# Divine Order in the Church



## alexandermsmith (May 14, 2019)

Aimee Byrd over on the _Mortification of Spin_ blog has taken issue with this article by Owen Strachan:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2019/05/divine-order-in-a-chaotic-age-on-women-preaching/

Her response to it is here:

http://www.mortificationofspin.org/...-of-ess-is-not-thunderously-good#.XNrWTo5KjGh

She says it is basically a "rebranding" of the ESS position which caused such trouble a few years back. Strachan's book _The Grand Design_ was certainly in error and I have no idea if he has changed his position or not but, once again, I am troubled by Byrd's argument here.

Having read Strachan's article I'm finding it hard to find a problem. I suppose the most "troubling" passage, and it's the one Byrd herself highlights, is this:

"They have had very little grounding (in some cases) in the order of creation. They know God created the earth, but they haven’t heard much more than that. They sense that homosexuality is sinful, but beyond a few biblical citations, they do not have a doctrinal position on the matter. They know there are men and women, but they have heard little about divine design. But this design, this order, is vital. *Grounded in theistic ontology itself, it is the very bedrock of Christian theology* and the Christian worldview. You could say it this way: there is order in the home; there is order in the churches; there is order in the world God has made." [Emphasis added. It is in this passage that Strachan links to his above mentioned book which would suggest he is repeating his wrong arguments from that.]

That reference to "theistic ontology" is vague to say the least. However, the basic argument seems pretty solid to me. 1 Corinthians 11:3 would seem to support Strachan's argument from divinely established order.

Perhaps having Strachan make the argument is unhelpful, but what are people's thoughts?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 14, 2019)

If all Strachan is saying is that there is a hierarchy in the created order, what with angelic ranks and all, descending down to us, that's fine. That's not what he is saying. By linking to his book, theistic ontology should be interpreted in light of ESSS.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 14, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If all Strachan is saying is that there is a hierarchy in the created order, what with angelic ranks and all, descending down to us, that's fine. That's not what he is saying. By linking to his book, theistic ontology should be interpreted in light of ESSS.



Hmmmm yeah that would appear to be the case. If that particular phrase and link were taken out of the article I think the article would have been fine as he doesn't- that I can see- explicitly state any ESS doctrine. But he sullies it. Shame. It gives critics like Byrd something legitimate to criticise and use to slip in their crypto-feminist interpretation of Scripture.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 14, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> It gives critics like Byrd something legitimate to criticise and use to slip in their crypto-feminist interpretation of Scripture.


I think "crypto-feminism" drives this discussion more than most realize.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 14, 2019)

@alexandermsmith - I have come across a two-part review of Aimme Byrd's _Why Can't We Be Friends?_ that may be of interest to you. Here is Part 1 and Part 2. The author identifies with patriarchy, which is perhaps not a good idea, but I found these review articles useful.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist (May 14, 2019)

The thing is that ladies like Byrd and the other girl who did the Wilson expose, can't remember her name, have done a fairly good rhetorical job at capturing the high ground. They are forcing their opponents to embrace the heterodox ESS position in the debate. Not agreeing with them overall, but it was a sharp rhetorical move.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (May 14, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> They are forcing their opponents to embrace the heterodox ESS position in the debate.



I don't understand this. Do some complementarians feel ESS is necessary to be a complementarian? Surely this isn't the case...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 14, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I don't understand this. Do some complementarians feel ESS is necessary to be a complementarian? Surely this isn't the case...



Depends upon who you are asking. The debate over ESS a few years ago was described as a civil war within complementarianism.


----------



## Taylor (May 14, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Depends upon who you are asking. The debate over ESS a few years ago was described as a civil war within complementarianism.



I guess I ask because I just don't see the draw. I am fine with just quoting Gen. 1, 1 Tim. 2, 1 Cor. 11, Eph. 5, etc., and being done with the "gender role" issue. I don't feel that I need to delve deep into trinitarian ontology to support what Scripture plainly teaches anyway.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Pilgrim (May 14, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I don't understand this. Do some complementarians feel ESS is necessary to be a complementarian? Surely this isn't the case...



I think some of it is because most evangelicals are biblicists who don't want to reason from the natural order. But, if you do that, you tend to end up with some of the more "extreme" forms of patriarchy. But I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that any other civilization on earth would think it absurd that a woman can be the head of state or the CEO of a large company but on the other hand can't be an elder in the church. Can women be the equal of men in the workplace without birth control? The feminists say no, which is why they fought so hard to have it covered under Obamacare. Of course, progressives, whether secular or religious, include abortion as well.

I'm not arguing for blindly turning back the clock 200 years or whatever. But did these radical changes regarding the sexes originate from the Bible, or somewhere else? Were our ancestors wrong about everything except for women in church office? The "thin" or "narrow" comps increasingly seem to be saying yes.

Complementarianism is clearly heavily influenced by 2nd wave feminism. Some comps see no problem with "house husbands" or with deliberate childlessness. How many evangelicals today who would consider themselves to be comps are really that upset about women in combat? (Moreover, how many are proud of their daughters who are in combat roles in the military?) But controversy over women in the military was raging when Clinton came into office in the early 90s. My recollection is that it was just about as big of an issue as gays in the military. Fears about women being drafted into the military was one of the main factors in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment several years before that. If house husbands and women in combat are OK, is the principle of "Women and Children First" an outdated idea that was the product of a bygone sexist era? If the husband is a house husband who is good with the children and the wife is an executive or lawyer or scientist or whatever, who should get in the lifeboat?

I think the "thick" or "broad" complementarians, whether instinctively or explicitly, may sense that a couple of Bible verses probably isn't going to cut it in the long run with all of the cultural pressure being brought to bear, and ESS seems to help the cause, especially in groups that typically aren't well schooled in patristics and which aren't as deferential to historic creeds. An argument grounded in the Trinity is certainly "stronger" or more robust than a couple of verses that at face value bar women from church office but which are in the context of other things in one or more of those passages that evangelicals arguably ignore or dismiss, such as headcovering.

Women's studies like Beth Moore's have served as sort of a safety valve that to some extent kept women from clamoring for the pulpit in SBC and similar churches (including the PCA) but it may not work for much longer. But in the meantime, you've got women's classes who will refuse to read books by men, etc.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 15, 2019)

Pilgrim said:


> I think some of it is because most evangelicals are biblicists who don't want to reason from the natural order.



