# Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Aimee Byrd)



## Reformed Covenanter

I hope that I am mistaken, but I do not think what is being advocated here is going to end well. It seems to be part of a push towards increasing acceptance of feminism in conservative Reformed circles (just so long as women are not being ordained). Also, talk of a "female" voice in scripture sounds troubling.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## W.C. Dean

Recovering from something in the Bible? Yikes. This woman is supposedly "Reformed"?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Of the women that have risen to prominence in Reformed circles, most seem to be pushing the envelope on this issue. I have been concerned about it for some time, while being repeatedly told I'm overacting and that there is no reason for alarm. But all that I'm hearing points in one direction. And it isn't a good one. I hope more within Reformed Church will wake up to what's happening under their nose.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

Men try to be charitable lest they be seen as misogynistic. For the sake of this and also for the sake of "diversity" they allow women writers on their blog or writing staff who appear reformed. Then those women do not focus on writing about being good wives or mothers, but they then pursue trying to correct the men and their old patriarchal ways.

Forget about writing about how to be a good wife and mother, let's write about why men and women can be close friends. That is Byrd in a nutshell.

A good test is: if it is a woman writing theology, then avoid her.


LATE EDIT: Heidi writes a very wise post below giving me a soft correction and I think she is much wiser than I am in her response. My last sentence above is an over-reaction.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

A couple of thoughts...

What is meant by the title, _Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood?_ It seems to clearly suggest that biblical manhood and womanhood is a negative or harmful thing from which we need to recover.

Another rather concerning thing is found in the series description. It says that in this study, Aimee Byrd will "explore the feminine voice in Scripture as synergistic with the dominant male voice." What does that even mean? What is "the feminine voice in Scripture?" Why would anyone talk like this? There is no feminine voice or male voice in Scripture. There is only the VOICE OF GOD!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookish_Basset

C. M. Sheffield said:


> A couple of thoughts...
> 
> What is meant by the title, _Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood?_ It seems to clearly suggest that biblical manhood and womanhood is a negative or harmful thing from which we need to recover.



I could be wrong, but having read and listened to Aimee's material pretty closely up until a few years ago, I'm pretty confident that she is specifically referencing the volume _Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood_, ed. Piper and Grudem, with this title. Or at least referring to the teachings of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, because I know she's made some critiques of their teachings for (in her view) being informed more by evangelical culture and tradition than by a confessionally Reformed reading of Scripture.

I can't speak to how she's developed those critiques, though -- I largely stopped following along because I find the provocative tone and argumentation style very frustrating, and personally find that it confuses more than it clarifies.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Ironically, I think she has the same method as some of the hyper-patriarchalist (e.g., "Ungus make woman breed"). The hyperpatriarchy crowd (e.g., Mama Lori, the Pearls, RCjr) wanted to be the polar opposite of feminism.

Byrd is overreacting to a previous overreaction.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## a mere housewife

Pergamum said:


> Men try to be charitable lest they be seen as misogynistic. For the sake of this and also for the sake of "diversity" they allow women writers on their blog or writing staff who appear reformed. Then those women do not focus on writing about being good wives or mothers, but they then pursue trying to correct the men and their old patriarchal ways.
> 
> Forget about writing about how to be a good wife and mother, let's write about why men and women can be close friends. That is Byrd in a nutshell.
> 
> A good test is: if it is a woman writing theology, then avoid her.



Hmmmm. ... and avoid Deborah's song of Praise. And Hannah's. And Mary's Magnificat ... She wasn't instructing other women in how to be good wives and mothers, but prophesying to all generations about the character of God (theo-logy?). 

I would think that what is written/said is the test, along with our example. And yes, part of that test -- part of speaking and living according to the word -- is whether what we say and do helps other women to love their husbands and children.

Something to consider, and I am not saying this smarmily: if this were a largely women-run board and we were having regular discussions about what men are and are not allowed to say and do -- whether they have to produce offspring to be good Christians or fully realised humans, whether it's okay to spank a husband (yes this question has been raised here about wives, and spanking was advocated for by a few ... thanks to the moderators for shutting it down), you all would probably not find this board a very conducive place for your presences. This routinely happens here. I understand curiosity and that Scripture itself raises questions. And I am not calling anyone a misogynist. But it does bear thinking about -- whether you make us feel less human with the casual things you express and the way you constantly question whether we are allowed to think and speak and write and care about the same things as yourselves.

I agree with Sarah that tone makes a lot of difference for me in a man or woman writer, as well as content. I typically don't read Ms. Byrd because I think the tone is geared more negatively than positively towards other human beings (as with a lot of material here, honestly: and I am light on reading the board). And like many modern male bloggers, I haven't found the content I've sampled to feed me as much as well -- what I'm reading this morning, a translation of Barlaam and Josaphat (I haven't read enough to comment on her substance more than that).

Reactions: Like 16 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum

a mere housewife said:


> Hmmmm. ... and avoid Deborah's song of Praise. And Hannah's. And Mary's Magnificat ... She wasn't instructing other women in how to be good wives and mothers, but prophesying to all generations about the character of God (theo-logy?).
> 
> I would think that what is written/said is the test, along with our example. And yes, part of that test -- part of speaking and living according to the word -- is whether what we say and do helps other women to love their husbands and children.
> 
> Something to consider, and I am not saying this smarmily: if this were a largely women-run board and we were having regular discussions about what men are and are not allowed to say and do -- whether they have to produce offspring to be good Christians or fully realised humans, whether it's okay to spank a husband (yes this question has been raised here about wives, and spanking was advocated for by a few ... thanks to the moderators for shutting it down), you all would probably not find this board a very conducive place for your presences. This routinely happens here. I understand curiosity and that Scripture itself raises questions. And I am not calling anyone a misogynist. But it does bear thinking about -- whether you make us feel less human with the casual things you express and the way you constantly question whether we are allowed to think and speak and write and care about the same things as yourselves.
> 
> I agree with Sarah that tone makes a lot of difference for me in a man or woman writer, as well as content. I typically don't read Ms. Byrd because I think the tone is geared more negatively than positively towards other human beings (as with a lot of material here, honestly: and I am light on reading the board). And like many modern male bloggers, I haven't found the content I've sampled to feed me as much as well -- what I'm reading this morning, a translation of Barlaam and Josaphat (I haven't read enough to comment on her substance more than that).



Hmmm...good points.

I think you may be right and I think I may be wrong. Thanks.

I've seen so much bad content by women bloggers lately that I think I've painted with too broad a brush. Lots of bad male content, too, I must admit. But Byrd tries to ruffle feathers (pun intended). She writes to correct men and a natural response is to react (or over-react).

My apologies. I have benefited from your writings and have often been corrected by them. I wish you could replace Byrd or some of these other women and put out some high-quality content. My wife has written a few short things, but she's too busy trying to keep me out of trouble to contribute literarily to the world. I think many wives are like the angels, behind the scenes and unseen, but doing most of the work. She is my better half but behind-the-scenes and I am the bumbling front-man representing the team.

Rereading Jacob's comment is enlightening, "Byrd is overreacting to a previous overreaction." And now I think I am over-reacting to her over-reaction to an over-reaction. I believe reading the online "reformed" feminists tempts me into the camp of hyper-patriarchy, but I despise the hyper-patriarchy folks as much as I do the feminists (perhaps I am growing to dislike everybody like a grumpy old man) and then I read wise women like you and you pull me back out of it and into sanity again.

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 2


----------



## a mere housewife

Oh I'm not a wise woman. Just a very little sister in Christ. And I do know what you deeply believe about our dignity as women and the dignity of all people in Christ because you live that out -- fight for it, have suffered for it and are still suffering. I'm more grateful than I can say for men like you.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

a mere housewife said:


> Oh I'm not a wise woman. Just a very little sister in Christ. And I do know what you deeply believe about our dignity as women and the dignity of all people in Christ because you live that out -- fight for it, have suffered for it and are still suffering. I'm more grateful than I can say for men like you.



Thank you. My apologies again. My first response was knee-jerk. Your reply was more measured. But gentle (yet it stung as soon as I realized I was wrong). Thank God for the grace of receiving correction.


----------



## Jack K

I understand that some will be concerned with Aimee Byrd's larger body of work, or her tone. And some will be concerned about slippery slopes and what the many forces pressuring the church today might do with any assertion that the Bible has a high view of women.

But here's the thing: the Bible_ does_ have a high view of women. A very high view. A much higher view than feminism takes. But sadly, much of the supposed defense of biblical values on this issue has actually been more of a defense of cultural conservativism or traditionalism. So some gentle correction of what many evangelicals have said on the matter is in order, and I don't see anything inherently wrong in the video in the OP.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Jack K said:


> And some will be concerned about slippery slopes and what the many forces pressuring the church today might do with any assertion that the Bible has a high view of women.


I'm not worried about anyone asserting a high view of women. To say that is the issue is silly. I'm concerned about those asserting an unbiblical view of women.

I keep hearing people like Byrd say that much of what we believe about gender roles is based, not on the Bible, but instead on cultural stereotypes. What I never hear them do is get specific about what they mean. What specific beliefs about men and women have no basis in the Bible? What is it we need to jettison from our thinking?

And @Jack K, I'm sorry, but I do not accept that "much of the supposed defense of biblical values on this issue has actually been more of a defense of cultural conservatism or traditionalism." _Much_ of it? You believe _much_ of what groups like CBMW (the group primarily in view for Byrd and others) have done amounts to nothing more than defend "cultural conservatism or traditionalism." I am not in any way saying they are perfect, for from it. But your characterization borders on slandering many godly, honest, and thoughtful men doing their level best to wrestle with the teaching of Scripture and it's application today.

I am not a fan of Big Eva and her myriad of para-church organizations. And that goes for the CBMW as well. But with that said, am frankly tired of hearing the CBMW and complentarians in general unjustly maligned and ridiculed. I would have areas of disagreement with many if not all of them on certain points of doctrine or practice. But on those matters relating the Bible's teaching on men and women, I would have to say that they have done an admirable job in defending the Bible's teaching at a time when any semblance of sanity about the nature and role of men and women has been wholly lost. So you'll forgive me for not joining the fashionable chorus of more enlightened nay-sayers. But I believe a much greater threat is presented by the likes of Byrd, Miller, and their ilk.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jack K

C. M. Sheffield said:


> And @Jack K, I'm sorry, but I do not accept that "much of the supposed defense of biblical values on this issue has actually been more of a defense of cultural conservatism or traditionalism." _Much_ of it? You believe _much_ of what groups like CBMW (the group primarily in view for Byrd and others) have done amounts to nothing more than defend "cultural conservatism or traditionalism." I am not in any way saying they are perfect, for from it. But your characterization borders on slandering many godly, honest, and thoughtful men doing their level best to wrestle with the teaching of Scripture and it's application today.



I didn't say anything at all that criticized any particular group or teacher. But in retrospect, I will change my "much" to "some." _Some_ of the supposed defense of biblical values on this issue has actually been more of a defense of cultural conservatism. Enough of it that gentle, respectful critique is warranted.


----------



## lynnie

In a rush, didn't watch it. However, she has been a co worker of Carl Trueman, who dove in and tacked the "Eternal Subordination of the Son" (ESS) heresy which denies the triune essence of the father and second person of the Godhead, regarding power, authority, rule. Trueman really had a go at it and it was quite the blog war, and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was the chief promoter of it via Grudem and others.

I believed it because I am complementarian, and I just assumed that Piper and Grudem could not possibly be teaching something so erroneous/heretical. I am so grateful for the work Patrick/Ask Mr R put into the subject here. It was very helpful. And yes, that doctrine was used to squash women especially in Sovereign Grace Ministries, whose "Apostle" Detwiler promoted it heavily. 

Give Aimee time. It isn't easy to try and think all this stuff through.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JennyGeddes

Maybe I am overreacting, but for some reason her use of “MY discipleship” bothered me. It just seemed like such an odd thing to say. “My discipleship”. 
In fact, I almost want her to define discipling.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

While I am no fan of ESS or EFS (though I am not convinced that it is heresy either; more like a serious error that tends to heresy), nor am I particularly enthralled with complementarianism (I see it as too biblicist and wrongheaded because it does not ground gender differences sufficiently in nature), I would largely concur with the spirit of what Pastor Sheffield has written. 

It is one thing to criticise the erroneous theology underlying ESS and to bewail the weakness of some aspects of complementarianism, it is quite another to use such weaknesses as a pretext for bringing further concessions to feminism into the Reformed world. 

I do not think this assessment of Mrs Byrd is unfair, as I recall her arguing in one Mortification of Spin podcast (ostensibly against the Patriarchy movement) against what seem to be natural and traditional gender roles in society. Hence, it seems to me that her position tends towards feminist egalitarianism with the exception of women's ordination. The underlying methodological error here is that such people assume the Bible's prohibition on women's preaching is merely a positivistic command rather than one grounded in what natural law teaches about the differing roles of men and women.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Jack K said:


> _Some_ of the supposed defense of biblical values on this issue has actually been more of a defense of cultural conservatism.


Well if we're honest, we'd have to acknowledge how a great deal of what constitutes "cultural conservatism" has its roots in biblical teaching. So why don't we be specific. What aspect of complamentarianism (a la CBMW) is based on cultural conservatism and not supported by scripture?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I would also point out that many of the women in the Reformed world who do speak on theological matters do not exemplify feminine meekness in how they express themselves. Far too many of them come across as overly dogmatic and they tend to take an "all or nothing" approach to theological questions and when judging particular theologians. Case in point: Just because Wayne Grudem is wrong about ESS does not mean that he is wrong about everything in relation to male headship.

In making these observations, I am not saying that there is no place for women discussing theology with men (the great Apollos, for example, was corrected by a woman), but Christian ladies must maintain natural and biblical standards of femininity when doing so.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Well if we're honest, we'd have to acknowledge how a great deal of what constitutes "cultural conservatism" has its roots in biblical teaching. So why don't we be specific. What aspect of complamentarianism (a la CBMW) is based on cultural conservatism and not supported by scripture?



Also, cultural standards of conservatism should not be lightly set aside - assuming that they are requiring nothing sinful of us - especially in a context where Marxists and Feminists are out to destroy the Christian-influenced societies in which we live.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## arapahoepark

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I'm not worried about anyone asserting a high view of women. To sa isn and define theiris the issue is silly. I'm concerned about those asserting an unbiblical view of women.
> 
> I keep hearing people like Byrd say that much of what we believe about gender roles is based, not on the Bible, but instead on cultural stereotypes. What I never hear them do is get specific about what they mean. What specific beliefs about men and women have no basis in the Bible? What is it we need to jettison from our thinking?
> 
> And @Jack K, I'm sorry, but I do not accept that "much of the supposed defense of biblical values on this issue has actually been more of a defense of cultural conservatism or traditionalism." _Much_ of it? You believe _much_ of what groups like CBMW (the group primarily in view for Byrd and others) have done amounts to nothing more than defend "cultural conservatism or traditionalism." I am not in any way saying they are perfect, for from it. But your characterization borders on slandering many godly, honest, and thoughtful men doing their level best to wrestle with the teaching of Scripture and it's application today.
> 
> I am not a fan of Big Eva and her myriad of para-church organizations. And that goes for the CBMW as well. But with that said, am frankly tired of hearing the CBMW and complentarians in general unjustly maligned and ridiculed. I would have areas of disagreement with many if not all of them on certain points of doctrine or practice. But on those matters relating the Bible's teaching on men and women, I would have to say that they have done an admirable job in defending the Bible's teaching at a time when any semblance of sanity about the nature and role of men and women has been wholly lost. So you'll forgive me for not joining the fashionable chorus of more enlightened nay-sayers. But I believe a much greater threat is presented by the likes of Byrd, Miller, and their ilk.


I'd be curious as to what Byrd meant by the phrases, like female literature, etc. That caught my attention too.
But, I do have to ask, have you read Byrd et al.?

I truthfully share many (most?) of the same concerns. Let me unpack those a little bit. I will share a little bit of what I have struggling with as well from what I read or liste listened to by CBMW advocates.

