# Byrd's "Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood"



## mvdm

An interesting, lengthy review of Aimee Byrd's new book:









Does Anyone Need to Recover from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? A Review Article of Aimee Byrd’s - CBMW


Editor’s Note: The following review article appears in the Spring 2020 issue of Eikon: A Journal for Biblical Anthropology. John Piper and Wayne Grudem edited Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1991, and now Aimee Byrd has written Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood some...




cbmw.org


----------



## RamistThomist

Naselli's review of Byrd left much to be desired, as noted by analytic philosopher Tom McCall. Let's spot the fallacies in this paragraph.







__ https://www.facebook.com/tom.mccall.31/posts/3148806241824092

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

And I know CBMW types don't like to hear this, but until they formally condemn and disavow all forms of ESS, I don't truck with them.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## Kinghezy

Jonathan Masters (https://www.reformation21.org/blog/questions-for-aimee) and then Aimee's response (https://www.reformation21.org/blog/peeling-yellow-wallpaper)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

I don't like Byrd when she writes on gender....BUT....has CBMW ever repented of their Trinitarian errors? 

Byrd was spot-on regarding this issue...it is a shame she then switched over to gender stuff and did so poorly in many cases.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> BUT....has CBMW ever repented of their Trinitarian errors?



Only halfway. They still get touchy when you ask them about this. They say it isn't definitional to who they are. Okay, that's great. Now condemn it. They won't do that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

BayouHuguenot said:


> Only halfway. They still get touchy when you ask them about this. They say it isn't definitional to who they are. Okay, that's great. Now condemn it. They won't do that.



Hmmm..... that is troubling. 

Sometimes there are no pure heroes or villains. A champion comes to defend the Trinity and does extremely well at it, only to then go on foolish side-quests to prove men and women can be friends or that soft-feminism should be allowed in the churches (which is already there anyway...most evangelical churches are bastions of enshrined effeminacy). Which makes me wonder...is her main concern over the Trinity at all, or was this CBMW error merely a wedge-issue to push her true social agenda.


----------



## TheInquirer

Byrd’s response at ACE is telling - very unimpressive.









Peeling Yellow Wallpaper


Regarding the questions Jonathan Master asked.




www.reformation21.org

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> Which makes me wonder...is her main concern over the Trinity at all, or was this CBMW error merely a wedge-issue to push her true social agenda.



It's generally futile to speculate on motives, otherwise I can (somewhat fairly) accuse CBMW of "changing the Trinity so they can keep their womens in line."

Part of her book, which I haven't yet read, is a pushback against errant views that do treat women as second-class. You see this in Aristotle and those who follow him. 

Who's the bad guy in this debate? It's never an all-or-nothing. I do think semi-Arianism is much worse than feminism. And what is a feminist, anyway? Is it a Karen on the View? Or it is anyone who isn't a Patriarchalist?

Reactions: Like 6 | Funny 1


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Here is Mark Jones' review.









Review of Aimee Byrd’s, Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood


Aimee Byrd, Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: How the Church Needs to Rediscover Her Purpose (Zondervan, 2020). Aimee Byrd has written a book with a specific focus: as a member in a c…



calvinistinternational.com

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Any sympathy I might have had is gone (I'm one that was turned off seriously by Phillips type Patriarchalists and I have not followed the Byrd saga and such like). The author argues for women reading scripture in public worship; just how different is that from the progs in the PCA? But otoh if you let non ordained men do it on principle this is what you get. Both are exceptions to WLC 156 (intent in the proof text and the sister standard, the assembly's DfPW). It is a duty of the ministry.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jo_Was

Here's the Mortification of Spin responding to some controversies. They are lighthearted, which I can't imagine being, personally, knowing some of the really degrading (un-Christian) things being said about Aimee as far as questioning her faith. But from the mouth of her and colleagues on her aims with this book: https://www.reformation21.org/blog/recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-the-trial

I think it's also helpful to note that, yes, her book title is sensational, but sometimes that is often pushed in publishing, and, yes, even in Christian publishing. You get the sense from the above discussionthat it was pushed to be more sensational than Byrd initially intended. But she does a decent job of explaining how her book does address the elephant in the room.

I see often that Aimee Byrd and Rosaria Butterfield get caught in similar crossfires, sometimes at the same time, and it comes in waves. They're also some of the most prominent women speaking out in the Reformed world. They both have a literary-bent (one being an actual trained English professor), so I think sometimes people can get lost in how they write or talk with a particular style or voice. It's also odd when people critique based on them citing a wide variety of sources, when that's par-for-the-course in any serious academic work of merit, especially theological. But reading their works has never made me question their Reformed status, much less their status as Conservative Christian women. 

For the OPs review in particular, it sounds like much of the rebuttle of the author is "but complementarians don't believe/do what she says they believe/do" so her points are "straw men" which I feel is trying to over-assert the whole as if there *is* a settled, over-arching set of applications that all complementarians agree on, or that because one does not experience it in their particular congregation, that it is not a wide-spread issue.

I'm not really responding to anything in particular, but just noting some things: One thing to keep in mind is that Byrd is not just speaking "for women" and only trying to navigate the damage that can be had in the biblical womanhood movement, but also the same undertones of her narrative, while focused on women, can lead to the reader noticing the loss of a voice for men in the church as well. There's a good part of the Mortification of Spin episode where they bring up the peculiarly American, alpha-centric flavor that biblical manhood has taken up. One of the dangers of biblical manhood/womanhood movement in some of its manifestations, is not just that it can relegate women, but relegate whole populations of men by sending them the message that they are not "manly" or Biblical men (often these can be strung together that to be "manly" *is* to be "biblical") based on certain applications wrought by some of the movement (which can sometimes have that American flair). I think that discussion is worth touching on, for perspective, when people rail on Byrd for only being concerned about "feminist" ideals. Some of the very same points she makes in regards to the female voice and perspective, can also be applied to many men in the church worldwide: some men have lost a voice in the church worldwide because they do not fit into a certain manifestation/mold of the "Biblical manhood" model. 

It's helpful, again, to be reminded that the effects are not universal. Complementarianism does not take the same manifestation/application in all places, though I think it's sort of one of those things that "you know it when you see it" and I have found some Christian marriages in my life that I regard as being such examples of it, and try to model in my life. Byrd intended her book to have a wider reach, not just to complementarians, presbyterians, reformed-folk, but to a broader evangelicalism as well. While the ails of biblical manhood/womanhood can be seen in the Reformed world, I see that it can take a more exacerbated effect in broad evangelicalism where there is often less self-awareness, or discussion, of these ideas, but certain aspects still take root and have strange, and even damaging, applications.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## Kinghezy

TheInquirer said:


> Byrd’s response at ACE is telling - very unimpressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peeling Yellow Wallpaper
> 
> 
> Regarding the questions Jonathan Master asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reformation21.org



Thoughts on this? (I am finding it difficult to differentiate this distinction. To me, it sounds like a distinction without a difference.)

"Then, it’s thrown in there that I use an early feminist image of the “yellow wallpaper” that I say needs to be “broken through.” The yellow wallpaper is not a “feminist image,” it is a metaphor in a book. A feminist wrote the book."


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Let’s be honest here,

If your work is being cited as a “bridge” into egalitarianism by egalitarians, and egalitarians that were once “complementerians” (a softer word for patriarchy) that’s a problem. This is being said by egalitarians themselves of Aimee Byrd’s (and others) work. 

If your work is being cited as a “bridge” into Trinitarian heresy by those who deny the Trinity in any form, that’s a problem.

To use a better more recent example, if being associated with/citing Federal Visionists yadda yadda....(you get the idea) then that’s a problem.

I see the pushing of soft feminism as Perg says above as a great example of Burgess’ work on sins effect on the mind and the slide into heresy and sin. It never starts out with grievous sin/full blown heresy. But small steps by degree and self-deception until one is there.

Am I saying Aimee Byrd is on this path? I don’t know. But her history of posts on Ref21 about bikinis and modesty, followed by approving of “intimate friendships” between men and women, don’t lean towards a good look. For that reason I am suspect of this book. 

Not that I am a fan of CBMW by any means either.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> If your work is being cited as a “bridge” into Trinitarian heresy by those who deny the Trinity in any form, that’s a problem.



Unless I misunderstand, isn't this more true of CBMW than of Byrd?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

BayouHuguenot said:


> Unless I misunderstand, isn't this more true of CBMW than of Byrd?



Yes, CBMW was my target there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> She is a member of the OPC, correct? This may be an ignorant question, but does an OPC pastor review this type of book before it’s published?



Depends on whether the publisher gives him a copy. Or maybe she can send him a pdf. I think I recall she mentioned her session was cool with it.


----------



## AnotherDaniel

A.Joseph said:


> She is a member of the OPC, correct? This may be an ignorant question, but does an OPC pastor review this type of book before it’s published?



Her pastor fully supports her it seems:









Feminism in the Reformed Churches: 1. The Leaders


The Reformed churches have found themselves at war. The battle lines are drawn, and the conflict is underway. This article is the beginning of a series, in which I make a plea to godly readers, to …




purelypresbyterian.com


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Apparently this has unfolded with a controversy at the OPC church the author is a member of; she complained to her session about a ruling elder who was a member of the FB group in question that Mark Jones had been a member of, which makes him persona non grata to reply to his review (though he left the group in 2018 I think I read), for not telling her all the bad things folks in the group were saying about here (to put it simply). The session came to question the RE's competence for office and something transpired against which the elder has filed a formal complaint against the session. The session put out a letter to their congregation containing an accounting of the controversy but in the process has shared screen shots of other's online comments without their permission or respect for their privacy; and that letter is now apparently free floating since I was given a link to it. This mess is just going to keep getting messier.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## arapahoepark

Jo_Was said:


> Here's the Mortification of Spin responding to some controversies. They are lighthearted, which I can't imagine being, personally, knowing some of the really degrading (un-Christian) things being said about Aimee as far as questioning her faith. But from the mouth of her and colleagues on her aims with this book: https://www.reformation21.org/blog/recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-the-trial
> 
> I think it's also helpful to note that, yes, her book title is sensational, but sometimes that is often pushed in publishing, and, yes, even in Christian publishing. You get the sense from the above discussionthat it was pushed to be more sensational than Byrd initially intended. But she does a decent job of explaining how her book does address the elephant in the room.
> 
> I see often that Aimee Byrd and Rosaria Butterfield get caught in similar crossfires, sometimes at the same time, and it comes in waves. They're also some of the most prominent women speaking out in the Reformed world. They both have a literary-bent (one being an actual trained English professor), so I think sometimes people can get lost in how they write or talk with a particular style or voice. It's also odd when people critique based on them citing a wide variety of sources, when that's par-for-the-course in any serious academic work of merit, especially theological. But reading their works has never made me question their Reformed status, much less their status as Conservative Christian women.
> 
> For the OPs review in particular, it sounds like much of the rebuttle of the author is "but complementarians don't believe/do what she says they believe/do" so her points are "straw men" which I feel is trying to over-assert the whole as if there *is* a settled, over-arching set of applications that all complementarians agree on, or that because one does not experience it in their particular congregation, that it is not a wide-spread issue.
> 
> I'm not really responding to anything in particular, but just noting some things: One thing to keep in mind is that Byrd is not just speaking "for women" and only trying to navigate the damage that can be had in the biblical womanhood movement, but also the same undertones of her narrative, while focused on women, can lead to the reader noticing the loss of a voice for men in the church as well. There's a good part of the Mortification of Spin episode where they bring up the peculiarly American, alpha-centric flavor that biblical manhood has taken up. One of the dangers of biblical manhood/womanhood movement in some of its manifestations, is not just that it can relegate women, but relegate whole populations of men by sending them the message that they are not "manly" or Biblical men (often these can be strung together that to be "manly" *is* to be "biblical") based on certain applications wrought by some of the movement (which can sometimes have that American flair). I think that discussion is worth touching on, for perspective, when people rail on Byrd for only being concerned about "feminist" ideals. Some of the very same points she makes in regards to the female voice and perspective, can also be applied to many men in the church worldwide: some men have lost a voice in the church worldwide because they do not fit into a certain manifestation/mold of the "Biblical manhood" model.
> 
> It's helpful, again, to be reminded that the effects are not universal. Complementarianism does not take the same manifestation/application in all places, though I think it's sort of one of those things that "you know it when you see it" and I have found some Christian marriages in my life that I regard as being such examples of it, and try to model in my life. Byrd intended her book to have a wider reach, not just to complementarians, presbyterians, reformed-folk, but to a broader evangelicalism as well. While the ails of biblical manhood/womanhood can be seen in the Reformed world, I see that it can take a more exacerbated effect in broad evangelicalism where there is often less self-awareness, or discussion, of these ideas, but certain aspects still take root and have strange, and even damaging, applications.


Thanks for this.
Probably my first and last post on this thread. Its well trodden ground here.

I have been sympathetic with Mrs. And Byrd's ideas for some time; I haven't read her book but, I intend to. Once the ESS heresy was brought to light, other things soon followed. Piper's views more than really rubbed me the wrong way. Everything was interpreted in terms of a power struggle and was extrapolated to every sphere of life.
Similarly, I have been disgusted by many things I have come across as well advocating some sort of manhood that has more in common with worldly notions of being a 'bad boy ' than the fruit of the Spirit. In many circles, it seems that manhood and womanhood tend to be 'higher life' Christianity. The fruit of the Spirit? That's basic and a bit effeminate, but, lets learn how to be a real man!
More research on my part, left me wondering, how are men and women different? One commentator said that people are living in same sex marriages. His rationale? The husband and wife both have jobs. Others have said similar things. Again, the ideas of subordination (which are always in the context of marriage or the church) are extrapolated to all spheres of life so that way you can tell who is a man or woman easier. "Oh, shes a manager? How masculine!" Sounds weird when you say it out loud.
Many complementarians in general, but especially CBMW, seem to believe that if one doesn't inhabit a role, then that person's gender, sex, gender expression switches. This is the logic of transgenderism. I doubt they have thought it through. What strange bed fellows! Wouldn't surprise me if many converts to LGBT crap, used this argumentation to swim across that river.
Why not say men and women are different by virtue of biology? Its affects many things (hormones, phenotypes, etc) and you can tell who is who usually without trying to pigeon hole the two sexes. I understand the social contagion of transgenderism and that needs to be fought though, I believe largely through grounding it in biology, not stereotypes of what men and women supposedly are or used to be.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jo_Was

A.Joseph said:


> She is a member of the OPC, correct? This may be an ignorant question, but does an OPC pastor review this type of book before it’s published?



She frequently has her elder(s) read her works. Many of her past manuscripts are read/helped by her elder. She has never intended to write in a vacuum and has stated many times the process by which she writes, in accord with her session and leadership in her church. For me, this is in accordance with what her books represent (many around similar topics of women's roles in the church). If I may be so bold to say, despite fear-mongering, that it really doesn't scream outside of the complementarianism one would find in the OPC or like-minded denominations. Reference the Mortification of Spin podcast episode I posted, and Pruitt and Truman also agree that what she says is fairly familiar stuff if one is in the Reformed world, though perhaps some applications may be different. Her theology isn't heretical or un-Reformed or even egalitarian. But, there is certainly room for discussion on points of application: Again, she has explicitly said that she expects there to be differences of application points _because_ that is precisely the role the church must take in these conversations about identity and roles. I feel like a kill joy to say that it's not as sensational as people want it to be. I've read No Little Women which touches on a lot of the same stuff, and her talks and past books are all stuff she's been saying for a long time now. This new book is in some ways just recycled/compiled material she's said/written elsewhere. So to be up-in-arms at this point is to have missed the point. It's meant to be a conversation starter. The church, then, must do the heavy lifting to figure out how to apply our theology. We can have as much correct, orthodox views on complementarianism as we like, but putting right theology into right practice _is_ the hard work of the church, and I think where Byrd would suggest we have the most disconnect--not in that complementarianism as an ideal is to be discarded, but that we aren't always complementarian when we think we are (and that critique can apply to the egalitarian or the patriarchalist alike).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jack K

A.Joseph said:


> She is a member of the OPC, correct? This may be an ignorant question, but does an OPC pastor review this type of book before it’s published?



I doubt Zondervan would require an author to run a book past her church authorities. The author herself could choose to do that, though. And for more academic publications, I understand it's fairly standard practice to get some peer review as a part of the editorial process.

For popular-level books, I have only once had an author tell me, "I want to run these edits by my pastor before we publish this." I respected that author for that commitment. I hope others are at least seeking general approval from their elders for their book projects and the views they espouse. I would think a good Presbyterian ought to be aware of the benefits of this.


----------



## Jo_Was

arapahoepark said:


> Thanks for this.
> Probably my first and last post on this thread. Its well trodden ground here.
> 
> I have been sympathetic with Mrs. And Byrd's ideas for some time; I haven't read her book but, I intend to. Once the ESS heresy was brought to light, other things soon followed. Piper's views more than really rubbed me the wrong way. Everything was interpreted in terms of a power struggle and was extrapolated to every sphere of life.
> Similarly, I have been disgusted by many things I have come across as well advocating some sort of manhood that has more in common with worldly notions of being a 'bad boy ' than the fruit of the Spirit. In many circles, it seems that manhood and womanhood tend to be 'higher life' Christianity. The fruit of the Spirit? That's basic and a bit effeminate, but, lets learn how to be a real man!
> More research on my part, left me wondering, how are men and women different? One commentator said that people are living in same sex marriages. His rationale? The husband and wife both have jobs. Others have said similar things. Again, the ideas of subordination (which are always in the context of marriage or the church) are extrapolated to all spheres of life so that way you can tell who is a man or woman easier. "Oh, shes a manager? How masculine!" Sounds weird when you say it out loud.
> Many complementarians in general, but especially CBMW, seem to believe that if one doesn't inhabit a role, then that person's gender, sex, gender expression switches. This is the logic of transgenderism. I doubt they have thought it through. What strange bed fellows! Wouldn't surprise me if many converts to LGBT crap, used this argumentation to swim across that river.
> Why not say men and women are different by virtue of biology? Its affects many things (hormones, phenotypes, etc) and you can tell who is who usually without trying to pigeon hole the two sexes. I understand the social contagion of transgenderism and that needs to be fought though, I believe largely through grounding it in biology, not stereotypes of what men and women supposedly are or used to be.



I am sympathetic to your final thoughts, as I studied and now teach biology. I worry that some Christians, in battling LGB, accidentally fall into the same definitions of identifying a "man" or a "woman" that the transgender movement uses. I don't think Christians realize just how different the "T" is from the "LGB" part. It is not surprising that many LGB folk are adamantly against T because they have such vastly different philosophical underpinnings. The unfortunate irony of transgenderism that meets fundamentalist patriarchal ideas: that certain superficial, cultural conceptions of what a woman/man does or likes is evidence of their status as a woman/man and any cultural conception that tips the other way is _used as evidence_ to suggest (in patriarchal) that one is NOT acting like they ought or (in transgenderism) that would should BECOME the one they ought. But that may be for another thread to discuss. 

To connect to this thread more pointedly, I do think some of those worrisome things you mentioned are exactly the manifestations of the biblical manhood/womanhood movement that Byrd is trying to point out. She combats the notion of catering the Gospel, the Scriptures, to men _or_ women (Just look at a Bible section in any store!), and tries to show how women and men are both integrated into the Scripture narrative. One area she stresses this is in theological education. I do think that sometimes women, especially young women, are relegated to feel-good studies that beget feel-good studies about life as a woman, and often do not get as rigorous a "big T" theology education/mentoring in the same church as boy counterparts. Similarly, as you note, we can paint a picture of the Christian man as more about what he "does" than what, or rather who, he believes and can also make young men a works-based-salvation implicit in their walk; where doing and acting is valued above some of those more subdued traits of peace, patience, compassion, nurture that must also be cultivated within the Christian walk. In the episode Iisted above, I think it is Truman or Pruitt who stumble on the irony that we often bring in Marxist categorization into the church, by purporting the faith into categories of identity. The Gospel is not a Gospel "for women" or "for men" or "for people of color" or "for white people" or "for the oppressed" or whatever other category one wants to make it and market it--precisely because it is Good News, it is Good News for all, regardless of human categories. Byrd's emphasis on the women-centered interruptions, like stories of Ruth and Naomi, within the Scriptures, is her way of showing how the Scriptures have always been revealing a Gospel for men and women, slave and free, Jew and Gentile. And I can think of so many other stories from Scripture that highlight people coming into the covenant that don't fit the mold of the covenant (like Ruth), but were foreshadows of Christ bringing together all peoples to himself, as the Church, his bride.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> I also think we can overcomplicate these things. I like how Washer breaks it down here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if we graduated from the school of Washer there would be no need for an education in Byrdonomics.



Except on the covenant, sacraments, church government, and assurance.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist

NaphtaliPress said:


> Apparently this has unfolded with a controversy at the OPC church the author is a member of; she complained to her session about a ruling elder who was a member of the FB group in question that Mark Jones had been a member of, which makes him persona non grata to reply to his review (though he left the group in 2018 I think I read), for not telling her all the bad things folks in the group were saying about here (to put it simply). The session came to question the RE's competence for office and something transpired against which the elder has filed a formal complaint against the session. The session put out a letter to their congregation containing an accounting of the controversy but in the process has shared screen shots of other's online comments without their permission or respect for their privacy; and that letter is now apparently free floating since I was given a link to it. This mess is just going to keep getting messier.