I think that this analysis gets to the heart of the issue. Biblicism is a weak basis from which to oppose female ordination, as other biblicists will find biblical texts that they can latch on to in order to support it. A solid grounding in nature, however, enables us to see through such biblicist appeals in support of unbiblical teaching.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 15, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I guess I ask because I just don't see the draw. I am fine with just quoting Gen. 1, 1 Tim. 2, 1 Cor. 11, Eph. 5, etc., and being done with the "gender role" issue. I don't feel that I need to delve deep into trinitarian ontology to support what Scripture plainly teaches anyway.



In my opinion, the idea of basing gender roles on the Trinity is madness. For one thing, all the persons in the Godhead are male.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 15, 2019)

Pilgrim said:


> I think some of it is because most evangelicals are biblicists who don't want to reason from the natural order. But, if you do that, you tend to end up with some of the more "extreme" forms of patriarchy. But I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that any other civilization on earth would think it absurd that a woman can be the head of state or the CEO of a large company but on the other hand can't be an elder in the church. Can women be the equal of men in the workplace without birth control? The feminists say no, which is why they fought so hard to have it covered under Obamacare. Of course, progressives, whether secular or religious, include abortion as well.
> 
> I'm not arguing for blindly turning back the clock 200 years or whatever. But did these radical changes regarding the sexes originate from the Bible, or somewhere else? Were our ancestors wrong about everything except for women in church office? The "thin" or "narrow" comps increasingly seem to be saying yes.
> 
> ...



Exactly this.

The Complementarian movement has always seemed a rather dubious one to me. Not because I disagreed with its premises (this was in the early 2000s when I first came across it(!)) but because it was clearly a reaction to the sexual revolution and the various feminist movements and seemed to have gone about sanctifying a lot of American cultural norms and passing them off as Biblical teaching (e.g. the _Wild at Heart_ movement and all its various copycats). To counter the breakdown of the distinction between the sexes and the feminisation of the church, this movement said that the Biblical model was for men to be macho he-men. Of course a similar thing happened with the purity movement: to combat the obsession with _promiscuous _sexuality in society, the church became obsessed with _chaste _sexuality. Which was just another form of sexualisation.

So it's definitely regrettable that in response to the clearly dangerous and insidious teaching coming from certain quarters within the evangelical community, those trying to defend the Biblical order for the sexes have resorted to (ancient) heretical teachings. However, whatever the problems with the "patriarchy" movement it's indicative of a realisation that, as said above, so much ground has already been lost. The battle isn't merely over who's allowed to teach in the church. If that's the only area of disagreement we're fighting from a very weak position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 15, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I think that this analysis gets to the heart of the issue. Biblicism is a weak basis from which to oppose female ordination, as other biblicists will find biblical texts that they can latch on to in order to support it. A solid grounding in nature, however, enables us to see through such biblicist appeals in support of unbiblical teaching.



Would this suggest that we err on the side of Classical Reformed Apologetics, as opposed to Presuppositinalism perhaps?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 15, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I don't understand this. Do some complementarians feel ESS is necessary to be a complementarian? Surely this isn't the case...



Yes. That's basically the reason ESS got off the ground in the first place. We balk at ESS because we've had the WCF to keep us in line. Most Evangelicals don't.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 15, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Would this suggest that we err on the side of Classical Reformed Apologetics, as opposed to Presuppositinalism perhaps?



My view of apologetics is the same as that of Winston Churchill: If you're not a presuppositionalist in your twenties, you have no heart. If you're still a presuppositionalist in your thirties, you have no head.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 15, 2019)

Complementarianism is just another occasion by which feminism can enter into the church, but now through the front door. That husband and wife have roles that “complement” the other completely obscures the question of authority and submission. What we’re seeing isn’t “thin complementarians” making their case but rather anorexic ones.

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 15, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Depends upon who you are asking. The debate over ESS a few years ago was described as a civil war within complementarianism.



That’s what they’d say, but I had a front row seat to the fiasco and my conclusion is that not all complementarians are created equal. At the very least, if there is no application outside church and marriage (as the Presbyterians most involved in the debate had suggested), then the prescriptive roles for church and family become arbitrary. They could be reversed, or just maybe they were originally a product of culture and can be rearranged as cultures evolve. (The door was left wide open for liberals.) Nothing in nature precludes reversal in church and family, _if_ there is no application outside church and family. And _that_ is an outright denial of what we know by nature, (which, by the way, can only be justified in any robust epistemic way by an appeal to Scripture’s testimony of what we know by nature).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2019)

In my view, there is a social problem; and it is tied to nature--more precisely _war on nature._ With the result that normal gender roles and a smoothly functioning society are cast off, for pursuit of utopian dreams by people at war with the very idea that there is a way that some things just ARE, requiring submission to reality. This battleground is just one among many, because men are inveterate rebels.

At the same time, one of the worst reactions that conservative types, preservationist types, and their allies fall into is a retreat from degrees of flexibility into hardened silos. By letting their opponents dictate the terms of conflict, in the name of preserving nature, they legislate to nature instead.

Why can't the Queen of Sheba (or the Queen of England) be an exotic and rare exhibit of legitimate natural variety? Female CEO an impossibility, because sex roles? That's invoking moral revulsion (as when a thing is _contrary to _nature) on something that appears to simply be _unusual _in nature.

However, since God is disposed to impose a fixed order on his church, which is not a "natural" thing at all; but an idealized, constructed thing; an institution; a legal entity, prescribed from the top (not growing out of a seed inclusive of diverse expression)--call it "arbitrary" if you want. I call it Jus Divinum.

Just as if there was a corporation, in which its creators are (or ought to be) free to impose whatever rules it wished--including an "all female board of directors, in perpetuity"--God is free to ordain his church's organization, leaders, and functions. And to join or remain in his church should mean one's willingness to hew to his standards.

In the case of the corporation, it's success (or lack of it) is a verdict on the efforts and expenditures to create and sustain such a thing. Casting it all in moral terms is futile. It would be as ill-conceived castigation, as if I took offense for a couple that spent $6K on a Reformation Tour to Europe for Dort400. [Spaz]"That money should not have been wasted on something so trivial!"[/Spaz].

In the case of a church, even a very "successful" church that is organized in a defiant way (i.e. female ministers, or an all-male hierarchy of prelates) is not to be evaluated on the basis or longevity, budgets, mission expansion, and membership. It is to be judged on its fidelity to Christ's order. Because the church is not "natural" at all.

If there are a few "house-husbands" in every society, that is perhaps to be expected. Already, in a "traditional-minded" society, different homes divide the household responsibilities and functions in different degrees. It isn't uniform. We'd classify the odd "house-husband" at the trailing edge of the bell curve.