Most of the identity of the sexes (I refuse to use the word gender) in the big Eva world has turned on the idea of either specific of general roles.
As we know they are based upon 1 Tim. 2, Eph. 5, 1 Peter, 1 Corinthians 14, etc. These in turn, have become not only the foundation in big eva, but the entirety of what a man is and what a women is or can be. Such roles are then extrapolated to fit into the whole of life. So it is roles that make the person not the actual sex? Michael Foucault and John Piper make strange bedfellows indeed.
Men are to leaders, hard, protective
Women on the other hand are to be soft, gentle, submissive, nuturing, keepers of the home.
There is nothing wrong with these inherently rather they become limitations upon the whole person as what they always have to be and always maintain. These traits become an end unto themselves and are to never mix within a person or is implied that they musn't. So are the fruits of the Holy Spirit effeminate? Or is "biblical manhood and womanhood" a second blessing? Sure seems that way.
These tend to be more commonly aligned with Victorian values than anything inherently Christian.

I have seen these definitions become almost creed like, and expanded upon into specifics. A number of the advocates seem to find many commonalities within the red pill and pick up artist communities (Google them at your peril). Or at least, I have seen very similar things being promoted with the phraseology "that's just the way things are," " real world, " "all women like bad boys, " etc. Hard not to find this disturbing when it is championed among Christians based upon real or perceived attractions. (Mark Driscoll has left his mark; he's not the only one either.)
As a guy this troubles me very greatly. I do not see myself as some big burly, outdoorsy, shoot from the hip ask questions later kind of guy. I was taught that it is not only rude but provocative and unChristlike. So many of the definition s for manhood from these people, so many of the necessary traits, do not come across as Christlike, compassionate or gentle. I'd like to think I am a 'nice guy' and not a 'bad boy.' When I read many of these things, I wonder, so am I not attractive, especially personality wise? After all, reading these things, I am told women are attracted to men who are this and that (many times these traits are not inherently good or easily used with evil in mind.) So am I less of a man or not a man at all because some checks are not marked off?
I fit many stereotypes, many I don't. On both of these kinds of traits, there are habits that I have to mortify because they are not inherently good and sometimes just evil. On the flip side, many traits I possess, I believe are good, stereotypical or not that I have to vivify to bring more glory to God.
Now there is another branch basically just teaches that masculinity is responsibility, etc. Common sense you know. This raises the question: is the feminine nature irresponsible? Or they meant to be irresponsible? If not, then I am not quite sure why these sorts of teachings are filed under the guise of masculinity or in a sex segregated way. Are not these kind of teachings general discipleship?
Unfortunately, I see much of this sort of stuff is an overreaction to the transgender movement that makes all of this so appealing.
Its an easy answer to a complex problem.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## jwithnell

Plainly listening to this video produces very little I would find troubling. A concern might be a comment near the beginning that smacks of eisegesis (what we take to the scriptures) but I'd have to watch the series she's referencing to know if that becomes a problem. 

I've not read her work because I read very little of the "how-to" or "about" books of Christianity. I've been well served by reading works that help me rightly divide God's word and the more academically defined topics of theology.

I absolutely see culture and tradition informing what some in the church have seen as normative. When I first came to Christ, I was rightly challenged about the feminism that fueled my upbringing. That left a vacuum that could easily be manipulated to assume a post-World War II view about the ideal woman that was largely created to get women out of the workforce to free up jobs for returning veterans. (Picture someone in heels vacuuming who is too vacuous to handle the simplest of difficulties.) It took me years to sort it out.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Remember that the OP’s concern is “what is being advocated” by Aimee Byrd and that it “seems to be part of a push towards increasing acceptance of feminism in conservative Reformed circles (just so long as women are not being ordained).” I agree with that assessment and concern. The issue raised by the OP has nothing to do with a woman speaking out or writing a book, but with what’s being promoted by her.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

My ideal woman growing up has always been "Ma" Caroline Ingalls on Little House on the Prairie. And I found a woman like that. But I don't think our Western Culture is currently capable of producing any more role models along those lines.

Daniel's comment about the lack of "feminine meekness" is spot on.

The video clip by Byrd cannot be judged in isolation, we must look at the whole of her work.

I was particularly troubled by her book on Why Can't We Be Friends (I think is the name) about why men and women should cultivate deep friendships with one another. Yes, there are sisterly and motherly women in my life who are friends, yet of all the many topics possible to write about, this "need" in the church to have boys and girls become close buds isn't even on the radar. How is this topic even close to being a pressing issue in our own day? In fact, many problems come from careless intimacies with the opposite sex (though friendships are possible in certain situations).

It all comes down to Pence becoming Vice President and Byrd being mad at the Pence/Graham rule. That seems to be the impetus for the book. Another over-reaction. She has to correct us men who admire the Pence/Graham rule (although I am not one of those, for the most part, if a woman needs help, you go with her or take her or help her, even if this puts you alone with her. That is basic kindness). Hence, Byrd is shown to primarily write as a reaction against men, and she doesn't really ever cultivate a theology of femininity on its own, but only AGAINST others (i.e. against men, which shows a fundamental nature of rebellion).

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

jwithnell said:


> That left a vacuum that could easily be manipulated to assume a post-World War II view about the ideal woman that was largely created to get women out of the workforce to free up jobs for returning veterans. (Picture someone in heels vacuuming who is too vacuous to handle the simplest of difficulties.) It took me years to sort it out.



While readily admitting to exceptions, as a general rule, I believe women should be homemakers...

_[Women are] To be_ discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.—Titus 2:5.​
But if I may gently ask, Is that a biblical idea? or is it rather the product of a “post-World War II view about the ideal woman that was largely created to get women out of the workforce to free up jobs for returning veterans”?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum

C. M. Sheffield said:


> While readily admitting to exceptions, as a general rule, I believe women should be homemakers...
> 
> _[Women are] To be_ discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.—Titus 2:5.​
> But if I may gently ask, Is that a biblical idea? or is it rather the product of “post-World War II view about the ideal woman that was largely created to get women out of the workforce to free up jobs for returning veterans”?



I think she is responding to the image of June Cleaver. While I do like the idea of vacuuming in high heels and always deferring to the husband, her character was a bit vacuous. They were also a suburban family and only had 2 kids. She is happily married, devoted to her husband, and always adorned nicely even while doing housework. But wearing pearls while cleaning....that is a little much. She is an ideal of sorts, but also a caricature as well. And she did not really ever give solid advice to her husband, but only smiled and was mostly silent. She sometimes appeared helpless or stupid without the help of her husband. That is not really a proper help-meet.

While modern women could do well to meet June Cleaver halfway and at least get out of their pajamas to go to Wal-mart, I can understand why there would opposition to June Cleaver being the womanly ideal.

Ma Ingalls from Little House on the Prairie, on the other hand, is the ideal woman! She got down and dirty working in the garden and with the farm animals and they lived on the frontier instead of the suburbs, and she made biscuits and corn-bread about every episode. And she often gave advice or discussed concerns with Pa.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> I think she is responding to the image of June Cleaver.


Perhaps she is. But you will forgive me if I refuse to believe that June Cleaver (and the stereotype associated with her) have the slightest bearing on what we are discussing here.


----------



## Pergamum

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Perhaps she is. But you will forgive me if I refuse to believe that June Cleaver (and the stereotype associated with her) have the slightest bearing on what we are discussing here.



I think the connection is that the idealized woman often portrayed post-WWII was not really a realistic woman or a Proverbs 31 woman. And so there is room to criticize that cultural notion (there is ALWAYS room to criticize culture because it is never wholly aligned with the bible). I mean, after all, husbands and wives all slept in separate beds in those 1950s sitcoms. 

I would hardly suspect sister Jean Withnell on this board of being a closet feminist, and her critique is valid. Though I would gladly exchange the culture of the 1950's for this present evil age. While flawed, the 1950s was much closer to Scripture than 2020.

But I do believe writers like Byrd use June Cleaver as a foil or a useful example to over-react the other way and push for their own distorted view.


----------



## Andrew35

Pergamum said:


> My ideal woman growing up has always been "Ma" Caroline Ingalls on Little House on the Prairie. And I found a woman like that. But I don't think our Western Culture is currently capable of producing any more role models along those lines.
> 
> Daniel's comment about the lack of "feminine meekness" is spot on.
> 
> The video clip by Byrd cannot be judged in isolation, we must look at the whole of her work.
> 
> I was particularly troubled by her book on Why Can't We Be Friends (I think is the name) about why men and women should cultivate deep friendships with one another. Yes, there are sisterly and motherly women in my life who are friends, yet of all the many topics possible to write about, this "need" in the church to have boys and girls become close buds isn't even on the radar. How is this topic even close to being a pressing issue in our own day? In fact, many problems come from careless intimacies with the opposite sex (though friendships are possible in certain situations).
> 
> It all comes down to Pence becoming Vice President and Byrd being mad at the Pence/Graham rule. That seems to be the impetus for the book. Another over-reaction. She has to correct us men who admire the Pence/Graham rule (although I am not one of those, for the most part, if a woman needs help, you go with her or take her or help her, even if this puts you alone with her. That is basic kindness). Hence, Byrd is shown to primarily write as a reaction against men, and she doesn't really ever cultivate a theology of femininity on its own, but only AGAINST others (i.e. against men, which shows a fundamental nature of rebellion).



That was also my wife's criticism of _Why Can't We Be Friends?_

She bought it eagerly after enjoying Byrd's _Housewife Theologian_; but this time, it seemed to be addressing a perceived problem we had never noticed. One that was completely irrelevant to our lives or our experiences in the church. 

As you mention, it felt largely like a response to the Pence/Graham rule (and maybe Doug Wilson). Which neither of us had ever heard of (and we had barely heard of Doug Wilson). And we were perfectly content in our former ignorance of all of the above: Pence/Graham rule, Byrd's corrective, and Doug Wilson.

Would that we could all now return to that blissful, Edenic state...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BottleOfTears

C. M. Sheffield said:


> There is no feminine voice or male voice in Scripture. There is only the VOICE OF GOD!


I think if you are wondering why people are accusing you of over-reacting, it's probably because of sentances like this. The Bible is written by actual humans. Luke used sources. You can't read a book by Paul or John and say their personality or background doesn't affect how they write. None of this undermines Scripture being the word of God.

I too find the use of phrases like "feminine voice" rather vague and unhelpful, but your reaction seems to force a chasm between the human aspect of scripture and the Divine. I am not for a second suggesting that you are wishing to do that. I just think that these sort of reactions that advocate (or seem to advocate) unscriptural ideas actually make the writings of Mrs Byrd and others that more appealing.

That's why the best way to argue against things like this is to acknowledge the errors, like ESS, that are pointed out and provide clear teaching where questions are being asked.

It is pretty clear to me that rather silly articles come out from time to time on TGC and Desiring God that make strange claims about what is manly or not manly. Then people like Aimee Byrd read these and rightly critique them.

The way to help this situation is to provide clear teaching on anthropology that avoids ESS and other errors, and to be charitable to those who are making mistakes in reaction against such things.

I find it rather ironic that people are rightly questioning the vague statements made in this video, but then turning around and using words like "feminism" and saying they "don't like the direction this is going in". It is clear Mrs Byrd has questions, but calling her a feminist and making ominous declarations isn't helping the situation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BottleOfTears

Andrew35 said:


> be addressing a perceived problem we had never noticed


I think _WCWBF_ makes a lot more sense for people who have grown up with purity culture and have been told all sorts of strange things. 

The discussion surrounding it has the same problem this one has. Aimee Byrd questions some of the teachings of purity culture, makes some problematic statements, and in response she gets accused of being a feminist. 

I'm not sure why people can't admit that American Purity Culture has taught some very strange things. Especially to someone who is not American like me, even Christians over here find it strange. We managed to avoid the extremes of modern culture without all that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35

BottleOfTears said:


> I think _WCWBF_ makes a lot more sense for people who have grown up with purity culture and have been told all sorts of strange things.
> 
> The discussion surrounding it has the same problem this one has. Aimee Byrd questions some of the teachings of purity culture, makes some problematic statements, and in response she gets accused of being a feminist.
> 
> I'm not sure why people can't admit that American Purity Culture has taught some very strange things. Especially to someone who is not American like me, even Christians over here find it strange. We managed to avoid the extremes of modern culture without all that.


To clarify, my wife is from East Asia and grew up in a Catholic family. She couldn't relate to it at all. Maybe she just wasn't it's target audience, as you seem to be implying.


----------



## BottleOfTears

Andrew35 said:


> To clarify, my wife is East Asian and grew up in a Catholic family. She couldn't relate to it at all. Maybe she just wasn't it's target audience, as you seem to be implying.


Yeah it makes a lot more sense if you grew up with that I think.


----------



## Pergamum

BottleOfTears said:


> I think _WCWBF_ makes a lot more sense for people who have grown up with purity culture and have been told all sorts of strange things.
> 
> The discussion surrounding it has the same problem this one has. Aimee Byrd questions some of the teachings of purity culture, makes some problematic statements, and in response she gets accused of being a feminist.
> 
> I'm not sure why people can't admit that American Purity Culture has taught some very strange things. Especially to someone who is not American like me, even Christians over here find it strange. We managed to avoid the extremes of modern culture without all that.



Of course, Purity Culture is a lot better than the modern Promiscuity Culture that is abounding. 

Fundamentalist over-reactions to prevailing cultural ills are often silly and problematic, but not usually anywhere near as problematic as the prevailing sins that Fundies are over-reacting against. 

Sure, "Virginity Promise Rings" or whatever they are called are weird and sort of creepy, but girls having double-digit sex partners by the time they leave college is far worse. And it leads to high rates of divorce (men do prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos, it is true). I just read that 25% of all American teens/adults has an STD. That is far worse than Purity Culture. 

So sure, Byrd writes against an over-reaction. But have we forgotten what we are reacting against?

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## BottleOfTears

Pergamum said:


> Of course, Purity Culture is a lot better than the modern Promiscuity Culture that is abounding.
> 
> Fundamentalist over-reactions to prevailing cultural ills are often silly and problematic, but not usually anywhere near as problematic as the prevailing sins that Fundies are over-reacting against.
> 
> Sure, "Virginity Promise Rings" or whatever they are called are weird and sort of creepy, but girls having double-digit sex partners by the time they leave college is far worse. And it leads to high rates of divorce (men do prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos, it is true). I just read that 25% of all American teens/adults has an STD. That is far worse than Purity Culture.
> 
> So sure, Byrd writes against an over-reaction. But have we forgotten what we are reacting against?


This sort of reply is my exact problem with this whole discussion.

Nowhere is Mrs. Byrd advocating to join the "promiscuity culture". Just because Purity Culture is "better" does not remove it from critique. Furthermore, "promiscuity culture" does not equal feminism. There are plenty of misogynists who indulge in the same.

Maybe its better to admit that purity culture said some rather problematic things, and then push back on Aimee when she says problematic stuff? Instead, what I mainly see is accusations of feminism and of leading the Reformed church astray.

The real problem with Purity Culture is that it is Pharasaical and that it pushes more people into over-reaction unneccesarily. Our best course of action is to critique it, and offer an alternative, not defend it to the death.

Should we defend those who legalistically ban the consumption of alcohol because drunkeness is worse? Should we defend those who attack the man who eats with prostitutes and tax collectors because prostitution and tax collecting are worse?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## BottleOfTears

arapahoepark said:


> A number of the advocates seem to find many commonalities within the red pill and pick up artist communities


I find that many conservative Christians assume that the only enemies they have are extreme feminists. Honestly, some of the stuff the PUA people come out with is disgusting. I don't think people realise that red pills are the people feminists hate the most.

The worst part is, I have seen the same psuedo-science graphs and statistics used by Red Pill people to argue that women are manipulative and only like jerks referenced on this very forum. 



arapahoepark said:


> As a guy this troubles me very greatly. I do not see myself as some big burly, outdoorsy, shoot from the hip ask questions later kind of guy. I was taught that it is not only rude but provocative and unChristlike. So many of the definition s for manhood from these people, so many of the necessary traits, do not come across as Christlike, compassionate or gentle. I'd like to think I am a 'nice guy' and not a 'bad boy.'


I think this is exactly the sort of thing that Mrs Byrd is questioning. I think some better resources need to written on this. If people are afraid of the "direction this is going" it would be better if we had somewhere to look for a balanced approach to all this, rather than accusing and maligning.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

BottleOfTears said:


> This sort of reply is my exact problem with this whole discussion.
> 
> Nowhere is Mrs. Byrd advocating to join the "promiscuity culture". Just because Purity Culture is "better" does not remove it from critique. Furthermore, "promiscuity culture" does not equal feminism. There are plenty of misogynists who indulge in the same.
> 
> Maybe its better to admit that purity culture said some rather problematic things, and then push back on Aimee when she says problematic stuff? Instead, what I mainly see is accusations of feminism and of leading the Reformed church astray.
> 
> The real problem with Purity Culture is that it is Pharasaical and that it pushes more people into over-reaction unneccesarily. Our best course of action is to critique it, and offer an alternative, not defend it to the death.
> 
> Should we defend those who legalistically ban the consumption of alcohol because drunkeness is worse? Should we defend those who attack the man who eats with prostitutes and tax collectors because prostitution and tax collecting are worse?