That group, Geneva Commons, is a militant FV group. If you think Doug Wilson is arrogant, check that group out. I got kicked out of it for questioning Wilson.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> Yeah, good point!



This is troubling, too.








Paul Washer Endorsement


Many people have asked me about NCFIC, you know, and they've asked me about my participation in the conferences and many people have said, “Well, aren't they extreme on the family or they do not put enough attention on the church or that they're not gospel-centered.” And I think, my goodness...




ncfic.org

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress

BayouHuguenot said:


> That group, Geneva Commons, is a militant FV group. If you think Doug Wilson is arrogant, check that group out. I got kicked out of it for questioning Wilson.


Folks I am FB friends with are in the group said when I asked about this, "Many people like Wilson but the site is not militant FV. There may be a few guys in it who lean more to that end of things but they would be on the whole where Mark Jones is on his book on Antinomianism." I told him the person I heard this from had been critical of Wilson and he repeated that yeah, lot of folks like Wilson in the group. So apparently it is not a safe place to question Wilson's orthodoxy (like here).

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

NaphtaliPress said:


> Folks I am FB friends with are in the group said when I asked about this, "Many people like Wilson but the site is not militant FV. There may be a few guys in it who lean more to that end of things but they would be on the whole where Mark Jones is on his book on Antinomianism."



That's identical to saying "I'm not racist, but....."

That group is the FV organ on the internet now. 

I criticized Wilson and the admin banned me. Fair enough, it's his group. He then started PMing me and wanting to face time after he had banned me. I told him to let it go.

Reactions: Informative 3


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Jacob, Do you want me to hashtag and rope you in to defend this on where this conversation is taking place on my friend's wall? Otherwise I"m fine dropping it.


BayouHuguenot said:


> That's identical to saying "I'm not racist, but....."
> 
> That group is the FV organ on the internet now.
> 
> I criticized Wilson and the admin banned me. Fair enough, it's his group. He then started PMing me and wanting to face time after he had banned me. I told him to let it go.


----------



## RamistThomist

NaphtaliPress said:


> Jacob, Do you want me to hashtag and rope you in to defend this on where this conversation is taking place on my friend's wall? Otherwise I"m fine dropping it.



I might check it out on your wall. Depends on who the person is. But yeah, I can drop it here.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It's not my wall but Gavin Beer's; his post about the Mark Jones review.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

NaphtaliPress said:


> It's not my wall but Gavin Beer's; his post about the Mark Jones review.



Ah....yes, I see now. Yeah, I'll pass on that because I bear no ill will to those individuals, among other things. It's not worth it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew35

Americans are funny, and Christian Americans are no exception:

Middle Eastern/Far Eastern gender norms/patriarchy = cultural traditions to respect/work around.

Deep South/Far Western (e.g. Idaho) gender norms/patriarchy = ignorance and bigotry to dismantle/destroy.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie

My favorite passage on this subject, ever, was in a Larry Crabb book. Yes, the Crabb who was vigorously accused of psycho babble, which I always thought was unfair given that he seemed to expose our self centered sinfulness better than any of his critics. But I digress.

He laid it out very simply. We are self centered. We are all about ourselves instead of being about God and loving others.

He said that when a man truly pursues God and trying to love and serve well the people in his life, he will become what we think of as stereotypical masculinity. More protective, stronger, harder working to provide, etc. And when a woman stops focusing on herself and tries to love and serve the people around her, she will become what we think of as the feminine stereotype. More gentle, more kind, more motherly, more helpful. Both the man and the woman may do the same thing in the house, but the woman will be more "feminine" as she does it, and the man more "masculine", if the motives are godly motives.

I don't like to even waste my time on these debates any more. If a guy tries to push his view of men's roles because he is arrogant or insecure or selfish, at the end of the day he won't be masculine. And any woman who pushes herself will end up unfeminine. I've seen this over and over and over. It's worth I suppose the occasional discussion about women as lawyers or cops or that sort of thing, and its worth upholding the biblical teaching on men in leadership as a hill to die on. But at the end of the day it has to be about heart motives or you are just wasting your time.

I like Aimee, and I really really like Trueman her co worker, but I think I'll pass on the book only because it just isn't worth it to me. You can cut through the legalism of a group in CBMW like say SGM ( we were in them) trying to ram their view of the role of women down our throats very easily. Are they exuding a heart of serving, or a heart of control to keep people in line? People are not dumb, women can intuitively feel when the men in their lives care and when they don't. And men can tell when women really are devoted to serving or not. And no matter what you do, at the end of the day the woman will feel like he is either spineless or a tyrant if he is self centered at his core, and the man will think she is a you know what rhymes with witch if she is self focused. Motives in the long run have got to be the focus of all this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew35

lynnie said:


> My favorite passage on this subject, ever, was in a Larry Crabb book. Yes, the Crabb who was vigorously accused of psycho babble, which I always thought was unfair given that he seemed to expose our self centered sinfulness better than any of his critics. But I digress.
> 
> He laid it out very simply. We are self centered. We are all about ourselves instead of being about God and loving others.
> 
> He said that when a man truly pursues God and trying to love and serve well the people in his life, he will become what we think of as stereotypical masculinity. More protective, stronger, harder working to provide, etc. And when a woman stops focusing on herself and tries to love and serve the people around her, she will become what we think of as the feminine stereotype. More gentle, more kind, more motherly, more helpful. Both the man and the woman may do the same thing in the house, but the woman will be more "feminine" as she does it, and the man more "masculine", if the motives are godly motives.
> 
> I don't like to even waste my time on these debates any more. If a guy tries to push his view of men's roles because he is arrogant or insecure or selfish, at the end of the day he won't be masculine. And any woman who pushes herself will end up unfeminine. I've seen this over and over and over. It's worth I suppose the occasional discussion about women as lawyers or cops or that sort of thing, and its worth upholding the biblical teaching on men in leadership as a hill to die on. But at the end of the day it has to be about heart motives or you are just wasting your time.
> 
> I like Aimee, and I really really like Trueman her co worker, but I think I'll pass on the book only because it just isn't worth it to me. You can cut through the legalism of a group in CBMW like say SGM ( we were in them) trying to ram their view of the role of women down our throats very easily. Are they exuding a heart of serving, or a heart of control to keep people in line? People are not dumb, women can intuitively feel when the men in their lives care and when they don't. And men can tell when women really are devoted to serving or not. And no matter what you do, at the end of the day the woman will feel like he is either spineless or a tyrant if he is self centered at his core, and the man will think she is a you know what rhymes with witch if she is self focused. Motives in the long run have got to be the focus of all this.


I would honestly love to get Trueman and Pruitt's _real _take on the book. I feel like in the discussion with her on MOS, just like with the Rachel Miller interview, they pitched a lot of softballs.

Can't say I blame them. I'd do the same with friends. But a lot of the "It's not as controversial as people are making it out to be," and "Most of my disagreements are in the application," along with all the other "tempest in a teapot" type comments aren't exactly glowing endorsements either.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

BayouHuguenot said:


> And I know CBMW types don't like to hear this, but until they formally condemn and disavow all forms of ESS, I don't truck with them.


And there you have it—the neo-feminist billy club. Diasagreement with Byrd and her ilk = ESS. Apply with firm and repeated force directly to the forehead of all who disagree with you.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

arapahoepark said:


> I have been sympathetic with Mrs. And Byrd's ideas for some time; I haven't read her book but, I intend to. Once the ESS heresy was brought to light, other things soon followed. Piper's views more than really rubbed me the wrong way. Everything was interpreted in terms of a power struggle and was extrapolated to every sphere of life.
> Similarly, I have been disgusted by many things I have come across as well advocating some sort of manhood that has more in common with worldly notions of being a 'bad boy ' than the fruit of the Spirit. In many circles, it seems that manhood and womanhood tend to be 'higher life' Christianity. The fruit of the Spirit? That's basic and a bit effeminate, but, lets learn how to be a real man!
> More research on my part, left me wondering, how are men and women different? One commentator said that people are living in same sex marriages. His rationale? The husband and wife both have jobs. Others have said similar things. Again, the ideas of subordination (which are always in the context of marriage or the church) are extrapolated to all spheres of life so that way you can tell who is a man or woman easier. "Oh, shes a manager? How masculine!" Sounds weird when you say it out loud.
> Many complementarians in general, but especially CBMW, seem to believe that if one doesn't inhabit a role, then that person's gender, sex, gender expression switches. This is the logic of transgenderism. I doubt they have thought it through. What strange bed fellows! Wouldn't surprise me if many converts to LGBT crap, used this argumentation to swim across that river.
> Why not say men and women are different by virtue of biology? Its affects many things (hormones, phenotypes, etc) and you can tell who is who usually without trying to pigeon hole the two sexes. I understand the social contagion of transgenderism and that needs to be fought though, I believe largely through grounding it in biology, not stereotypes of what men and women supposedly are or used to be.


Brother, forgive me, but this defense of Byrd amounts to little more than, "Some of her opponents are really, really bad." That may be true, but it's not an argument.


----------



## arapahoepark

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Brother, forgive me, but this defense of Byrd amounts to little more than, "Some of her opponents are really, really bad." That may be true, but it's not an argument.


you didn't bother to read the rest of the post did you? Guilt by association isn't an argument either.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark

C. M. Sheffield said:


> And there you have it—the neo-feminist billy club. Apply with firm and repeated force directly to the forehead of all who disagree with you.


Brother, forgive me as well but, I have seen very 'peculiar' notions peddled here and elsewhere that seem Biblically arbitrary. I do believe that it is very much more mainstream than I ever thought and it needs to be defended against. Perhaps I am insecure but, I hate seeing things talking about how men need to things that Mark Driscoll was spouting that is not only against my temperament but, completely anti Biblical. Undeniably, as a man I was made for a lot of things but, a lot comes across as very simplistic and ashistorical.
I don't think being a soft complementarian is a Trojan Horse.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

arapahoepark said:


> you didn't bother to read the rest of the post did you? Guilt by association isn't an argument either.


To be clear, I did read your entire post. But I do not see how my comments implied any "guilt by association."


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

arapahoepark said:


> Perhaps I am insecure but, I hate seeing things talking about how men need to things that Mark Driscoll was spouting


I would say this is an example of _guilt by association_.


----------



## arapahoepark

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I would say this is an example of _guilt by association_.


Lol. Tied me into Byrd's views which you assume must be wrong headed at best. No interaction with my comments.
They say the same things; might as well deal with them in the same spot.

So where do you disagree and why? Have you read Byrd, Green? Perhaps some egalitarians and not just Piper's or Grudem's interpretations?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

arapahoepark said:


> Lol. Tied me into Byrd's views which you assume must be wrong headed at best. No interaction with my comments.
> They say the same things; might as well deal with them in the same spot.
> 
> So where do you disagree and why? Have you read Byrd, Green? Perhaps some egalitarians and not just Piper's or Grudem's interpretations?


The shoe may just as well be put on the other foot...



> Lol. Tied me into Piper's views which you assume must be wrong headed at best. No interaction with my comments.
> They say the same things; might as well deal with them in the same spot.
> 
> So where do you disagree and why? Have you read Piper and Grudem? Perhaps some complemetarians and not just Byrd's and Miller's interpretations?




Let me be clear, I would not describe myself as a complentarian. I am not a fan of CBMW or Piper or Grudem (I don't believe I have a single book by either one of them in my rather large library). But when these conversations come up, and I (or others) say anything critical of Byrd or Miller, we are immediately lumped in with their ilk. It's a cheap tactic.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## arapahoepark

C. M. Sheffield said:


> There is a very clear pattern in these discussions.
> 
> The shoe may just as well be put on the other foot...



Perhaps. I thought I have generally described the views I have run across and showed the ramifications.




> Let me be clear, I would not describe myself as a complentarian. I am not a fan of CBMW or Piper or Grudem (I don't believe I have a single book by either one of them in my rather large library). But when these conversations come up, and I (or others) say anything critical of Byrd or Miller, we are immediately lumped in with their ilk. It's a cheap tactic.




Anyway, Re. Sheffield.
I apologize for pouncing on you now and in the past. I do notice a trend in these threads where no one (not talking of you) is the wiser; no one is persuaded, and motives are impunged. One likes the status quo (or the status quo of the Medieval era, depending on the blogger) the others have critiques, personal or otherwise.

I am glad to know you that you aren't a fan of CBMW. Seems we spoke past each other.


----------



## RamistThomist

C. M. Sheffield said:


> And there you have it—the neo-feminist billy club. Diasagreement with Byrd and her ilk = ESS. Apply with firm and repeated force directly to the forehead of all who disagree with you.



I don't agree with Byrd on everything. I know not all CBMW types hold to semi-Arianism, but their organization specifically allows for it. That should never happen.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Four Clarifying (I Hope) Thoughts on the Complementarian Conversation


The most authentic and most attractive complementarianism will seek to promote all that is good and true and beautiful in God making us men and women.




www.thegospelcoalition.org





This article is very timely because I've been musing about this controversy and something struck me about the whole CBMW movement.
Some of you are not going to like this but I sort of settled on the fact that something like Aimee's book was necessary because of the distortion brought out by an imbalanced focus on one area of our lives as Saints. The most proximate thing I could compare it to is Revoice and the Side B movement.

I told you guys you wouldn't like the comparison but hear me out.

I think the Side B deformity arises precisely out of people moving something that is part of the Christian life to the central pillar and then adjusting their theology of sanctification around it. When you have people like Wes Hill or Nate Colllins writing almost exclusively about SSA (and a whole lot of people) then you inevitably are going to start running down rabbit trails. C.S. Lewis' offhand remark about homosexuals having a genius for friendship metastasizes into gayness being a 1st order creation issue. Hold a conference for people struggling with SSA and you've got a fill a docket so you approve a seminar on "gay treasure".

It reminds me of the pastor's wife who complained to me about a seminar at a GA a few years ago for LGT ministry. She went to get some insight on how to minister to "people like that" and came away disappointed because they "...just talked about union with Christ." I asked her: "Well, what did you actually expect?"

It reminds me of Calvin's caution about theological speculation and how it is better to limp along slowly with the Scriptures rather than plunge headlong into theological speculation.

That's what is wrong with both Revoice and (in part) CBMW.

It is not inconsequential that much of CBMW speculation is built upon a foundation that is heterodox (ESS). It's hard to "unbake" all the fecal matter in the many cakes that have been cooked that otherwise had some true things to say but were permeated with basic theological error.
Then there's the need to answer the question every day: "So, we're the CBMW...what are we going to write about today to justify the idea that we have this whole movement?" How many times can you actually deal with the relevant Biblical passages. Being male or female is not something that is always "top of mind" . We live with it and assume it but we're not really focused upon it and it's unhealthy to place that as the central pillar of our thought.

Finally, one of the features of Kevin's article that movements have in common with many of us elders is an under-appreciation for natural law. We simply can't live out our lives as men and women by merely exegeting a few Biblical passages and using them as a manual for manhood or woman hood. We can't turn the Proverbs into apodictic law. We need a robust natural law that is under girded by our understanding of special Revelation. From a few things I've read, I think the over-reaction to "women aren't good at that..." is to fall into the trap that DeYoung describes where male and female are ultimately rather androgynous. We KNOW there is a difference between men and women. We don't have to come up with stereotypes to draw hard lines but we also need to need to be able to wisely answer the question: "Daddy, what does it mean to be a man...."

Reactions: Like 6 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## a mere housewife

Not so much on topic but just generally I've been reflecting on this quote by Augustine:

'Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are.'

One might think of Hope as necessarily feminine because of being the metaphorical 'mother'; but if we're dividing up traits into hard lines, I think many would put Anger and Courage as masculine qualities. Augustine called them daughters. That's a bit awing and wonderful.

& something also beautiful though a little more complicating, from Chrysostom:
'For since they had a truceless war with the Jews, He continually repeated the, “Peace be unto you,” giving them, to counterbalance the war, the consolation. And so this was the first word that He spake to them after the Resurrection, (wherefore also Paul continually saith, “Grace be unto you and peace,”) and to women He giveth good tidings of joy, because that sex was in sorrow, and had received this as the first curse. Therefore He giveth good tidings suitable respectively, to men, peace, because of their war; joy to women, because of their sorrow.…'

Childbearing is a dignity we have, unique to us, and one of the reasons historically that women have not been liable for the draft as soldiers. I don't think all traditional wisdom can be thrown out without denigrating what we should honor in one another.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## A.Joseph

I think you expressed yourself well here and your points are valid for sure. My only observation is I recall a First Things article that noted the category of ‘heterosexual’ as developed centuries ago to solidify a label for proper sexual norm. These type of categorizations probably gave more legitimacy to a sexual identity as a defining feature making an illegitimate issue, at least from a biblical standard and acknowledgement, into the main thrust (along with abortion) of a culture war. I think I’m inline with your way of thinking, but I think that was a bit of a starting point of the problem.

I think now Byrd is actually overcorrecting in her response in advocating for women to teach men, etc.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Four Clarifying (I Hope) Thoughts on the Complementarian Conversation
> 
> 
> The most authentic and most attractive complementarianism will seek to promote all that is good and true and beautiful in God making us men and women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thegospelcoalition.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article is very timely because I've been musing about this controversy and something struck me about the whole CBMW movement.
> Some of you are not going to like this but I sort of settled on the fact that something like Aimee's book was necessary because of the distortion brought out by an imbalanced focus on one area of our lives as Saints. The most proximate thing I could compare it to is Revoice and the Side B movement.
> 
> I told you guys you wouldn't like the comparison but hear me out.
> 
> I think the Side B deformity arises precisely out of people moving something that is part of the Christian life to the central pillar and then adjusting their theology of sanctification around it. When you have people like Wes Hill or Nate Colllins writing almost exclusively about SSA (and a whole lot of people) then you inevitably are going to start running down rabbit trails. C.S. Lewis' offhand remark about homosexuals having a genius for friendship metastasizes into gayness being a 1st order creation issue. Hold a conference for people struggling with SSA and you've got a fill a docket so you approve a seminar on "gay treasure".
> 
> It reminds me of the pastor's wife who complained to me about a seminar at a GA a few years ago for LGT ministry. She went to get some insight on how to minister to "people like that" and came away disappointed because they "...just talked about union with Christ." I asked her: "Well, what did you actually expect?"
> 
> It reminds me of Calvin's caution about theological speculation and how it is better to limp along slowly with the Scriptures rather than plunge headlong into theological speculation.
> 
> That's what is wrong with both Revoice and (in part) CBMW.
> 
> It is not inconsequential that much of CBMW speculation is built upon a foundation that is heterodox (ESS). It's hard to "unbake" all the fecal matter in the many cakes that have been cooked that otherwise had some true things to say but were permeated with basic theological error.
> Then there's the need to answer the question every day: "So, we're the CBMW...what are we going to write about today to justify the idea that we have this whole movement?" How many times can you actually deal with the relevant Biblical passages. Being male or female is not something that is always "top of mind" . We live with it and assume it but we're not really focused upon it and it's unhealthy to place that as the central pillar of our thought.
> 
> Finally, one of the features of Kevin's article that movements have in common with many of us elders is an under-appreciation for natural law. We simply can't live out our lives as men and women by merely exegeting a few Biblical passages and using them as a manual for manhood or woman hood. We can't turn the Proverbs into apodictic law. We need a robust natural law that is under girded by our understanding of special Revelation. From a few things I've read, I think the over-reaction to "women aren't good at that..." is to fall into the trap that DeYoung describes where male and female are ultimately rather androgynous. We KNOW there is a difference between men and women. We don't have to come up with stereotypes to draw hard lines but we also need to need to be able to wisely answer the question: "Daddy, what does it mean to be a man...."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Semper Fidelis said:


> Aimee's book was necessary because of the distortion brought out by an imbalanced focus on one area of our lives as Saints.


If there really was a distortion because of imbalance in the thinking on this issue, a different and opposite distortion cannot be seen as the answer. And I'm afraid that is all Aimee Byrd is offering. But my enemy's enemy is not my fiend. What's needed is a careful study of Scripture's teaching on the matter. That's where the discussion needs to be moored. What saith the Scripture?