There's pushback now, within our circles, from those (women or men) who have reason to fear that "our side" in culture war are retreating into ossified silos of rigid conformity, in order to oppose those who are trying to liquefy all norms. They are voices, in my opinion, which should be given a hearing, so that we may not err too far in losing track of the real balance of a rationally beneficial society--one that has a healthy distribution curve.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 15, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> In my view, there is a social problem; and it is tied to nature--more precisely _war on nature._ With the result that normal gender roles and a smoothly functioning society are cast off, for pursuit of utopian dreams by people at war with the very idea that there is a way that some things just ARE, requiring submission to reality. This battleground is just one among many, because men are inveterate rebels.
> 
> At the same time, one of the worst reactions that conservative types, preservationist types, and their allies fall into is a retreat from degrees of flexibility into hardened silos. By letting their opponents dictate the terms of conflict, in the name of preserving nature, they legislate to nature instead.
> 
> ...



So are you saying that we distinguish between nature generally, which has norms but not necessarily rigid rules to which there can never be an exception; and the church which has its order explicitly laid down in Scripture,to which there can never be an exception? If so I would go along with that.

Queens are a good example. They represent a compromise between two principles: primogeniture on the one hand and a desire to preserve one house's hold on the throne, or preservation of a certain constituional principle (religion, for example) on the other. When the only legitimate offspring is a woman it is better for her to be the monarch than for it to go to the first legitimate male heir who may be foreign, or of the wrong religion. Likewise there have always been women who worked. But we would want to say that Scripture does quite clearly lay down a _preferred_ model for society in which men are the breadwinners and women are to remain in the domestic sphere; that this order is *natural*; and that the justification used by Scripture is a reference to the created order.

And this has implications in all areas of society. But with the church, and spiritual matters generally, Scripture explicitly establishes male headship.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 15, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I don't understand this. Do some complementarians feel ESS is necessary to be a complementarian? Surely this isn't the case...


Having followed the debate, it often seemed to me that Byrd _et al._ made a deliberate and calculated effort to insist that ESS was an essential part of Complementarianism; insinuating (and sometimes outright saying) that they must go hand-in-hand. In this way, they could characterize Complementarian views of gender roles as inherently heterodox. And it did not matter how often Complementarian voices insisted ESS was not a _sine qua non_ of Complementarianism, their opponents would just keep saying it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 15, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> However, since God is disposed to impose a fixed order on his church, which is not a "natural" thing at all; but an idealized, constructed thing; an institution; a legal entity, prescribed from the top (not growing out of a seed inclusive of diverse expression)--call it "arbitrary" if you want. I call it Jus Divinum.



This observation is certainly an interesting one. I would be intrigued to hear @Alan D. Strange's thoughts on the subject. One of the reasons why I do not subscribe to a regulative principle of church government is because I believe that ecclesiastical polity is much more beholden to the law of nature than the ordinances of worship. But I suppose that point is off-topic and is perhaps opening a can of worms.


----------



## User20004000 (May 15, 2019)

The Trinity and Marriage, some minimal reflections below. There is a singular application that got lost in the dialogue. Also, both sides had their own set of missteps, which I don’t flesh out here. 

Although there is no _hierarchical_ ordering in the ontology Trinity, there is nonetheless an unalterable ordering of persons that finds its fundamental distinction in _origin_ (ie the Son is eternally begotten; the Father is unbegotten...). (That point seemed to escape the Baptists who debated the issue most. They tended to locate personal distinctions in authority and submission.)

Trinitarian feminists might argue from (a) equality of divine persons to (b) total obliteration of suitable differences between husband and wife. (That is to conflate equality with sameness.)

In that context, if the appeal to the Trinity is useful at all, it’s at best singular. It can serve to bolster the premise that ontic equality among persons does not prohibit a divinely instituted and irreversible ordering of operations among equals. But that’s pretty much it. 

So, given the decree to save, it was _fitting_ that the Son be sent into the world by the Father and not the reverse, (a point to which the Presbyterians did not adequately attend). 

By way of application, by appealing to the Trinity we can establish that equality of persons does not reduce to absolute sameness. Feminists may not lazily appeal to the Trinity to undermine a general principle, such as that the husband is to go out into the world whereas it’s more fitting for the wife to manage the home. (Whether one agrees or not with that general portrayal of marriage duty is irrelevant to point at hand. The simple point is, equality of persons does not preclude suitability of operations based upon _personal_ properties.)

(At various times it sounded as though _essence_ was taking extreme priority over persons, rather than treating unity and plurality as equally ultimate. At times it sounded more like modalism or that God was an impersonal blob essence rather than Trinity.) 

Both sides didn’t do too well, in my opinion. 

I thought Kevin DeYoung brought much light to the subject here:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...of-the-trinity-within-the-reformed-tradition/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 15, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Having followed the debate, it often seemed to me that Byrd _et al._ made a deliberate and calculated effort to insist that ESS was an essential part of Complementarianism; insinuating (and sometimes outright saying) that they must go hand-in-hand. In this way, they could characterize Complementarian views of gender roles as inherently heterodox. And it did not matter how often Complementarian voices insisted ESS was not a _sine qua non_ of Complementarianism, their opponents would just keep saying it.



I suppose that Wayne Grudem became an easy target in this regard. I think when this debate was raging most fiercely, Matthew Winzer observed that both sides were talking past each other. I tend to think that he was correct.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 15, 2019)

However, since God is disposed to impose a fixed order on his church, which is not a "natural" thing at all;​
Bruce,

We agree it’s revealed in Scripture. Are you suggesting that it doesn’t nicely comply with nature? There’d be nothing unnatural had God required only women to rule in the church?


----------



## BuckeyeGirl (May 15, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The thing is that ladies like Byrd and the other girl who did the Wilson expose, can't remember her name, have done a fairly good rhetorical job at capturing the high ground. They are forcing their opponents to embrace the heterodox ESS position in the debate. Not agreeing with them overall, but it was a sharp rhetorical move.



This is a good point. I am not familiar enough with the ESS position to pick out its influence on Strachan's piece. But, it's a shame that ESS is giving people like Byrd a foothold to delegitimize opposition to women teaching and preaching. Even though Byrd focuses on the problem with ESS in this piece, she is clear that a main problem with Strachan is his position on women teaching - not just the theological underpinnings:

"There are many issues brought up in Strachan’s article that provoke discussion. *One main one, that is not the focus of my response here, is that Strachan . . . denounces the woman’s teaching contribution in the church whenever adult males will be among the recipients, saying “there is no way for a woman to instruct the gathered church . . . .”* And he’s not only talking about corporate worship either. I have so much to say about this, way too much to cover in one article."