You make fair points. 

Yes, Purity Culture is legalistic. It leads to less STDS, though.

And how much feminism is necessary before we can label someone a feminist? If a drop of poison is dropped into your coffee, are you poisoned yet? An ounce? A half-cup? At what point are we allowed to call a female Christian a feminist if she advocates for "feminist-y" things or pushes back against traditionalist things?

But yes, I essentially agree with your reply. Purity Culture may need a critique, but I don't trust her to do the critiquing. It needs to be from someone more trustworthy.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BottleOfTears

Pergamum said:


> You make fair points.
> 
> Yes, Purity Culture is legalistic. It leads to less STDS, though.
> 
> And how much feminism is necessary before we can label someone a feminist? If a drop of poison is dropped into your coffee, are you poisoned yet? An ounce? A half-cup? At what point are we allowed to call a female Christian a feminist if she advocates for "feminist-y" things or pushes back against traditionalist things?
> 
> But yes, I essentially agree with your reply. Purity Culture may need a critique, but I don't trust her to do the critiquing. It needs to be from someone more trustworthy.


I think the problem I have with feminism is that is just a very vague word most of the time. I would prefer a more specific critique.

That said, I think this thread contains a lot more balanced discussion than previous threads have.


----------



## User20004000

Scripture is God breathed. As such, it’s neither a woman’s voice nor a man’s voice. God is Spirit.

Notice the emphasis. A woman believer is my sister in the Lord (Romans 16:1; 1 Timothy 5:2), but how about that we are all _sons_ by gracious adoption and consequently co-heirs with Christ?

Aside from the obvious, it’ll be interesting to see the trajectory and conclusion. (As if we can’t already guess.) At the end of the day, the regulative principle forbids women reading Scripture in congregational worship (unless it can be shown that Scripture _requires_ women to lead in reading.)

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## mvdm

Byrd is replaying the early scenes of a movie I've seen before. #rememberthecrcna.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Pergamum

BottleOfTears said:


> I think the problem I have with feminism is that is just a very vague word most of the time. I would prefer a more specific critique.
> 
> That said, I think this thread contains a lot more balanced discussion than previous threads have.



True. It is a spectrum. I am not sure at what point a person becomes a feminist. What needs to be there to earn the label. Yes, it is vague sometimes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF

Pergamum said:


> True. It is a spectrum. I am not sure at what point a person becomes a feminist. What needs to be there to earn the label. Yes, it is vague sometimes.


Yes. That’s one of the problems with the label Protestant. That’s an identity in opposition to something. If our identity is becomes not-Feminist, similar pitfalls await us for being not-RC. Like munging up the doctrine of the Trinity.


----------



## User20004000

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I hope that I am mistaken, but I do not think what is being advocated here is going to end well. It seems to be part of a push towards increasing acceptance of feminism in conservative Reformed circles (just so long as women are not being ordained). Also, talk of a "female" voice in scripture sounds troubling.



There’s a fabricated problem out there that “theologically gifted” women have no outlet in the church, even that they’re not cared for in such a way as to be able to employ their gifts.

I’d be interested to know how young males and even ruling elders that are “theologically gifted” are encouraged and cared for (“nurtured”) in ways that theologically gifted women aren’t. There are men’s bible studies and women’s bible studies. Older men and older women who teach younger men and younger women respectively. There are also theological message boards and seminaries for sharpening and refining one’s thoughts. How about encouraging one another in fellowship? Or is that too mundane? Obviously I’m missing something because I can’t think of any theological outlet available to me that’s not available to my wife other than a mixed adult study. (And since very few in the church are called to preach, I don’t see that as tipping the scales away from women toward unordained men.)

One Reformed woman stated, “…the leaders of my very traditional church didn’t know what to do with me.”

That’s a shame. Maybe they’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t truly exist. What does she want to do? How is she less able to work out her salvation than I am?

And then this from the same person:

“My chapter recounts how we muddled through more than a dozen years together, in that context and with my gifts of study and teaching.”

Again, I’m at a loss. How does a man whet his theological appetite in ways not available to a woman?

I remember Danny Bonaduce (actor that played Danny Partridge) lamenting on a talk show that he no longer had any outlet to act. After playing the precocious Danny Partridge for four seasons, he was unavoidably typecasted and washed up as an actor. The self-pity was striking. One astute person from the audience said to him that there was an abundance of opportunity to act. What was brought to light was that what the grown up Bonaduce wanted was not just to act but to be a star! (The audience erupted in applause.) The grown up child actor had become _self-absorbed_. Acting to him was a means to be recognized. The intrinsic value of acting wasn’t the issue at all.

I see a parallel. So, whenever we hear something like:

“…the leaders of my very traditional church didn’t know what to do with me...”​I would call that a false premise based upon the_ Danny Partridge fallacy. _

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum

There's millions of gender-segregated Muslim women who need theologically-minded women to teach them. Let them go to the Muslim world and smash the Patriarchy there.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## mvdm

For those desiring detailed critiques of Byrd's deconstructionist project:

http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2019/8/15/Aimee_Byrd_Critiques

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I have noticed the way ESS is used in these discussions to dismiss or shut down those raising questions about any perceived drift toward feminism. It's a red herring. But it has been used effectively by some who are ever interested in changing the subject.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

From what I have observed, ESS is partly the fruit of people having too high a view of complementarianism. And, yes, purity culture can _sometimes_ be creepy and legalistic. But these points are largely red-herrings, as none of the critics of Mrs Byrd here is defending such weirdness.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Susan777

Pergamum said:


> There's millions of gender-segregated Muslim women who need theologically-minded women to teach them. Let them go to the Muslim world and smash the Patriarchy there.


Hmmmm. I’m a theologically-minded woman but telling me to go smash the Patriarchy is demeaning. You are combining two categories. I think I understand your point but perhaps you could have said it better.


----------



## Susan777

Pergamum said:


> You make fair points.
> 
> Yes, Purity Culture is legalistic. It leads to less STDS, though.
> 
> And how much feminism is necessary before we can label someone a feminist? If a drop of poison is dropped into your coffee, are you poisoned yet? An ounce? A half-cup? At what point are we allowed to call a female Christian a feminist if she advocates for "feminist-y" things or pushes back against traditionalist things?
> 
> But yes, I essentially agree with your reply. Purity Culture may need a critique, but I don't trust her to do the critiquing. It needs to be from someone more trustworthy.


Ami the only one who never heard of the Purity Culture ? I didn’t know it existed until a certain Lutheran pastrix started to rail against it. (One of the blessings of being in a Reformed Presbyterian Church?) anyway, I thought it was over years ago. Why are we even discussing it now? Can’t we just agree that the overall motive of challenging young people to sexual purity was a worthy one even if somewhat flawed in practice?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum

Susan777 said:


> Hmmmm. I’m a theologically-minded woman but telling me to go smash the Patriarchy is demeaning. You are combining two categories. I think I understand your point but perhaps you could have said it better.



I could probably say everything better.

I saw some "reformed" women jokingly refer to "smashing the Patriarchy" on Twitter just last month (about 3 weeks ago). One had written articles about biblical manhood and womenhood and attends a reformed church in good standing. I believe she said it partially tongue-in-cheek (jokingly), but she still said it and seemed (at least partially) to mean it. They seemed awful tired of men telling them what their proper place was in the church and society. So I have quoted this phrase above as I also respond half-jokingly. 

If these theologically-minded women have so much to teach and they are not appreciated in the West, they could do a lot of good among Muslim women and in cultures where women are only newly allowed to drive and where "women's rights" do not exist, and where a true Patriarchy exists.

Theologically minded women could do a great deal of good on the mission field where many single women have found respect and where they have found fertile fields to work in, often where men are unable or unwilling to go. We could then cultivate more Mary Slessors than Aimee Byrds and bless the world immensely.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Susan777 said:


> Ami the only one who never heard of the Purity Culture ? I didn’t know it existed until a certain Lutheran pastrix started to rail against it. (One of the blessings of being in a Reformed Presbyterian Church?) anyway, I thought it was over years ago. Why are we even discussing it now? Can’t we just agree that the overall motive of challenging young people to sexual purity was a worthy one even if somewhat flawed in practice?



I agree with you Susan,

Purity Culture was only a very small blip on the radar screen. But it was so weird that it became an easy punching bag for certain types (like that Lutheran pastrix).

It is important that we assess a viewpoint by what sort of enemies it gathers.

The last articles I read against Purity Culture railed against this movement because "it made me ashamed of my body" - the writer's solution was to not be ashamed of her body, but to learn how to dress more sexy.

Another writer against Purity Culture derided it as causing her to view sex as a harmful thing. But again, if 25% of all Americans have an STD and if rates of divorce are tied into how many sexual partners a woman has prior to marriage, then, YES, sex can be a harmful thing. Yes, virginity still has value (probably moreso now, since it is exceedingly rare), and abstinence-only education is still useful.

A major theme in denunciations of Purity Culture is that is caused shame. But we now have a culture that feels no shame and blushes at NOTHING. Is that really superior?

I am not defending Purity Culture. But those deriding it are almost always much worse. 

See this example (which sounds sort of like the creation of the golden calf): https://www.christianpost.com/news/...-sculpture-presents-it-to-gloria-steinem.html

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith

On another forum you said:


Pergamum said:


> Read less


But you must be reading more to read on Twitter.


Pergamum said:


> I saw some "reformed" women jokingly refer to "smashing the Patriarchy" on Twitter just last month


You recently said:


Pergamum said:


> Theologically minded women could do a great deal of good on the mission field


To be theologically minded is to read more 

My comments are a little tongue in cheek but I do think you need to qualify your statement "read less". You have made that statement a few times; it makes me nervous because in a day of watered down theology (it plagues my family), I agree with Martyn Lloyd-Jones that we need to read more, not less.

In the context of woman on the mission field, we need godly woman to read a lot, then apply that reading in service for Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Stephen L Smith said:


> On another forum you said:
> 
> But you must be reading more to read on Twitter.
> 
> You recently said:
> 
> To be theologically minded is to read more
> 
> My comments are a little tongue in cheek but I do think you need to qualify your statement "read less". You have made that statement a few times; it makes me nervous because in a day of watered down theology (it plagues my family), I agree with Martyn Lloyd-Jones that we need to read more, not less.
> 
> In the context of woman on the mission field, we need godly woman to read a lot, then apply that reading in service for Christ.



You still mad at my "read less" comment, brother? Ha ha.

Yes, I need to read less Twitter. That place is a dumpster fire. I only post or comment on things pertaining to my place of ministry on Twitter. I save my discussions for the PB because we are more civil on here.

I believe the reformed tradition reads a lot. Sometimes too much. Hours a day of Puritans while the world around them burns.

I believe if folks just read the confessions and ancient creeds of the church, that would help. That is not really substantial reading. A little each day. One could even read through the bible once a day (or listen on audiobook while hiking) and that is not excessive. Charlton Heston does a great bible narration, Moses himself, reading the law!

I am not saying "water down your theology" - I am saying "Get off your butt and do something." I know folks who read so much theology, but take so little action.

To be biblical is to do more.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Can I just point something out here that I think was glossed over? It’s a point made in this thread by a few posters. 

At 2:30 in the video she admits that she didn’t like what her church was teaching so she had to step up and teach her own opinion. Big yikes. 

As has been said before in this thread that’s a very fundamental attitude of rebellion. I don’t wish to cast aspersions or be uncharitable towards Mrs. Byrd but how long will that be tolerated by supposedly confessional denominations before we move to “because women have been abused and marginalized we need semi-ordained women to make sure men aren’t mucking it up!”

Oh wait, we already have that in the form of the push for deaconesses and women essentially governing ordained men on the mission field. Then like a boiling frog we will end up with ordained women because if they can do all that other stuff why can’t they be ordained? Just like the CRC. 

It reminds me eerily of Carolyn Custis James.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## a mere housewife

Ryan, I think she spoke about reading resources at that point in the video and how she was stumbling over claims in the books that affected her discipleship in the church, so she began researching and then writing out of that research. 

When people make assertions that aren't what Scripture (or some other source) actually says, women as well as men are responsible not to swallow it. It's the Berean attitude (in a context of prominent women converts) of searching the scriptures to make sure even an apostle is not saying something otherwise. It's submission to God, rather than men -- not rebellion. And it's actually a huge part of our reformed heritage, in women as well as in men. Sarah who is educated as a historian reminded me recently that historically the reformed have put a tremendous emphasis on educating women to read and interpret Scripture rather than being dependent on someone else to do that for them. (I hope she writes more about that someday.)

I do think that much of what we understand to be a problem worth addressing will depend on what we have experienced and on our blindspots to what we may be contributing to the experiences of others. A woman told me recently that she expressed an interest in the theology group at her NAPARC church to be told it was just for men. They had nothing similar for women. Women do come up against this kind of thing (which I would place on the milder end of the spectrum, as did my friend -- though it is isolating and confusing) -- and much more serious issues that really do demonstrate poor understanding of a woman's dignity in Christ and her full humanity. In my own experience they come up against them as a matter of course.

Surely the standard for addressing a problem is not 'the lesser of two evils' (I would avoid that sort of yardstick except in the political sphere); but what the Bible actually teaches and where we are getting it wrong. The fact is that these problems have fallen far more heavily on women and children. In the nature of the case, they have.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Susan777

a mere housewife said:


> A woman told me recently that she expressed an interest in the theology group at her NAPARC church to be told it was just for men. They had nothing similar for women.


Our men’s group studies theology and I’m so grateful for that but sometimes I succumb to envy (not resentment) because there’s nothing similar for women. But to be honest, I don’t think there’s much interest anyway among our ladies. So someone with no husband and no access to the elders is stuck with the PB. Just kidding! Really, just kidding. I’ve learned a lot here and hope to learn more. But I often wish I could kick things around with people who are interested in the things I see here. Virtual conversation has its limits.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## a mere housewife

Other women here have expressed the same, Susan -- that they feel isolated in their theological interests in their churches sort of all around. 
I don't think the mens' theology groups are at all intended to demean -- it's true that many women are running after little ones all day or gifted in different areas and not interested! But it is the reality that theologically minded women in the church often have less opportunity than men for fellowship and engagement and growth in those faculties. Saying so should not necessarily be taken as rebellion or self pity (we all have isolating struggles in different areas: and I think ultimately they help us to reach out to one another across our differences because we can understand what isolation is like -- ie a mother of young children often feels very isolated).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## User20004000

a mere housewife said:


> Ryan, I think she spoke about reading resources at that point in the video and how she was stumbling over claims in the books that affected her discipleship in the church, so she began researching and then writing out of that research.
> 
> When people make assertions that aren't what Scripture (or some other source) actually says, women as well as men are responsible not to swallow it. It's the Berean attitude (in a context of prominent women converts) of searching the scriptures to make sure even an apostle is not saying something otherwise. It's submission to God, rather than men -- not rebellion. And it's actually a huge part of our reformed heritage, in women as well as in men. Sarah who is educated as a historian reminded me recently that historically the reformed have put a tremendous emphasis on educating women to read and interpret Scripture rather than being dependent on someone else to do that for them. (I hope she writes more about that someday.)
> 
> I do think that much of what we understand to be a problem worth addressing will depend on what we have experienced and on our blindspots to what we may be contributing to the experiences of others. A woman told me recently that she expressed an interest in the theology group at her NAPARC church to be told it was just for men. They had nothing similar for women. Women do come up against this kind of thing (which I would place on the milder end of the spectrum, as did my friend -- though it is isolating and confusing) -- and much more serious issues that really do demonstrate poor understanding of a woman's dignity in Christ and her full humanity. In my own experience they come up against them as a matter of course.
> 
> Surely the standard for addressing a problem is not 'the lesser of two evils' (I would avoid that sort of yardstick except in the political sphere); but what the Bible actually teaches and where we are getting it wrong. The fact is that these problems have fallen far more heavily on women and children. In the nature of the case, they have.