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Kinghezy

Todd's reaction: https://www.reformation21.org/blog/the-hunt-for-the-thin-complementarian

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

After some disagreement among the several contributing writers, the founder of purelypresbyterian has had the posts there by Michael Spangler removed. He's catching all sorts of flack for this but I think it was a principled and gutsy decision given what predictably would and has happened with the reaction. This has come to involve all the worst elements of social media (the laughing react serving as the catcall, derisive words, etc.) and should, whether or not it does, develop into judicial cases to resolve matters. Here is the reasoning and a link (I don't think the reason is posted to the site; this is to the FB page):
"He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears." (Prov. 26.17)​​The feminism articles have been deleted. These articles pertain to an ongoing conflict that Purely Presbyterian had no business getting involved with, and their content is outside the scope of our intent. They also did not match up with what is stated on our About page:​​“Things are handled rather by way of Positive Assertion than of Polemicall Dissertation, (which too commonly degenerates into verball strifes, 1 Tim. 6.3,4. 2 Tim. 2.23. and vain-jaingling, 1 Tim. 1.6.) and where any dissenting opinions or objections are refelled [refuted], we hope it is with that sobriety, meeknesse and moderation of spirit, that any unprejudiced judgment may perceive, we had rather gain than grieve those that dissent from us, we indeavor rather to heale up than to teare open the rent, and that we contend more for truth than victory.” (Preface to Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici)​​This decision was made by Seni Adeyemi, who originally made the website, although other contributors disagreed with the decision.​​My sincere apologies for poorly handling this situation.​




Potter said:


> Her pastor fully supports her it seems:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feminism in the Reformed Churches: 1. The Leaders
> 
> 
> The Reformed churches have found themselves at war. The battle lines are drawn, and the conflict is underway. This article is the beginning of a series, in which I make a plea to godly readers, to …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> purelypresbyterian.com





NaphtaliPress said:


> Apparently this has unfolded with a controversy at the OPC church the author is a member of; she complained to her session about a ruling elder who was a member of the FB group in question that Mark Jones had been a member of, which makes him persona non grata to reply to his review (though he left the group in 2018 I think I read), for not telling her all the bad things folks in the group were saying about here (to put it simply). The session came to question the RE's competence for office and something transpired against which the elder has filed a formal complaint against the session. The session put out a letter to their congregation containing an accounting of the controversy but in the process has shared screen shots of other's online comments without their permission or respect for their privacy; and that letter is now apparently free floating since I was given a link to it. This mess is just going to keep getting messier.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## arapahoepark

C. M. Sheffield said:


> If there really was a distortion because of imbalance in the thinking on this issue, a different and opposite distortion cannot be seen as the answer. And I'm afraid that is all Aimee Byrd is offering. But my enemy's enemy is not my fiend. What's needed is a careful study of Scripture's teaching on the matter. That's where the discussion needs to be moored. What saith the Scripture?


And again have you read her arguments or just had them mediated to you? She's not advocating androgyny.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

> This decision was made by Seni Adeyemi, who originally made the website, although other contributors disagreed with the decision.



Huh. I always thought PP was Paul Barth's, and Seni was just a contributor.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I don't know the history of the site, but I think Paul wrote that.


SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Huh. I always thought PP was Paul Barth's, and Seni was just a contributor.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

arapahoepark said:


> And again have you read her arguments or just had them mediated to you?


That's a fair question. And one that may just as well be asked of you. 


arapahoepark said:


> I haven't read her book but, I intend to.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't know the history of the site, but I think Paul wrote that.



Ah, I see. I thought that was YOUR quote.


----------



## mvdm

I am a member of Genevan Commons, a group that has over 500 members, consisting of many ministers, elders, and women in good standing from the URC, OPC, RPCNA, and PCA, none of which have I ever seen promoting FV errors. Painting the whole group as "arrogant" and as "militant FV" is simply rank slander. 



BayouHuguenot said:


> That group, Geneva Commons, is a militant FV group. If you think Doug Wilson is arrogant, check that group out.


----------



## BottleOfTears

Andrew35 said:


> Americans are funny, and Christian Americans are no exception:
> 
> Middle Eastern/Far Eastern gender norms/patriarchy = cultural traditions to respect/work around.
> 
> Deep South/Far Western (e.g. Idaho) gender norms/patriarchy = ignorance and bigotry to dismantle/destroy.


This is an overgeneralisation but there is some truth in it. Still, the problem is that the Middle East, the Far East, Europe, and America all have different ideas of gender norms, and very different ideas about the way the rest of society should be run. Often the trad gender roles are just a piece of the puzzle, is it really that easy to just take one piece and reject the rest?

I think that there are shared norms, and that these are in some sense grounded in gender without being arbitrary. That said, a lot of the discussions around owning guns, for example, are so foreign to someone not from the US, I think Carl Trueman was right to point out the American style of the whole thing. I find US Christians have a much greater problem with this whole thing than people here in the UK.

One thing you must remember though, is that this overthrowing of cultural norms comes from the Enlightenment originally, and much of what you Americans hold dear and count as manly comes straight from this source. The extolling of "freedom" in owning guns and using them to protect your family, and the idea that any man can rise up in the ranks by his own strength, comes from the same place. Those kind of "obvious" things aren't so obvious to the rest of us. Even the obsession with eating steak and such is rather strange to me.

Indeed, the idea that women should stay home and the men go out and work is much easier to argue as a near-absolute standard if you think that any man can try hard enough and earn a lucrative job so that only they need to work.

Basically, my point is, it's clear even from the Very American perspective that not everything "traditional" from pre-modern times is great. I think this kind of arguing is too simplistic. I can guarantee you would find things that these other countries assume are natural to be rather strange.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## arapahoepark

C. M. Sheffield said:


> That's a fair question. And one that may just as well be asked of you.


I've read everything else she wrote and that Trueman wrote on the subject and do not find it objectionable; quite the opposite in fact.


----------



## RamistThomist

mvdm said:


> I am a member of Genevan Commons, a group that has over 500 members, consisting of many ministers, elders, and women in good standing from the URC, OPC, RPCNA, and PCA, none of which have I ever seen promoting FV errors. Painting the whole group as "arrogant" and as "militant FV" is simply rank slander.



Oh I am sure the lurkers probably aren't. But before I got kicked off for criticizing Wilson, I saw routine dismissing of those who have concerns over FV false teaching, not to mention slander and invective against guys like Scott Clark.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## mvdm

BayouHuguenot said:


> Oh I am sure the lurkers probably aren't. But before I got kicked off for criticizing Wilson, I saw routine dismissing of those who have concerns over FV false teaching, not to mention slander and invective against guys like Scott Clark.


Brother, I'm not a lurker there. A vast number of men and women there are faithful brothers and sisters who are not lurkers. You have broad-brushed defamed them. Don't deflect the issue to silly nonsense about Scott Clark.. Just repent, apologize, and move on.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

arapahoepark said:


> I've read everything else she wrote and that Trueman wrote on the subject and do not find it objectionable; quite the opposite in fact.


Well, I've read quite a bit of her blog in recent years and things she's contributed in other places. I've listened to her talks and watched/read a handful of interviews. I have also read the articles of those who both affirm and disagree with the positions she's taken. So, my observations are my own based on an intelligent assessment of the things she has written as well as the explanations of them she has given. It is not necessary to conlcude that those who disagree with us, do so from ignorance.


----------



## arapahoepark

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Well, I've read quite a bit of her blog in recent years and things she's contributed in other places. I've listened to her talks and watched/read a handful of interviews. I have also read the articles of those who both affirm and disagree with the positions she's taken. So, my observations are my own based on an intelligent assessment of the things she has written as well as the explanations of them she has given. It is not necessary to conlcude that those who disagree with us, do so from ignorance.


Good to know. So forgive me if I haven't seen any interaction...


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

arapahoepark said:


> So forgive me if I haven't seen any interaction


I appreciate your apology. Of course I forgive you.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Speaking of Aimee's blog... Something I've noticed about Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller is their defensiveness. They wrote books which were overtly polemical and then acted surprised that anyone would have the gall to disagree with them. If anyone says, blogs, or tweets a word against them, they have to respond with a tediously long blog post rebutting every one of their opponents assertions. I haven't encountered this in many other writers. 

One other thing one can't help but notice is their self-promotion. Whenever they post anything online, they have an image of their book as the cover. Just go to Ref21 right now and count the number of times you see the cover of Aimee's book. It's a bit off-putting.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew35

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Speaking of Aimee's blog... Something I've noticed about Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller is their defensiveness. They wrote books which were overtly polemical and then acted surprised that anyone would have the gall to disagree with them. If anyone says, blogs, or tweets a word against them, they have to respond with a tediously long blog post rebutting every one of their opponents assertions. I haven't encountered this in many other writers.
> 
> One other thing one can't help but notice is their self-promotion. Whenever they post anything online, they have an image of their book as the cover. Just go to Ref21 right now and count the number of times you see the cover of Aimee's book. It's a bit off-putting.


That awkward moment in your MOS interview (Rachel Miller) when Carl Trueman jokingly refers to you as a "good Hegelian" for your lynchpin argument on the pendular motion of history....


----------



## BottleOfTears

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Speaking of Aimee's blog... Something I've noticed about Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller is their defensiveness. They wrote books which were overtly polemical and then acted surprised that anyone would have the gall to disagree with them. If anyone says, blogs, or tweets a word against them, they have to respond with a tediously long blog post rebutting every one of their opponents assertions. I haven't encountered this in many other writers.
> 
> One other thing one can't help but notice is their self-promotion. Whenever they post anything online, they have an image of their book as the cover. Just go to Ref21 right now and count the number of times you see the cover of Aimee's book. It's a bit off-putting.


Are they overly defensive? I think what they are surprised about is not that people disagree with them, but rather the things some people say about them, for instance the accusation that Aimee only kicked off the ESS debate in order to sneak in feminism or some such thing into the church.

Frankly, I think the overly defensive ones are those who hear about a book being published by Aimee that they suspect they may disagree with and then jump in making noise about ulterior motives.

This often happens before books of hers have even been published, and even after by people who have never read a single page.

On the subject of responses, I usually only see them respond to say, a short article or review, with a short article of their own. That's seems to be a reasonable response.

I mean there's no number of theologians and authors online who write articles responding to articles responding to articles. Essays in theology journals are a whole other story. Try looking up what Calvin taught on union with Christ and how that relates to justification/sanctification(for instance) and you'll see what I mean.

And those would be the more reserved examples.

Not to mention people who spend all day arguing on Twitter. Aimee doesn't even tweet that much. I'm presuming you don't use Twitter, because there are much worse examples.

Moreover, if you want "defensive" there are definitely other places to look.

I really cannot see how they are an exceptional case.

Regarding their books, that seems to be rather subjective. Most Christian websites have books written by people there. I mean go to Ligonier, Grace to You, Desiring God, or TGC and count the number of books that appear. And honestly, if you are talking about a book it makes sense to have the cover as the image for the article, it's why pretty much all reviews do that.

EDIT: After having been to Ref21 (on mobile) I have seen three images of the the book cover. One from the MoS episode on the book, and two as the images for two articles, both of which were responding to reviews of the book, one of which was mostly about the book cover itself and the "yellow wallpaper" metaphor. All seem rather reasonable to me.

Honestly, it just seems like you're just looking for things to criticize. This is the reason why Aimee and Rachel get "defensive", far more time is spent on speculation about feminist conspiracies and strange criticisms like these than on their actual arguments.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist

mvdm said:


> Don't deflect the issue to silly nonsense about Scott Clark.. Just repent, apologize, and move on.



No. The most I'll do is modify my original statement to "the ethos of the group is militantly FV and the ethos attacks godly ministers like Scott Clark."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

I'll make one other concession: Geneva Commons isn't "FV" in the sense of the pure 2002-2003 conferences. The spirit of Lusk and Jordan has more or less passed from the scene. I think Neonomians or what DG Hart calls "The Obedience Boys" is a better moniker for GC.


----------



## SRoper

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Speaking of Aimee's blog... Something I've noticed about Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller is their defensiveness. They wrote books which were overtly polemical and then acted surprised that anyone would have the gall to disagree with them. If anyone says, blogs, or tweets a word against them, they have to respond with a tediously long blog post rebutting every one of their opponents assertions. I haven't encountered this in many other writers.



There's no way for them to engage correctly. If they don't respond they are too weak and shouldn't have written their books if they weren't willing to defend them. If they respond in part their response is emotional and doesn't address the substance of the critique sufficiently. Now, apparently, a response in detail is considered overly defensive.

I mean I guess it is consistent for a certain brand of complementarian. For them the writing and defense of books is public which is the sphere of men.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

SRoper said:


> I mean I guess it is consistent for a certain brand of complementarian. For them the writing and defense of books is public which is the sphere of men.


That's cheap.


----------



## SRoper

C. M. Sheffield said:


> That's cheap.



This is the brand I am referring to, from OPC Pastor Michael Spangler:



> The enemy is feminism. By _feminism_ I mean the ideology that disputes the following facts:
> 
> *1. God made men stronger, and appointed them to public work, and to rule in family, church, and state. *(1 Sam. 4:9; 1 Cor. 16:13; Gen. 3:19; Prov. 31:23; 1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23; 1 Tim. 3:4; 1 Tim. 2:8, 12; 3:2; Titus 1:6; Ex. 18:21; Prov. 31:23; Num. 1:2–3)
> 
> *2. God made women weaker, and appointed them to domestic work, and to submit to the rule of men.* (1 Peter 3:7; 1 Tim. 2:14; Prov. 31:27; 1 Tim. 2:15; 5:14; Titus 2:5; 1 Cor. 11:7–9; Eph. 5:22; 1 Cor. 14:35; Ps. 68:12; Isa. 3:12)

Reactions: Like 1 | Wow 1


----------



## RamistThomist

SRoper said:


> This is the brand I am referring to, from OPC Pastor Michael Spangler:



If women can't ever rule in state, there goes Good Queen Bess. It is arguable that England was at its manliest under Queen Elizabeth.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

SRoper said:


> This is the brand I am referring to, from OPC Pastor Michael Spangler:


Can women go to college, if so, study the sciences or a profession? I've heard of the view that says, why should they? They're to stay at home, etc.
My grandmother was a brilliant lady and got a degree in chemistry, but the year or so before she married (1905) instead of working at a pharmacy which my great grandfather would not allow (scandalous for a lady!), he had her give piano lessons for far less money. She married my grandfather who was heading to internship and became a TB doctor and never worked but raised four daughters including my mother.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## SRoper

To be clear, I don't agree with Pastor Spangler's view (my wife is a physician). I was simply demonstrating that my comment was not a cheap shot. For some, the public sphere belongs to men which raises the question if they can write books. Or if they can, on what topics can she write? Can men read them?

This is the context I see Aimee Byrd working in. It is illustrated by Pastor Spangler article, but also with things like John Piper's questions and answers. It's a frankly bizarre policing of the relations between men and women. "Rabbi, may a woman give directions to a man?"

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

SRoper said:


> To be clear, I don't agree with Pastor Spangler's view (my wife is a physician). I was simply demonstrating that my comment was not a cheap shot. For some, the public sphere belongs to men which raises the question if they can write books. Or if they can, on what topics can she write? Can men read them?
> 
> This is the context I see Aimee Byrd working in. It is illustrated by Pastor Spangler article, but also with things like John Piper's questions and answers. It's a frankly bizarre policing of the relations between men and women. "Rabbi, may a woman give directions to a man?"


I understand. Thank you for the clarification. I wouldn't disagree with the quote you provided. Though I don't know the gentleman who said it. It is too brief a quotation to know how he would say that is fleshed out practically, and there, I may disagree with some of his conclusions. But I think you are assuming too much if you believe such a view excludes the possibility of a woman writing a book review or books in general. One of my favorite writers is Anne Dutton. I have a seven volume set of her works sitting on the shelf in here in my study.

The problem, as I see it, is that statements like this are interpreted as _hard and fast rules_ never admitting of any exception. They ought rather be understood as _general principles _that may have any number of legitimate exceptions in ordinary life.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

"There is a distinction to be made between error and heresy. And between minor error and serious or even gross error. But to collapse all distinctions and to hasten to label folks like Aimee Byrd godless Jezebels strikes me as seriously failing to distinguish between things that differ. And while – again – I support every good minister’s right to critique and even challenge Mrs. Byrd, we need to steer clear of the cliff. There is also a process for transitioning an offender outwith the Visible Church, where one not only may but must be named “a heathen man and a publican.”​​Let us applaud all righteous zeal. Feminism is a cancer. Let us not be time-serving yes men. But let us also let not our “good be evil spoken of” (Rom. 14:16)."​Good article from Michael Ives (Presbyterian Reformed Church). https://westportexperiment.com/2020/05/14/on-naming-names-in-controversy/

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I saw this comment by Bryan Peters (PRC, Columbus) who posted the article linked in the prior post, and also Todd Pruitt's response to it.
"No, it [Bryd's book] is not out and out feminism, with full scale advocacy for women's ordination, etc. But I and many other confessional ministers are concerned that Byrd has built the proposals which she does make on a foundation of thoroughly egalitarian arguments and scholarship."
"For what it's worth: I think that's a fair judgment. I understand why you hold that concern." quoted with permission.








Reformed Pub | Facebook


The Reformed Pub is the place to be when you want to kick back, have a beer, and talk about the important things in life with like-minded brothers and sisters. We love theology, craft beer, and...




www.facebook.com

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist

NaphtaliPress said:


> I saw this comment by Bryan Peters (PRC, Columbus) who posted the article linked in the prior post, and also Todd Pruitt's response to it.
> "No, it [Bryd's book] is not out and out feminism, with full scale advocacy for women's ordination, etc. But I and many other confessional ministers are concerned that Byrd has built the proposals which she does make on a foundation of thoroughly egalitarian arguments and scholarship."
> "For what it's worth: I think that's a fair judgment. I understand why you hold that concern."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Pub | Facebook
> 
> 
> The Reformed Pub is the place to be when you want to kick back, have a beer, and talk about the important things in life with like-minded brothers and sisters. We love theology, craft beer, and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.facebook.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 6951



I can go with that as an initial judgment.


----------



## Romans922

NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't know the history of the site, but I think Paul wrote that.



@SeanPatrickCornell The creator of the site is Seni, it's run by Seni and Paul. Seni took the post down because his pastor and I encouraged him to take it down given that 1) he's a candidate for ministry and this is something ministers should be addressing very directly; 2) it's not 'in the lane' of PP so go back to quoting dead men in an organized fashion to make a good post applied to today's church; and 3) the author was going to - in upcoming articles - draw support from Doug Wilson which his site didn't want to touch with a 10 ft pole.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1 | Wow 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Romans922 said:


> @SeanPatrickCornell The creator of the site is Seni, it's run by Seni and Paul. Seni took the post down because his pastor and I encouraged him to take it down given that 1) he's a candidate for ministry and this is something ministers should be addressing very directly; 2) it's not 'in the lane' of PP so go back to quoting dead men in an organized fashion to make a good post applied to today's church; and 3) the author was going to - in upcoming articles - draw support from Doug Wilson which your site didn't want to touch with a 10 ft pole.


I only knew the half of it when I said this was a wise decision.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Afterthought

NaphtaliPress said:


> I saw this comment by Bryan Peters (PRC, Columbus) who posted the article linked in the prior post, and also Todd Pruitt's response to it.
> "No, it [Bryd's book] is not out and out feminism, with full scale advocacy for women's ordination, etc. But I and many other confessional ministers are concerned that Byrd has built the proposals which she does make on a foundation of thoroughly egalitarian arguments and scholarship."
> "For what it's worth: I think that's a fair judgment. I understand why you hold that concern."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Pub | Facebook
> 
> 
> The Reformed Pub is the place to be when you want to kick back, have a beer, and talk about the important things in life with like-minded brothers and sisters. We love theology, craft beer, and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.facebook.com



Not meaning to be persnickity, but given the tensions on this subject, I think it is good to consider that the Pub has a rule against sharing screenshots from the group.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

If that's the rule, I'll remove it and leave the bear quotation and check with Brian.


Afterthought said:


> Not meaning to be persnickity, but given the tensions on this subject, I think it is good to consider that the Pub has a rule against sharing screenshots from the group.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Afterthought said:


> Not meaning to be persnickity, but given the tensions on this subject, I think it is good to consider that the Pub has a rule against sharing screenshots from the group.


Both Bryan and Todd were fine with this; I could not find a rule at the reformed pub facebook group against screenshots but since both give permission I see no issue with it if it is listed somewhere else than the main rules.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Romans922 said:


> @SeanPatrickCornell The creator of the site is Seni, it's run by Seni and Paul. Seni took the post down because his pastor and I encouraged him to take it down given that 1) he's a candidate for ministry and this is something ministers should be addressing very directly; 2) it's not 'in the lane' of PP so go back to quoting dead men in an organized fashion to make a good post applied to today's church; and 3) the author was going to - in upcoming articles - draw support from Doug Wilson which *your site* didn't want to touch with a 10 ft pole.



I don't understand your reference to "your site", which I have bolded in your quote.


----------



## Romans922

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I don't understand your reference to "your site", which I have bolded in your quote.



Sorry, that's confusing. I'm referring to Seni's site (PurelyPresbyterian).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

C. M. Sheffield said:


> If there really was a distortion because of imbalance in the thinking on this issue, a different and opposite distortion cannot be seen as the answer. And I'm afraid that is all Aimee Byrd is offering. But my enemy's enemy is not my fiend. What's needed is a careful study of Scripture's teaching on the matter. That's where the discussion needs to be moored. What saith the Scripture?