With Beth Moore gaining more support within the SBC while simultaneously moving towards an open embrace of women preaching, I really hope that others provide a strong biblical opposition.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 15, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> @alexandermsmith - I have come across a two-part review of Aimme Byrd's _Why Can't We Be Friends?_ that may be of interest to you. Here is Part 1 and Part 2. The author identifies with patriarchy, which is perhaps not a good idea, but I found these review articles useful.



Good articles. Did he never follow up with further articles on it? That's a shame.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 15, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Good articles. Did he never follow up with further articles on it? That's a shame.



He does not seem to post that regularly so there may be future instalments.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2019)

RWD said:


> "However, since God is disposed to impose a fixed order on his church, which is not a "natural" thing at all;" (Contra Mundum, post #19)​
> Bruce,
> 
> We agree it’s revealed in Scripture. Are you suggesting that it doesn’t nicely comply with nature? There’d be nothing unnatural had God required only women to rule in the church?


I don't believe that the divine order for the church is _opposed_ to nature; a convenient relationship to things that are seen, is (sometimes) quite fitting for things that are unseen.

On the other hand, I think that if God had ordained something quite extraordinary--such as, in fact he has done: bringing life out of death, for example, which is highly unnatural--for orderliness in his church, it would be our duty to "roll with it." Our attitude should then have been: "Whate'er My God Ordains Is Right." He has his reasons, even if they prove to be beyond our reckoning.

We attend Paul's reasoning respecting men (exclusively) leading in the church _because he reasons there from Scripture, _and not because nature is that which determines the case. Sometimes, commentators are guilty of conflating Paul's appeal to "nature" in the passage on head-covering (1Cor.11:14) with his normative statements about male leadership of the church (1Cor.14:34; 1Tim.2:11). The two should not be merged, as if the one was informative of the other.


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 15, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't at all believe that the divine order for the church is _opposed_ to nature; a convenient relationship to things that are seen, is fitting for things that are unseen.
> 
> On the other hand, I think that if God had ordained something quite extraordinary--such as, in fact he has done: bringing life out of death, for example, which is highly unnatural--for orderliness in his church, it would be our duty to "roll with it." Our attitude should then have been: "Whate'er My God Ordains Is Right." He has his reasons, even if they prove to be beyond our reckoning.
> 
> We attend Paul's reasoning respecting men (exclusively) leading in the church _because he reasons there from Scripture, _and not because nature is that which determines the case. Sometimes, commentators are guilty of conflating Paul's appeal to "nature" in the passage on head-covering (1Cor.11:14) with his normative statements about male leadership of the church. The two should not be merged, as if the one was informative of the other.



I would certainly say that Paul's command as regards teaching in the church is, in itself, sufficient justification for adhering to it. But is it not also true to say that he does employ the appeal to the created order as part of his reasoning? Perhaps it is better to talk about the created order- i.e. that Adam was formed first, then Eve- rather than nature? Or are they two different things and it is to the former he appeals rather than the latter?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 15, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't at all believe that the divine order for the church is _opposed_ to nature; a convenient relationship to things that are seen, is fitting for things that are unseen.
> 
> On the other hand, I think that if God had ordained something quite extraordinary--such as, in fact he has done: bringing life out of death, for example, which is highly unnatural--for orderliness in his church, it would be our duty to "roll with it." Our attitude should then have been: "Whate'er My God Ordains Is Right." He has his reasons, even if they prove to be beyond our reckoning.
> 
> We attend Paul's reasoning respecting men (exclusively) leading in the church _because he reasons there from Scripture, _and not because nature is that which determines the case. Sometimes, commentators are guilty of conflating Paul's appeal to "nature" in the passage on head-covering (1Cor.11:14) with his normative statements about male leadership of the church. The two should not be merged, as if the one was informative of the other.



I’m eager to agree but I’d like to press just a tiny bit more. 

You wrote_ and I agree_, “I don't at all believe that the divine order for the church is _opposed_ to nature...” 

But my question is not merely whether the two are compatible (ie not in opposition to each other), but rather whether the created order as it relates to the sexes happily complies with God’s ordering of church and family government. In other words, I’m not asking whether church government as revealed in Scripture denies the created order, which we agree it doesn’t. Rather, I’m asking whether it is fitting that God calls men to be ordained as opposed to women. I think it is.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> But is it not also true to say that he does employ the appeal to the created order as part of his reasoning? Perhaps it is better to talk about the created order- i.e. that Adam was formed first, then Eve- rather than nature? Or are they two different things and it is to the former he appeals rather than the latter?


Is Paul arguing _nature _there, or is he arguing _Scripture?_ He's clearly arguing Scripture, because nature couldn't tell us anything about the creation's order. The best men have come up with to hold those notions is sieve-like evolutionary theory. We know about the creation's order because the Bible tells us so.

Nature red in tooth and claw is natural, which is why *death* is supposed to be just part of the "circle of life." Many males of the animal world subjugate the females, in order to mate with them; and they fight off their competition in a violent struggle for gene pool advantage. Is that what humans should do, because _nature_? In other parts of the animal world, the males are drones, whose goal is to inseminate; from there they turn into handy protein snacks for the female. Again, should nature guide us...? 

My point is not to come up with reasons why nature _fails _to offer helpful analogies, when clearly it can and does. But to show that it only does so as supplemental, and selectively, for supporting the intelligible propositions of Scriptural argument. Paul does not reason _from _nature, but selectively appeals to a portion of nature as proof that his argument is not without some analogous precedent. But the fact that he's selective shows us that one is not free to argue carelessly from the opposite direction.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 15, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Is Paul arguing _nature _there, or is he arguing _Scripture?_ He's clearly arguing Scripture, because nature couldn't tell us anything about the creation's order. The best men have come up with to hold those notions is sieve-like evolutionary theory. We know about the creation's order because the Bible tells us so.
> 
> Nature red in tooth and claw is natural, which is why *death* is supposed to be just part of the "circle of life." Many males of the animal world subjugate the females, in order to mate with them; and they fight off their competition in a violent struggle for gene pool advantage. Is that what humans should do, because _nature_? In other parts of the animal world, the males are drones, whose goal is to inseminate; from there they turn into handy protein snacks for the female. Again, should nature guide us...?
> 
> My point is not to come up with reasons why nature _fails _to offer helpful analogies, when clearly it can and does. But to show that it only does so as supplemental, and selectively, for supporting the intelligible propositions of Scriptural argument. Paul does not reason _from _nature, but selectively appeals to a portion of nature as proof that his argument is not without some analogous precedent. But the fact that he's selective shows us that one is not free to argue carelessly from the opposite direction.