A woman told me recently that she expressed an interest in the theology group at her NAPARC church to be told it was just for men. They had nothing similar for women.​
I host an _ad hoc_ theological / philosophical discussion group. We discuss over bourbon and cigars (though partaking is not requisite) deeper points of theology, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. Indeed, women can be just as equipped to engage on those subjects but they’re not welcome. In fact, most men aren’t welcome; I was asked to host the group for males 20s and 30s. Similarly, my wife is currently organizing a women’s retreat. She has organized several over the years. Rather than bourbon, more likely tea. But my question is, what’s wrong with offering a study like mine (or her study) that’s not a available to the opposite sex? It’s a matter of meeting a need, I’d think. I think as a general rule men are more interested in the differences between Van Til and Gordon Clark than are women. 

That said, if there was a need, I’d enjoy hosting a theological cigar night for women, if women wanted such a thing. My wife would join me though she doesn’t prefer cigars.


----------



## Susan777

Pergamum said:


> I agree with you Susan,
> 
> Purity Culture was only a very small blip on the radar screen. But it was so weird that it became an easy punching bag for certain types (like that Lutheran pastrix).
> 
> It is important that we assess a viewpoint by what sort of enemies it gathers.
> 
> The last articles I read against Purity Culture railed against this movement because "it made me ashamed of my body" - the writer's solution was to not be ashamed of her body, but to learn how to dress more sexy.
> 
> Another writer against Purity Culture derided it as causing her to view sex as a harmful thing. But again, if 25% of all Americans have an STD and if rates of divorce are tied into how many sexual partners a woman has prior to marriage, then, YES, sex can be a harmful thing. Yes, virginity still has value (probably moreso now, since it is exceedingly rare), and abstinence-only education is still useful.
> 
> A major theme in denunciations of Purity Culture is that is caused shame. But we now have a culture that feels no shame and blushes at NOTHING. Is that really superior?
> 
> I am not defending Purity Culture. But those deriding it are almost always much worse.
> 
> See this example (which sounds sort of like the creation of the golden calf): https://www.christianpost.com/news/...-sculpture-presents-it-to-gloria-steinem.html


I totally understand your concerns about these women who are pushing this false sense of outrage about it. Last year I read an article in a popular reformed magazine that purported to offer a serious evaluation of the horror of the movement and its long lasting damaging effects on girls and young women./sarc. They brought up the ladypastor and the disgusting statue. It was written by 2 ladies, one of whom was the editor of the mag. So I felt I _had _ to write a letter of rebuke. I was polite but forceful I guess.These ladies do not speak for me or anyone that I know. Of course I didn’t get a reply but it made me feel better anyway.


----------



## User20004000

But it is the reality that theologically minded women in the church often have less opportunity than men for fellowship and engagement and growth in those faculties.​
_Danny Partridge_. My wife is currently leading a young woman through Pink’s Sovereignty of God. (She is always engaged in such activity.) She also needed to get her own copy of Letham’s ST since I didn’t want her marking up mine!  The point is, my wife is extremely theological and outlets always are available. However, if women think there aren’t other women to fellowship with and grow with, then either those particular women have a low and skewed view of other women or else women are not as theological. (I think it’s the former.) *Either way, I’d like to know in specific terms how a woman is deprived in fellowship and growth.*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## a mere housewife

Ron, you were probably typing when I was writing it out -- but see my comment #58. I was referencing the reality of an actual discouraging and limiting experience for theologically minded women -- that doesn't mean there's any intention to demean.

It might help to note also that the references Ms. Byrd was reading on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood with which she took issue were quite probably, some of them, authored by women. (My husband advised me early on to stop reading a book on Biblical Womanhood by a woman that was confusing me. I just don't do well generally with advice books. I feel convicted by everything, implement it to the T in exactly the wrong situations, and don't enjoy reading it as literature.)

I really appreciate people's willingness to set aside the 'labels' here and try to understand one another. I could be wrong -- but it seems to me that labels rarely help me see someone else more clearly and understand their real convictions and motivations better.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## User20004000

a mere housewife said:


> Ron, you were probably typing when I was writing it out -- but see my comment #58. I was referencing the reality of an actual discouraging and limiting experience for theologically minded women -- that doesn't mean there's any intention to demean.
> 
> It might help to note also that the references Ms. Byrd was reading on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood with which she took issue were quite probably, some of them, authored by women. (My husband advised me early on to stop reading a book on Biblical Womanhood by a woman that was confusing me. I just don't do well generally with advice books. I feel convicted by everything, implement it to the T in exactly the wrong situations, and don't enjoy reading it as literature.)
> 
> I really appreciate people's willingness to set aside the 'labels' here and try to understand one another. I could be wrong -- but it seems to me that labels rarely help me see someone else more clearly and understand their real convictions and motivations better.



Ron, you were probably typing when I was writing it out -- but see my comment #58.​Hi Mere Housewife,

My #61 was aimed at your #58.


----------



## a mere housewife

I'm sincerely glad for your wife, and the woman she is doing that with. Wonderful. Sadly her experience is not everyone's. 

I don't think I need to defend my view of other women. I haven't discounted their words about what they struggle with (whether as young moms or singles, gifted more practically, creatively, or more theologically minded), or assigned poor motivations for that struggle. 

I don't plan to spend hours arguing online about this one. I think it's self-evident. All the best.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Susan777

RWD said:


> But it is the reality that theologically minded women in the church often have less opportunity than men for fellowship and engagement and growth in those faculties.​
> _Danny Partridge_. My wife is currently leading a young woman through Pink’s Sovereignty of God. (She is always engaged in such activity.) She also needed to get her own copy of Letham’s ST since I didn’t want her marking up mine!  The point is, my wife is extremely theological and outlets always are available. However, if women think there aren’t other women to fellowship with and grow with, then either those particular women who have a low and skewed view of other women or else women are not as theological. Either way, I’d like to know in _specific_ terms how a woman is deprived in fellowship and growth.


Ron, I didn’t mean to imply that I have no means of fellowship and growth among my sisters. And I certainly don’t look down on them or judge them because they have different interests. I don’t think that’s at all the issue here. My lament, if you can call it that, is that I have no one to discuss the things I think about with. Growth in Christ-likeness is in no way dependent on one’s theological knowledge base. Thankfully. Your wife sounds like the kind of person I’d love to know. If you or she ever get a group going like you described I’ll come visit, sans cigars!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000

a mere housewife said:


> I'm sincerely glad for your wife, and the woman she is doing that with. Wonderful. Sadly her experience is not everyone's.
> 
> I don't think I need to defend my view of other women. I haven't discounted their words about what they struggle with (whether as young moms or singles, gifted more practically, creatively, or more theologically minded), or assigned poor motivations for that struggle.
> 
> I don't plan to spend hours arguing online about this one. I think it's self-evident. All the best.



With all due respect, I think that’s a bit unfair. Why would anyone assert that women aren’t afforded equivalent opportunities for fellowship and growth, yet then remain silent when asked to elaborate?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## User20004000

Susan777 said:


> Ron, I didn’t mean to imply that I have no means of fellowship and growth among my sisters. And I certainly don’t look down on them or judge them because they have different interests. I don’t think that’s at all the issue here. My lament, if you can call it that, is that I have no one to discuss the things I think about with. Growth in Christ-likeness is in no way dependent on one’s theological knowledge base. Thankfully. Your wife sounds like the kind of person I’d love to know. If you or she ever get a group going like you described I’ll come visit, sans cigars!



Hi Susan,

My post to which you responded was to Mere Housewife. As for this post of yours, the lament you have is not necessarily peculiar to women. I’ve reached out to many egg heads (in cyber world) over the years to discuss some pretty esoteric thoughts that were of particular interest to me. Notwithstanding, my point is that I have yet to find any woman deprived of growth and fellowship in ways that men aren’t. If anything, the reverse might be true _if_ certain men have a greater affinity toward the pedantic.

My wife would cherish getting to know you. Please shoot me a PM to that end.

Blessings,

Ron

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## wcf_linux

arapahoepark said:


> So many of the definition s for manhood from these people, so many of the necessary traits, do not come across as Christlike, compassionate or gentle. I'd like to think I am a 'nice guy' and not a 'bad boy.' When I read many of these things, I wonder, so am I not attractive, especially personality wise? After all, reading these things, I am told women are attracted to men who are this and that (many times these traits are not inherently good or easily used with evil in mind.) So am I less of a man or not a man at all because some checks are not marked off?



The character of Jesus Christ as shown in the scriptures has much to challenge both the "nice guy" and the "bad boy". Reading the gospels, I am consistently struck by the remarkable Man they reveal. He heals the man with the withered hand in an attitude of anger mixed with grief at the hard-hearted. He rebukes his disciples, now with gentle correction, then sharply decrying their unbelief. He teaches the crowds with authority, and retreats to the hills to pray. He cleans the temple with a whip of cords; He takes a dead child by the hand saying, "little girl, wake up." A manual laborer in His youth and better spoken than the learned of his day. He will not break the bruised reed, and He will dash the nations like a potter's vessel. He is the man of wisdom, Wisdom itself from before all of the works of God. He is righteousness and boldness and meekness at once.

Our concepts of nice guys and bad boys are too small to reflect Christlikeness. Both superficial tough guys like Driscoll and over-cautious, anxiously eager to please types (like me) have much to learn at His feet.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 2


----------



## wcf_linux

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I would also point out that many of the women in the Reformed world who do speak on theological matters do not exemplify feminine meekness in how they express themselves. Far too many of them come across as overly dogmatic and they tend to take an "all or nothing" approach to theological questions and when judging particular theologians. Case in point: Just because Wayne Grudem is wrong about ESS does not mean that he is wrong about everything in relation to male headship.
> 
> In making these observations, I am not saying that there is no place for women discussing theology with men (the great Apollos, for example, was corrected by a woman), but Christian ladies must maintain natural and biblical standards of femininity when doing so.



I would simply add, without denying any of your points, that many men in the Reformed world who do speak on theological matters do not exemplify masculine fortitude and restraint in how they express themselves. Far too many of them come across as overly dogmatic and they tend to take an "all or nothing" approach to theological questions and when judging particular theologians or highly-visible personalities. 

In other words, (some of) the women are not alone in making all-or-nothing, your side or my side claims.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## a mere housewife

Ron I reread and think you are right that my phrasing about spending hours arguing online being unfair: I can also say lots of things better. But I don't think what I said originally is unclear and the exchange was not making it clearer (ie, you were inviting me to do what I already did). Endless miscommunication or even just needing to win an argument is something I want sincerely to avoid. I have prayed God will bless you and your wife this evening, and I hope you have a very good week.


----------



## User20004000

a mere housewife said:


> Ron I reread and think you are right that my phrasing about spending hours arguing online being unfair: I can also say lots of things better. But I don't think what I said originally is unclear and the exchange was not making it clearer (ie, you were inviting me to do what I already did). Endless miscommunication or even just needing to win an argument is something I want sincerely to avoid. I have prayed God will bless you and your wife this evening, and I hope you have a very good week.



Sister in Christ,

I appreciate and respect your desire not argue. I share that desire with you.

Just to clarify, what I found unfair was that someone would make an assertion that women aren’t afforded equivalent opportunities for _fellowship_ and _growth_ yet not offer a single concrete example of such discrimination. 

Please allow me to share my mind a bit more regarding the claim. 

As for _fellowship_, all Christians fellowship in Christ’s sufferings (Philippians 3:10). This fellowship is a given by God as a gift (Philippians 1:29). As such, God sovereignly determines how much of this sanctifying fellowship each believer will experience. (No unjust discrimination there I trust.) 

There’s also the fellowship all believers partake of through being “called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (1 Corinthians 1:9). (Once again, God is no respecter of persons.)

There’s also the fellowship we enjoy one with another through the ordinary means of grace. Since this fellowship is so inexorably tied to the ordinary means of grace in the context of the congregation: (the ministry of the Word, prayer and the sacraments), it’s hard for me to imagine it not being available to both sexes equally. (That is not to say that one women in one church enjoys all the same benefits a man can receive in another church. But that would be an unfair comparison. We’d need to compare men and women _in the same church.)_

Regarding women being shortchanged in their spiritual _growth_, I’m even more perplexed. If _growth_ is primarily through the ordinary means of grace, then I don’t see how women can be shortchanged relative to men. After all, _growth_ is but another word for sanctification, and who is our sanctification but Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30)? We also grow through God’s meticulous providence, which God sovereignly appoints according to his good pleasure. 

I could say more but I hope it’s clear that from my finite perspective, men and women are on level ground. Yet I am quite eager to know why some think women are not afforded the same opportunities for fellowship and growth as men. As an elder in Christ’s church, I don’t just want to know. I need to know. My suspicion is, what is being sought is something other than true fellowship and true growth. Please note, I don’t question the legitimacy of the needs, but whatever the needs are, I am confident that all Christians, through God’s divine power, have _all_ we need for “life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence” (2 Peter 1:3). 

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## a mere housewife

RWD said:


> Just to clarify, what I found unfair was that someone would make an assertion that women aren’t afforded equivalent opportunities for _fellowship_ and _growth_ yet not offer a single concrete example of such discrimination.



Oh dear. This is what I saw coming and why I stepped out of the discussion. This is not an accurate representation of what I said or of the concrete example that was being discussed when I said it. 

I pray God blesses you sincerely. I think it is only respectful sometimes to tell the truth. It's useless to engage where there's no accuracy in representation. I don't think this is a man-woman thing. No one can communicate through having their words twisted.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## wcf_linux

a mere housewife said:


> Oh dear. This is what I saw coming and why I stepped out of the discussion. This is not an accurate representation of what I said or of the concrete example that was being discussed when I said it.
> 
> I pray God blesses you sincerely. I think it is only respectful sometimes to tell the truth. It's useless to engage where there's no accuracy in representation. I don't think this is a man-woman thing. No one can communicate through having their words twisted.



I think he is defining "fellowship" and "growth" as being properly defined in terms of the ordinary means of grace. 
I was at first interpreting his last post the same way you seem to be. See these parts from his last:



RWD said:


> There’s also the fellowship we enjoy one with another through the ordinary means of grace. Since this fellowship is so inexorably tied to the ordinary means of grace in the context of the congregation: (the ministry of the Word, prayer and the sacraments), it’s hard for me to imagine it not being available to both sexes equally. _... _Regarding women being shortchanged in their spiritual _growth_, I’m even more perplexed. If _growth_ is primarily through the ordinary means of grace, then I don’t see how women can be shortchanged relative to men. After all, _growth_ is but another word for sanctification, and who is our sanctification but Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30)? ... My suspicion is, what is being sought is something other than true fellowship and true growth. Please note, I don’t question the legitimacy of the needs, but whatever the needs are, I am confident that all Christians, through God’s divine power, have _all_ we need for “life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence” (2 Peter 1:3).



So I think, and Ron can correct me if I am wrong, that Ron was concerned that you were suggesting that women were being kept from full participation in the ordinary means of grace. And you, thankfully, did not have on offer examples of women being kept out of public worship, from hearing the preaching of the word, or hindered from receiving the sacraments.

However, you were not talking about the ordinary means of grace, but of supplementary forms of fellowship like reading groups. And you definitely gave concrete examples related to those.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pergamum said:


> You still mad at my "read less" comment, brother? Ha ha.


Mad at you. Never 


Pergamum said:


> I believe the reformed tradition reads a lot. Sometimes too much. Hours a day of Puritans


The Bible contains 66 Books. That is a lot of teaching, a lot of truth. Further we have 2000 years of post NT Church history. That history contains significant theological insight, and a lot of theological error. To work through ones theology, and discern truth from error takes a lot of reading. I have recently been watching Youtube clips of a Protestant pastor who converted to Roman Catholicism. He recently did a You Tube Clip "The Catholic Church is Biblical - deal with it". To refute Rome thoroughly one needs to know Apologetics, Church History, The Church Fathers, Theology etc etc. Just to deal with the claims of Rome demands a lot of reading! And that is just one topic.


Pergamum said:


> while the world around them burns.


Actually I have been wondering about how to share the gospel with our neighbour - Australians - who have suffered much from the bushfires. I would say in response to you *read plenty and serve the Lord *in teaching, missions, evangelism, caring for the disabled - there are many tremendous opportunities for service.

This is also relevant for this thread. One needs to read plenty to discern the truth on Biblical manhood and womanhood. But Pergy, I don't want to hijack this thread, I just wanted to clarify. If you want to extend the discussion i will open a new thread.