I think you missed my point. The issue is not a debate over what Scriptures teach but a theological poverty in much of 20th Century theology that gave rise to the deformations in CBMW theology. Much of their argumentation was based for years in a heterodox doctrine of the Trinity promoted by Grudem. As the Trinity is *very* Scriptural, and Grudem denied fundamental tenets of this doctrine, it is germane to the polemic against the abuses his teaching engendered. I linked to Mark Jones' article precisely because I agreed with much of what he wrote as he made sound Scriptural and GNC arguments to critique some of Aimee's approach while also agreeing with her that CBMW has much that needs to be criticized. Complimenarianism does not rise and fall with CBMW.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Semper Fidelis said:


> Complimenarianism does not rise and fall with CBMW.



That's the heart of it for me. I consider myself a complementarian, though there are those on Twitter and Facebook who would probably see me as a feminist. Let's just completely jettison CBMW and see what kind of complementarianism emerges.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's the heart of it for me. I consider myself a complementarian, though there are those on Twitter and Facebook who would probably see me as a feminist. Let's just completely jettison CBMW and see what kind of complementarianism emerges.


Feminists are one thing, but I have a deep aversion to people who constantly switch avatars. It's horribly disorienting.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## RamistThomist

Andrew35 said:


> Feminists are one thing, but I have a deep aversion to people who constantly switch avatars. It's horribly disorienting.



That's not the worst of it. I used to switch screen names all the time.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## Pergamum

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's the heart of it for me. I consider myself a complementarian, though there are those on Twitter and Facebook who would probably see me as a feminist. Let's just completely jettison CBMW and see what kind of complementarianism emerges.



True question: Why do you consider yourself a complementarian? 

It seems that the mental construct of these categories of complementarianism/egalitarianism is a new and modern labeling system created and accepted only in the last several decades. 

What was your view called in the past? 

If I called myself a "traditionalist", how would I be understood? 

I'd like to scrap the labels of complementarianism/egalitarianism completely and go back to the past. But back then it was not labeled...it was just how almost all people lived (the assumed state).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think you missed my point. The issue is not a debate over what Scriptures teach but a theological poverty in much of 20th Century theology that gave rise to the deformations in CBMW theology. Much of their argumentation was based for years in a heterodox doctrine of the Trinity promoted by Grudem. As the Trinity is *very* Scriptural, and Grudem denied fundamental tenets of this doctrine, it is germane to the polemic against the abuses his teaching engendered. I linked to Mark Jones' article precisely because I agreed with much of what he wrote as he made sound Scriptural and GNC arguments to critique some of Aimee's approach while also agreeing with her that CBMW has much that needs to be criticized. Complimenarianism does not rise and fall with CBMW.


Brother, please note, in my response to you, I said nothing about CBMW. I have already made it clear, I'm not a big fan (like so many things in "Big Eva"). I would not, for various reasons, be quick to throw around the moniker "complementarian" as descriptive of my own views. I am in agreement with much of it. But I'm more focused on what Aimee Byrd is putting forth as the _new way_ forward.

Many who are urging a spirit of Christian charity and moderation toward Mrs. Byrd are unwilling to afford the same courtesy to the folks at CBMW. Regardless of what disagreements we may have with them, they are brothers and sisters in Christ that should be afforded an equal measure of the same grace. And that means fairly and accurately characterizing their own views.

You claim "Much of their argumentation was based for years in a heterodox doctrine of the Trinity." However the basis of their ministry is the Danvers Statement (1988). But it makes absolutely no reference to the aforementioned error. Some of their members do affirm ESS. Yet they maintain that ESS is not _integral_ to their views of biblical manhood and womanhood. And I am compelled to agree. 

I followed the debate on ESS. This lead me to _deny_ the error of ESS as inconsistent with the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, that has not in any way changed my thinking on the biblical roles of men and women. And that, I believe, is because what compels me to deny ESS, compels me also to object to the erroneous anthropology of Aimee Byrd -- namely, _the Word of God_. Which is where I insist this discussion needs to be moored.

So brother, please don't think I've missed your point. I'm happy to agree with you that "Complimenarianism does not rise and fall with CBMW." But that was not and is not my point. CBMW and ESS are red herrings. They are being used to deflect attention away from the obvious problems in Mrs. Byrd's arguments. Further, I believe they are being used to silence those who disagree with them. That should not be allowed to happen.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 4


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> complementarian



Men and women complement each other.


Pergamum said:


> What was your view called in the past?



Complementarian, I guess.


----------



## Pergamum

BayouHuguenot said:


> Men and women complement each other.
> 
> 
> Complementarian, I guess.


Is there any usage of this word "complementarian" in reference to gender relations before, say, the 1980's?


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> Is there any usage of this word "complementarian" in reference to gender relations before, say, the 1980's?



I have no idea. It's not really germane to my worldview. I reject some of hte more cultish applications of extreme patriarchalism. I don't consider myself a feminist. That's good enough for me at the moment.


----------



## RamistThomist

I'm sure there is a narrative of how complementarian terms started being used. It's not really my forte. As long as we don't redefine the Trinity along subordinationist lines, and we don't enslave consciences by adding to God's word, and as long as we aren't feminists, I don't really have much to say beyond that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Brother, forgive me, but this defense of Byrd amounts to little more than, "Some of her opponents are really, really bad." That may be true, but it's not an argument.



That's really what a lot of this boils down to. If you don't like Mrs. Byrd and Mrs. Miller's arguments, then you must embrace FV and ESS. If you aren't a fan of Wilson and the CBMW, then you must be a feminist.

A lot of the "debates" we have today, especially online, seem to be based as much on who is on which side and which side you like or hate the most rather than actually seeking to understand the underlying issues.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Pilgrim

A.Joseph said:


> She always sounds very, very nice. I don’t picture her as some angry feminist with an axe to grind.



"One may smile, and smile, and be a villain." 

(I'm not saying that she's a villain. But judging someone's views on their demeanor is another form of ad hominem argument. It is natural to do it, but that doesn't necessarily get to the bottom of things. And someone can themselves be sort of ok but can be instrumental in opening the door for real radicals to push through.)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> But judging someone's views on their demeanor is another form of ad hominem argument. It is natural to do it, but that doesn't necessarily get to the bottom of things. And someone can themselves be sort of ok but can be instrumental in opening the door for real radicals to push through.)



There is probably some truth to that. I probably do the same thing. I've seen firsthand how creepy some of these issues can get in real life. I don't think I am overreacting, since the most feminist I am is I think it is okay for a woman to work. Other than that, I'm pretty orthodox.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim

A few thoughts. And I may be offering really ignorant views about one or more of these since I've never really read much specifically complementarian stuff.

1. Several years ago, after reading some material by a complementarian woman who has been involved with CBMW from the start, I was struck by the extent to which there was agreement with second wave feminism. I'd have to go back and try to find it again, but that was my takeaway, for what it's worth. My understanding is that the word "complementarian" was coined because there was no suitable substitute for patriarchy. And what they're selling (or at least some of them) isn't patriarchy. Some of the women may oppose the classic "have it all" feminist mentality in the sense that you must strive for that, but do they oppose the idea that a particular woman might want to have it all? To me, those who are into things like quiverfull, homeschooling, and family-integrated churches have gone beyond comp into patriarchy since those are all rather traditional things. Complementarianism is a late 20th Century thing that wants to keep women out of the pulpit on the basis of a few Bible verses but which doesn't want to appear to be too radical and out of step with society otherwise. (I suppose ESS is a way of trying to get beyond the proof texting.)

2. Is ESS really essential to CBMW's efforts? Hasn't that only come to the fore in recent years? Wasn't Ligon Duncan the head of CBMW about 10-15 years ago? Was it being pushed back then? (I'm assuming he's against it.)

3. I don't see how what the likes of Byrd (and maybe even Pruitt, although it has been a few years since I've followed them closely, and he has said he doesn't agree with her on everything, but I'm not sure if he's said where they actually disagree) aren't engaging in what amounts to biblicism with their stance against women in ministry. That despite the fact that they would probably decry biblicism elsewhere, especially when it is Baptists and dispensationalists harping on a few proof texts. Practically everything else has been conceded to the feminists. (He says he's against androgyny when it comes to clothing or "outward adornment." So I guess there's that. Although what he (and most of us) consider to be gender appropriate clothing is probably a broader thing than it was in the past.) Basically, what it seems to boil down to for "thin complementarians" is that gender roles or whatever you want to call it pertain to church and home and practically nowhere else. It seems that there is a refusal to argue from natural law or the natural order and that their case is based on maybe a couple of Bible verses that refer to things like "husband of one wife" along with their confession, maybe. Is Mrs. Byrd against "house husbands?" Is Rev. Pruitt?

I can tell you that most people look at women in boardrooms, in Governor's mansions (remember the enthusiasm for Palin?), and maybe even in the White House one day soon and they will think that the idea of a man ruling the household and the church is, at best, a holdover from a bygone age and one that needs to end. Are we to believe that a woman President is going to submit to her husband in the household? I suspect that in the end it will be patriarchy or "thick comp" on one side and various shades of egalitarianism on the other.

I have my doubts that "thin complementarianism" will exist in another generation. All of the "action" is with various charismatic and pentecostal churches these days. We're told that everybody else is plateaued or declining. And with few exceptions, charismatic and pentecostal churches are egal. (I'm not sure that it matters that at least some of them are for women preachers based on "prophetic" gifting that shouldn't be quenched rather than explicitly feminist views.) Will the Southern Baptists be far behind now that Beth Moore is openly cheerleading for women pastors? It seems to me that either there will be a split, or they will get "woke" on this issue. Those kinds of women's classes have probably served as a sort of safety valve that has kept women from demanding women pastors. For a lot of people, on a practical level, that kind of study is more important than public worship is. What would happen in many of the churches if the pastor were to come in and give lessons instead?

4. Remember when women in combat was an issue in the early 1990s? Are many people even bothered by that anymore? And a lot of girls "doing everything the boys can do" is pushed by the fathers.

5. If we're going to judge a book by its cover, I'd think that few people who are anywhere close to being confessionally Reformed (or even just conservative) are going to be cheered by some of the endorsements for "Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" that are prominently displayed on Amazon. McKnight and Beaty are feminists. I'm not sure about the other two, but the people she is trying to reach (presumably, people in NAPARC type churches and conservative evangelicals in general, such as Southern Baptists) may not get fired up about them either.

6. Would those who ignited the ESS controversy a few years ago had pursued the controversy to the extent that they did if they didn't also disagree with other things that CBMW teaches?

7. I've never been a John Piper fan. And I think he's gotten it really wrong with some pronouncements and opinions through the years. But I can appreciate him wrestling with the issues and taking some heat rather than just pointing at a handful of Bible verses as justification for keeping women out of the pulpit and living like a feminist otherwise.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> Would those who ignited the ESS controversy a few years ago had pursued the controversy to the extent that they did if they didn't also disagree with other things that CBMW teaches?



Some would. I was largely indifferent to the CBMW debate either way. I just recognized red flags in the Trinity. And then guys like Michel Barnes and Lewis Ayres, the two leading Augustine scholars in the world, weighed in, and they probably had never heard of the term "complementarian."

But yeah, CBMW really shot themselves in the foot on that one. It allowed people who might have sketchy ethics in some places to really pommel them on this point and be correct.

And last I looked, leaders like Wilson and the Baylys had affirmed ESS.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BottleOfTears

Pilgrim said:


> Complementarianism is a late 20th Century thing that wants to keep women out of the pulpit on the basis of a few Bible verses but which doesn't want to appear to be too radical and out of step with society otherwise.


The thing is though, a lot of this "home schooling" "traditional" "quiverful" stuff is incredibly American. Like you might think that is just the default position and its pretty much feminism from there on out, but like to even the most conservative Christians over here, homeschooling etc just doesn't have the same appeal. There's places on the Islands in Scotland where they literally chain up the swings on the Lord's Day and I don't think they care much for homeschooling.

Are you sure that it isn't the "trad patriarchy" people who just want to be as radical and out of step with society as possible, with the assumption that makes them more holy/biblical? To me it seems far more that for the sake of an idealised American Dream, a set of mere cultural traditions has been exalted to an extra-biblical standard. I suppose the appeal comes from how anti-feminist it all appears. 

It leads me to think that much of this is driven much more by Americans general dislike of government (state schools = bad) and a very binary view of politics (anything that seems opposed to feminism = good) that leaves little room for nuance or dialogue.


Pilgrim said:


> Basically, what it seems to boil down to for "thin complementarians" is that gender roles or whatever you want to call it pertain to church and home and practically nowhere else. It seems that there is a refusal to argue from natural law or the natural order and that their case is based on maybe a couple of Bible verses that refer to things like "husband of one wife" along with their confession, maybe.


Todd Pruitt says that:


> From both Scripture and nature we know that there are categories of behavior and outward adornment which are more fitting for males, and others which are more fitting for females.


I'm also not really sure a lot what Aimee says here, works if you assume androgyny. Also in her response to a review of her book here, she says:


> I do not think men and women only relate to one another differently in the home and in the church. I write extensively about how the two sexes relate as brothers and sisters in all of life.
> 
> • I am not reluctant to define manhood and womanhood. Men generate differently and their bodies correspond to this, every cell in their DNA is male, they are fathers, sons, uncles, nephews and brothers. Women, as well, generate differently with corresponding bodies in which every cell in them are female, and we are mothers, daughters, aunts, nieces, and sisters.
> 
> • I’m not reluctant to specify differences beyond biological ones. I just am reluctant to reduce our differences to stereotypes and bad gender tropes.
> 
> • I’m not reluctant to treat manhood and womanhood as significant for Christian discipleship. I teach quite differently in the book, that the reason we need strong investment and encouragement for both laymen and laywomen to be discipled well is because our respective sexes provide a dynamic, synergetic reciprocity as tradents to the faith.


The problem is not a "refusal to argue from natural law", or a wholesale rejection of differences between men and woman as you claim, the issue is Aimee disagrees with a lot of the things that have been said in the past and that are still said today under the pretenses of natural law. Now, if you want to disagree there, that's fine. Please actually try to argue against what is actually being said though. Have you even read anything on the subject by the persons in question?



Pilgrim said:


> I have my doubts that "thin complementarianism" will exist in another generation.


I'm sure it will. There are plenty "skinnier" people over this side of the pond, and I'm sure we'll do just fine.
Also, I would like to add that maybe, just maybe there exist positions between "there is no difference between men and woman and how they fit in society" and "woman cannot hold any significant position of authority".

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Andrew35

BottleOfTears said:


> The thing is though, a lot of this "home schooling" "traditional" "quiverful" stuff is incredibly American. Like you might think that is just the default position and its pretty much feminism from there on out, but like to even the most conservative Christians over here, homeschooling etc just doesn't have the same appeal. There's places on the Islands in Scotland where they literally chain up the swings on the Lord's Day and I don't think they care much for homeschooling.
> 
> Are you sure that it isn't the "trad patriarchy" people who just want to be as radical and out of step with society as possible, with the assumption that makes them more holy/biblical? To me it seems far more that for the sake of an idealised American Dream, a set of mere cultural traditions has been exalted to an extra-biblical standard. I suppose the appeal comes from how anti-feminist it all appears.
> 
> It leads me to think that much of this is driven much more by Americans general dislike of government (state schools = bad) and a very binary view of politics (anything that seems opposed to feminism = good) that leaves little room for nuance or dialogue.
> 
> Todd Pruitt says that:
> 
> I'm also not really sure a lot what Aimee says here, works if you assume androgyny. Also in her response to a review of her book here, she says:
> 
> The problem is not a "refusal to argue from natural law", or a wholesale rejection of differences between men and woman as you claim, the issue is Aimee disagrees with a lot of the things that have been said in the past and that are still said today under the pretenses of natural law. Now, if you want to disagree there, that's fine. Please actually try to argue against what is actually being said though. Have you even read anything on the subject by the persons in question?
> 
> 
> I'm sure it will. There are plenty "skinnier" people over this side of the pond, and I'm sure we'll do just fine.
> Also, I would like to add that maybe, just maybe there exist positions between "there is no difference between men and woman and how they fit in society" and "woman cannot hold any significant position of authority".


Bottle, while there are certainly some homeschoolers motivated by a 'state = bad' mindset--and those may have overrepresentation in conservative Christian circles--many of us just think that 'state schools = less good.'

Once you grant social engineering, credentialing, and at least_ some _signaling (a la Brian Caplan), not a huge amount of architecture remains for quality education. It always amuses me how much "student-centered" progressive reforms start to bear some resemblance to homeschooling. And it's simply fact that homeschoolers have significantly better outcomes than their public counterparts. How much of that is demographically related is uncertain, but it's certainly interesting.

Maybe this is an area where are UK cousins could learn something from the American experience? After all state education is still something of a modern experiment, in the history of pedagogy.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Andrew35 said:


> Maybe this is an area where are UK cousins could learn something from the American experience?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## BottleOfTears

Andrew35 said:


> Bottle, while there are certainly some homeschoolers motivated by a 'state = bad' mindset--and those may have overrepresentation in conservative Christian circles--many of us just think that 'state schools = less good.'
> 
> Once you grant social engineering, credentialing, and at least_ some _signaling (a la Brian Caplan), not a huge amount of architecture remains for quality education. It always amuses me how much "student-centered" progressive reforms start to bear some resemblance to homeschooling. And it's simply fact that homeschoolers have significantly better outcomes than their public counterparts. How much of that is demographically related is uncertain, but it's certainly interesting.
> 
> Maybe this is an area where are UK cousins could learn something from the American experience? After all state education is still something of a modern experiment, in the history of pedagogy.


That's irrelevant though. That's an argument mostly based on how good the education is, or at best the prudential value of having more control over what your children are taught.
My problem is not with people home schooling, it is that it is part of, shall we say, an aesthetic that is seen as the "Biblical" way to organise a family, and how a man or woman should act.

It's not just homeschooling. Purity rings, the obsession with guns, views on politics, hatred of plastic forks...

It is not that all of these things are bad, in and of themselves, I just find it strange when certain things peculiar to American Christian culture are so ardently defended, if not outright touted as The Way To Do Things. Any criticism is seen by some as capitulation to feminism or somesuch. It is incredibly strange for me, a non-American for whom this culture is in many ways foreign, to be informed of my deviation in these areas. Maybe Americans are right about politics. Or guns. I just don't see how everything has to sorted into "*Godly Actions for the Christian Man to Undertake for the Glory of Our Lord*" or "*Blasphemous Acts for the Accursed Pagans and Feminists who Strive to Undermine Our Christian Nation*".

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Andrew35

BottleOfTears said:


> That's irrelevant though. That's an argument mostly based on how good the education is, or at best the prudential value of having more control over what your children are taught.
> My problem is not with people home schooling, it is that it is part of, shall we say, an aesthetic that is seen as the "Biblical" way to organise a family, and how a man or woman should act.
> 
> It's not just homeschooling. Purity rings, the obsession with guns, views on politics, hatred of plastic forks...
> 
> It is not that all of these things are bad, in and of themselves, I just find it strange when certain things peculiar to American Christian culture are so ardently defended, if not outright touted as The Way To Do Things. Any criticism is seen by some as capitulation to feminism or somesuch. It is incredibly strange for me, a non-American for whom this culture is in many ways foreign, to be informed of my deviation in these areas. Maybe Americans are right about politics. Or guns. I just don't see how everything has to sorted into "*Godly Actions for the Christian Man to Undertake for the Glory of Our Lord*" or "*Blasphemous Acts for the Accursed Pagans and Feminists who Strive to Undermine Our Christian Nation*".


Oh, I agree. I wasn't arguing with you. Just wanted to make a point about homeschooling. It looked like a bit of a broad brush.

As to the rest, I haven't been part of the discourse for many years, having lived out of the States, for the most part, since 2006. So my take on all this is similar to my take on Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller: so much of this conversation feels largely irrelevant to my situation, since I'm not really hearing the ones that they are responding too. Like what you've mentioned above: I'm perhaps vaguely aware of those things, but, except for politics, have never actually met anyone who fits into those categories--even my friends back in the States.

So I mostly just ignore it, putting in my POV when I feel the need and when I don't understand something.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

C. M. Sheffield said:


>



I'm saving that gif for later. Thank you.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Afterthought

BayouHuguenot said:


> Naselli's review of Byrd left much to be desired, as noted by analytic philosopher Tom McCall. Let's spot the fallacies in this paragraph.


Could you point them out? Is there no place for being concerned about the source of a person's teaching?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Afterthought said:


> Could you point them out? Is there no place for being concerned about the source of a person's teaching?



Simply because there are fallacies doesn't mean that I am not concerned otherwise. It is because I am concerned that I point out the sloppy thinking.

We'll point out a few:

He accuses Byrd of primarily staying with egalitarian authors (as though that were bad; it might be but that's irrelevant). He then contrasts bad egalitarianism with robust complementarianism. And three of the authors he cites as egalitarians, Giles, Bauckham, and Witherington, are complete giants in their field. World authorities, even. Compare Bauckham's scholarship with Ware's and you will see what I mean.