That's what I was trying to get at with the distinction between created order and nature. So yes that's helpful. But it's surely more than a mere positive command. The argument does appeal to _how_ we were created, and the _purpose _of our creation, does it not? The command not to eat of the tree of knowledge was a purely positive command: there was nothing inherent in the tree which lead to this command. Paul's command is more than a mere command: he does appeal to ontology in his argumentation, albeit an ontology which is revealed in Scripture. Or am I wrong?


----------



## User20004000 (May 15, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Is Paul arguing _nature _there, or is he arguing _Scripture?_ He's clearly arguing Scripture, because nature couldn't tell us anything about the creation's order. The best men have come up with to hold those notions is sieve-like evolutionary theory.
> from the opposite direction.



“We know about the creation's order because the Bible tells us so.”​
We know much about the created order _both_ by general and special revelation. Romans one presupposes such knowledge in the declaring of culpability for those who would exchange the natural use of things for shameful acts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> That's what I was trying to get at with the distinction between created order and nature. So yes that's helpful. But it's surely more than a mere positive command. The argument does appeal to _how_ we were created, and the _purpose _of our creation, does it not? The command not to eat of the tree of knowledge was a purely positive command: there was nothing inherent in the tree which lead to this command. Paul's command is more than a mere command: he does appeal to ontology in his argumentation, albeit an ontology which is revealed in Scripture. Or am I wrong?


In 1Tim.2:11ff, Paul appeals to _creational order _taught _in Holy Scripture _to support his argument for a specific order in the church. He does not appeal to _nature_ itself, or to any supposed self-evident or iron law of nature derivable from reason by all sorts of men. In other words, he does not argue (as we do see him argue once in 1Cor.11:14) that "nature itself teaches."

It isn't even the same kind of appeal, since no indubitable theory of origins could always have prioritized the male. I can conceive a rational, evolutionary argument that prioritizes a "female principle," on the supposition that a single bisxual organism morphed to "outsource" the "male-service" for an alleged biological advantage.

I think it is a mistake to decide for the propriety of borrowing Paul's appeal used by him to support church-order, and putting it to service of supporting all/any other social orders. As a biblical absolutist, I want to take Paul's narrow appeal, and fearlessly wield it against all those forms of rationalization that would compromise _precisely on that plain and unambiguous _point which he makes.

For, if I grant that the other side then tries to _mock _my stance, by pointing to some "inconsistency" alleged in my vote for a female Congressperson--I deny the validity of his argument. I don't allow that there is some universally derivable principle embedded in Paul's position at all. He makes one argument, and I won't budge on it.

Alternatively, however, there are some who follow the other side in their supposed logic. Who then feel compelled to "get consistent," by accepting the idea that "I can't vote for her," or "women shouldn't be CEOs," or whatever. I'm not compelled to put my belief in the connection of creation-order as it relates to church, or to family (for which I will happily produce other arguments), all in the same basket pertaining to social convention. I never agreed to take Paul's logic in 1Tim.2:11ff, and apply it to everything.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 15, 2019)

Nature supports biblical/scritptual reality certainly and should only be used as a secondary support. I’d be shocked if anyone in our camp would argue that. I think the argument comes in denying a secondary support application.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 15, 2019)

Should women vote? I say no...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> Nature supports biblical/scritptual reality certainly and should only be used as a secondary support. I’d be shocked if anyone in our camp would argue that. I think the argument comes in denying a secondary support application.





A.Joseph said:


> Should women vote? I say no...


So, goodbye, 19th Amendment (USA); because _nature?_


----------



## User20004000 (May 15, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Having followed the debate, it often seemed to me that Byrd _et al._ made a deliberate and calculated effort to insist that ESS was an essential part of Complementarianism; insinuating (and sometimes outright saying) that they must go hand-in-hand. In this way, they could characterize Complementarian views of gender roles as inherently heterodox. And it did not matter how often Complementarian voices insisted ESS was not a _sine qua non_ of Complementarianism, their opponents would just keep saying it.



Actually, that’s not accurate. Both sides would consider themselves complementarian.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 15, 2019)

RWD said:


> Actually, that’s not accurate. Both sides would consider themselves complementarian.


Actually, some do not: "I Am Not A Complementarian" by Todd Pruitt

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 15, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Actually, some do not: "I Am Not A Complementarian" by Todd Pruitt



That’s only because the word comes with baggage on the Trinity. Added to that, the most vocal person didn’t abandon the term. See link below. So _if_ Ms. Byrd is being accurately quoted, then she lumped Liam in with ESS crowd.

https://heidelblog.net/2016/06/how-to-be-complementarian-without-becoming-a-heretic/


----------



## A.Joseph (May 15, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> So, goodbye, 19th Amendment (USA); because _nature?_


No, because scripture... Men are the head of household, no?

“*19th Amendment.* After this amendment was ratified in 1920, all women in the U.S. were allowed to vote. In 1787, men were always considered head of the household. Only they could vote. But women were becoming better educated. By 1848, they were working together to gain voting rights. Lawmakers were finally convinced 72 years later that women could vote as intelligently as men.”

Do I sound unChristian? I think we could lose our credibility in some of these other areas. It’s tied to women working. These are not favorable conditions for the Christian ideal standard. But I’m sure I’m wrong on this

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 15, 2019)

How about women voting in the church for female deacons...?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/truths-table-gender-race/532407/


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 15, 2019)

RWD said:


> That’s only because the word comes with baggage on the Trinity.


I did read the article in its entirety and I do understand his point. And I don't at all begrudge his stance. He makes fair points. But he does in fact disavow the title "Complementarian." Which demonstrates that your assertion, that they all "consider themselves Complementarian" is not accurate. Some have made a conscious decision to disavow the term.


----------



## User20004000 (May 15, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I did read the article in its entirety and I do understand his point. And I don't at all begrudge his stance. He makes fair points. But he does in fact disavow the title "Complementarian." Which demonstrates that your assertion, that they all "consider themselves Complementarian" is not accurate. Some have made a conscious decision to disavow the term.



