It happens. Where do you stand on the leak of National Partnership emails (if folks over there are following that issue at all)?

There is no defense of sin based on its intended privacy. If I speak to my wife abusively and she "breaks confidentiality" do I get off the hook because my comments should never have been leaked or used to harass and persecute me?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 24, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> Why not? Private deeds are sometimes brought into the light. It happens. Where do you stand on the leak of National Partnership emails (if folks over there are following that issue at all)?
> 
> There is no defense of sin based on its intended privacy. If I speak to my wife abusively and she "breaks confidentiality" do I get off the hook because my comments should never have been leaked or used to harass and persecute me?



The nature of the leak is the issue. If elders and ministers had an issue with what was said they should have engaged with the gentlemen privately rather than issuing a public letter which declared the men guilty of sin and in need of repentance. By doing so they gave their implicit consent to the doxxing. 

Sometimes private documents are leaked, from the government for example, and it can be a good thing what they contain was brought to light. But that doesn't change the fact that someone broke the law and in most cases should be punished for it. There's a reason whistle-blowers often need immunity from prosecution. However what happened with Genevan Commons is different on two counts: 1) the "crimes" which were exposed were trivial and 2) as Christians we shouldn't be engaging in acts such as doxxing which can cause very real harm to the individuals doxxed. Furthermore, having remained silent whilst Byrd peddled her dangerous teaching it was rather hypocritical to be so upset about some off-colour comments made in a private group. That only reinforces the impression that the whole thing was just a means of covering for Byrd and trying to silence her opponents.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## A.Joseph (Nov 24, 2021)

Aren’t pastors and elders held to a higher standard? Should they be? I agree with the general concerns of the GC but their tone and temperament and even some of the content was very unbecoming. The world is watching and we are not distinguishing ourselves, not just theologically.

Beth Moore is a soft, easy target…. But why throw darts her way? Isnt time better well spent.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Nov 24, 2021)

I think with Ms. Byrd, we had to measure the threat level.
Was she authoritative? No.
Was she drifting? Yes. For the world to see and reasonably discern. Was she beyond reeling back in? Probably…. and that would naturally play out.

Yet the knuckleheads at GC made her a martyr. Which was both sad and pathetic. They behaved sad and pathetically in my opinion. I’m glad they were exposed and I’m glad they aren’t my pastor.

That’s politics and culture war. They are not fighting on behalf of God. They have their chests puffed up for their own celebrity, I reckon….

I know they got caught up in the herd. Is that an excuse?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 24, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> Aren’t pastors and elders held to a higher standard? Should they be? I agree with the general concerns of the GC but their tone and temperament and even some of the content was very unbecoming. The world is watching and we are not distinguishing ourselves, not just theologically.
> 
> Beth Moore is a soft, easy target…. But why throw darts her way? Isnt time better well spent.



Indeed they should be and in a different context there would be a different discussion. But the context of the leak was one in which there was a woman, who was given prominence in the church at wide by a respected conservative evangelical organisation, promulgating error. And if anyone spoke out against her they were harangued and criticised and harassed. If Byrd wishes to appropriate to herself the position of a teacher within the church then she must be held to the same standard as any other teacher. In that context a guy saying Byrd should make him a sandwich is not comparable to the dangerous stuff Byrd was saying.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 24, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> I think with Ms. Byrd, we had to measure the threat level.
> Was she authoritative? No.
> Was she drifting? Yes. For the world to see and reasonably discern. Was she beyond reeling back in? Probably…. and that would naturally play out.
> 
> ...



I don't know what you mean by "authoritative". As a woman does she have the authority to teach in the church and to publish books and writings on theology? No of course not. But that doesn't stop her. She most certainly has _a_ authority which is measured in her acolytes and her prominence. Her books are published and read and she is invited to speak at conferences and churches and invited on podcasts. People, wrongly, listen to her and follow her. This is why false teachers must be stopped because however wrong they may be their teachings spread and corrupt.

You say "the world" could see her drift. Oh really? How long did it take for her to finally be removed from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals? She still has her followers and defenders even in conservative churches. Even here on this forum. Unfortunately she is not so easily dismissed.