The last sentence in Naselli's first paragraph cited is also problematic. Byrd might share egalitarian philosophical commitments, but it doesn't follow that she does because she is reading Bauckham. That's just....bad.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim

BayouHuguenot said:


> Simply because there are fallacies doesn't mean that I am not concerned otherwise. It is because I am concerned that I point out the sloppy thinking.
> 
> We'll point out a few:
> 
> He accuses Byrd of primarily staying with egalitarian authors (as though that were bad; it might be but that's irrelevant). He then contrasts bad egalitarianism with robust complementarianism. And three of the authors he cites as egalitarians, Giles, Bauckham, and Witherington, are complete giants in their field. World authorities, even. Compare Bauckham's scholarship with Ware's and you will see what I mean.
> 
> The last sentence in Naselli's first paragraph cited is also problematic. Byrd might share egalitarian philosophical commitments, but it doesn't follow that she does because she is reading Bauckham. That's just....bad.



In other words, after all that learnin, you think that, here at least, Naselli still argues like the fundy that he used to be?


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> In other words, after all that learnin, you think that, here at least, Naselli still argues like the indy fundy that he used to be?



To be fair, no. Larnin' does make a difference.





IFB Preacher Clips (@FakeSermon) | Twitter


The latest Tweets from IFB Preacher Clips (@FakeSermon). Video account with REAL sermon clips of Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) preachers. #OldPaths #IFBpreacherclips Start scrolling and watching. The Old Paths




twitter.com


----------



## A.Joseph

I’m seeing a strong foundation for a good review. You should have at it...


Pilgrim said:


> A few thoughts. And I may be offering really ignorant views about one or more of these since I've never really read much specifically complementarian stuff.
> 
> 1. Several years ago, after reading some material by a complementarian woman who has been involved with CBMW from the start, I was struck by the extent to which there was agreement with second wave feminism. I'd have to go back and try to find it again, but that was my takeaway, for what it's worth. My understanding is that the word "complementarian" was coined because there was no suitable substitute for patriarchy. And what they're selling (or at least some of them) isn't patriarchy. Some of the women may oppose the classic "have it all" feminist mentality in the sense that you must strive for that, but do they oppose the idea that a particular woman might want to have it all? To me, those who are into things like quiverfull, homeschooling, and family-integrated churches have gone beyond comp into patriarchy since those are all rather traditional things. Complementarianism is a late 20th Century thing that wants to keep women out of the pulpit on the basis of a few Bible verses but which doesn't want to appear to be too radical and out of step with society otherwise. (I suppose ESS is a way of trying to get beyond the proof texting.)
> 
> 2. Is ESS really essential to CBMW's efforts? Hasn't that only come to the fore in recent years? Wasn't Ligon Duncan the head of CBMW about 10-15 years ago? Was it being pushed back then? (I'm assuming he's against it.)
> 
> 3. I don't see how what the likes of Byrd (and maybe even Pruitt, although it has been a few years since I've followed them closely, and he has said he doesn't agree with her on everything, but I'm not sure if he's said where they actually disagree) aren't engaging in what amounts to biblicism with their stance against women in ministry. That despite the fact that they would probably decry biblicism elsewhere, especially when it is Baptists and dispensationalists harping on a few proof texts. Practically everything else has been conceded to the feminists. (He says he's against androgyny when it comes to clothing or "outward adornment." So I guess there's that. Although what he (and most of us) consider to be gender appropriate clothing is probably a broader thing than it was in the past.) Basically, what it seems to boil down to for "thin complementarians" is that gender roles or whatever you want to call it pertain to church and home and practically nowhere else. It seems that there is a refusal to argue from natural law or the natural order and that their case is based on maybe a couple of Bible verses that refer to things like "husband of one wife" along with their confession, maybe. Is Mrs. Byrd against "house husbands?" Is Rev. Pruitt?
> 
> I can tell you that most people look at women in boardrooms, in Governor's mansions (remember the enthusiasm for Palin?), and maybe even in the White House one day soon and they will think that the idea of a man ruling the household and the church is, at best, a holdover from a bygone age and one that needs to end. Are we to believe that a woman President is going to submit to her husband in the household? I suspect that in the end it will be patriarchy or "thick comp" on one side and various shades of egalitarianism on the other.
> 
> I have my doubts that "thin complementarianism" will exist in another generation. All of the "action" is with various charismatic and pentecostal churches these days. We're told that everybody else is plateaued or declining. And with few exceptions, charismatic and pentecostal churches are egal. (I'm not sure that it matters that at least some of them are for women preachers based on "prophetic" gifting that shouldn't be quenched rather than explicitly feminist views.) Will the Southern Baptists be far behind now that Beth Moore is openly cheerleading for women pastors? It seems to me that either there will be a split, or they will get "woke" on this issue. Those kinds of women's classes have probably served as a sort of safety valve that has kept women from demanding women pastors. For a lot of people, on a practical level, that kind of study is more important than public worship is. What would happen in many of the churches if the pastor were to come in and give lessons instead?
> 
> 4. Remember when women in combat was an issue in the early 1990s? Are many people even bothered by that anymore? And a lot of girls "doing everything the boys can do" is pushed by the fathers.
> 
> 5. If we're going to judge a book by its cover, I'd think that few people who are anywhere close to being confessionally Reformed (or even just conservative) are going to be cheered by some of the endorsements for "Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" that are prominently displayed on Amazon. McKnight and Beaty are feminists. I'm not sure about the other two, but the people she is trying to reach (presumably, people in NAPARC type churches and conservative evangelicals in general, such as Southern Baptists) may not get fired up about them either.
> 
> 6. Would those who ignited the ESS controversy a few years ago had pursued the controversy to the extent that they did if they didn't also disagree with other things that CBMW teaches?
> 
> 7. I've never been a John Piper fan. And I think he's gotten it really wrong with some pronouncements and opinions through the years. But I can appreciate him wrestling with the issues and taking some heat rather than just pointing at a handful of Bible verses as justification for keeping women out of the pulpit and living like a feminist otherwise.


----------



## Pilgrim

BayouHuguenot said:


> To be fair, no. Larnin' does make a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IFB Preacher Clips (@FakeSermon) | Twitter
> 
> 
> The latest Tweets from IFB Preacher Clips (@FakeSermon). Video account with REAL sermon clips of Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) preachers. #OldPaths #IFBpreacherclips Start scrolling and watching. The Old Paths
> 
> 
> 
> 
> twitter.com



I was referring to arguments about certain names. She quotes people who are questionable at best, so she must be questionable too. That was basically the point I was making about the endorsements earlier. Some people won't give it a hearing if the wrong people like it. If Beaty and McKnight like the book, then it must be wrong. Unless some folks from our tribe also like it, we've got to dismiss it. This goes the other way too, especially with survivor blogger types.


----------



## Pilgrim

A.Joseph said:


> I’m seeing a strong foundation for a good review. You should have at it...



Well, that would require actually _reading the book_, or at least it should. But I'm sure I wouldn't be the first person to pen a review of a book without reading it. I'm thinking it should probably be read in conjunction with her "Why Can't We Be Friends?" as well.

Around 10 years ago, my now moribund blog got some notice because I had gotten involved in a few controversies. (While the posts got greater exposure than I expected, I was denounced or dismissed by most Calvinistic people in the SBC, even by some names that might surprise some, but me and the others on my "side" were vindicated just a few years later after the "right" people started saying the same things that we were saying.) If I had been so inclined, I could have continued that, but to a certain extent it could have involved dealing in rumor and innuendo. For example, in a later controversy, there was a case where someone wouldn't provide information to me, even though it could have been done in a way where he could have remained anonymous. So it would have just been a rant. (We don't know anyone who does that, do we?) Plus, I take way too long to write things.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Pilgrim said:


> I was referring to arguments about certain names. She quotes people who are questionable at best, so she must be questionable too. That was basically the point I was making about the endorsements earlier. Some people won't give it a hearing if the wrong people like it. If Beaty and McKnight like the book, then it must be wrong. Unless some folks from our tribe also like it, we've got to dismiss it. This goes the other way too, especially with survivor blogger types.


This is sad but true; I've seen bad reactions/immediate bias to or refusal to buy a book I published because one of the commendations is by someone who was persona non grata because on the wrong side of a controversy unrelated to the book.


----------



## Pilgrim

BayouHuguenot said:


> To be fair, no. Larnin' does make a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IFB Preacher Clips (@FakeSermon) | Twitter
> 
> 
> The latest Tweets from IFB Preacher Clips (@FakeSermon). Video account with REAL sermon clips of Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) preachers. #OldPaths #IFBpreacherclips Start scrolling and watching. The Old Paths
> 
> 
> 
> 
> twitter.com



Some fundys do have larnin', even from places like TEDS, as he does. But he is not a fundy anymore, at least not in terms of separation, etc. 

I'd rather read a fundy like Kevin Bauder over most Southern Baptists, and maybe over a good many evangelical Presbyterians these days. But admittedly, he is a rarity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought

BayouHuguenot said:


> Simply because there are fallacies doesn't mean that I am not concerned otherwise. It is because I am concerned that I point out the sloppy thinking.


How would you properly show that a person's sources are influencing their thought? Aimee very often takes the egalitarian reading over the complementarian reading. While it is strictly a logical fallacy to argue about the sources that a person cites, is it not also true that people are organic and tend to promote and absorb the things they have read, which can lead to promoting a system of thought to one's readers that is contrary to even what one holds? If it is possible to (perhaps unintentionally) sow the seeds of egalitarian thought for others to consistently develop, how would one improve Naselli's argument to show this?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Afterthought said:


> How would you properly show that a person's sources are influencing their thought?



I don't know. That's not my argument, so it is not my burden to prove.


Afterthought said:


> While it is strictly a logical fallacy to argue about the sources that a person cites, is it not also true that people are organic and tend to promote and absorb the things they have read, which can lead to promoting a system of thought to one's readers that is contrary to even what one holds?



Maybe. It's not a very strong line of argumentation, and if you were to use it, you would have to rigorously analyze all the sources and show influence and borrowing. 


Afterthought said:


> If it is possible to (perhaps unintentionally) sow the seeds of egalitarian thought for others to consistently develop, how would one improve Naselli's argument to show this?



I'm seeing a lot of "possibles" and "unintentionally" here. That's my point. It's a weak line of argumentation.


----------



## BottleOfTears

Andrew35 said:


> Oh, I agree. I wasn't arguing with you. Just wanted to make a point about homeschooling. It looked like a bit of a broad brush.
> 
> As to the rest, I haven't been part of the discourse for many years, having lived out of the States, for the most part, since 2006. So my take on all this is similar to my take on Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller: so much of this conversation feels largely irrelevant to my situation, since I'm not really hearing the ones that they are responding too. Like what you've mentioned above: I'm perhaps vaguely aware of those things, but, except for politics, have never actually met anyone who fits into those categories--even my friends back in the States.
> 
> So I mostly just ignore it, putting in my POV when I feel the need and when I don't understand something.


Oh no that's fair, I see what you mean now.


----------



## mvdm

A book review explaining Byrd's hermeneutic and call to action by OPC minister Rev. Bennie Castle:









Mrs. Byrd’s Yellow Wallpaper


It is not the Church, but Mrs. Byrd who cannot see the yellow wallpaper through which she reads the Bible.




calvinistruminant.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## NaphtaliPress

mvdm said:


> A book review explaining Byrd's hermeneutic and call to action by OPC minister Rev. Bennie Castle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. Byrd’s Yellow Wallpaper
> 
> 
> It is not the Church, but Mrs. Byrd who cannot see the yellow wallpaper through which she reads the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calvinistruminant.wordpress.com


Has the Rev. Castle or anyone in the OPC taken action by filing charges?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

NaphtaliPress said:


> Has the Rev. Castle or anyone in the OPC taken action by filing charges?



That's the question I kept asking people and no one wanted to answer it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's the question I kept asking people and no one wanted to answer it.


I ask because there has been some sort of "call to action". Seems to me it's the duty of those in the OPC to not just write reviews and issue directives for action to everyone but to actually use the means in their own sphere to address this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheInquirer

That was a very well written review. Those quotes from Byrd’s book are shocking and troubling.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Castle

I am the author of the latest review. 

Presbyterian wheels grind slow.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Contra_Mundum

NaphtaliPress said:


> Has the Rev. Castle or anyone in the OPC taken action by filing charges?


Mr. Castle is exercising his right to _informal _influence via blogging. Filing charges is an example of _formal _action. Machen's writing articles and books in his day is another example of _informal _influence; and yes, a person's office or credentials can allow for more such influence by one person than for another. At the end of the day, both of the current-authors are engaged in the same exercise: namely, informal influencing of opinion.

1) the court of original jurisdiction for an individual is the congregation.

2) if any charges would be brought, some _sin_ must be specified and Scripture adduced.

3) Mrs.Byrd is laity, and so has not taken vows to uphold the Standards. However, she has stated she intends no violation of the doctrinal standards of the OPC; and she claims to have sought the counsel of the session that is over her in the Lord. So, is there an accusation present that the church (some part thereof) is derelict in its ministry?

4) if the blogger (a minister in the Presbytery of the Southeast) or anyone else outside the Presbytery where the congregation Mrs.Byrd is a member wanted to prefer charges or complain against the actions or non-actions of a party, they would have to persuade their Presbytery to bring a complaint against the Presbytery of the Mid-Atlantic to the G.A.

5) those charges would have to identify a violation of the Constitution by a Presbytery, be it doctrinal (with the Standards in play) or in regard to proper order and discipline (a BCO matter). To my knowledge, the OPC does not treat sin as anything but a personal offense (groups don't sin, but the individuals in a group bear the responsibility for their participation

6) if some party within the Presbytery of the Mid-Atlantic wished to charge the pastor or Session of Mrs. Byrd's congregation--as they have no standing in that congregation to bring a charge against her--this would again entail specification of sin against individuals, or violation of the Constitution, amounting to misfeasance of a court or office, dereliction of the ministry entrusted.

The OPC is a church organized in such a way that it's governing bodies function as courts. And properly functioning courts work within what is known generally as principles of Due Process. People who are not accountable to everyone else are accountable to their own masters, Rom.14:4. This may cut two ways, as it limits the extent of influence but also of interference in _formal _relations. _Informal _influence and interference (no formal accountability or common jurisdiction) are matters of another kind; we deal with such almost daily. PB interaction is an example of informal relations.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 6


----------



## Semper Fidelis

mvdm said:


> A book review explaining Byrd's hermeneutic and call to action by OPC minister Rev. Bennie Castle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. Byrd’s Yellow Wallpaper
> 
> 
> It is not the Church, but Mrs. Byrd who cannot see the yellow wallpaper through which she reads the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calvinistruminant.wordpress.com


I don't know if there is a formal name for a kind of approach where the reviewer says correct things but they are aimed in the wrong direction.

I used to think that OPC ministers were uniformly careful thinkers but this review proves the opposite and is, sadly, too consistent. This review is a mess.

It's not right. It's not even wrong.

It tries to be flowery whipping us up into things that no Christian should ever disagree with. 

"The Spirit of God inspired the Scriptures!!"

Yeah!! That's right! How dare she argue otherwise?!

Except that, sad to say, she doesn't

I actually hate to think what kind of regular mishandling of the Scripture this Pastor practices on a regular basis given his inability to handle a text from a lay-person and come to the kinds of conclusions he does. It's got the depth of Dana Carvey's Church Lady in its observations.

If anyone wants a serious review of Aimee's work then Mark Jones at The Calvinist International has provided what I believe is a good review.

Due to the furor aroused by this work, I listened to the book last week (I have to listen as I can't see well enough to read).

As I stated I agree with Mark Jones' review. I think Mrs. Bryd's approach is distracting and will undermine her aims. I believe she has three basic points she is trying to get across:

1. That there is no principle of women generally submitting to men. Wives submit to their husbands but women, in general, are not to have (as the central focus of their identity) looking for ways in which to affirm "male leadership" in every man they meet. 

2. That women don't have to be the leaders in the Church but it doesn't imply they should not be throughtful, contributing members of the Church. They can do more than nursery and children's Sunday School and have an important perspective that ought to be sought out.

3. That we ought to prioritize the Church over the parachurch.

There are a few ways in which I found myself wincing throughout:

1. The yellow wallpaper motif was distracting and unnecessary. It serves as a metaphor for they ways in which we have constrained our thinking about what men and women can and can't do. As one example, I've interacted with one Brother frustrated that there is an idea that if you are quiet and introverted you are not a man. The problem with this metaphor is that she keeps using it as if she feels a need to bring literary quality to her work and employs it even to describe how Americans are keen to prioritize the parachurch over the Church.

2. As noted in multiple reviews, Mrs. Byrd allows egalitarian authors to do the heavy lifting for any controversial point made and doesn't provide any countervailing argument to the contrary. As such, her arguments are speculative and imaginative at times bordering on the absurd. A passing comment about Phoebe becomes the occasion for the notion that she must have been a central figure in the early Church. I think her aim is more modest (to establish the idea that women can be contributing, thinking participants in the Church) but the overwrought arguments about passing references undermines her case. Deborah, Phoebe, Junia, etc. She pushes to the center what the Bible mentions in passing. They are important but not central. They are contributing but it doesn't mean they are "inner circle". I've told others that I think she'll end up failing to influence the very people she was hoping to reach with this book because of this decision to utilize egalitarian scholarship as the central place to support her overall aim. I don't think she's egaliarian herself but I found myself thinking that she felt like she had to offer some sort of strong scholarly argument and grabbed arguments in a slap-dash manner that don't fit together very well. If, for instance, she's as consistently insidious as the former reviwer noted, she would have a much tighter argument but it all seems to hold together very tenuously.

3. She ends up re-creating the same problem she is critiquing in her book about "CBMW-like" movements. The Scriptures are not, primarily, a manual about manhood and womanhood. What they have to say about God and what God requires of man certainly involves things that we need to heed and learn about what it is to be a man and a woman but the Scriptures don't operate as a manual. Those who focus on those topics tend to distort the Scriptures mostly in the way they train people to think that the principle aim of a person reading the Scriptures is to figure out, daily, how they are to "be a woman" where the Scriptures have much more to say to us as we read them and the Spirit sanctifies us. Her critique of the approach of many is on point here but then the book tends to descend into that distortion itself in the way it handles texts and pushes the issue of men and women "contributing" to the foreground and uses speculative and imaginative thinking of the the scholars she cites to distort the meaning of the text.

In conclusion, I found that I could agree with what she was trying to accomplish (to an extent). I agree that women have important perspectives. They are created in the image of God, are intelligent, and see things that men miss. I find her use of sources troubling as well as the methodology used to establish certain points. That said, I think the notion that she's denying the Gospel (a la Galatians 2) as the reviewer noted is laughable to scorn. If anyone ought to be brought up on charges, it is the OPC minister who has violated the 9th Commandment in his complete and utter overstatement of the case. I've got serious reservations about her work but more serious reservations about that review from an OPC minister. I hope his Presbytery will be sufficiently embarrassed by the utter folly of some of the breathless exaggerations and convince him to take it down.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 1


----------



## Andrew35

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't know if there is a formal name for a kind of approach where the reviewer says correct things but they are aimed in the wrong direction.
> 
> I used to think that OPC ministers were uniformly careful thinkers but this review proves the opposite and is, sadly, too consistent. This review is a mess.
> 
> It's not right. It's not even wrong.
> 
> It tries to be flowery whipping us up into things that no Christian should ever disagree with.
> 
> "The Spirit of God inspired the Scriptures!!"
> 
> Yeah!! That's right! How dare she argue otherwise?!
> 
> Except that, sad to say, she doesn't
> 
> I actually hate to think what kind of regular mishandling of the Scripture this Pastor practices on a regular basis given his inability to handle a text from a lay-person and come to the kinds of conclusions he does. It's got the depth of Dana Carvey's Church Lady in its observations.
> 
> If anyone wants a serious review of Aimee's work then Mark Jones at The Calvinist International has provided what I believe is a good review.
> 
> Due to the furor aroused by this work, I listened to the book last week (I have to listen as I can't see well enough to read).
> 
> As I stated I agree with Mark Jones' review. I think Mrs. Bryd's approach is distracting and will undermine her aims. I believe she has three basic points she is trying to get across:
> 
> 1. That there is no principle of women generally submitting to men. Wives submit to their husbands but women, in general, are not to have (as the central focus of their identity) looking for ways in which to affirm "male leadership" in every man they meet.
> 
> 2. That women don't have to be the leaders in the Church but it doesn't imply they should not be throughtful, contributing members of the Church. They can do more than nursery and children's Sunday School and have an important perspective that ought to be sought out.
> 
> 3. That we ought to prioritize the Church over the parachurch.
> 
> There are a few ways in which I found myself wincing throughout:
> 
> 1. The yellow wallpaper motif was distracting and unnecessary. It serves as a metaphor for they ways in which we have constrained our thinking about what men and women can and can't do. As one example, I've interacted with one Brother frustrated that there is an idea that if you are quiet and introverted you are not a man. The problem with this metaphor is that she keeps using it as if she feels a need to bring literary quality to her work and employs it even to describe how Americans are keen to prioritize the parachurch over the Church.
> 
> 2. As noted in multiple reviews, Mrs. Byrd allows egalitarian authors to do the heavy lifting for any controversial point made and doesn't provide any countervailing argument to the contrary. As such, her arguments are speculative and imaginative at times bordering on the absurd. A passing comment about Phoebe becomes the occasion for the notion that she must have been a central figure in the early Church. I think her aim is more modest (to establish the idea that women can be contributing, thinking participants in the Church) but the overwrought arguments about passing references undermines her case. Deborah, Phoebe, Junia, etc. She pushes to the center what the Bible mentions in passing. They are important but not central. They are contributing but it doesn't mean they are "inner circle". I've told others that I think she'll end up failing to influence the very people she was hoping to reach with this book because of this decision to utilize egalitarian scholarship as the central place to support her overall aim. I don't think she's egaliarian herself but I found myself thinking that she felt like she had to offer some sort of strong scholarly argument and grabbed arguments in a slap-dash manner that don't fit together very well. If, for instance, she's as consistently insidious as the former reviwer noted, she would have a much tighter argument but it all seems to hold together very tenuously.
> 
> 3. She ends up re-creating the same problem she is critiquing in her book about "CBMW-like" movements. The Scriptures are not, primarily, a manual about manhood and womanhood. What they have to say about God and what God requires of man certainly involves things that we need to heed and learn about what it is to be a man and a woman but the Scriptures don't operate as a manual. Those who focus on those topics tend to distort the Scriptures mostly in the way they train people to think that the principle aim of a person reading the Scriptures is to figure out, daily, how they are to "be a woman" where the Scriptures have much more to say to us as we read them and the Spirit sanctifies us. Her critique of the approach of many is on point here but then the book tends to descend into that distortion itself in the way it handles texts and pushes the issue of men and women "contributing" to the foreground and uses speculative and imaginative thinking of the the scholars she cites to distort the meaning of the text.
> 
> In conclusion, I found that I could agree with what she was trying to accomplish (to an extent). I agree that women have important perspectives. They are created in the image of God, are intelligent, and see things that men miss. I find her use of sources troubling as well as the methodology used to establish certain points. That said, I think the notion that she's denying the Gospel (a la Galatians 2) as the reviewer noted is laguhable to scron. If anyone ought to be brought up on charges, it is the OPC minister who has violated the 9th Commandment in his complete and utter overstatement of the case. I've got serious reservations about her work but more serious reservations about that review from an OPC minister. I hope his Presbytery will be sufficiently embarrassed by the utter folly of some of the breathless exaggerations and convince him to take it down.