----------



## Pergamum

wcf_linux said:


> I would simply add, without denying any of your points, that many men in the Reformed world who do speak on theological matters do not exemplify masculine fortitude and restraint in how they express themselves. Far too many of them come across as overly dogmatic and they tend to take an "all or nothing" approach to theological questions and when judging particular theologians or highly-visible personalities.
> 
> In other words, (some of) the women are not alone in making all-or-nothing, your side or my side claims.



That is a very fair point. 

I think there is a human psychology behind this: I think it stems from the nature of video clips of preaching and politics (the sound-bites which get heard are the more forceful and dogmatic statements, whereas more nuanced and measured statements are less sound-bite worthy and often less forceful). One example is several Paul Washer clips. He is a gentle pastor who is often very nuanced, but the clips which get rebroadcast are when he says something highly dogmatic and forceful. Because of this dynamic, many pastors or people who want to talk theology often do likewise and throw out all-or-nothing statements because those are the ones which get the likes, etc.

I also noticed in high school debate classes (for those schools who still do so), when arguing a point, you never acknowledge the good points of your opponent's argument. You never admit if he makes a good point. And we see this today among several professional Christian polemicists who make ministries out of arguing. But in real life among Christians, we should give and take in our discussions and acknowledge the good points in the other person's arguments.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Pergamum

Stephen L Smith said:


> Mad at you. Never
> 
> The Bible contains 66 Books. That is a lot of teaching, a lot of truth. Further we have 2000 years of post NT Church history. That history contains significant theological insight, and a lot of theological error. To work through ones theology, and discern truth from error takes a lot of reading. I have recently been watching Youtube clips of a Protestant pastor who converted to Roman Catholicism. He recently did a You Tube Clip "The Catholic Church is Biblical - deal with it". To refute Rome thoroughly one needs to know Apologetics, Church History, The Church Fathers, Theology etc etc. Just to deal with the claims of Rome demands a lot of reading! And that is just one topic.
> 
> Actually I have been wondering about how to share the gospel with our neighbour - Australians - who have suffered much from the bushfires. I would say in response to you *read plenty and serve the Lord *in teaching, missions, evangelism, caring for the disabled - there are many tremendous opportunities for service.
> 
> This is also relevant for this thread. One needs to read plenty to discern the truth on Biblical manhood and womanhood. But Pergy, I don't want to hijack this thread, I just wanted to clarify. If you want to extend the discussion i will open a new thread.



I promise you that I will go and read a book this year (can it have pictures, though?).


----------



## Pergamum

Just for the record: if fellowship groups happen at night-time, I am fairly certain that wives will have less of an opportunity for these types of fellowship groups due to many of them having little kids at home who have early bed-times. In the US at our home church, we love them but their Wednesday night services starts at 745pm and we would not get home until about 10pm. That just doesn't work well for young mothers. So, yes, I believe that, in general, there is less opportunity to fellowship for the women of the church, because motherhood takes up so much time and it is easier for the men to get away from the kids. And many young mothers feel lonely and/or overwhelmed and could use some female encouragement. And this might be a blind spot for the male leadership of the church.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## User20004000

wcf_linux said:


> I think he is defining "fellowship" and "growth" as being properly defined in terms of the ordinary means of grace.
> I was at first interpreting his last post the same way you seem to be. See these parts from his last:
> 
> So I think, and Ron can correct me if I am wrong, that Ron was concerned that you were suggesting that women were being kept from full participation in the ordinary means of grace. And you, thankfully, did not have on offer examples of women being kept out of public worship, from hearing the preaching of the word, or hindered from receiving the sacraments.
> 
> However, you were not talking about the ordinary means of grace, but of supplementary forms of fellowship like reading groups. And you definitely gave concrete examples related to those.



I appreciate your desire to be a peacemaker. Since MH favorited your post I’ll assume that she agrees with the essence of what you put forth. I will attempt to address those things.

So I think, and Ron can correct me if I am wrong, that Ron was concerned that you were suggesting that women were being kept from full participation in the ordinary means of grace...​
No, that’s not what I communicated. I never communicated that MH thought that she was not able to avail herself to the ordinary means of grace, (or the other things I mentioned such as entering into the fellowship of the Lord upon conversion or fellowshipping in his suffering as a gift from God etc.).

My point was that if this claim is true - if it is true that women are actually deprived more than men of fellowship in Christ and spiritual growth in the church, then it would stand to reason that women relative to men are deprived of the ordinary means of grace, entering into the fellowship of the Lord and fellowshipping in the sufferings of Christ etc. Yet, and as you both well recognize, women are _not_ deprived of any of those things. I agree! But, the _implication_ of not being denied those things is that women are _not_ deprived of spiritual growth and fellowship in Christ by the elders. That’s not to twist one’s words. Rather, it’s to put forth the logical trajectory of the original claim. (By way of example, professing atheists deny God’s existence. The logical implication of their denial is that murder is not wrong. To draw out that glaring absurdity of the implication is not to _twist_ the original claim that God does not exist. Rather, it’s to show the wrongheadedness of the claim. It’s called_ reductio ad absurdum_.)

However, you were not talking about the ordinary means of grace, but of supplementary forms of fellowship like reading groups. And you definitely gave concrete examples related to those.​
Correct, she was not talking about those things. The _reductio ad absurdum _merely brought those things to light. It’s not unusual for someone not to recognize the logical implication of his or her own position. Do professing atheists recognize that their worldview makes cold blooded murder morally acceptable? In the like manner, to deny one spiritual growth is to deny one union with Christ and his body. God binds himself to certain means, not to theological cigar nights.

What’s also interesting is that most of my post dealt with fellowship, which is a _reality_ for all those who’ve been granted faith. “That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and_ indeed our fellowship *is* with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” _1 John 1:3

I’m sorry but what concrete examples were put forth? I recall one example of a woman being denied access to a study within the context of a NAPARC church. There was also a remark about the Puritan Board and how it relates to men and women.

Regarding the NAPARC claim, what details were given regarding the subject matter of the group? Yet in response to that vague (not concrete) example, I noted that I was asked to host a study that not just women but men my own age weren’t invited. Similarly, it is quite common for women to have fellowship groups in which men may not attend. How are such segregated groups depriving women or men?

So, I’ll ask again, *what specifically are the elders in Christ’s Church not doing that hinders the spiritual growth and fellowship of women in the church relative to men?*

After making such an assertion with no concrete examples or arguments to back it up, we were met with: “I don't think I need to defend my view of other women.” And then this, “It’s self-evident.” Well, as my wife said, “It’s not self-evident to me.”

It really comes down to two questions regarding extracurricular type studies. Are there cases that women were denied the freedom to teach other women? Secondly, if there are no women in a church equipped to teach, are the elders refusing to teach women?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## a mere housewife

Thank you so much Kevin. I much appreciate all you have said here, and it is a blessing that you and Susan understood what I was saying and expressed that clearly. 

I want to say again that I don't think this particular state of things comes about through any disrespect -- I was not citing it as one of the more serious problems -- though not listening to women about their struggles, misrepresenting, imputing simple statements of reality to sin can be a serious problem.

Pergy thank you for your whole way of reacting with hearing and honor. Also for what you added about your wife. Ruben and some other guys at our church are actually going to babysit for some fellowship time for the young moms soon. I know they can struggle to focus in church too with a pew full of little ones, or to have sustained time at home for devotions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookish_Basset

If I may, since I've talked a lot about this both with Heidi and with wcf_linux (i.e., my husband  ) --

I think one reason this is a difficult discussion is that it's often hard to pinpoint *specifics* that leaders are or aren't doing. Sometimes it comes down to perceptions that may or may not be completely fair. By way of example, I guess I can talk about my background a bit. I wasn't raised in a NAPARC church and got my theological degrees in _decidedly_ non-confessional-Reformed contexts. So when I joined a NAPARC church, even such things as having gender-segregated Bible studies were a novelty to me. I soon found women's Bible studies and one-on-one discipleship opportunities to be a great blessing. Also, our church at the time was absolutely filled with seminarians, so it seemed fairly natural to me that most of the "extra" theological discussion happened among men. I wished that it were easier to find other women who wanted to discuss the confessions or weightier theological works, for example, and even wrote some materials for the church toward that end. But it made sense to me, in that context, that theological study was seen as more of a "male" thing.

So when we moved and began visiting a different church, I was so excited to hear that there was a group for ordinary laypeople to gather and discuss Calvin--it sounded like a dream come true. So when I asked the person in charge if I'd be welcome, it was a bit deflating to learn that it had been founded as a group for men. He assured me that it wasn't anything against women, and I believed that. In fact, as Kevin and the pastor later explained, the fact that it's a theology group was seen as kind of incidental when it was started--the specific book being studied was more of a hook to motivate men to actually get together outside of church. But for me, it felt like encountering another obstacle. It didn't discourage me from coming back, precisely _because_ it was such a wonderfully means-of-grace focused church -- which is absolutely the most important thing. And I don't anticipate that, if I joined this church and asked for help in starting an equivalent group, that any obstacles would be put in the way. (Though, to offer one specific -- I would be especially thankful if an elder started such a group, to be honest. If gathering to study something like the _Institutes_ is seen as a natural and important way to mentor men in their various roles, then is there any particular reason that studying Calvin shouldn't be seen as a natural way to mentor women, too?)

Since coming into NAPARC circles, I _have_ perceived that studying theology is regarded as an interest more typical of men than of women, and that a woman who desires more rigorous theological education is seen as more of a curiosity, rather than being simply what we should expect in a Reformed church as a matter of course. Again, these could be unfair perceptions on my part. I would not be surprised if non-ordained men feel the same way sometimes, for example. And I can only speak from this very limited experience. But even though I _don't_ agree with all her approaches to talking about it or suggestions for addressing it, I do think this perception is what writers like Aimee are getting at with their critiques.

I don't know if this helps clarify, Heidi, or just muddies things more.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## mvdm

The Stated Clerk of the Midwest Presbytery of the OPC now raises his concerns about Byrd's project:

https://www.fivesolas.church/archiv...CZnwg0YtDAzSKbK5mssdR4UjvNzo9bm6A5UJ3RR9pRmOw

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 5


----------



## Jeri Tanner

mvdm said:


> The Stated Clerk of the Midwest Presbytery of the OPC now raises his concerns about Byrd's project:
> 
> https://www.fivesolas.church/archiv...CZnwg0YtDAzSKbK5mssdR4UjvNzo9bm6A5UJ3RR9pRmOw


A breath of fresh air, thanks.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Susan777

mvdm said:


> The Stated Clerk of the Midwest Presbytery of the OPC now raises his concerns about Byrd's project:
> 
> https://www.fivesolas.church/archiv...CZnwg0YtDAzSKbK5mssdR4UjvNzo9bm6A5UJ3RR9pRmOw



*Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood*
The title for her series is extremely off-putting. Why would any believer want to flee from what the Scriptures say on the subject?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

mvdm said:


> The Stated Clerk of the Midwest Presbytery of the OPC now raises his concerns about Byrd's project:
> 
> https://www.fivesolas.church/archiv...CZnwg0YtDAzSKbK5mssdR4UjvNzo9bm6A5UJ3RR9pRmOw



He hits the nail on the head...

While I do not believe that a seven-minute video has the power to bring down an entire denomination, I have studied enough ecclesiastical history to know this: When women seek to begin a “discussion” in the church, bad things tend to happen. Consider Aimee’s conclusion: 

_“My biggest hope for anyone watching this video series… is for church officers to be leading discussions about these questions brought up in the videos and about what I teach on communicating God’s word and sharing communion in God’s word.”_​Some readers are probably old enough to remember the “discussions” that began in the Christian Reformed Church in 1970. These discussions led to study committees “to help the churches make all possible use of women’s gifts” and moved the CRC slowly-but-steadily toward women’s ordination and even a version of gender-based affirmative action in 2015. 

It would be well worth your time to read the full chronology that is posted on the CRC’s website. You might also want to take mental note of some of the key words and phrases that were used during the CRC’s 45-year-long “discussion”; as they are the same words and phrases being used today in the PCA and, it would seem, soon enough in the OPC.

Aimee is probably not seeking to be ordained as the OPC’s first woman minister, but that _is _where these “discussions” tend to lead and my prediction is that the OPC will probably follow the well-worn path of progressivism to final perdition. That is, unless the teachers of the church are men enough to say, “No thank you” to Aimee’s invitation to come into their churches and begin this discussion. ​
Emphasis mine.


----------



## a mere housewife

Pergamum said:


> That is a very fair point.
> 
> I think there is a human psychology behind this: I think it stems from the nature of video clips of preaching and politics (the sound-bites which get heard are the more forceful and dogmatic statements, whereas more nuanced and measured statements are less sound-bite worthy and often less forceful). One example is several Paul Washer clips. He is a gentle pastor who is often very nuanced, but the clips which get rebroadcast are when he says something highly dogmatic and forceful. Because of this dynamic, many pastors or people who want to talk theology often do likewise and throw out all-or-nothing statements because those are the ones which get the likes, etc.
> 
> I also noticed in high school debate classes (for those schools who still do so), when arguing a point, you never acknowledge the good points of your opponent's argument. You never admit if he makes a good point. And we see this today among several professional Christian polemicists who make ministries out of arguing. But in real life among Christians, we should give and take in our discussions and acknowledge the good points in the other person's arguments.



I've been thinking about this (since the thread lives on ....) I think we have to say what we find worth saying for those who listen with integrity -- definitely not for applause, definitely not to 'win' (what does that even mean, if we have to ignore good points and distort reality to do so?). We can't change the hearts of those who don't listen that way. We can only try to be an example of that -- to embrace truth ourselves wherever we find it (which I think will often leave us not really cheering on one side of a popular mobbish reaction or another, even though both sides will probably make good points) and try to speak honestly to one another without contempt.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

a mere housewife said:


> I've been thinking about this (since the thread lives on ....) I think we have to say what we find worth saying for those who listen with integrity -- definitely not for applause, definitely not to 'win' (what does that even mean, if we have to ignore good points and distort reality to do so?). We can't change the hearts of those who don't listen that way. We can only try to be an example of that -- to embrace truth ourselves wherever we find it (which I think will often leave us not really cheering on one side of a popular mobbish reaction or another, even though both sides will probably make good points) and try to speak honestly to one another without contempt.



Yes. I think it is vital that - especially on a board like the PB where we are all ASSUMED to be batting for the same team - that we do not divide up into camps or take sides, but truly hear one another and assume the best in their responses. I often just want to "win" but "winning" is really not "winning" if it comes at the expense of a true brother or sister. I have been guilty of this in the past but, when faced with a gentle answer, it often stops me dead in my tracks and melts me more than a snarky harsh reply does and I am left defenseless and ready to finally hear the other side.

Just as when the Lord saved me...I am undone by kindness more than force or rebuke and left totally in awe by tenderness and have no armor against that. It was the gentleness of Jesus that I saw in the Gospels that drove me to tears and awe. And your response above had that effect on me when I was over-stating some points. 

If someone hurls insults at me on the streets, I am unmoved and not even phased, but if I hear a soft and gentle hymn in the church proclaiming the gentle tenderness of Jesus, I can hardly believe his goodness, and this absolutely blows me away as if it were the first time I ever heard such things. Since I have been very sick and depressed I have avoided some church services with such songs because I am afraid that I cannot keep my composure but will break down, instead. There is a power to kindness and gentleness that brute force can never know.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## a mere housewife

Thank you for that reminder Pergy. It's so easy for me to turn to snark.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Susan777 said:


> *Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood*
> The title for her series is extremely off-putting. Why would any believer want to flee from what the Scriptures say on the subject?



To be fair, and I am speaking as a critic, I think that she means she is fleeing from the teachings of a movement that, in her eyes, wrongly claim to be advancing something "Biblical" rather than from something that actually is biblical.


----------



## Pergamum

a mere housewife said:


> Thank you for that reminder Pergy. It's so easy for me to turn to snark.



I am the snark-master sometimes. I like to troll. I must stop (unless they clearly now I am joking).


----------



## lynnie

mvdm said:


> The Stated Clerk of the Midwest Presbytery of the OPC now raises his concerns about Byrd's project:
> 
> https://www.fivesolas.church/archiv...CZnwg0YtDAzSKbK5mssdR4UjvNzo9bm6A5UJ3RR9pRmOw



Problematic part about 1 Cor 11. The Greek word there can mean wife or woman and he makes it woman instead of wife. Trying to say all women are submitted to all men is for sure his own opinion that plenty of the Reformed would reject. 