*You wrote:* Having followed the debate, it often seemed to me that *Byrd et al*_._ made a deliberate and calculated effort to insist that ESS was an essential part of Complementarianism; insinuating (and sometimes outright saying) that they must go hand-in-hand. In this way, they could characterize Complementarian views of gender roles as inherently heterodox. And it did not matter how often Complementarian voices insisted ESS was not a _sine qua non_ of Complementarianism, their opponents would just keep saying it.​
I find that to be a misrepresentation of the truth and a dreadful claim. Surely your “and others” must include Liam Goligher, but he professes to be a Complementarian. Did Liam Goligher, the most vocal opponent of ESS, make a “deliberate and calculated effort to insist that EES was an essential part of Complementarianism; insinuating (and sometimes outright saying) that…” the two must go hand in hand? Wouldn't that be ludicrous given that he is a self-avowed Complementarian and rejects EES? Moreover, the motive you’ve pinned to these folks could no way be indexed to him.

When I pointed out that both sides would consider themselves Complementarian, I could care less whether they’d own the term. It’s not whether they accept the label but whether they accept the meaning of the label. (There are Calvinists who’ll never accept the label “Calvinist” who nonetheless hold to the doctrines that the Five Points contemplate. That doesn’t make them not Calvinists, does it? They’re Calvinists whether they know it or not; whether they accept the term or not.)

The point is both sides _are_ Complementarians – whether they know it or not. (The Baptists in this discussion are much more than that, but that’s another matter.) Moreover, it was two months after the ink starting spilling all over the place on this matter that Todd Pruitt announced: Since hearing it for the first time I always liked the word _complementarian_ to describe myself in reference to how the Bible frames the differences and similarities between males and females.

So, why did Pruitt finally then reject the label? It’s because now he _believes_ that “the word _complementarian _is freighted with unacceptable doctrine concerning the Trinity and speculations about the roles of males and females in the new creation.” Pruitt is simply wrong. The *word* isn’t freighted with unacceptable Trinitarian doctrine. It’s the EES crowd who is freighted with unacceptable Trinitiarian doctrine. By your own admission, presupposed in the motives you ascribed to Byrd et al., Complementarianism has nothing to do with one’s view of the Trinity. The meaning of the term didn’t change simply because certain Complementarians have a more robust view of male headship. The term Complementarian _always had minimal meaning_ – see Westminster Theological Journal, Spring 1990, Robert Letham on _The Man-Woman Debate: Theological Comment_. As such, Pruitt remains a Complementarian, like it or not. The only question is whether he is more than that, but he’s certainly not less than that. 

But Pastor, that is hardly my concern. I’ll roll with your view of Complementarianism (C), whatever that is - let's call it robust-C. You made the point that Byrd et al. intentionally set out to make robust-C inherent to the unorthodox teaching of the ESS. By doing so, they calculated that they could tumble over robust-C by taking out ESS. That's a serious offense if true.

I’ve always wondered whether this whole debate was ever really about the Trinity, but I would be hard pressed to make such a claim as you just have. Moreover, the claim falls flat given that a non-robust-C is held in principle by Pruitt (while denying the label), and Goligher calls himself a Complementarian.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> No, because scripture... Men are the head of household, no?
> 
> “*19th Amendment.* After this amendment was ratified in 1920, all women in the U.S. were allowed to vote. In 1787, men were always considered head of the household. Only they could vote. But women were becoming better educated. By 1848, they were working together to gain voting rights. Lawmakers were finally convinced 72 years later that women could vote as intelligently as men.”
> 
> Do I sound unChristian? I think we could lose our credibility in some of these other areas. It’s tied to women working. These are not favorable conditions for the Christian ideal standard. But I’m sure I’m wrong on this


Sorry, I'm not seeing an _argument _here. What is the Scriptural reasoning for the leap from premise 1: "Scripturally speaking, men are the head of household,"
--premise 2 .....
--premise 3 .....
..........
to the conclusion: Women should not vote?



A.Joseph said:


> How about women voting in the church for female deacons...?


not sure whether you think that women voting in the church leads (inexorably) to the "next step," which must be deaconesses...

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 16, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Sorry, I'm not seeing an _argument _here. What is the Scriptural reasoning for the leap from premise 1: "Scripturally speaking, men are the head of household,"
> --premise 2 .....
> --premise 3 .....
> ..........
> ...


I’m just saying, good, bad or neutral, everything has a starting point... Roles are evolving. The article I linked shows a lack of respect for church order (from within). I guess we’ll see. I’m not sure what the properly defined roles should even be anymore, both in and outside the church for husband and wife, man and woman.


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 16, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> No, because scripture... Men are the head of household, no?
> 
> “*19th Amendment.* After this amendment was ratified in 1920, all women in the U.S. were allowed to vote. In 1787, men were always considered head of the household. Only they could vote. But women were becoming better educated. By 1848, they were working together to gain voting rights. Lawmakers were finally convinced 72 years later that women could vote as intelligently as men.”
> 
> Do I sound unChristian? I think we could lose our credibility in some of these other areas. It’s tied to women working. These are not favorable conditions for the Christian ideal standard. But I’m sure I’m wrong on this



I think it's indisputable that giving women the vote has, overall, been hugely negative. Some might argue: give them the vote but don't let them stand for election. Perhaps that would have been better but, in the long run, probably not. This is not to say that there haven't been many women who were God-fearing, conservative ladies who voted appropriately. But we are talking net positive/negative.

I think a very clear Christian case can be made for denying women the vote. But I wouldn't argue it's *required *by Scripture, however *wise *it may be. I think largely this is a question of politics. Egalitarianism is clearly *un*Biblical and so these issues become a matter of wisdom rather than doctrine. It should always be pointed out in this discussion that before women were granted the vote in our countries many men were also unable to vote. To paint this in terms of "sexism" or a "battle of the sexes" is wrong.


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 16, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> I’m just saying, good, bad or neutral, everything has a starting point... Roles are evolving. The article I linked shows a lack of respect for church order (from within). I guess we’ll see. I’m not sure what the properly defined roles should even be anymore, both in and outside the church for husband and wife, man and woman.



Unfortunately our whole understanding of this issue has been distorted by the culture wars and the various reactions within the evangelical world. I could be wrong on this but my impression is that up until the 50s/60s Christians, even society at large, wouldn't have thought about this issue in anything like the way we do today; they probably would find our contemporary discussions rather alien. The whole issue has been "ideologised". I think of my own denomination which, I think one can say, is certainly _amongst_ the most conservative denominations in the UK and quite thoroughly holds to male headship not only in spiritual matters but the whole gamut of human life and yet the way the conversation is had in the broader evangelical community is quite foreign to our own thinking on this issue. The idea of needing books to explain in minute detail how men are to govern their families (to the absurd extent of a 10 step guide to smacking which, I'm sorry, sounds immensely creepy) would be unthinkable. I fear the complementarian movement has become "ideologically possessed". It's understandable considering the context but unfortunate nonetheless.