Did the review really say she was "denying the gospel"? If so, I didn't pick up on that in my reading. I thought the linkage to Gal 2 was looser than that. Am willing to be corrected on this.

I thought the case he made was stronger than I would have, but he made some solid points.

As to the three "basic points" above, if that's all that Byrd is contending, I don't think that should even be controversial. Those are baldly true. I also agree with your "wince points."

I feel like there's something else that bothers me, though. Something that does seem drawn from the spirit of modern theory in some sense. Maybe I could simply state it as the "privileging of identity''; a concept which shares something from intersectional theory, wherein one's "identity," as a woman in this case, allows one special insights or perspectives into truth that aren't available to others, and hence represents some untapped source of wisdom and insight, the lack of which is keeping the church from being all that Christ wants her to be. 

I can't say that this is fully false, in some sense. Maybe it's even somewhat true. But I'm very suspicious of this perspective, for some reason. Something about it seems problematic to me.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't know if there is a formal name for a kind of approach where the reviewer says correct things but they are aimed in the wrong direction.
> 
> I used to think that OPC ministers were uniformly careful thinkers but this review proves the opposite and is, sadly, too consistent. This review is a mess.
> 
> It's not right. It's not even wrong.
> 
> It tries to be flowery whipping us up into things that no Christian should ever disagree with.
> 
> "The Spirit of God inspired the Scriptures!!"
> 
> Yeah!! That's right! How dare she argue otherwise?!
> 
> Except that, sad to say, she doesn't
> 
> I actually hate to think what kind of regular mishandling of the Scripture this Pastor practices on a regular basis given his inability to handle a text from a lay-person and come to the kinds of conclusions he does. It's got the depth of Dana Carvey's Church Lady in its observations.


You either did not read his review or you are just the intellectual slouch you accuse him of being. Either way, your comments here are unbecoming an ordained servant in Christ's church.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis

C. M. Sheffield said:


> You either did not read his review or you are just the intellectual slouch you accuse him of being. Either way, your comments here are unbecoming an ordained servant in Christ's church.


I read it carefully. I'll let the reader decide who is intellectually lazy and intemperate in their rhetoric.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Semper Fidelis said:


> I read it carefully. I'll let the reader decide who is intellectually lazy and intemperate in their rhetoric.


My point is that you might have disagreed with his argumentation and conclusions by a thoughtful interaction with what he wrote instead resorting to personal attacks. That is what you did. And that is, by its very nature, _lazy and intemperate._


----------



## BottleOfTears

Andrew35 said:


> As to the three "basic points" above, if that's all that Byrd is contending, I don't think that should even be controversial. Those are baldly true. I also agree with your "wince points."
> 
> I feel like there's something else that bothers me, though. Something that does seem drawn from the spirit of modern theory in some sense. Maybe I could simply state it as the "privileging of identity''; a concept which shares something from intersectional theory, wherein one's "identity," as a woman in this case, allows one special insights or perspectives into truth that aren't available to others, and hence represents some untapped source of wisdom and insight, the lack of which is keeping the church from being all that Christ wants her to be.
> 
> I can't say that this is fully false, in some sense. Maybe it's even somewhat true. But I'm very suspicious of this perspective, for some reason. Something about it seems problematic to me.


I think how we handle this sort of thing is really key in discussions like this. Because, as you say, there is a certain amount of truth in many things Aimee says, if we notice problematic elements, tendancies, or even just weaknesses, we cannot merely offer a blanket condemnation as in doing so we would accidentally be arguing against many true things as well, potentially causing some, in reaction, to embrace some of the more problematic elements.

In the case of intersectionality, we have to be careful not to deny the usefulness that multiple perspectives can offer us, as well as the culture and boundary crossing nature of the church, while at the same time critiquing more problematic elements. Pointing out potential problems with a skewed view of identity could be useful in a review, reading in a complete "intersectional" theology and disregarding every valid point made in the book because of it would not.

What can easily happen is that we set up a false binary discussion where people who are actually very close in what they believe find themselves on the opposite side, and neither side is willing to do anything that could be interpreted as conceding ground. Those who see themselves "in the middle" are left kind of confused and thinking "I don't agree with either side completely".

It seems that many reviews or discussions of Aimee's book do something similar to this, and then in response, those who appreciate the book see the actual valid criticisms as small potatoes compared to all the ridiculous stuff thrown Aimee's way. So the actual things worth discussing are often never discussed in a reasonable fashion, it's just arguments about who commited the worst 9th commandent violation. Even when a rather decent review such as the one produced by Mark Jones appears, it is refused a response because of the reviewers apparent association with those who have been slandering (I have zero idea of the truth on this matter). I believe Aimee actually wants a discussion, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult more people to write something more measured and even then the discussion is often side tracked into specifics of Natural Theology instead of what is discussed in the book itself. I also think that the more Aimee gets misrepresented or slandered, the more likely she is to percieve something as an attack or a malicious misrepresentation even when it is an honest mistake or disagreement. If an innocent person gets labelled like that, discussion will become next to impossible.

Even if no one is attacking others, where the focus is in discussion can also hurt matters. If "opponents" centre discussion on a relatively minor area while ignoring valid points in a relatively major area, discussion becomes a spiral of what-aboutism. Think of the Trinity debate. People throwing Trinitarian Orthodoxy out the window to back up their views on male-female relations doesn't look very appealing to those trying to pick a "side". People to this day still refuse to listen to anyone who professes ESS opine on other topics because their priorities seem so out of whack. Then if anyone tries to point out that they may be making a good point regardless, it just sounds like what-aboutism and reinforces the idea that people care more about women submitting than they do about how accurate their doctrine of the Trinity is.

I actually think there are problems even beyond this. Take a look at the reaction to the Mark Jones review. I don't have so much issue with said review in-and-of itself, but rather the way it has often been treated. I might be misreading things here, but people generally didn't see it as a useful contribution to an ongoing discussion, but almost as the silver bullet that they've been waiting for, which is arguably at odds with the review itself. Now, to be fair, a lot of the reaction was merely relief at someone writing a review who didnt sound incredibly outraged, but I also suspect that some people simply disliked the tone of the other discussions while agreeing with the majority of the content. No one wants to be sharing an angry review around, but dropping in the Mark Jones review when Aimee's book comes up in discussion is pretty reasonable.

But why do I say silver bullet? I think that a lot of people don't care whether or not Aimee is making any valid points. They are mostly concerned with elements of feminism coming into the church and see her book, and by extension Aimee herself as a threat. This is not to say these people want to slander Aimee, they would of course be opposed to that. But they also don't see any issues with current views on male female relations in evangelicalism. If pushed, they would probably concede that, yes, purity culture could be a bit legalistic and, yes, Doug Wilson-types say some weird stuff sometimes but they wouldn't go out of their way to make a fuss about it. So they see no need for a book like Aimee's, it may say some nice stuff sometimes, but the risk just isn't worth it.

Aimee wants a discussion where things get fleshed out a bit more and problematic elements are done away with. I have never seen her books as portraying themselves as The Final Word on such and such an issue, but rather as a beginning of a discussion that she thinks would be useful. I am often sympathetic to many things she points out in her books, though I am more on the Trueman part of the Byrd-Trueman-Pruitt scale if you will. I think that some of the problems in her works would be eliminated via more books by some others. I don't think she would be opposed to this at all, rather I think she would be delighted.

Sadly, it seems that many don't think a developmental discussion is necessary here, and see Aimee not as a useful voice that brings a bit of balance, but as a danger that needs to be dealt with. Enter Mark Jones review, stage left. Finally, a reasoned article that will sort this mess out. Retweet it on Twitter... and done. Complementarianism is saved.

I jest, but I believe here we come to the real aspect of disagreement currently. I think we can move beyond discussing "how slanderous is this one review I found" which honestly is not very edifying or helpful, and into the vastly more useful argument about whether much discussion actually needs to be done. Note, I am not asking about whether one agrees completely or even at all with Mrs Byrd on these issues, but rather whether (or how much) current views need to be analysed and modified/fleshed out.

Only then can we decide on how to tackle the real meat of discussion, that is, the subjects and ideas Aimee brings up in her book. I would hope that most would see that at the very least some fleshing out needs to be done, even if it is just the retrieval of existing ideas. I think Mark Jones has gone in that direction, which is one of the reasons his review is far more useful than the others. In fact, re-reading his review, much of what he says in his last few paragraphs concords with this idea as well as other things I have brought up.


Spoiler: Relevant Paragraphs from Jones



Complementarianism is sometimes about ideology, not reality. Revision needs to take place in some circles, and I would like to see a strong condemnation of ESS from all complementarians. In my view, the issues before us, in terms of the role of men and women in the church, need to be done carefully and in a context where authors are not approaching these questions from a preoccupation with teachings in their own contexts. This book is perhaps too preoccupied with CBMW, and in particular Piper and Grudem. Thinking against such a foil means the texts may not be approached attentively but rather they are being subjected to the demands of the debate. Or maybe the author isn’t allowed to develop their positive case well because of the polemical concerns.

In the end, we have a bold and provocative book by an author who wishes to liberate the church from what she perceives to be unbiblical views on male–female roles. I admit that I do not write from a female perspective, and some women may feel unjustifiably silenced in their churches in various ways. As a pastor this book makes me think about my own church context and whether women feel valued. Yet, a lot of her views have been already stated in the many books on this topic out there, which means the distinctiveness of this book is perhaps the polemical tone towards CBMW (hence the title of the book). For this reason, I worry this type of book will entrench party–lines more than develop sympathetic understanding. Whether supporters and opponents of Byrd’s project in the current climate have the ability to read both critically and sympathetically is an interesting question. But I think the biblical–theological case in this book needs filling out in more detail, and in a way that doesn’t basically re-state what has been offered already in recent decades. I also feel she’s (perhaps unwittingly) been squeezed into the demands of a debate where the church has not offered in recent decades the right theological tools for us all to work with. This issue is a truly difficult task before the church, and I pray God will raise up future authors (male and female) who can guide us on these admittedly sensitive (but hugely important) topics.


So what does everyone think? Do we need much theological development in this area? Who are those best suited to the task? Does much need to be changed? And how useful is what Aimee Byrd has written towards said development?

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Castle

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't know if there is a formal name for a kind of approach where the reviewer says correct things but they are aimed in the wrong direction.
> 
> I used to think that OPC ministers were uniformly careful thinkers but this review proves the opposite and is, sadly, too consistent. This review is a mess.
> 
> It's not right. It's not even wrong.
> 
> It tries to be flowery whipping us up into things that no Christian should ever disagree with.
> 
> "The Spirit of God inspired the Scriptures!!"
> 
> Yeah!! That's right! How dare she argue otherwise?!
> 
> Except that, sad to say, she doesn't
> 
> I actually hate to think what kind of regular mishandling of the Scripture this Pastor practices on a regular basis given his inability to handle a text from a lay-person and come to the kinds of conclusions he does. It's got the depth of Dana Carvey's Church Lady in its observations.
> 
> If anyone wants a serious review of Aimee's work then Mark Jones at The Calvinist International has provided what I believe is a good review.
> 
> Due to the furor aroused by this work, I listened to the book last week (I have to listen as I can't see well enough to read).
> 
> As I stated I agree with Mark Jones' review. I think Mrs. Bryd's approach is distracting and will undermine her aims. I believe she has three basic points she is trying to get across:
> 
> 1. That there is no principle of women generally submitting to men. Wives submit to their husbands but women, in general, are not to have (as the central focus of their identity) looking for ways in which to affirm "male leadership" in every man they meet.
> 
> 2. That women don't have to be the leaders in the Church but it doesn't imply they should not be throughtful, contributing members of the Church. They can do more than nursery and children's Sunday School and have an important perspective that ought to be sought out.
> 
> 3. That we ought to prioritize the Church over the parachurch.
> 
> There are a few ways in which I found myself wincing throughout:
> 
> 1. The yellow wallpaper motif was distracting and unnecessary. It serves as a metaphor for they ways in which we have constrained our thinking about what men and women can and can't do. As one example, I've interacted with one Brother frustrated that there is an idea that if you are quiet and introverted you are not a man. The problem with this metaphor is that she keeps using it as if she feels a need to bring literary quality to her work and employs it even to describe how Americans are keen to prioritize the parachurch over the Church.
> 
> 2. As noted in multiple reviews, Mrs. Byrd allows egalitarian authors to do the heavy lifting for any controversial point made and doesn't provide any countervailing argument to the contrary. As such, her arguments are speculative and imaginative at times bordering on the absurd. A passing comment about Phoebe becomes the occasion for the notion that she must have been a central figure in the early Church. I think her aim is more modest (to establish the idea that women can be contributing, thinking participants in the Church) but the overwrought arguments about passing references undermines her case. Deborah, Phoebe, Junia, etc. She pushes to the center what the Bible mentions in passing. They are important but not central. They are contributing but it doesn't mean they are "inner circle". I've told others that I think she'll end up failing to influence the very people she was hoping to reach with this book because of this decision to utilize egalitarian scholarship as the central place to support her overall aim. I don't think she's egaliarian herself but I found myself thinking that she felt like she had to offer some sort of strong scholarly argument and grabbed arguments in a slap-dash manner that don't fit together very well. If, for instance, she's as consistently insidious as the former reviwer noted, she would have a much tighter argument but it all seems to hold together very tenuously.
> 
> 3. She ends up re-creating the same problem she is critiquing in her book about "CBMW-like" movements. The Scriptures are not, primarily, a manual about manhood and womanhood. What they have to say about God and what God requires of man certainly involves things that we need to heed and learn about what it is to be a man and a woman but the Scriptures don't operate as a manual. Those who focus on those topics tend to distort the Scriptures mostly in the way they train people to think that the principle aim of a person reading the Scriptures is to figure out, daily, how they are to "be a woman" where the Scriptures have much more to say to us as we read them and the Spirit sanctifies us. Her critique of the approach of many is on point here but then the book tends to descend into that distortion itself in the way it handles texts and pushes the issue of men and women "contributing" to the foreground and uses speculative and imaginative thinking of the the scholars she cites to distort the meaning of the text.
> 
> In conclusion, I found that I could agree with what she was trying to accomplish (to an extent). I agree that women have important perspectives. They are created in the image of God, are intelligent, and see things that men miss. I find her use of sources troubling as well as the methodology used to establish certain points. That said, I think the notion that she's denying the Gospel (a la Galatians 2) as the reviewer noted is laughable to scorn. If anyone ought to be brought up on charges, it is the OPC minister who has violated the 9th Commandment in his complete and utter overstatement of the case. I've got serious reservations about her work but more serious reservations about that review from an OPC minister. I hope his Presbytery will be sufficiently embarrassed by the utter folly of some of the breathless exaggerations and convince him to take it down.


Brother, you are in Virginia as am I. You are welcome to come to my church and worship with any time you are in the Lynchburg area. 

First, as to intellectual laziness, my point about the Scripture and the Spirit goes deeper than the superficial slogan we all agree with. My critique of Mrs. Byrd trades on two poles of the doctrine of canonization. First, she writes that the Scriptures were compiled by committee. She then goes on to "discover" in the story of Huldah the contribution of a woman's voice to that compilation. This twin move allows her to say that a woman's voice was part of God's process of canonization. 

But the confessional doctrine is otherwise, as I labor to show in the article. The catholic doctrine of canon is that the Scripture bears all the marks of divinity of itself. The reception of the canon by the church is based upon the authenticating witness of the Spirit in the hearts of the Church. 

When we look at the story of Huldah, without any axes to grind, we see that the confessional doctrine of canonization is exactly what happens in the narrative. Josiah and the priests recognize the book as God's Word by reading it. The book is already authenticated before they go to Huldah. Huldah plays no part in authenticating the book as God's Word. Rather, she, as a prophetess, applies it to their lives much like a pastor does today in his sermon. This was an extraordinary time and so her being a teacher is an extraordinary circumstance which I don't want to go off on here. 

All this is to say, if you read my review and thought my only contention is that the Spirit inspired Scripture and Mrs. Byrd somehow denies this in some inchoate way, then you missed my point. And missing my point falls more so on my shoulders as an author than it does on yours as a reader, but it still falls to you to try and understand what I am doing in this article.

Secondly, my invitation to come worship with us still stands. But you need to watch the snide insinuations about my ministry which you have never attended. I wrote a review of a book directed at ordained men. I tried to show the deeper system of doctrine in the Confession and how Mrs. Byrd's book contradicts, not the individual doctrines of the confession, but the system underlying it. If you missed my point, then go back and reread or ask. But do not imply that I am mishandling the Word of Life in the feeding of my sheep whom I labor for based upon a misunderstanding of an admittedly thorny topic.

Be better than that and use manly rhetoric.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

BottleOfTears said:


> but almost as the silver bullet that they've been waiting for



Bingo. I think there is misunderstanding on both sides. Those on Aimee's side tend to think that all CBMW types are semi-Arians. They aren't, though CBMW allows for that. Those on Jones's side think Aimee's concerns simply reflect the worst of feminism. 

I got it full bore on twitter last week simply because I criticized the argumentation in one paragraph of Naselli's review. I didn't even say Naselli's larger point was wrong, only that his logic was sloppy. The complentarians (or patriarchalists or whatever) went into full meltdown mode.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Phil D.

Semper Fidelis said:


> I actually hate to think what kind of regular mishandling of the Scripture this Pastor practices on a regular basis...


This is truly an alarming statement. Regardless of the poster's rank or status, is this kind of invective really to be tolerated here on the PB?

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

BottleOfTears said:


> I think that a lot of people don't care whether or not Aimee is making any valid points. They are mostly concerned with elements of feminism coming into the church and see her book, and by extension Aimee herself as a threat. This is not to say these people want to slander Aimee, they would of course be opposed to that. But they also don't see any issues with current views on male female relations in evangelicalism. If pushed, they would probably concede that, yes, purity culture could be a bit legalistic and, yes, Doug Wilson-types say some weird stuff sometimes but they wouldn't go out of their way to make a fuss about it. So they see no need for a book like Aimee's, it may say some nice stuff sometimes, but the risk just isn't worth it.


You've accurately described where I am in this discussion. Though saying "a lot of people don't care whether or not Aimee is making any valid points" may be overstating it. For myself, I would say that whatever valid points she makes, they are incidental to the errors in her hermeneutics. Even a broken clock is right two times a day. But the categories she introduces to interpreting the Bible represent an error far outweighing anything positive about her work. She is claiming that the entire way we interpret the Bible needs to be changed. That is huge. Nothing can be more important than orthodox hermeneutics and nothing can be more dangerous than getting that wrong. And I believe she does.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

Phil D. said:


> This is truly an alarming statement. Regardless of the poster's rank or status, is this kind of invective really to be tolerated here on the PB?