I wear a head covering before the angels as a sign of submission to my husband, which the passage as it appeals to Adam and Eve seems to be clearly talking about. When guys try to say that all women submit to all men, well, you get backlash, with good reason. Wives submit to husbands, and both of them submit to church and civil authority. 

This is the kind of thing people like Aimee may be reacting to, although I don't know for sure. I would strongly suspect Aimee knows what she is talking about and is reacting to some unbiblical attitudes and practices. It doesn't mean anybody is on the route to female elders and pastors....I think such insinuations are both premature and slanderous.


----------



## Andrew35

Reformed Covenanter said:


> To be fair, and I am speaking as a critic, I think that she means she is fleeing from the teachings of a movement that, in her eyes, wrongly claim to be advancing something "Biblical" rather than from something that actually is biblical.


I'm sure you're correct; but from a purely polemical point of view, it's a strategic blunder.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## User20004000

Reformed Covenanter said:


> To be fair, and I am speaking as a critic, I think that she means she is fleeing from the teachings of a movement that, in her eyes, wrongly claim to be advancing something "Biblical" rather than from something that actually is biblical.



Yes, I agree. That’s my hope too. But in God’s interesting providence _her_ chosen title of the book accuses her, perhaps unfairly. 

That Ms. Byrd’s can’t even succeed at getting that right, what hope is there for the clarity of the content of the book? Just a matter of time.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## ZackF

RWD said:


> Yes, I agree. That’s my hope too. But in God’s interesting providence _her_ chosen title of the book accuses her, perhaps unfairly.
> 
> That Ms. Byrd’s can’t even succeed at getting that right, what hope is there for the clarity of the content of the book? Just a matter of time.


Do we known she chose the title? Doesn’t the publisher reserve that right?


----------



## User20004000

ZackF said:


> Do we known she chose the title? Doesn’t the publisher reserve that right?



Fair question. Believe it or not, I almost preempted it. I don’t know the answer but let’s assume the publisher. Still, what does that say of the author? To put it plainly, what sort of orthodox person approves of a title of a book that is self-accusatory? Mark my words, if they haven’t already, her cronies will soon be distancing themselves from her.


----------



## ZackF

One thing that I think would be helpful from these critics, Byrd or whomever, to come at the issue from the opposite way. Build a better mousetrap of ‘Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’ instead of nitpicking complementarians or patriarchalists. Rather explain why they are not egalitarians. There are Christians, such as Doug Groothuis, who are full blown egalitarians including the support of women’s ordination. Groothuis isn’t controversial otherwise. He’s a solid philosopher and apologist. Byrd could differentiate herself from those like him on this issue making it much easier to see where she’s coming from.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000

ZackF said:


> One thing that I think would be helpful from these critics, Byrd or whomever, to come at the issue from the opposite way. Build a better mousetrap of ‘Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’ instead of nitpicking complementarians or patriarchalists. Rather explain why they are not egalitarians. There are Christians, such as Doug Groothuis, who are full blown egalitarians including the support of women’s ordination. Groothuis isn’t controversial otherwise. He’s a solid philosopher and apologist. Byrd could differentiate herself from those like him on this issue making it much easier to see where she’s coming from.



Let’s start here. Why should anyone believe that Byrd has any new insights to offer the church? If she’s not rediscovering some lost Christian doctrine or practice, then she’s breaking new ground. Obviously she’s not rediscovering anything old. So, at best she’s breaking new ground. Really?! In such case, let us not call her “Housewife Theologian” but let us label her a prophetess. This too will pass, sooner than it should.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF

RWD said:


> Let’s start here. Why should anyone believe that Byrd has any new insights to offer the church? If she’s not rediscovering some lost Christian doctrine or practice, then she’s breaking new ground. Obviously she’s not rediscovering anything old. So, at best she’s breaking new ground. Really?! In such case, let us not call her “Housewife Theologian” but let us label her a prophetess. This too will pass, sooner than it should.


In any event the burden of proof is on her. I’m just trying to make it easier.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

lynnie said:


> Problematic part about 1 Cor 11. The Greek word there can mean wife or woman and he makes it woman instead of wife.


The Greek word _can_ mean wife or woman... depending on context and how it is being used. When those things are taken into consideration, however, it becomes clear, the word should be translated as _woman_. Translating this word as wife in 1 Corinthians 11 involves one in some rather absurd conclusions. Which is why the ESV (which is almost entirely alone in its translation choice) oddly translates the same word differently in vv. 7-9, and vv. 11&12. What is the reason for this?

Is it not strange that the Apostle would, for no clear reason, change the meaning of the word back and forth multiple times within the space of a few verses? Indeed it is. Which is why it is much more logical to understand Paul as having a single meaning for "man" and "woman" throughout the text and to see his doctrine as having a more general application to the sexes than merely to husbands and wives. And, No—That in no way necessitates affirming the silly notion that all women must submit to all men.

So, the gentleman's citation of 1 Corinthians 11 as being germane to the question of the differences between the sexes was in no way dubious or doubtful, but overwhelmingly supported by the principles of sound exegesis together with the historical interpretation of that text.


----------



## Pergamum

RWD said:


> Let’s start here. Why should anyone believe that Byrd has any new insights to offer the church? If she’s not rediscovering some lost Christian doctrine or practice, then she’s breaking new ground. Obviously she’s not rediscovering anything old. So, at best she’s breaking new ground. Really?! In such case, let us not call her “Housewife Theologian” but let us label her a prophetess. This too will pass, sooner than it should.



If she WERE a "Housewife Theologian" wouldn't she be writing more about how to be a better housewife?


----------



## lynnie

I find it very impossible to believe that Todd Pruitt and Carl Trueman would support something so unbiblical and so far from orthodoxy as some are perhaps surmising. 

Rev Sheffield... As someone who has worn a head covering for 35 years or so, read quite a bit, and has a husband who has been in multiple discussions and was asked to write a paper on it that involved much study inc the Greek, let me just say that the specific references to head coverings are for wives under the authority of husband. It is not a sign to the angels that a woman is under the authority of church elders. But I don't think it is worth arguing that specific point. The other things he brought up, like the bible being unashamedly Patriarchal, are worthwhile points. 

Personally I think the problem in churches is a lack of vision for intercession. When one grasps the value and necessity of prayer, and how our theological depth can be taken into private prayer, and one devotes themselves to prayer, it removes that drive to "have a ministry" and "be used" in the public sphere. I think this applies to both men and women, as men can get just as pushy as women. I haven't read Aimee's book, but I have been in churches for decades, and the lack of private devotions and private prayer that I've heard women admit to is appalling, and I include pastor's wives in that. (not my current one, thank God). I try to encourage women in the value of their prayers, I think that is the main answer to the problem.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

C. M. Sheffield said:


> When women seek to begin a “discussion” in the church, bad things tend to happen. [...] _discussions_ [...] “discussions” [...] discussions [...] “discussion” [...] “discussions” [...] discussion.



That is because, in my experience, what most folks today mean when they say they want to have a "discussion" is that they want to pontificate their personal dogmas without the other party offering a critical response, or even a "but." When someone today says they want to have a "discussion," what they _really_ want is to be agreed with and/or submitted to. Unless you agree with and/or submit to them, to them it's not a "discussion."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Taylor Sexton said:


> That is because, in my experience, what most folks today mean when they say they want to have a "discussion" is that they want to pontificate their personal dogmas without the other party offering a critical response, or even a "but." When someone today says they want to have a "discussion," what they _really_ want is to be agreed with and/or submitted to. Unless you agree with and/or submit to them, to them it's not a "discussion."



I would say this is true, even in the NAPARC church context unfortunately. A prominent example is the row about the serious error promulgated by the recently published “Beyond Authority and Submission” and raved about, and even blurbed by certain well known folks in NAPARC.

A lot of public pushback was simply explained away with the explanation of “starting a conversation.” 




Pergamum said:


> If she WERE a "Housewife Theologian" wouldn't she be writing more about how to be a better housewife?



Perg, you’re nailing it here. I think the question needs to be asked, is the admonition of Titus being viewed with a hermeneutic of suspicion, and if so, why and under what influence?


----------



## Susan777

lynnie said:


> I find it very impossible to believe that Todd Pruitt and Carl Trueman would support something so unbiblical and so far from orthodoxy as some are perhaps surmising.


I sure hope you’re right Lynnie, but I do worry. I know some say that there is no such thing as a slippery slope but then why bother to examine history? “Starting a conversation “ is the way change is effected and my radar goes on alert when I hear that. The same holds when a denomination decides to establish a committee to allegedly investigate some issue. Why do we need to have a committee to discuss homosexuality or feminism? I think it is just an accommodation to the spirit of this world. I know I struggle against cynicism (life-long besetting sin) but I wouldn’t count on Todd Pruitt or Carl Trueman publicly resisting her influence. We can hope though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

lynnie said:


> Problematic part about 1 Cor 11. The Greek word there can mean wife or woman and he makes it woman instead of wife. Trying to say all women are submitted to all men is for sure his own opinion that plenty of the Reformed would reject.


Lynnie, in studying I came to see that Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11 is indeed rooted in the creation order. He is dealing there with men and women in public worship together. Woman covers her head to show her submission to and recognition of the truth, and its ramifications in the church, that God created man first; that the head of woman is man, the head of man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God. A wife submits particularly, for sure, to her husband; in ways unlike her general submission, as a church member, to the elders of a church. 

I really do appreciate your comments on the glorious opportunity women have for prayer, and hopefully prayer that is informed by our right knowledge of God and his ways, i.e., by good theology. Our theology is meant to make us more like our Savior; not meant to make us restless and dissatisfied with how much engagement we get to have in discussions about it. (There are also plenty of men who don’t have much opportunity for discussion with others.) 

As women our good theology guides us in those things God has specifically enjoined on women in the Epistles. It turns out that good theology is meant to make us those who love more, pray more, do more, forgive more, are content more. To care about the younger women, including wives and mothers, of the church and seek to be of help to them. Just to name a few things. Who would have thought all this.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 2


----------



## a mere housewife

Jeri Tanner said:


> I really do appreciate your comments on the glorious opportunity women have for prayer, and hopefully prayer that is informed by our right knowledge of God and his ways, i.e., by good theology. Our theology is meant to make us more like our Savior; not meant to make us restless and dissatisfied with how much engagement we get to have in discussions about it. (There are also plenty of men who don’t have much opportunity for discussion with others.)



Thank you, Jeri. This was part of what I tried to cite when I spoke about how isolated theologically minded women often feel. How it can help us learn to love one another across our differences (Christlikeness). (What I actually said there was quite misrepresented and that part totally ignored.)

Lynnie I think women have different gifts as men do and all the gifts come from Christ and bring glory to Him, the head of the body; but your point about how all of us can pray is wonderful.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

a mere housewife said:


> This was part of what I tried to cite when I spoke about how isolated theologically minded women often feel.


And again, theologically minded men often feel lonely in this way, as well.

I'm not sure theology can be discussed in a class that includes women, as it can be in a class or group consisting of men. Men get to points and speak to each other in ways that women usually can't or don't. Women often go off on rabbit trails... etc. Don't shoot me.  Then, if women have their "own" theology classes with a woman leading, well that's problematic too. Are women given this kind of teaching ministry in the church?

I think it's nice when churches have ongoing classes for the whole church that teach robustly through our confessions and catechisms. Everything gets covered and discussed.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## a mere housewife

I don't think I'd have a problem attending a class for women taught by a woman. And I think mens and womens groups can be a really healthy thing: yes men need their 'men only' spaces just like women do. (And they have their isolating factors as well, including feeling isolated in their love of theology. It's just more typical for there to be theological fellowship of some sort on offer for mens groups but not womens than vice versa, simply in the nature of the case.)

Our church does a book club which both men and women are welcome to attend -- currently reading Mark Jones' _Knowing Christ._ And our Sunday School class is a pretty robust teaching on historic doctrines with both men and women present.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolaScriptura

lynnie said:


> I find it very impossible to believe that Todd Pruitt and Carl Trueman would support something so unbiblical and so far from orthodoxy as some are perhaps surmising.



I don't know... friendships make us do strange things.

For instance - Grudem taught "ESS" for decades... published it in the early 90s in what became *the* dominant evangelical systematic theology text....... not a peep (as far as I can find) from Pruitt or Trueman... then around 2016 (!) Ms. Byrd discovers what she believes to be the chink in the theological armor of the loathsome complementarians (by finding and posting some otherwise forgettable posts on her own site and blog) and then all of a sudden her two co-hosts go on a crusade about the "dangerous heresy" of ESS. Gimme a break. I'm too cynical not to take notice of the timing and the relationships and the (thankfully) short-lived efforts that went into manufacturing theological outrage.

(Note: I'm not speaking to whether ESS is a legitimate way of understand intra-trinitarian relations... I'm just saying the outcry of the threat level, coming when it did, from whom it did, all seems kind of fishy.... which is to say: friendships make us say and do things we might not normally say and do.)

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Susan777

Jeri Tanner said:


> Lynnie, in studying I came to see that Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11 is indeed rooted in the creation order. He is dealing there with men and women in public worship together. Woman covers her head to show her submission to and recognition of the truth, and its ramifications in the church, that God created man first; that the head of woman is man, the head of man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God. A wife submits particularly, for sure, to her husband; in ways unlike her general submission, as a church member, to the elders of a church.
> 
> I really do appreciate your comments on the glorious opportunity women have for prayer, and hopefully prayer that is informed by our right knowledge of God and his ways, i.e., by good theology. Our theology is meant to make us more like our Savior; not meant to make us restless and dissatisfied with how much engagement we get to have in discussions about it. (There are also plenty of men who don’t have much opportunity for discussion with others.)
> 
> As women our good theology guides us in those things God has specifically enjoined on women in the Epistles. It turns out that good theology is meant to make us those who love more, pray more, do more, forgive more, are content more. To care about the younger women, including wives and mothers, of the church and seek to be of help to them. Just to name a few things. Who would have thought all this.


Jeri, I’m not speaking for Lynnie but I never got the impression that she was questioning the creation order. It seems that she agrees with it entirely. But I’m speaking for myself now: I am not “restless and dissatisfied” about my lack of engagement on theological issues. It is simply a fact, one shared by believers who circumstantially do not find those opportunities. When I called it my lament, I was speaking more or less tongue in cheek but perhaps you took that to mean I was actually wailing about it. Anyway, restless and dissatisfied is not very complementary. I am neither. Please don’t believe that I have any sympathy for such as Aimee Byrd. I don’t, but neither am I ashamed of my love for the Reformed Faith and my continuing desire to learn. Blessings to you my sister.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

So many are suspicious of the lady's motives. Then, atop that many are layering on a dose of historic "here we go again" themes.

On the one hand, I would be surprised if there was not someone out there fully intent on hijacking any effort (be it well- or mis- directed) at reform. That's what sneaky Petes do. They play a second-level game, where they use the public striving of often well-meaning, earnest seekers of justice to mask a more radical agenda.

That's (sadly) the norm, yet most of us proceed on our way oblivious. People don't like change; comfortable is safe even if it has problems (better the devil you know, than the one you don't). Change is inevitable, but the slow pace of ordinary change allows people the complacent observation that "our good life has been undisturbed for generations."

We value the Reformation, forgetting that those who lived through that age (where there were a host of rapid changes) had to surrender their peace to achieve it. Before the Reformation, there was already considerable turmoil in society as the feudal past was abandoned. The Church (Rome) was allegedly a beacon of stability in a storm of change. Then, the Reformers came in and set their charges (which we applaud as necessary), and blew that up too.

So, here's the thing. We're living now in one of those stressful eras, when turmoil has become the order of the day. Some of that turmoil is caused by past refusal to deal properly with problems and scandals, those trying to get them dealt with being harshly treated for "making waves."

Sometimes, traditions that have helpfully functioned for a long time have garnered more respect than is due them. They've often been sanctioned by religious appeal, so as to make them untouchable. They did not begin that way, however. They were not instituted as founded on religious maxim; but later religion was used beyond appeal for respect of elders and general tranquility, to stifle allowable dissent.

And guess what? Eventually, that same tactic gets used in the opposite direction, and we're seeing it today. Now, we're getting people on the side of "progress" who are using religion to teach that the Bible _demands _the changes they want, and _condemns _those who used it previously--again, to retroactively privilege mere tradition as more than tradition, but as law.