What is pathetic is to see elders and ministers grovelling at the feet of that woman, fawning over her, going out of their way to criticise her opponents but never criticising her. What is pathetic is that as each one of her books strays farther and farther from orthodoxy many refuse to confront the truth but instead cry foul against anyone who raises the alarm.


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 24, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> The nature of the leak is the issue. If elders and ministers had an issue with what was said they should have engaged with the gentlemen privately rather than issuing a public letter which declared the men guilty of sin and in need of repentance. By doing so they gave their implicit consent to the doxxing.
> 
> Sometimes private documents are leaked, from the government for example, and it can be a good thing what they contain was brought to light. But that doesn't change the fact that someone broke the law and in most cases should be punished for it. There's a reason whistle-blowers often need immunity from prosecution. However what happened with Genevan Commons is different on two counts: 1) the "crimes" which were exposed were trivial and 2) as Christians we shouldn't be engaging in acts such as doxxing which can cause very real harm to the individuals doxxed. Furthermore, having remained silent whilst Byrd peddled her dangerous teaching it was rather hypocritical to be so upset about some off-colour comments made in a private group. That only reinforces the impression that the whole thing was just a means of covering for Byrd and trying to silence her opponents.


What you've said presumes your assessment of the situation as incontrovertible fact. Some people - including a number of ordained ministers - disagree that the "crimes" were trivial. No one's enforcing agreement with that assessment but it is worth observing. Your judgment about the hypocrisy of the letter also presumes your assessment of the situation because the governing body that reviewed these things thought that AB was not deserving of censure while some of the ministers who condemned her were deserving of rebuke.


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 24, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> What is pathetic is to see elders and ministers grovelling at the feet of that woman, fawning over her, going out of their way to criticise her opponents but never criticising her. What is pathetic is that as each one of her books strays farther and farther from orthodoxy many refuse to confront the truth but instead cry foul against anyone who raises the alarm.


"That woman" - are we talking about Jezebel or some notorious woman of ill repute? I thought - silly me - that we were talking about someone who until recently was a sister believer in an OPC church - someone who merited shepherding and loving counsel; but I wouldn't know that from the tone of some of these posts.

Do you think that Aimee Byrd is unregenerate? That her profession of faith is a false one? If so, then I can understand the level of vitriol. If on the other hand she's a wayward sister, then I personally think it's a bit much to speak so unlovingly.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## A.Joseph (Nov 24, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> I don't know what you mean by "authoritative". As a woman does she have the authority to teach in the church and to publish books and writings on theology? No of course not. But that doesn't stop her. She most certainly has _a_ authority which is measured in her acolytes and her prominence. Her books are published and read and she is invited to speak at conferences and churches and invited on podcasts. People, wrongly, listen to her and follow her. This is why false teachers must be stopped because however wrong they may be their teachings spread and corrupt.
> 
> You say "the world" could see her drift. Oh really? How long did it take for her to finally be removed from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals? She still has her followers and defenders even in conservative churches. Even here on this forum. Unfortunately she is not so easily dismissed.
> 
> What is pathetic is to see elders and ministers grovelling at the feet of that woman, fawning over her, going out of their way to criticise her opponents but never criticising her. What is pathetic is that as each one of her books strays farther and farther from orthodoxy many refuse to confront the truth but instead cry foul against anyone who raises the alarm.


But who does more damage to the OPC? I wish GC didn't become the story. I would hope ACE would have a little less clumsily pursued the course they had without all the fanfare and controversy that surrounded this whole ordeal. I would like to think Machen would be above all the politicization of our faith and I think that's the territory in which this battle is being fought. Just my opinion. We don't win a culture war. God ultimately wins. We know this. 

I do think the good that can come from this is that matters of qualified teachers should be given closer consideration. Maybe Carl Trueman was flirting with too many secular sources that made him a little soft on these matters and maybe he will need to be a bit more discerning. I do appreciate their (Carl & Todd) charitable tone and spirit and when push comes to show they appear to get on track. I think they need to think these matters through a little more before they platform somebody as far as the repercussions without isolating themselves from the greater community. I think we should still engage the culture without compromising sound biblical principles. Maybe they are a bit too laxed however.....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 24, 2021)

Locked for review due to a report. All the US Mods and Admins are busy getting ready for Thanksgiving tomorrow; don't expect any resolution any time soon.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1


----------