Maybe, maybe not, but that's very gentle compared to some of the rhetoric I've received from people here over the years. Not judging PB, of course, just some of the people.


----------



## a mere housewife

BayouHuguenot said:


> Maybe, maybe not, but that's very gentle compared to some of the rhetoric I've received from people here over the years.



It's also comparable, and perhaps even gentle compared to what Ms. Byrd and other women who've spoken in this area receive here and elsewhere in the reformed community.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Phil D. said:


> This is truly an alarming statement. Regardless of the poster's rank or status, is this kind of invective really to be tolerated here on the PB?


The matter is being reviewed. Thank you.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

BayouHuguenot said:


> Maybe, maybe not, but that's very gentle compared to some of the rhetoric I've received from people here over the years. Not judging PB, of course, just some of the people.





a mere housewife said:


> It's also comparable, and perhaps even gentle compared to what Ms. Byrd and other women who've spoken in this area receive here and elsewhere in the reformed community.


I know your mother taught you that two wrongs don't make a right. Accusing a minister of the OPC of mishandling the Word of God on a weekly basis is slander. Plain and simple. Rich (@Semper Fidelis) should withdraw the offending remark. He perhaps owes an apology to Mr. Castle.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## a mere housewife

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I know your mother taught you that two wrongs don't make a right.



Right, it doesn't. Jacob's post which I quoted did not say that the statement was justified. He pointed out that he's received this sort of engagement here; and I think it's important to note that Ms. Byrd has too. -- I guess I'm more of a traditionalist about these things -- I don't think it's noble for men to be more careful when dealing with one another than they are when dealing with women. I think it's good to be equally careful with Ms. Byrd and other women here.

I didn't personally read the original review or follow that part of Rich's post; I appreciated his engagement with the substance of the book which notes some issues but also some good aims.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

a mere housewife said:


> Right, it doesn't. Jacob's post which I quoted did not say that the statement was justified. He pointed out that he's received this sort of engagement here; and I think it's important to note that Ms. Byrd has too. -- I guess I'm more of a traditionalist about these things -- I don't think it's noble for men to be more careful when dealing with one another than they are when dealing with women. I think it's good to be equally careful with Ms. Byrd and other women here.
> 
> I didn't personally read the original review or follow that part of Rich's post; I appreciated his engagement with the substance of the book which notes some issues but also some good aims.


My apologies. I assumed you were following the discussion.


----------



## BottleOfTears

C. M. Sheffield said:


> But the categories she introduces to interpreting the Bible represent an error far outweighing anything positive about her work. She is claiming that the entire way we interpret the Bible needs to be changed. That is huge. Nothing can be more important than orthodox hermeneutics and nothing can be more dangerous than getting that wrong. And I believe she does.


I think you may be overstating your case here. Is Aimee Byrd advocating for a complete reworking of our hermeneutics? Does she discuss typology or allegory indepth, or talk about the full extent of the ANE context for the Penteteuch? Does she reject Covenant Theology? I think not.

There's no problem with objecting to a strange interpretation of a passage (and its not as though novel interpretations are uncommon from either "side" here) or from bringing up a strange method of looking a texts about women, but that's a far cry from a completely new hermeneutic. Also to be pointed out is that the Reformed, Dispensationalists, and NCT people have far more differences in hermeneutics than anyone involved in this discussion but people make far more out of a single understanding of a passage if it has anything to do with gender roles.

What I think is also missed here is that Aimee makes a definite effort to link her arguments to Reformed theology in many ways, often quoting extensively from Swain and Allen. Her book _Why Can't We Be Friends_ quotes from them so much that special permission was needed. I think to say she is merely advocating for an egalitarian theology/hermeneutic is wrong.

That said, as Mark Jones points out:


> Byrd marshals a number of arguments that have been made in the (ever–growing) secondary literature on male–female roles by appealing to egalitarian theologians such as Carolyn Custis James, Philip B. Payne, Michael Bird, Richard Bauckham, Cynthia Westfall, and others. One gets the impression that the egalitarians do the heavy lifting for Byrd in terms of the more controversial points she wishes to make, whereas the “complementarian” theologians (e.g., Allen, Swain) are invoked for points less debateable, but nonetheless helpful.


So it's not as though one cannot object to said arguments.

However, this gets into another problem I have with this whole discussion, which ties into why the refusal to develop our theology in this area is so frustrating. When Aimee raises an objection to something, it is often dismissed, but not so often argued against.

To explain this, let me give another example. Say an article or popular book was written on election by a non-Reformed evangelical. Say they made some interesting points and as such, discussion of the article began on this board. The Reformed Faith has incredibly well defined views on election, so any confusing points could be well cleared up by marshalling an impressive array of sources. "Actually what Turretin says here is interesting" "It's obvious this person needs to engage more with what Muller has written in PRRD" etc. In short, there is plenty of indepth discussion and reasoning. Or maybe one of our doctrines gets challlenged, say justification by the NPP. Then we have not only our old resources on the topic, but new ones that deal with objections grounded in new discoveries in Second Temple Judaism, such as Horton's two volumes.

But when it comes to something like this, none of that happens. Arguments tend to be rather surface-level or sometimes things descend further into insults. Aimee is sometimes dismissed as a feminist, or treated as though she is just obviously wrong, without much discussion. People see this dismissal and defend Aimee instead of entering into proper discussion. It goes nowhere. Remember when Piper wrote that stuff about women police officers? Aimee obviously objected to that, because she saw no basis for Piper's reasoning. But many objected to her objection, hence now we have this idea of "thin" complementarianism. The supposed idea is that "thin" complementarians only listen to the bare commands of scripture, but are feminists elsewhere.

The problem with this is that much of the stuff that makes you a "thick" complementarian comes mostly from conservative American culture, and is often assumed more than argued for. To someone who didn't grow up with that, it isn't obvious at all. It's like purity culture. People in America have incredibly strong opinions on that topic ranging from "its incredibly demeaning to women" to "its basically good, why are you objecting are you a feminist?" Over here though, its just weird. It's utterly foreign to us. So it's rather frustrating when we read a bit of reasonable critique from someone like Aimee and all we hear back is "sounds like feminism".

Now if you disagree that there is little basis for this, then let me ask you something. Why does ESS exist? It exists because complementarians needed a stronger theological grounding for their positions. Now the doctrine itself and the idea that gender roles should be grounded in the Trinity are problematic, but there is some good in the aim. They noticed a lack of a solid theological defense against egalitarianism and tried to ground their beliefs in a central doctrine of the Christian faith. They ultimately failed. But one cannot merely leave it there. Surely a more solid foundation must be sought after?

Aimee is trying to be a part of something like that as well as trying to repair the damage caused by the mistakes of CBMW. If you disagree with her theology in that area, you have to do what she is doing but better. To disregard her because you don't like the authors she quoted from is ridiculous. You have to actually engage with her arguments. More than that, we all need a better developed theology of men and women, even if Aimee _is_ completely wrong, that seems pretty obvious judging by the weakness of most critiques of her books. Why is the fact that Aimee Byrd being wrong taken as a free pass not to develop our theology in this area?

When someone says something controversial about gender roles, I want to be able to go to resources that are deeply theological and well-grounded in Scripture, rather than deeply political and well-grounded in American Evangelical Culture. We just don't have anything like that. Everything is polemics.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I moderated a response to permit the person whom I "came out swinging" at was permitted to respond to my scathing response. It is only fair to permit a man to respond to something another has written and I have permitted him to do so.

Let me address those who believe that what I have written is an ad hominem attack of the minister.

I should have written: "If the way this man handles Mrs. Byrd's material is indicative of the manner n which he handles the Scriptures then I have serious reservations about his teaching."

I maintain that his review is unfair and a gross misrepresentation of Mrs. Byrd portraying her writing as:

a. claiming that Scripture was created by a committee and denying divine authorship.
b. claiming that Mrs. Byrd's writing is feminist theology and, consequently, a denial of the Gospel itself.

The manly thing to do when anyone is being slandered (as Mrs. Byrd was) is to defend against the slander.

I'm sympathetic to what @BottleOfTears writes. The review represents the kind of excessive overreach that fails to take the overall thrust of the work, focus on her admittedly questionable use of resources, and then ascribe the absolute worst kind of departure from Reformed orthodoxy. It rallies the troops with a "Here I stand!" on orthodoxy in the pretense that her book represents that kind of departure from orthodoxy.

The reason I offered my own thoughts on the problems with the book was not to engage in some sort of "either-or" dilemma in which we must either accept what Aimee writes or the sources used but neither must we ascribe the worst kind of departure from basic hermeneutics or even an inchoate feminism that is opposed to the very Gospel itself. 

I don't view Mark Jones' review as a "silver bullet" but a fair critique that acknowledges, in part, that there is an overall problem in this arena and seeks to offer a way in which she can be viewed sympathetically. In other words, we can (as he notes) acknowledge her errors without ascribing the worst in her as this review proposed.

So, for my part, I repent of over-stating the case. If the Pastor who wrote the review is an otherwise solid exegete then I have no information with which to judge his regular sermons. With respect to this particular review, his conclusions are indefensible and represent a gross accontextual use of Aimee's words in the book as if she proposes a gross departure from Reformed hermeneutics. One can note her errors (as has been done) and come to far different and fairer conclusions than what the reviewer jumps to.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Castle

Semper Fidelis said:


> I moderated a response to permit the person whom I "came out swinging" at was permitted to respond to my scathing response. It is only fair to permit a man to respond to something another has written and I have permitted him to do so.
> 
> Let me address those who believe that what I have written is an ad hominem attack of the minister.
> 
> I should have written: "If the way this man handles Mrs. Byrd's material is indicative of the manner n which he handles the Scriptures then I have serious reservations about his teaching."
> 
> I maintain that his review is unfair and a gross misrepresentation of Mrs. Byrd portraying her writing as:
> 
> a. claiming that Scripture was created by a committee and denying divine authorship.
> b. claiming that Mrs. Byrd's writing is feminist theology and, consequently, a denial of the Gospel itself.
> 
> The manly thing to do when anyone is being slandered (as Mrs. Byrd was) is to defend against the slander.
> 
> I'm sympathetic to what @BottleOfTears writes. The review represents the kind of excessive overreach that fails to take the overall thrust of the work, focus on her admittedly questionable use of resources, and then ascribe the absolute worst kind of departure from Reformed orthodoxy. It rallies the troops with a "Here I stand!" on orthodoxy in the pretense that her book represents that kind of departure from orthodoxy.
> 
> The reason I offered my own thoughts on the problems with the book was not to engage in some sort of "either-or" dilemma in which we must either accept what Aimee writes or the sources used but neither must we ascribe the worst kind of departure from basic hermeneutics or even an inchoate feminism that is opposed to the very Gospel itself.
> 
> I don't view Mark Jones' review as a "silver bullet" but a fair critique that acknowledges, in part, that there is an overall problem in this arena and seeks to offer a way in which she can be viewed sympathetically. In other words, we can (as he notes) acknowledge her errors without ascribing the worst in her as this review proposed.
> 
> So, for my part, I repent of over-stating the case. If the Pastor who wrote the review is an otherwise solid exegete then I have no information with which to judge his regular sermons. With respect to this particular review, his conclusions are indefensible and represent a gross accontextual use of Aimee's words in the book as if she proposes a gross departure from Reformed hermeneutics. One can note her errors (as has been done) and come to far different and fairer conclusions than what the reviewer jumps to.


I appreciate the exchange and I accept your apology. Come to church with us. We are looking at Genesis 19, the Wickeness of Sodom Displayed.

My point though, goes deeper than all of this. 

If Paul is to be believed, the Mrs. Byrd should not have written this book.

One, because she attempts to teach the church. She repeatedly calls on pastors and elders "church leaders" to listen to her and take her seriously. She even goes as far as to recast Anne Hichtinson as a hero of the faith. 

Two, she is a woman. Paul said, let a woman keep silent and not teach (1 Timothy 2:14). The rrasonnshe should not teach is because it takes great labor to accurately divide the word of truth, God has called men to do this work, and women are more easily deceived. Case in point, RFBMW., a book which relies exclusively on egalitarian and feminist sources which carry with them the feminist meta-narrative to the interpretation of Scripture. Mrs. Byrd even uses the operative metaphor from a feminist novella as her own governing paradigm for how she reads Scripture. She shows, by the book itself, that she cannot discern the wheat, if such there be on feminist scholarship, from the chaff which there certainly is in feminist scholarship. To fail to discern the unbiblical elements in a source is to be deceived.

Three, among the various other orthodox debates (Covenant vs. New Covenant Theology, etc), the agreed upon assumption is the Scripture interprets Scripture. What Mrs. Byrd engages in is not that but applying the feminist meta-narrative to Scripture and history and reading both through that lens. "Do you see the yellow wallpaper" is a constant refrain in the book. I don't see how an orthodox interpreter can look at the Huldah or Ruth narratives and come up with the interpretation she puts on them (when in the Ruth narrative the very criterion she selects for feminine voice is absent from the narrative, even as she admits!) without supposing that the there is another lens by which she is trying to read Scripture.

I do not see this as an innocent conversation we can disintestedly discuss. These types of arguments have been made before in the CRC and PCUSA and look where they are now. How did they get there? Because to accept the arguments which Mrs. Byrd is making, is to accept the view of Scripture and the work of the Spirit upon which those arguments stand. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

[email protected] said:


> One, because she attempts to teach the church. She repeatedly calls on pastors and elders "church leaders" to listen to her and take her seriously. She even goes as far as to recast Anne Hichtinson as a hero of the faith.


I think this is a good example of the excess in your rhetoric or your ability to read what she wrote. She does not recast Hutchinson as a hero of the faith. It's hard for me to take you seriously when you write things that are clearly not the case.

She engages in speculation about whether Anne might have been "salvageable" if her Pastors took her seriously and trained her in the Scriptures more properly. It's a questionable point but she doesn't cast her as a "hero". If you are to be taken seriously you need to cast your criticisms fairly and accurately.


[email protected] said:


> wo, she is a woman. Paul said, let a woman keep silent and not teach (1 Timothy 2:14). The rrasonnshe should not teach is because it takes great labor to accurately divide the word of truth, God has called men to do this work, and women are more easily deceived. Case in point, RFBMW., a book which relies exclusively on egalitarian and feminist sources which carry with them the feminist meta-narrative to the interpretation of Scripture. Mrs. Byrd even uses the operative metaphor from a feminist novella as her own governing paradigm for how she reads Scripture. She shows, by the book itself, that she cannot discern the wheat, if such there be on feminist scholarship, from the chaff which there certainly is in feminist scholarship. To fail to discern the unbiblical elements in a source is to be deceived.


The question about whether she places herself as a teacher or someone making an argument is debatable. Are you ordained as a Pastor for every Christian or are you ordained to a particular calling with a flock? One might argue, in the same vein, that even though you are ordained as a TE you are nevertheless exceeding the boundary of your calling and some Pastor might take you to task for presuming to shepherd beyond the flock to which you have been called. If, however, we are all permitted to engage in public conversation then the issue of "presuming to teach" is relieved.

Her "yellow paper" metaphor is just that. She actually only introduces the concept as an illustration of the Fall that clouds our thinking. I find the metaphor distracting but the book itself is not the "controlling paradigm" and you again either failed to read or misunderstand that her controlling paradigm is that human sin clouds our understanding of Scripture. One does not have to endorse or agree with her to represent her accurately and fairly.



[email protected] said:


> Three, among the various other orthodox debates (Covenant vs. New Covenant Theology, etc), the agreed upon assumption is the Scripture interprets Scripture. What Mrs. Byrd engages in is not that but applying the feminist meta-narrative to Scripture and history and reading both through that lens. "Do you see the yellow wallpaper" is a constant refrain in the book. I don't see how an orthodox interpreter can look at the Huldah or Ruth narratives and come up with the interpretation she puts on them (when in the Ruth narrative the very criterion she selects for feminine voice is absent from the narrative, even as she admits!) without supposing that the there is another lens by which she is trying to read Scripture.


You again miss the mark here. The refrain (while distracting) is again the clouding of our mind by sin. Surely (if you are an orthodox Presbyterian) you agree that corruption remains in the justified sinner. This means that your thinking is clouded by sin and is in need of constant renewal. I have already stated I don't like the "yellow paper" motif but she clearly thinks this to the Fall.

Also, if you read between the lines, Amy is leveraging authors to make certain arguments but not adopting the fullness of their implications. You can call her inconsistent at this point and I find it to be a weakness in her book but her principal purpose in leveraging them is to try to argue for the importance of a contributive voice and input from women. Your own perspective seems to be the idea that, because women are more easily deceived, that they should distrust any perspective or contribution as laypersons but is it not true as well that men are deceived and unstable in some cases? 

My point is that, if you take the time to read her more carefully, you can fairly critique her use of sources and have some patient endurance with where she is making speculative or misguided arguments to try to see the heart of the main argument. If,however, you treat every source utilized or metaphor utilized as a clear adoption (in full) of every source cited then you will be prone to actually fail to apprehend the very qualification she makes as to why she cites the sources.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

By the way, I do appreciate the irenic exchange. 

For some reason your posts keep going into moderation for us to approve your replies and I can't figure out why. I've also updated your username so it's not your personal email.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't know if there is a formal name for a kind of approach where the reviewer says correct things but they are aimed in the wrong direction.
> 
> I used to think that OPC ministers were uniformly careful thinkers but this review proves the opposite and is, sadly, too consistent. This review is a mess.
> 
> It's not right. It's not even wrong.
> 
> It tries to be flowery whipping us up into things that no Christian should ever disagree with.
> 
> "The Spirit of God inspired the Scriptures!!"
> 
> Yeah!! That's right! How dare she argue otherwise?!
> 
> Except that, sad to say, she doesn't
> 
> I actually hate to think what kind of regular mishandling of the Scripture this Pastor practices on a regular basis given his inability to handle a text from a lay-person and come to the kinds of conclusions he does. It's got the depth of Dana Carvey's Church Lady in its observations.
> 
> If anyone wants a serious review of Aimee's work then Mark Jones at The Calvinist International has provided what I believe is a good review.
> 
> Due to the furor aroused by this work, I listened to the book last week (I have to listen as I can't see well enough to read).
> 
> As I stated I agree with Mark Jones' review. I think Mrs. Bryd's approach is distracting and will undermine her aims. I believe she has three basic points she is trying to get across:
> 
> 1. That there is no principle of women generally submitting to men. Wives submit to their husbands but women, in general, are not to have (as the central focus of their identity) looking for ways in which to affirm "male leadership" in every man they meet.
> 
> 2. That women don't have to be the leaders in the Church but it doesn't imply they should not be throughtful, contributing members of the Church. They can do more than nursery and children's Sunday School and have an important perspective that ought to be sought out.
> 
> 3. That we ought to prioritize the Church over the parachurch.
> 
> There are a few ways in which I found myself wincing throughout:
> 
> 1. The yellow wallpaper motif was distracting and unnecessary. It serves as a metaphor for they ways in which we have constrained our thinking about what men and women can and can't do. As one example, I've interacted with one Brother frustrated that there is an idea that if you are quiet and introverted you are not a man. The problem with this metaphor is that she keeps using it as if she feels a need to bring literary quality to her work and employs it even to describe how Americans are keen to prioritize the parachurch over the Church.
> 
> 2. As noted in multiple reviews, Mrs. Byrd allows egalitarian authors to do the heavy lifting for any controversial point made and doesn't provide any countervailing argument to the contrary. As such, her arguments are speculative and imaginative at times bordering on the absurd. A passing comment about Phoebe becomes the occasion for the notion that she must have been a central figure in the early Church. I think her aim is more modest (to establish the idea that women can be contributing, thinking participants in the Church) but the overwrought arguments about passing references undermines her case. Deborah, Phoebe, Junia, etc. She pushes to the center what the Bible mentions in passing. They are important but not central. They are contributing but it doesn't mean they are "inner circle". I've told others that I think she'll end up failing to influence the very people she was hoping to reach with this book because of this decision to utilize egalitarian scholarship as the central place to support her overall aim. I don't think she's egaliarian herself but I found myself thinking that she felt like she had to offer some sort of strong scholarly argument and grabbed arguments in a slap-dash manner that don't fit together very well. If, for instance, she's as consistently insidious as the former reviwer noted, she would have a much tighter argument but it all seems to hold together very tenuously.
> 
> 3. She ends up re-creating the same problem she is critiquing in her book about "CBMW-like" movements. The Scriptures are not, primarily, a manual about manhood and womanhood. What they have to say about God and what God requires of man certainly involves things that we need to heed and learn about what it is to be a man and a woman but the Scriptures don't operate as a manual. Those who focus on those topics tend to distort the Scriptures mostly in the way they train people to think that the principle aim of a person reading the Scriptures is to figure out, daily, how they are to "be a woman" where the Scriptures have much more to say to us as we read them and the Spirit sanctifies us. Her critique of the approach of many is on point here but then the book tends to descend into that distortion itself in the way it handles texts and pushes the issue of men and women "contributing" to the foreground and uses speculative and imaginative thinking of the the scholars she cites to distort the meaning of the text.
> 
> In conclusion, I found that I could agree with what she was trying to accomplish (to an extent). I agree that women have important perspectives. They are created in the image of God, are intelligent, and see things that men miss. I find her use of sources troubling as well as the methodology used to establish certain points. That said, I think the notion that she's denying the Gospel (a la Galatians 2) as the reviewer noted is laughable to scorn. If anyone ought to be brought up on charges, it is the OPC minister who has violated the 9th Commandment in his complete and utter overstatement of the case. I've got serious reservations about her work but more serious reservations about that review from an OPC minister. I hope his Presbytery will be sufficiently embarrassed by the utter folly of some of the breathless exaggerations and convince him to take it down.