But not every effort at reform is "progressive," just as not every appeal to "tradition" is reactionary. And I think that some of the negative reaction to Mrs.Byrd is running afoul of the danger that conservatives are susceptible to.

Motivational ascription is a very easy rut to get in, and hard to get out of. But it is especially pernicious in the early going. You can't help but have it, however you must work at damping its influence on your work of studying the actual words and acts.

Then there's the question of whether someone (in this case, AB) is making a legitimate, sincere effort at genuine reform--regardless of whether someone else could try to piggyback on those efforts in order to instigate unhelpful changes.

The reactionary response is similar to the Pharisees'. Their traditions were inviolable, having been granted the force of law (supposedly Moses' own sanction) but retroactively. The tradition's intent was to protect the actual Law, so any subversion of them was regarded by the Pharisees as an attack on the Law itself. Their traditions were defended as inevitable outgrowth of the Law, "You can't challenge that!"

Rather than dismissing AB's concerns, the church should weigh the issues raised on the merits. But some then allege that "WOMEN shouldn't be raising the issues she's raising!" Well, even if that claim was demonstrably so; even the Bible itself shows approved examples of _women _legitimately raising issues which some man or men couldn't or wouldn't, but perhaps should've.

So, when a woman raises an issue, it seems the question of whether she has the standing to raise it is actually secondary to the issue itself. First deal with the issue, fairly, to determine whether it is actually a matter of concern; because if it IS, then the fact that no one but her raised it doesn't speak ill of her, but of those who neglected the issue.

For my part, I take a very strong stand on the matter of church governance and leadership in its business of worship and superintendence of God's people. But then I stop, because I have grave concerns about pressing norms for church-conduct into non-ecclesiastical arenas.

Some are saying AB is no "theologian." Isn't every Christian a theologian? Should AB stick to _theologizing _about "housewifery?" If my male S.S. teacher, who is a plumber, calls himself "Plumber Theologian," should he stick to theologizing about pipes and fittings, and confine his services offered and rendered to his "area of expertise?" It all sounds like mockery to me.

Because we have people who don't think AB should publish a book by a Christian publishing house, unless it is in a "women's studies" department. Some resent her video, perhaps because in agreeing with its content they bristle at having been "taught" by a woman. Oh, my, the thin edge of the wedge.

If reforms of our _traditions _(not the express teaching of Scripture, which is prior to traditions) are beyond consideration, then when comes the breaking rather than loosening of tensions the damage will not be contained.

In my judgment, this current crop of female authors and speakers _in our orbit _are interested not in revolution, but in helping our churches face the coming crisis with a new defense, which is really just the old and good defenses pared back, retrenched, and stoutly preserved.

While what is abandoned is simply the previous expansion, the once-safe extension of the perimeter dating from the days of plenty. I've been a soldier; a weaker force trying to man the outworks that were once filled with defenders, besides those in the keep, will lose the outworks and the keep.

Please, Lord, give me men and women within the walls of my small keep, who are filled with wisdom and unswerving dedication to the authority of the Word--even if it runs against the day's current, or their own natural bent. All of them theologians, and none of them timid to speak up out of a sense of inferiority or that she might be mocked or silenced by arrogance. Which arrogance itself opens wide the angle of attack.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## User20004000

Jeri Tanner said:


> And again, theologically minded men often feel lonely in this way, as well.
> 
> I'm not sure theology can be discussed in a class that includes women, as it can be in a class or group consisting of men. Men get to points and speak to each other in ways that women usually can't or don't. Women often go off on rabbit trails... etc. Don't shoot me.  Then, if women have their "own" theology classes with a woman leading, well that's problematic too. Are women given this kind of teaching ministry in the church?
> 
> I think it's nice when churches have ongoing classes for the whole church that teach robustly through our confessions and catechisms. Everything gets covered and discussed.



I’m currently teaching through the WCF. Without fail, the best contributions I get are from women, both in their probing questions and their keen observations. It’s a joy to teach and facilitate this class. It’s the women who make it the great class it is.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Susan777 said:


> Jeri, I’m not speaking for Lynnie but I never got the impression that she was questioning the creation order. It seems that she agrees with it entirely. But I’m speaking for myself now: I am not “restless and dissatisfied” about my lack of engagement on theological issues. It is simply a fact, one shared by believers who circumstantially do not find those opportunities. When I called it my lament, I was speaking more or less tongue in cheek but perhaps you took that to mean I was actually wailing about it. Anyway, restless and dissatisfied is not very complementary. I am neither. Please don’t believe that I have any sympathy for such as Aimee Byrd. I don’t, but neither am I ashamed of my love for the Reformed Faith and my continuing desire to learn. Blessings to you my sister.


Susan, I promise I was not thinking of you or anyone else on the thread when I used that phrase (restless and dissatisfied). I did have in mind Aimee Byrd's (apparent?) state of mind and complaint, as I understand it. Which I really ought to understand better before commenting much on it. I didn't envision you or anyone else here at all such a way. I did understand the fact that you're not sympathetic to M. Byrd's endeavors.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

If a man is a plumber he might not want to try to teach astronomy. 

Here are the subjects older women are prescribed to teach as per Titus 2:

"That they may teach the young women to (1) be sober, (2) to love their husbands, (3) to love their children,

(4) To be discreet, (5) chaste, (6) keepers at home, (7) good, (8) obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."

Eight vital subjects very rarely taught by women theologians of today.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## CathH

Reformed Covenanter said:


> To be fair, and I am speaking as a critic, I think that she means she is fleeing from the teachings of a movement that, in her eyes, wrongly claim to be advancing something "Biblical" rather than from something that actually is biblical.



This does seem fair. Speaking as a Scot, I've thought for a long time that this movement would be more accurately named "American Manhood and Womanhood" instead of Biblical. Bits of it overlap with biblical teaching, but plenty more of it is culture specific. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> Rather than dismissing AB's concerns, the church should weigh the issues raised on the merits.



This is also only fair.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## CathH

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> A prominent example is the row about the serious error promulgated by the recently published “Beyond Authority and Submission” and raved about, and even blurbed by certain well known folks in NAPARC.



What was the serious error?


----------



## Susan777

CathH said:


> This does seem fair. Speaking as a Scot, I've thought for a long time that this movement would be more accurately named "American Manhood and Womanhood" instead of Biblical. Bits of it overlap with biblical teaching, but plenty more of it is culture specific.
> 
> 
> 
> This is also only fair.


This is interesting. Could you elaborate on what you see as the cultural specifics? Another perspective would be helpful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

CathH said:


> Speaking as a Scot, I've thought for a long time that this movement would be more accurately named "American Manhood and Womanhood" instead of Biblical. Bits of it overlap with biblical teaching, but plenty more of it is culture specific.


Yes, please elaborate. If "plenty" of what was taught by the Biblical M&W movement is just "cultural" it should be easy to provide some specific examples. Would you provide some for the sake of this discussion?


----------



## CathH

Susan777 said:


> This is interesting. Could you elaborate on what you see as the cultural specifics? Another perspective would be helpful.


The variety of feminism which complementarianism is reacting against is a local, American variety. It seems that feminism is a more polarising force in the States than it is elsewhere, and the gender wars there are more fierce and toxic than elsewhere. So then the vision of wholesome marriage and masculinity/femininity which complementarianism holds out owes more to the traditional version which that local feminism despises. In the churches it strikes me that the whole debate is much more fraught in the US. Christian men speak dismissively and disrespectfully about Christian women in a way that I don't think I've encountered in Scotland or England, and that seems to be okay because the only important thing is not to be a feminist.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Pergamum said:


> If a man is a plumber he might not want to try to teach astronomy.
> 
> Here are the subjects older women are prescribed to teach as per Titus 2:
> 
> "That they may teach the young women to (1) be sober, (2) to love their husbands, (3) to love their children,
> 
> (4) To be discreet, (5) chaste, (6) keepers at home, (7) good, (8) obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."
> 
> Eight vital subjects very rarely taught by women theologians of today.


I said the plumber was teaching S.S. (not astronomy); but on the same rubric used to stifle some lady, perhaps he should stick to his knitting? Mocking the "housewife theologian" is a tactic that backfires.

Is the list of "older women's" teaching topics _exhaustive? _Is that Paul's intent? Of course not; yet these ought to be taught, and no sidestepping them to get into other topics is proper. But supposing they are being faithfully taught, can anything else be covered? Why not? Women's Bible studies cover books of the Bible, doctrine, all sorts of topics.

Does not the pastor (Titus) have the duty to cover these topics himself, if there are no suitable "older women" to teach them? Definitely, and he must also teach the rest of the whole counsel of God according to his station. This is only a fraction of his "list." These "Eight vital subjects" are of special concern for the wise, older women to teach the impressionable younger women who look up to them. But they are by no means the last word on spiritual instruction, woman-to-woman.

And frankly, I'm going to be listening to the older woman teaching the younger, in order to *be taught* how to do *my job* better, when there aren't women of that kind around. Who better to learn from?

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## lynnie

SolaScriptura said:


> I don't know... friendships make us do strange things.
> 
> For instance - Grudem taught "ESS" for decades... published it in the early 90s in what became *the* dominant evangelical systematic theology text....... not a peep (as far as I can find) from Pruitt or Trueman... then around 2016 (!) Ms. Byrd discovers what she believes to be the chink in the theological armor of the loathsome complementarians (by finding and posting some otherwise forgettable posts on her own site and blog) and then all of a sudden her two co-hosts go on a crusade about the "dangerous heresy" of ESS. Gimme a break. I'm too cynical not to take notice of the timing and the relationships and the (thankfully) short-lived efforts that went into manufacturing theological outrage.
> 
> (Note: I'm not speaking to whether ESS is a legitimate way of understand intra-trinitarian relations... I'm just saying the outcry of the threat level, coming when it did, from whom it did, all seems kind of fishy.... which is to say: friendships make us say and do things we might not normally say and do.)



I honestly don't know, and I am generally on the cynical side myself. But to openly question the motives of her co hosts without proof is something that makes me cringe. My personal guess is that Trueman was a pastor, husband, on staff at WTS, and writer (his blog, First Things, etc) and never bothered to read Grudem's ST. Why would he read that ST, with all the other books he has to read? I am not sure anybody caught the problem for a long time. 

And rather than calling it finding a chink in the armor of loathsome complementarians, let's call it what it was- finding a serious erroneous/heretical repudiation of the classic creeds and confessions about the trinity with regard to power, authority, rule. I had no idea Aimee was the one to catch it and blow that open, in which case I say thank God for her astute and perceptive insight in bringing it out into the open. I can see why she might struggle with some cynicism herself about men, if all the Reformed Big Dogs missed it and she was the first one to catch it. Interesting, and speaks well of her mind and thinking. But again, I don't know anything about all the inner workings of the people involved; you could be correct. I saw initially with Pete Enns how his dearest friends at WTS defended him, until it was obvious he had gone off the rails.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Pergamum

CathH said:


> Speaking as a Scot, I've thought for a long time that this movement would be more accurately named "American Manhood and Womanhood" instead of Biblical.



Fascinating statement, and I'd like to hear more.


----------



## Pergamum

Contra_Mundum said:


> I said the plumber was teaching S.S. (not astronomy); but on the same rubric used to stifle some lady, perhaps he should stick to his knitting? Mocking the "housewife theologian" is a tactic that backfires.
> 
> Is the list of "older women's" teaching topics _exhaustive? _Is that Paul's intent? Of course not; yet these ought to be taught, and no sidestepping them to get into other topics is proper. But supposing they are being faithfully taught, can anything else be covered? Why not? Women's Bible studies cover books of the Bible, doctrine, all sorts of topics.
> 
> Does not the pastor (Titus) have the duty to cover these topics himself, if there are no suitable "older women" to teach them? Definitely, and he must also teach the rest of the whole counsel of God according to his station. This is only a fraction of his "list." These "Eight vital subjects" are of special concern for the wise, older women to teach the impressionable younger women who look up to them. But they are by no means the last word on spiritual instruction, woman-to-woman.
> 
> And frankly, I'm going to be listening to the older woman teaching the younger, in order to *be taught* how to do *my job* better, when there aren't women of that kind around. Who better to learn from?



It is not mocking. Neither is it a tactic which fails if her teaching on manhood/womanhood is simply bad/flawed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

lynnie said:


> I honestly don't know, and I am generally on the cynical side myself. But to openly question the motives of her co hosts without proof is something that makes me cringe. My personal guess is that Trueman was a pastor, husband, on staff at WTS, and writer (his blog, First Things, etc) and never bothered to read Grudem's ST. Why would he read that ST, with all the other books he has to read? I am not sure anybody caught the problem for a long time.
> 
> And rather than calling it finding a chink in the armor of loathsome complementarians, let's call it what it was- finding a serious erroneous/heretical repudiation of the classic creeds and confessions about the trinity with regard to power, authority, rule. I had no idea Aimee was the one to catch it and blow that open, in which case I say thank God for her astute and perceptive insight in bringing it out into the open. I can see why she might struggle with some cynicism herself about men, if all the Reformed Big Dogs missed it and she was the first one to catch it. Interesting, and speaks well of her mind and thinking. But again, I don't know anything about all the inner workings of the people involved; you could be correct. I saw initially with Pete Enns how his dearest friends at WTS defended him, until it was obvious he had gone off the rails.



To be fair, I read right through Grudem's Systematic Theology, including the ESS parts and simply thought, "hmm" and moved along and didn't catch the error, either (I think I was just trying to get through it, since I don't read much, Stephen says). 

If Byrd is the one who first caught this, then hats off to her.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolaScriptura

lynnie said:


> My personal guess is that Trueman was a pastor, husband, on staff at WTS, and writer (his blog, First Things, etc) and never bothered to read Grudem's ST. Why would he read that ST, with all the other books he has to read?



I'm only going to respond to this because it's funny to me. 

Why would Trueman read and interact with Grudem? I don't know, maybe because he's a scholar and Grudem's work is only the most influential/widely used conservative theology text in this entire country... and since MANY if not MOST who come to Reformed seminaries first grew up in Calvinistic evangelical churches. I don't know, maybe that's why.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie

SolaScriptura said:


> I'm only going to respond to this because it's funny to me.
> 
> Why would Trueman read and interact with Grudem? I don't know, maybe because he's a scholar and Grudem's work is only the most influential/widely used conservative theology text in this entire country... and since MANY if not MOST who come to Reformed seminaries first grew up in Calvinistic evangelical churches. I don't know, maybe that's why.


I have no idea if you are right that he read it, saw ESS, recognized it as error, and kept mum. But he would have known Grudem's ST is Baptist and Charismatic and just not been interested. I would prefer to think the best at this point. 

I don't bother to read some of the most influential books (DVDs, youtube videos, etc) out there. People have tried to get me to know the wondrous blessing of "Jesus Calling". Several people have tried to shove Joel Rosenberg down my throat, and Jonathan Cahn's the Harbinger. I've been sent Lance Wallnau and his prophetic revelations. "Oh watch this Beth Moore DVD" ...I could gag. 

Maybe Trueman feels the way I do- thanks but no thanks. Not that I put Grudem in that category, but I don't apologize for my pickiness when it comes to what is popular. 

Cynical people as a rule tend to be discerning instead of gullible....so I can't dismiss your thinking. I just hope it is wrong : )


----------



## wcf_linux

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> I would say this is true, even in the NAPARC church context unfortunately. A prominent example is the row about the serious error promulgated by the recently published “Beyond Authority and Submission” and raved about, and even blurbed by certain well known folks in NAPARC.
> 
> A lot of public pushback was simply explained away with the explanation of “starting a conversation.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perg, you’re nailing it here. I think the question needs to be asked, is the admonition of Titus being viewed with a hermeneutic of suspicion, and if so, why and under what influence?