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 16, 2019)

RWD said:


> *You wrote:* Having followed the debate, it often seemed to me that *Byrd et al*_._ made a deliberate and calculated effort to insist that ESS was an essential part of Complementarianism; insinuating (and sometimes outright saying) that they must go hand-in-hand. In this way, they could characterize Complementarian views of gender roles as inherently heterodox. And it did not matter how often Complementarian voices insisted ESS was not a _sine qua non_ of Complementarianism, their opponents would just keep saying it.​
> I find that to be a misrepresentation of the truth and a dreadful claim. Surely your “and others” must include Liam Goligher, but he professes to be a Complementarian. Did Liam Goligher, the most vocal opponent of ESS, make a “deliberate and calculated effort to insist that EES was an essential part of Complementarianism; insinuating (and sometimes outright saying) that…” the two must go hand in hand? Wouldn't that be ludicrous given that he is a self-avowed Complementarian and rejects EES? Moreover, the motive you’ve pinned to these folks could no way be indexed to him.
> 
> When I pointed out that both sides would consider themselves Complementarian, I could care less whether they’d own the term. It’s not whether they accept the label but whether they accept the meaning of the label. (There are Calvinists who’ll never accept the label “Calvinist” who nonetheless hold to the doctrines that the Five Points contemplate. That doesn’t make them not Calvinists, does it? They’re Calvinists whether they know it or not; whether they accept the term or not.)
> ...



I think C.M. was positing Byrd as a *critic* of (C). Now, that might not be _strictly _true as she probably does, _technically_, subscribe to the basic (C) position of teaching being restricted to men. However, part of this debate is whether she truly does even subscribe to this based on her writings on this subject. I think C.M. was saying that people like Byrd had managed to frame ESS as an inherent part of the "(C) Movement" at large. Not that every individual who claimed to be complementatian held to ESS.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 16, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I think C.M. was positing Byrd as a *critic* of (C). Now, that might not be _strictly _true as she probably does, _technically_, subscribe to the basic (C) position of teaching being restricted to men. However, part of this debate is whether she truly does even subscribe to this based on her writings on this subject. I think C.M. was saying that people like Byrd had managed to frame ESS as an inherent part of the "(C) Movement" at large. Not that every individual who claimed to be complementatian held to ESS.



1. The “debate” that we’ve been discussing has nothing to do whether Byrd subscribes to C. The summer of 2016 “debate” was primarily over ESS. A subcategory of that debate was whether relations in the Trinity may properly be projected onto the marriage relationship.

2. It was not just asserted that Byrd et al. _intentionally_ made C a necessary condition for ESS. It was further remarked that this was a _calculated_ move on their part. This way, they could characterize C as heterodox given the heterodoxy of ESS.

Three comments:

(A) Fellow Saints were just characterized as having schemed to smear one theological position (C) by refuting another theological position (ESS).

(B) To add insult to injury, the scheme they’ve been accused of is fallacious. Refuting ESS doesn’t refute C.

(C) The main spokesman who came out against ESS is a self-avowed C. Accordingly, it would be a bit passing strange if that was _their_ scheme.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 16, 2019)

RWD said:


> 1. The “debate” that we’ve been discussing has nothing to do whether Byrd subscribes to C. The summer of 2016 “debate” was primarily over EES. A subcategory of that debate was whether relations in the Trinity may properly be projected onto the marriage relationship.
> 
> 2. It was not just asserted that Byrd et al. _intentionally_ made C a necessary condition for EES. It was further remarked that this was a _calculated_ move on their part. This way, they could characterize C as heterodox given the heterodoxy of EES.
> 
> ...




By "debate" I was not referring to what occurred in 2016 but the discussion we're having on this forum, which began with my post referencing an article recently written by Byrd. That is the context for the discussion we are currently having.

It is clear from Byrd's writings that she is advocating for _some _form of "teaching" by women in the church and that she is using the ESS faction within (C) to attack the whole movement.

Whilst technically it is true one can be a (c) even if one repudiates the title, I would also argue that capital c (C) is something quite distinct (and that distinctness is not ESS, that's not what I'm arguing). But that is by the by.

I agree that repudiating ESS does not repudiate (C) but the contention by some of us is that certain people are deliberately conflating the two in order to undermine not just ESS but (C) itself.

I have never mentioned Liam Golligher. I think his name is a red herring in this discussion (the one we are having here right now). My concern is over Byrd and others like her who, I believe, are advocating a crypto-feminist agenda and using the unfortunate use of ESS by _some_ (C)s to criticise (C).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 16, 2019)

Brother, I share your concerns. You have no idea. May I refer you back to my first post on this thread? (#17)

I only brought up LG because “et al” implicates him on the alleged scheme. Regardless of his views on C, he wouldn’t try to take out a robust-C in such a devious and fallacious way.

Hey, I’m not so naive not to think that a spirit of feminism mightn’t be behind all this. I wouldn’t refer some of these bloggers to address the Girl Scouts, let alone speak at a church sanctioned conference. Notwithstanding, it’s not available to us to connect the dots in such a way as to conclude some premeditated scheme to refute C on the heretical basis of ESS.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 16, 2019)

I hope I’m keeping this close enough on topic but this is a very telling excerpt from an article I linked earlier on this thread. The irony kills me, it’s like when proponents of SSM would say, how will my freedom to marry infringe on you in any way???... a few years later....

“Concerned pastors gathered to question the committee. People wondered whether this was a “slippery slope” toward women’s ordination, for example. Keller, one of the committee members, was skeptical. “It’s not like you get on train with unordained female deaconesses, and then the next stop is ordained female deacons, and then the next stop is women as ordained elders, and the next stop is female pastors, and you can’t get off the train,” she said. “The train stops, because nobody wants to see women in authoritative roles. Nobody believes that. If you believe that, you don’t belong here in the PCA.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 16, 2019)

RWD said:


> I only brought up LG because “et al” implicates him on the alleged scheme.


No it doesn't. You are making that connection on your own.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 16, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> By "debate" I was not referring to what occurred in 2016 but the discussion we're having on this forum, which began with my post referencing an article recently written by Byrd. That is the context for the discussion we are currently having.
> 
> It is clear from Byrd's writings that she is advocating for _some _form of "teaching" by women in the church and that she is using the ESS faction within (C) to attack the whole movement.
> 
> ...


Precisely. Well said.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BottleOfTears (May 16, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> No it doesn't. You are making that connection on your own.



I'm with RWD here.

It was Liam Golighers guest post on Aimee's blog that kicked off the ESS debate on a wider scale. Everyone at MoS, including LG, were most definitely united on one side of the debate.

Several people in this thread have claimed on frankly very little evidence that Aimee, as part of a group of people, intentionally connected Complementarianism with ESS during the debate in order to undermine the former. It's also been heavily implied that was her main reason for initiating the debate.

Now, if anyone was on Aimee's side in the debate, it would be her fellow bloggers at MoS, along with Liam Goligher.

So it seems clear that if Aimee _was _doing what has been claimed, Todd Pruitt, Carl Trueman, and Liam Goligher were in on the job as well. Either that, or she is just manipulating her friends.

Honestly, this is verging on slander. Do you honestly think that none of these people care about how we represent God? Or were they just casually throwing about essential doctrines like the Trinity as a cover to push their own agenda? 

I think we should think a lot more carefully before we brazenly accuse our brothers and sisters of such a sin.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## User20004000 (May 16, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> No it doesn't. You are making that connection on your own.



Pastor,

It’s possible he was implicated by mistake but nonetheless, he was implicated. Take note of LG’s entrance into the discussion:

Posted On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 By Aimee Byrd On Housewife Theologian
134

_Well, Dr. Liam Goligher's first guest post on Housewife Theologian has generated a lot of discussion and reaction from around the world. I'm pleased to share this follow-up by Liam, one that particularly addresses a question raised by Dr. Mike Ovey: _​Secondly, you touted yourself as having been familiar with the debate. If that were true, then you should have realized that “et al” implicates certain people - certainly core people. But regardless of whom you had in mind, you’ve conjured up a scheme that incriminates Ms. Byrd _and all._

The summer of 2016 brought with it much pain and suffering. People l trust learned a lot but to reopen old wounds with accusations about deceitful intention is wrong. Secondly, it certainly doesn’t help foster future discussions on gender - perhaps a minor point in comparison.

Again, I had grave concerns over how this whole ordeal went down in 2016. I, also, have lingering concerns over issues pertaining to marriage and women in the church. So, although I can empathize with your frustrations, I simply cannot condone the accusations.

Blessings,

RWD


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 16, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> Do you honestly think that none of these people care about how we represent God? Or were they just casually throwing about essential doctrines like the Trinity as a cover to push their own agenda?


Never said anything like that.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 16, 2019)

RWD said:


> you’ve conjured up a scheme that incriminates Ms. Byrd _and all._


"Et al" means "and others" it does not mean "and all." Perhaps that's where your confusion lies about my statements. Either way, I reject _your interpretation_ of my comments and am done discussing it.


----------



## User20004000 (May 16, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> "Et al" means "and others" it does not mean "and all." Perhaps that's where your confusion lies about my statements. Either way, I reject _your interpretation_ of my comments and am done discussing it.



Noted. I was aware of that and misspoke just now. My kick off post to you translated it correctly and that’s always what I had in mind. Thank you for the correction though. No, it’s not where my confusion lies. I’m not confused on what you’ve written. Only disappointed.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 16, 2019)

RWD said:


> Only disappointed.


The feeling is mutual.


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 16, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> I hope I’m keeping this close enough on topic but this is a very telling excerpt from an article I linked earlier on this thread. The irony kills me, it’s like when proponents of SSM would say, how will my freedom to marry infringe on you in any way???... a few years later....
> 
> “Concerned pastors gathered to question the committee. People wondered whether this was a “slippery slope” toward women’s ordination, for example. Keller, one of the committee members, was skeptical. “It’s not like you get on train with unordained female deaconesses, and then the next stop is ordained female deacons, and then the next stop is women as ordained elders, and the next stop is female pastors, and you can’t get off the train,” she said. “The train stops, because nobody wants to see women in authoritative roles. Nobody believes that. If you believe that, you don’t belong here in the PCA.”



Funny cause that's EXACTLY how it has happened in every denomination that went liberal and how it will happen in the PCA if things don't change.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 16, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> The train stops, because nobody wants to see women in authoritative roles. Nobody believes that.


An astoundingly naive statement. Anyone who seriously believes that is just kidding themselves.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 16, 2019)

Content reported; closed for moderator review.

Thread is reopened. 4:00AM 5/17


----------



## User20004000 (May 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Good articles. Did he never follow up with further articles on it? That's a shame.





Reformed Covenanter said:


> @alexandermsmith - I have come across a two-part review of Aimme Byrd's _Why Can't We Be Friends?_ that may be of interest to you. Here is Part 1 and Part 2. The author identifies with patriarchy, which is perhaps not a good idea, but I found these review articles useful.



Very good articles. Glad he took the time he did to navigate and nuance. I hope he writes the third one he alludes to at the close of the second. Though the first two were written with slightly over a month between them, it’s been nearly nine months since the second, so I’m not too hopeful for a third.

Maybe I missed it but I couldn’t detect from the articles that he identified with patriarchy. He does claim that his denomination is likely the most patriarchal denomination in the country. He also notes that the church he pastors is “super-patriarchal.” But as far as I can tell, those remarks, which actually served his points well, can’t be construed as endorsements (anymore than criticisms) of patriarchy. (He might like his church that way... or maybe he’s trying to change the course of things... or possibly he’s somewhat indifferent to patriarchy, which like many constructs can encompass a wide spectrum.)

Anyway, I found the pieces useful and the passing references to patriarchy helpful in punctuating one of his points - even in patriarchal settings, the problems Mrs. Byrd imagines aren’t prevalent.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 17, 2019)

RWD said:


> Maybe I missed it but I couldn’t detect from the articles that he identified with patriarchy. He does claim that his denomination is likely the most patriarchal denomination in the country. He also notes that the church he pastors is “super-patriarchal.” But as far as I can tell, those remarks, which actually served his points well, can’t be construed as endorsements (anymore than criticisms) of patriarchy.



You could be right; he may just be saying that his position is seen as patriarchial.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 17, 2019)

Either way, he seems very level headed and composed. I’m not familiar with all the conditions for what is called “patriarchy” but my guess is, good or bad, he himself is likely biblically balanced.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