Contra_Mundum said:


> I said the plumber was teaching S.S. (not astronomy); but on the same rubric used to stifle some lady, perhaps he should stick to his knitting? Mocking the "housewife theologian" is a tactic that backfires.
> 
> Is the list of "older women's" teaching topics _exhaustive? _Is that Paul's intent? Of course not; yet these ought to be taught, and no sidestepping them to get into other topics is proper. But supposing they are being faithfully taught, can anything else be covered? Why not? Women's Bible studies cover books of the Bible, doctrine, all sorts of topics.
> 
> Does not the pastor (Titus) have the duty to cover these topics himself, if there are no suitable "older women" to teach them? Definitely, and he must also teach the rest of the whole counsel of God according to his station. This is only a fraction of his "list." These "Eight vital subjects" are of special concern for the wise, older women to teach the impressionable younger women who look up to them. But they are by no means the last word on spiritual instruction, woman-to-woman.
> 
> And frankly, I'm going to be listening to the older woman teaching the younger, in order to *be taught* how to do *my job* better, when there aren't women of that kind around. Who better to learn from?



Applied thought, especially in theology, is actually more advanced than a generalized understanding of theory. Don’t get me wrong, one can write at length on “practical” matters without saying much of use. But to apply theory, you have to know theory as well as whatever you’re applying theory to. 

I can talk about being a better server jockey as a Christian, but my insight will be limited by how well I get, inter alia, the concept of vocation.* And vocation is rooted in creation, providence, and Christian liberty. That brings in doctrine of God, doctrine of man, and Christology (which brings in everything else). I can’t be a “Linux server jockey theologian” of any usefulness without being a “theologian” first, to the limit of my practical capacity. Christian theology is just too interconnected. 

I think a similar notion applies to being a housewife theologian. 

* And I thought I understood vocation before I dropped the doctoral program and my presbytery intern status, but oh boy I didn’t!

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## User20004000

Mocking the "housewife theologian" is a tactic that backfires.​
I didn’t take the gentleman as knocking the title. I do agree that the title doesn’t imply that she must theologize on being a wife. Whether she’s a theologian of any note I need not comment about, but the observation that we’re all theologians seems to sidestep any legitimate question regarding the assumed title let alone her ability to write or speak on theological matters. 

Is the list of older women's" teaching topics _exhaustive?_​
No, but perhaps it’d be a good place to start.

As I asked Doug Wilson for years, why is Reformed not enough? Same sort of thing here. If she’s not rediscovering some lost Christian doctrine or practice, then she’s breaking new ground. Obviously she’s not rediscovering anything old. So, at best she’s breaking new ground. I sincerely doubt that. I sincerely doubt she’s aiding the church in her (AB’s) efforts to help us recover from (our misconceptions) of biblical manhood and womanhood. At the very least, her foils like John Piper are highly selective. I can only imagine why that would be the case.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum

RWD said:


> [ContraMundum:]
> Mocking the "housewife theologian" is a tactic that backfires.​
> I didn’t take the gentleman as knocking the title. I do agree that the title doesn’t imply that she must theologize on being a wife. Whether she’s a theologian of any note I need not comment about, but the observation that we’re all theologians seems to sidestep any legitimate question regarding the assumed title let alone her ability to write or speak on theological matters.


This is the exact quote that I had in mind when I penned the first (not the one above) comment, 
"If she WERE a "Housewife Theologian" wouldn't she be writing more about how to be a better housewife?"​
If I had the habit of connecting some other piece of my identity (past) with my present pursuits, I might call myself: Foot-Soldier Pastor. So, if I REALLY was such a thing, I better be writing lots of articles for servicemen? Not necessarily, because the reference is to some aspect of who I am, as formed by Providence.

My emphasis would be on the "pastor" part; and in the case of AB, her emphasis appears to be on the "theologian" part. So, a comment about her better off focusing on something suitable to "housewifery" reads like a "stay in your lane!" statement.

Don't think I got that one wrong.


RWD said:


> [ContraMundum:]
> Is the list of older women's" teaching topics _exhaustive?_​
> No, but perhaps it’d be a good place to start.
> 
> As I asked Doug Wilson for years, why is Reformed not enough? Same sort of thing here. If she’s not rediscovering some lost Christian doctrine or practice, then she’s breaking new ground. Obviously she’s not rediscovering anything old. So, at best she’s breaking new ground. I sincerely doubt that. I sincerely doubt she’s aiding the church in her (AB’s) efforts to help us recover from (our misconceptions) of biblical manhood and womanhood. At the very least, her foils like John Piper are highly selective. I can only imagine why that would be the case.


Maybe there are already enough books on that? And who is to say that AB isn't doing all that's expected of her in that department? Anyone here her pastor, who can assure you who are interested: "She's got it covered."

No, in the end it's about wanting to make sure that AB--and all the others--"Know their place."

Maybe, what some women need--who are both frustrated with perceived misogyny, or baptized traditionalism; AND discontented with the BadTheology responses of a number of non-Reformed and quasi-Reformed and even some reputed Reformed types--is a reason to stay Reformed, stay holding on to biblical limits on women's ordination (because God says so), stay the good course while rebutting the stupid stuff.

Maybe AB and a few others will help them do that. But if she has to spend a significant amount of her energy fighting off the accusations that she's walking the well-worn path to Women's Lib, Ecclesiastical Style... that's a sorry distraction in every unsubstantiated claim that she's the one propagating BadTheology.

I think a lot of people just want her/them to shut up and go away.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## User20004000

Contra_Mundum said:


> This is the exact quote that I had in mind when I penned the first (not the one above) comment,
> "If she WERE a "Housewife Theologian" wouldn't she be writing more about how to be a better housewife?"​
> If I had the habit of connecting some other piece of my identity (past) with my present pursuits, I might call myself: Foot-Soldier Pastor. So, if I REALLY was such a thing, I better be writing lots of articles for servicemen? Not necessarily, because the reference is to some aspect of who I am, as formed by Providence.
> 
> My emphasis would be on the "pastor" part; and in the case of AB, her emphasis appears to be on the "theologian" part. So, a comment about her better off focusing on something suitable to "housewifery" reads like a "stay in your lane!" statement.
> 
> Don't think I got that one wrong.
> Maybe there are already enough books on that? And who is to say that AB isn't doing all that's expected of her in that department? Anyone here her pastor, who can assure you who are interested: "She's got it covered."
> 
> No, in the end it's about wanting to make sure that AB--and all the others--"Know their place."
> 
> Maybe, what some women need--who are both frustrated with perceived misogyny, or baptized traditionalism; AND discontented with the BadTheology responses of a number of non-Reformed and quasi-Reformed and even some reputed Reformed types--is a reason to stay Reformed, stay holding on to biblical limits on women's ordination (because God says so), stay the good course while rebutting the stupid stuff.
> 
> Maybe AB and a few others will help them do that. But if she has to spend a significant amount of her energy fighting off the accusations that she's walking the well-worn path to Women's Lib, Ecclesiastical Style... that's a sorry distraction in every unsubstantiated claim that she's the one propagating BadTheology.
> 
> I think a lot of people just want her/them to shut up and go away.



Bruce,

I assumed the quote you had in mind. I also agreed with you that the label Housewife Theologian doesn’t imply what the other brother implied, that she should only theologize on housewife things. What I’m not prepared to say with you is that he _mocked_ the label. 

No, in the end it's about wanting to make sure that AB--and all the others--"Know their place."​
Well, knowing our place is always under good regulation. The question, however, is as I see it two-fold. What is one’s place? And secondly, does one have the theological chops (assuming that he or she is indeed functioning in their place).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## a mere housewife

CathH said:


> The variety of feminism which complementarianism is reacting against is a local, American variety. It seems that feminism is a more polarising force in the States than it is elsewhere, and the gender wars there are more fierce and toxic than elsewhere. So then the vision of wholesome marriage and masculinity/femininity which complementarianism holds out owes more to the traditional version which that local feminism despises. In the churches it strikes me that the whole debate is much more fraught in the US. Christian men speak dismissively and disrespectfully about Christian women in a way that I don't think I've encountered in Scotland or England, and that seems to be okay because the only important thing is not to be a feminist.



C. S. Lewis actually cites something similar before feminism really took hold -- he got the impression that American men bully and demean women much more than in England. He cited an entitled attitude of 'I have inferiors but no superiors' stemming from a mix of political ideas with gender roles.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## lynnie

For what it is worth, I did a bit of google searching. The ESS debate did indeed break on Aimee's blog, although it was a post by Goligher.

https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/the-eternal-subordination-of-t.php

"Alastair Roberts
June 16, 2016
The most recent eruption of the eternal subordination of the Son controversy began with a couple of provocative posts by Liam Goligher, pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, over on Aimee Byrd's Housewife Theologian blog."

Goligher is good guy, Scottish, and no doubt was friendly with Trueman. Folks from CCEF and WTS went down to 10th Pres. For all we know he caught the error first, talked to Carl, and they asked Aimee to post the article. Maybe Aimee saw it first, talked to Carl, he talked to Goligher. At any rate, make no mistake, the leadership in breaking this with precise theological writing is Goligher. And if you question motives, I would say like Paul, that whether from good motives or bad, the gospel ( ie the true Jesus of orthodoxy) is being preached so be glad about that.

I also saw this, and it is from May 2019 so I think if you read it you get an idea of where she is coming from. For one thing, she really expected retractions from those in error about the trinity, but it didn't happen. I wasn't comfortable when I started reading this but I was more so by the end....I think we have to understand the semantics and how much of her gripe is with ESS.

https://www.reformation21.org/mos/h...ns-rebranding-of-ess-is-not-thunderously-good

I liked this paragraph:

_Rather than reduce God’s word and say woman is created second because she is subordinate, we need to see the whole redemptive story God is telling here. Woman was created second from man’s very side as his glory, meaning, when Adam sees Eve, he sees his telos as the bride of Christ, the church flowing out of Christ’s wounded side._

I have believed that for years. Adam slept, his side was opened, his wife was created. That is a prophetic picture of the second Adam who slept in death, his side was pierced and blood and water flowed out, and his bride was created.

To try and reduce men-women just to a hierarchy based on bad doctrine is wrong.

_Strachan spells it out for us, saying that this particular divine design, this vital order, is grounded in theistic ontology itself…the very bedrock of Christian theology. He is not talking about processions here, since he made himself clear that hierarchy is divine order. ESS is “divine order.” Divine order is ESS. _

I'm pretty conservative myself, I have a great husband, and I have no inner feelings of longing for more ministry or teaching, and this second link does raise a few questions about what path Amy is on long term about when and how women teach. Time will tell. But I think without the context of her pis*ed off reaction to ESS, pardon my Greek, she cannot be understood or critiqued properly. And for that she has my deepest sympathy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

lynnie said:


> I think we have to understand the semantics and how much of her gripe is with ESS.


Only, that's not what she was writing about in _Why Can't We Be Friends?_ or _Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood_. Which makes any discussion about that here little more than a red herring.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

a mere housewife said:


> C. S. Lewis actually cites something similar before feminism really took hold -- he got the impression that American men bully and demean women much more than in England. He cited an entitled attitude of 'I have inferiors but no superiors' stemming from a mix of political ideas with gender roles.


I tend to doubt this, but who knows. It's possible he was right. Which would mean Lewis was a better student of American sociology than he was of the Bible.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Many have slipped on the slope they insisted was not slippery.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

lynnie said:


> But I think without the context of her pis*ed off reaction to ESS, pardon my Greek, she cannot be understood or critiqued properly.



I mostly agree. While issues of patriarchy and quasi-Arian views on the Trinity stand or fall separately, in America, at least, those promoting ESS used it to also justify their view of complementarianism.

Note what I am saying. I am not saying that complementarianism is wrong because the people promoting it often have bad Trinitarianism. That would be a logical fallacy. 

Not to say I agree with Amy. As I said earlier, she is overreacting to a previous overreaction (with bad Trinitarianism) to feminism.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## lynnie

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Only, that's not what she was writing about in _Why Can't We Be Friends?_ or _Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood_. Which makes any discussion about that here little more than a red herring.


I think that is your male brain full of compartments talking. We women have one big room and it is all jumbled together. If we are upset about one thing, everything else is related to it somehow. There are all kinds of studies out there on how men compartmentalize where as women stir everything into one big pot. I don't know, maybe Aimee is less that way than most women, but I bet until CBMW recants the error it is going to color everything she says on the subject. Just my guess based on long experience with plenty of women. I could be wrong.


----------



## Pergamum

lynnie said:


> I think that is your male brain full of compartments talking. We women have one big room and it is all jumbled together. If we are upset about one thing, everything else is related to it somehow. There are all kinds of studies out there on how men compartmentalize where as women stir everything into one big pot. I don't know, maybe Aimee is less that way than most women, but I bet until CBMW recants the error it is going to color everything she says on the subject. Just my guess based on long experience with plenty of women. I could be wrong.



Does CBMW still hold to ESS? If so, then Byrd is right to keep pushing. 

Has Grudem ever revised or apologized for his views?

I think somebody above asked why Trueman and others keep sticking by Byrd's side and endorse her despite some of her bad stances. Perhaps it is because she is right on this topic. The Trinity, after all, is a lot more important than variations in gender roles.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## User20004000

BayouHuguenot said:


> I mostly agree. While issues of patriarchy and quasi-Arian views on the Trinity stand or fall separately, in America, at least, those promoting ESS used it to also justify their view of complementarianism.
> 
> Note what I am saying. I am not saying that complementarianism is wrong because the people promoting it often have bad Trinitarianism. That would be a logical fallacy.
> 
> Not to say I agree with Amy. As I said earlier, she is overreacting to a previous overreaction (with bad Trinitarianism) to feminism.



I have another take. I’d be interested in your thoughts. The ESS debate was an old one within relatively contemporary times (even before 1990). I’m not persuaded that the debate resurfaced in summer of 2016 strictly over concerns about the Trinity. For various reasons I’m more inclined to think that the equality of women and what that meant to some could have been the driving factor.

Anyway, what one side missed is that what distinguishes persons of the Trinity is paternity, generation, and procession, not roles of authority and submission. The Father is the Father of the Son because the Father begets the Son.

The other side wasn’t without their issues either. They didn’t seem to acknowledge that the Son’s submission is _fitting _precisely because of the filial identity of the Son. I think that oversight gets to the heart of the complementarian discussion.

What’s often missing in this discussion is that “A and B complement each other” does not address questions of how and why. If the husband assumes a complementary role to his wife, can those roles be switched? “Roles” aren’t typically permanent. Roles can even be arbitrary.

The point of the matter is, there are _congruous_ personal complements within marriage that “roles” terminology eclipses if not conflates. (This principle applies in some sense to the Trinity too. Could the Father have become man in redemption, or is there something _fitting_ about the begotten-Son becoming man? That would be my only reference to Trinity in this discussion. Equality doesn’t preclude personal differences and ordering of operations).

If these marital responsibilities flow from creation, we’d expect to see some resemblance of these complements outside church and home. By grace, we still do.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

lynnie said:


> I think that is your male brain full of compartments talking.


While granting these differences between men and women, this statement is lazy and unhelpful. Something is either _germane_ to a discussion or it isn't. If we are discussing what Byrd has said in a book that makes no reference to the ESS controversy, then it isn't germane. Aimee Byrd being right on ESS doesn't give her a pass from being criticized if she takes positions in other areas that are wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## a mere housewife

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I tend to doubt this, but who knows. It's possible he was right. Which would mean Lewis was a better student of American sociology than he was of the Bible.



Yes, I was calling him in as a cultural observer not as a Scriptural interpreter. My own biggest desire is not that we should necessarily agree on his take or some of these other points, but that our disagreements should be without double standards (ie, holding one side responsible for accuracy and not throwing out red herrings while supporting inaccuracy and red herrings on the other), and with mutual respect.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

RWD said:


> Anyway, what one side missed is that what distinguishes persons of the Trinity is paternity, generation, and procession, not roles of authority and submission. The Father is the Father of the Son because the Father begets the Son.
> 
> The other side wasn’t without their issues either. They didn’t seem to acknowledge that the Son’s submission is _fitting _precisely because of the filial identity of the Son. I think that oversight gets to the heart of the complementarian discussion.



I agree. The Ware-Grudem crowd rightly understood that there is an order in the Trinity. For the Patristics, this functioned as a grammar: To the Father in the Son by the Holy Spirit. The fathers basically left it at that.

On the other hand, I don't think the ESS crowd was especially clear. I'm reading Ware right now, so I will defer further judgment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> Has Grudem ever revised or apologized for his views?



He has backed off the more radical claims, if I recall correctly.


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

CathH said:


> What was the serious error?



There have been many reviews on it and the problems within and I don’t wish to sidetrack this post. But I can provide a link if you need.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

While I don't want to sidetrack the discussion, it is a serious error that is connected tangentially to the discussion.
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...here-are-things-now.92059/page-2#post-1126091


----------