I would like clarification on your first point. Does Ms. Byrd make the case that within the Reformed church there is the assumption that all women are subordinate to all men? Does she really believe that? I have been in NAPARC churches for 30 years now and have never once heard that expressed or implied. It’s a straw man (or maybe straw woman?) 

The problems I see with Ms. Byrd are hard for me to define but having been a militant feminist prior to my conversion I am sensitive to its many ways of expression.. Now please don’t think I’m labeling her as such. But what concerns me is a subtle undertone of dissatisfaction, a resentment of perceived restrictions and a need to “correct” the church. I guess I just don’t see the issues she sees as being actual problems. I know that ordained lady deacons will be the rule rather than the exception soon. Women will be teaching adult Bible studies eventually. But do we believe the Bible is inspired or not? If we say we believe this, then it seems to me that these issues were settled long ago. i hope that godly men will not succumb to the feminization of the Reformed church .

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Castle

Susan777 said:


> I would like clarification on your first point. Does Ms. Byrd make the case that within the Reformed church there is the assumption that all women are subordinate to all men? Does she really believe that? I have been in NAPARC churches for 30 years now and have never once heard that expressed or implied. It’s a straw man (or maybe straw woman?)
> 
> The problems I see with Ms. Byrd are hard for me to define but having been a militant feminist prior to my conversion I am sensitive to its many ways of expression.. Now please don’t think I’m labeling her as such. But what concerns me is a subtle undertone of dissatisfaction, a resentment of perceived restrictions and a need to “correct” the church. I guess I just don’t see the issues she sees as being actual problems. I know that ordained lady deacons will be the rule rather than the exception soon. Women will be teaching adult Bible studies eventually. But do we believe the Bible is inspired or not? If we say we believe this, then it seems to me that these issues were settled long ago. i hope that godly men will not succumb to the feminization of the Reformed church .


Seeing that you were a radical feminist, I would be interested in your feedback on this review. I don't know if you've read it yet, it was linked above. I'll link it here:









Mrs. Byrd’s Yellow Wallpaper


It is not the Church, but Mrs. Byrd who cannot see the yellow wallpaper through which she reads the Bible.




calvinistruminant.wordpress.com





Your concern is mine as well.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## RamistThomist

Susan777 said:


> I would like clarification on your first point. Does Ms. Byrd make the case that within the Reformed church there is the assumption that all women are subordinate to all men? Does she really believe that? I have been in NAPARC churches for 30 years now and have never once heard that expressed or implied. It’s a straw man (or maybe straw woman?)



It's half a straw man. There is a very vocal group within the Reformed world that holds views that women shouldn't work outside the home (sometimes not even getting an education) and that men should be manly manly men. Indeed, one group created its own microdenomination to emphasize "masculinity."

It is a problem but not as big as Mrs Byrd might suggest it is.

Yes, I know of the verse that says women should work at home. I don't think the Bible applies it absolutely, since Lydia worked her own business and the Proverbs 31 woman did stuff outside the home.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Andrew35

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's half a straw man. There is a very vocal group within the Reformed world that holds views that women shouldn't work outside the home (sometimes not even getting an education) and that men should be manly manly men. Indeed, one group created its own microdenomination to emphasize "masculinity."
> 
> It is a problem but not as big as Mrs Byrd might suggest it is.
> 
> Yes, I know of the verse that says women should work at home. I don't think the Bible applies it absolutely, since Lydia worked her own business and the Proverbs 31 woman did stuff outside the home.


How big a problem is this in NAPARC really? PB is pretty conservative, I believe. Are there any on here that would come out as affirming the above? I'm genuinely curious.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Andrew35 said:


> How big a problem is this in NAPARC really? PB is pretty conservative, I believe. Are there any on here that would come out as affirming the above? I'm genuinely curious.



How big is the problem of perceived femininity among men?

or How big is the problem of brochismo manly men denomination mindset? 

Truth be told, I bet most people are somewhere in the middle. No one is burning bras and only the most extreme Wilsonites are guilty of what Mrs Byrd likely alleges.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Andrew35

BayouHuguenot said:


> How big is the problem of perceived femininity among men?
> 
> or How big is the problem of brochismo manly men denomination mindset?
> 
> Truth be told, I bet most people are somewhere in the middle. No one is burning bras and only the most extreme Wilsonites are guilty of what Mrs Byrd likely alleges.


Right, but those are perceptions/mindsets. I was referring more to the specific behaviors you mentioned; e.g., believing women should not work outside the home as an absolute principle.

There's definitely much to criticize in the "traditional" American view of masculinity, I'm not denying that. Of particularly grievous note, "masculinity" as comprising a set of stereotypical behaviors and affinities rather than a striving for an identified set of virtues. (I never fit into the stereotypical "model American male" myself: one summer at camp, I missed a baseball due to picking dandelions in the field instead of watching the game. I wore the humiliating title of "dandelion boy" for the rest of the week. My parents eventually gave up and stopped forcing me to go. )

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Andrew35 said:


> believing women should not work outside the home as an absolute principle.



Not overwhelming, since the financial structure of America usually requires a two-income household. I did sit in on an interview where the candidate was adamant that the woman stay home, so there's that.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim

Susan777 said:


> I would like clarification on your first point. Does Ms. Byrd make the case that within the Reformed church there is the assumption that all women are subordinate to all men? Does she really believe that? I have been in NAPARC churches for 30 years now and have never once heard that expressed or implied. It’s a straw man (or maybe straw woman?)
> 
> The problems I see with Ms. Byrd are hard for me to define but having been a militant feminist prior to my conversion I am sensitive to its many ways of expression.. Now please don’t think I’m labeling her as such. But what concerns me is a subtle undertone of dissatisfaction, a resentment of perceived restrictions and a need to “correct” the church. I guess I just don’t see the issues she sees as being actual problems. I know that ordained lady deacons will be the rule rather than the exception soon. Women will be teaching adult Bible studies eventually. But do we believe the Bible is inspired or not? If we say we believe this, then it seems to me that these issues were settled long ago. i hope that godly men will not succumb to the feminization of the Reformed church .



She has a wider audience (or target) in view than the NAPARC world. I could be wrong, but I think the idea that women should submit to all men is much more common in Baptist/CBMW circles, and maybe CREC. As far as I know, none of the ESS teachers are Presbyterian.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> She has a wider audience (or target) in view than the NAPARC world. I could be wrong, but I think the idea that women should submit to all men is much more common in Baptist/CBMW circles, and maybe CREC. As far as I know, none of the ESS teachers are Presbyterian.



That sounds about right. I know that Doug Wilson, quite surprisingly, doesn't hold that all women should submit to all men. I think that has more to do with "encroaching on another man's territory" than anything to do with the dignity of the woman.

I think we can make a spectrum:

Bishop of the Episcopal Church -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------R.C. Sproul Jr.


----------



## Andrew35

Pilgrim said:


> She has a wider audience (or target) in view than the NAPARC world. I could be wrong, but I think the idea that women should submit to all men is much more common in Baptist/CBMW circles, and maybe CREC. As far as I know, none of the ESS teachers are Presbyterian.


For what it's worth, I grew up IFB, my dad a pastor, and I never heard of it. Even if I had, just try telling one of our green bean casserole-toting grandmas she's got to submit to "naughty Bryan" who she spanked 8 years back for stealing church cookies.


----------



## RamistThomist

Andrew35 said:


> For what it's worth, I grew up IFB, my dad a pastor, and I never heard of it. Even if I had, just try telling one of our green bean casserole-toting grandmas she's got to submit to "naughty Bryan" who she spanked 8 years back for stealing church cookies.



It's fairly recent. And I haven't seen it in IFB circles. I think it is more of those in SBC who are overreacting.


----------



## Castle

Pilgrim said:


> She has a wider audience (or target) in view than the NAPARC world. I could be wrong, but I think the idea that women should submit to all men is much more common in Baptist/CBMW circles, and maybe CREC. As far as I know, none of the ESS teachers are Presbyterian.


While it may be present in some fringe elements of the evangelical world (The now discredited Vision Forum), I think her presentation of the problem is a straw man. 

I own the label patriarch, and I don't teach this. And I don't know anyone who does. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> So what do you think her motivations are? I think there are better and more specific ways she could have addressed her concerns, maybe? Could you find areas that she may have valid concerns? I didn’t read her book but she is targeting “biblical manhood and womanhood” by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Maybe some of her criticisms are valid? But is she qualified to be a biblical authority on these matters? Would P&R publish this book? Just some random questions for consideration if you would be so inclined, thanks!



That points to the tension. We all agree that women shouldn't teach men *in the church.* Can a woman teach a man outside the church? That's the issue. And that's why it is not entirely divorced from questions like "should women submit to all men?"

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## a mere housewife

BayouHuguenot said:


> That points to the tension. We all agree that women shouldn't teach men *in the church.* Can a woman teach a man outside the church? That's the issue. And that's why it is not entirely divorced from questions like "should women submit to all men?"



I also know some who believe that a woman should never be a man's boss in the workforce (ie, women can work outside the home, so long as its menial), and should never be above men in the governing heirarchy of society.

Also related: many believe that women cannot teach men anything spiritually, cannot write commentaries or religious resource books etc.

We've discussed much of this before in a number of places, recently here: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/rachel-miller’s-beyond-authority-and-submission.99277/

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

A.Joseph said:


> Anyway, I feel bad for what she writes here


That's odd. Why does what she wrote make "feel bad"?


----------



## mvdm

Another friendly, yet critical review, picking up on some of the same concerns Rev. Castle highlighted in his review:









Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - A (I Hope) Friendly Review - Reformed Arsenal


Aimee Byrd, for those who are unfamiliar, is a popular blogger, podcaster, conference speaker, and writer. She is a member in good standing in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and has recently published a book titled Recovering from Biblical manhood and Womanhood. Before I get into my review...




reformedarsenal.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I bought Aimee’s book on Kindle and have read the intro (The Introduction That You May Not Skip! The Church’s Yellow Wallpaper), and Chapter One. I made some notes, such as when Aimee is complaining about women’s frufru study Bibles, and wondered why she doesn’t see that this is something Bible publishers have done to make money, not something CBMW or the church did. 

I’ll try to finish the book just because, but it’s hard slogging and I’m just about too old to deal with. Aimee does, in my opinion, use the yellow wallpaper meme consistently (in the portion I’ve read) to illustrate the church’s failure to give women their proper place in the church.

The simple thing to do I think is to just compare what Aimee says she wants for women in the church to what Scripture wants. I don’t think they’re going to line up. I’ll try to make a list of the Bible’s instruction to women/wives, and make notes of where Aimee agrees or disagrees with those things.

We really need a recovery of Puritan teaching in the churches on marriage and the church. Ministers willing to teach and preach on all the “hard” passages that apply to all— men, women, and children.

And bring back the idea of stations in life, of superiors and inferiors. We need that.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 2


----------



## W.C. Dean

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's fairly recent. And I haven't seen it in IFB circles. I think it is more of those in SBC who are overreacting.



I've been around conservative Southern Baptists for a long time and while I haven't heard much about complementarian theology, I believe some I know acted as if homosexuality was the biggest issue facing the church. Perhaps this sparked some opinions of the family and marriage? Now it appears to me the non-Reformed conservative SBs are concerned more with promoting some form of racial reconciliation. The man who first taught me about Reformed theology is a Southern Baptist chaplain who is a big Doug Wilson and John Piper fan. I'll have to ask him about this.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’ll try to finish the book just because, but it’s hard slogging and I’m just about too old to deal with.


This cracked me up. 



Jeri Tanner said:


> We really need a recovery of Puritan teaching in the churches on marriage and the church. Ministers willing to teach and preach on all the “hard” passages that apply to all— men, women, and children.
> 
> And bring back the idea of stations in life, of superiors and inferiors. We need that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Jeri Tanner said:


> And bring back the idea of stations in life, of superiors and inferiors. We need that.



As a monarchist Tory, I agree. Here is the problem. By superiors and inferiors, are we referring to ontology/nature or status? I've seen patriarchalists on social media argue for the former, which is the terrible error of Aristotle.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> Interesting points, including Mr Arsenal’s review. Based on some of this feedback, I almost get the impression that this is more of a vanity project above anything else. Which is in most of our subconscious a motivation for writing a book. Maybe publishers need to be more selective. Credentials are not the be all end all but for topics such as these there should be some type of minimum standard maybe.



That's entirely subjective. As someone who writes about 5 book reviews a week, I can say the same thing (vanity project) about most book reviews (sometimes including my own). She identifies problematic statements made in family manuals. I think clarification on those statements (e.g., are women inferior by nature or by status? The first leads you to Greek philosophy).



> Which is in most of our subconscious a motivation for writing a book.



Freud, anybody?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Per Tony's review. He admits he listened to an audiobook. Fair enough, but this hamstrings the reader of the review since we just have to take his word on some arguments and aren't able to evaluate the pages ourselves.

1) She uses egalitarian sources, which must be bad. Well, Samuel Rutherford quoted papists approvingly more than he quote Calvin.
2) Half-baked argumentation: he doesn't give a single example. I want to see where exactly the conclusion doesn't follow the premise.

Her conclusions:

3) Deuteronomy being recognized by Huldah. I actually think that is historically accurate, pace Tony, but pace Aimee, I don't think it is significant, aside from the fact that Huldah wasn't at home mindin' her man.
4) Ruth as a sexual situation. I don't want to read too much into it, but that's standard in the commentaries. Feet often mean genitalia. No, I don't think Ruth was having sex with Boaz, but it would have been a scandal had someone walked up on the situation.
5) Per Junia: it's a plausible argument. I'm not persuaded yet, but many NT scholars are.


----------



## A.Joseph

Sounds like she does a bait and switch, using these sources to reach different conclusions. Isn’t this disingenuous to the original intent?

Did you read the book? Why are you assuming the reviewer is wrong? How can he disprove a negative? If he says the following are *absent* from her (overall thesis) book, how can he further make his point to your satisfaction?

Aimee repeatedly affirms that there are essential differences that exist between men and women. *However, there is little in the way of explanation of what those differences are*.
Aimee states (here and elsewhere) that *she does not have to act in a feminine way since she is a woman. However, it seems like Aimee would not deny that it is possible for a man to act like a woman, or a woman to act like a man. An explanation of these two facts and how they cohere is necessary.*
Aimee indicates that men and women have *unique things to contribute to the Church, but she does not give any real indication of what those things are.*



BayouHuguenot said:


> Per Tony's review. He admits he listened to an audiobook. Fair enough, but this hamstrings the reader of the review since we just have to take his word on some arguments and aren't able to evaluate the pages ourselves.
> 
> 1) She uses egalitarian sources, which must be bad. Well, Samuel Rutherford quoted papists approvingly more than he quote Calvin.
> 2) Half-baked argumentation: he doesn't give a single example. I want to see where exactly the conclusion doesn't follow the premise.
> 
> Her conclusions:
> 
> 3) Deuteronomy being recognized by Huldah. I actually think that is historically accurate, pace Tony, but pace Aimee, I don't think it is significant, aside from the fact that Huldah wasn't at home mindin' her man.
> 4) Ruth as a sexual situation. I don't want to read too much into it, but that's standard in the commentaries. Feet often mean genitalia. No, I don't think Ruth was having sex with Boaz, but it would have been a scandal had someone walked up on the situation.
> 5) Per Junia: it's a plausible argument. I'm not persuaded yet, but many NT scholars are.


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> Sounds like she does a bait and switch, uses these sources to reach different conclusions. Isn’t this disingenuous to the original intent?



Not necessarily. I used to quote Nietzsche to atheists and I quote Heidegger all the time without endorsing their worldviews.


A.Joseph said:


> Did you read the book?


Not yet.


A.Joseph said:


> Why are you assuming the reviewer is wrong?


I didn't. I simply pointed out that his argumentation, or lack of it, was weak.


A.Joseph said:


> How can he disprove a negative?


By not basing a review on an audiobook that is intended as a critical analysis.


A.Joseph said:


> *However, there is little in the way of explanation of what those differences are*.


If there is "little in the way," then that means there is little, not absence. In any case, the most your counter-argument could prove is that I haven't yet read the book and maybe I could provide evidence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

BayouHuguenot said:


> As a monarchist Tory, I agree. Here is the problem. By superiors and inferiors, are we referring to ontology/nature or status? I've seen patriarchalists on social media argue for the former, which is the terrible error of Aristotle.


I would have assumed we were using it in the same sense as that employed by the Westminster divines (LC 123-133; SC 63-66).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I would have assumed we were using in the same sense as that employed by the Westminster divines (LC 123-133; SC 63-66).



That's generally true, but since most people today don't talk about metaphysics, substance, ontology, and property-relations, this is apt to be misunderstood.


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> Aimee states (here and elsewhere) that *she does not have to act in a feminine way since she is a woman. However, it seems like Aimee would not deny that it is possible for a man to act like a woman, or a woman to act like a man. An explanation of these two facts and how they cohere is necessary.*



She probably could give a better explanation on that one.


A.Joseph said:


> Aimee indicates that men and women have *unique things to contribute to the Church, but she does not give any real indication of what those things are.*



I could be wrong, but I thought she did and that's why she got in trouble.


----------



## A.Joseph

ok, the publisher is Zondervan

I could see where that could be problematic as far as confessional publishing standards, or lack thereof.

Didnt she say it was the publisher that encouraged the controversial yellow paper cover and title?


----------



## RamistThomist

I'll be honest. I have no idea what the connotations of yellow wall paper mean. Is it bad?


A.Joseph said:


> Shes obviously building her brand and expanding her reach which may lead her into the arms of liberalism..... MAY.



That's a really specious line of argumentation.


----------



## Andrew35

Yellow wallpaper = a metaphor for how society has confined women to domesticities and away from mental stimulation, such as writing for Gilman and presumably churchly and theological concerns for Byrd. In this manner, women are kept from areas where they may better serve and contribute to society, as well as from their full potential.

I think that's probably the fairest understanding of the metaphor as both authors use it. (I read the story years ago, incidentally, but never cared for it very much. More of an Edith Wharton fan.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

W.C. Dean said:


> Now it appears to me the non-Reformed conservative SBs are concerned more with promoting some form of racial reconciliation.



Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that's backwards. The ones pushing racial reconciliation are almost all "Reformed" types. Think TGC and T4G. SBTS and SEBTS are the hotbeds for it, and those are the two "Calvinist" seminaries. Founders stands against it, but they are really a minority even within the ranks of Calvinistic Southern Baptists at this point, and apparently had to team up with Wilson and friends to get their documentary made.


----------



## A.Joseph

I don’t like what she’s writing here. She acknowledges that she is perceived as ‘dangerous‘ but seems to double-down. 

_“So I wrote another book, doing theology. It’s about how important our confession of hope is to our perseverance in the Christian life. I didn’t want it to be a women’s book, because it’s not a “women’s message.” But I found that my writing and my target in that book really didn’t have a marketabletarget. Books marketed to women’s studies are fluffier, lighter, and my writing was a bit over their head. This is sad, as it isn’t an academic book by any means. I was hoping that it would serve as a positive challenge to popular-level reading. And, maybe even sadder, men didn’t take it seriously. I remember one conversation I had with a well-meaning pastor when the book came out. He said that he suggested the women in his church use my book for their next study. I thanked him and said, “You know, it’s not a women’s book. The men in your church can read it too.” He and the other pastor beside him looked at each other and laughed. They laughed. Then they switched the conversation to something else. This was my worst-selling book.

This made me explore the reasons women are targets for theological junk, how we view women’s ministry, and how it affects the whole church. That led to my 3rd book, which targets pastors and church officers as well as women, hoping church leaders will lead the way in some of these discussions in their own churches and that women will be motivated as necessary allies in the church, their homes, and society. I wanted to bridge a gap. And the book is selling pretty well. Although, discussing it revealed another issue.

So I wrote my next book, basically saying we have a serious problem with our Christian message if men and women can’t even relate in meaningful, dynamic, and pure ways. This book labeled me as dangerous among a lot of people in my own circles. Hmm. I wrote it because I actually believe what I confess with my congregation on Sunday mornings: I believe in the communion of the saints.

Which led to my next book, pressing further into the question of what the communion of the saints actually looks like. But I quickly realized in the planning stages that writing on this topic of discipleship and communion---as a woman---poses the same problems as my second book, but even worse now that I am dangerous and all that. So, I directly spoke into the elephant in the church: does a female lay disciple have the same agency as a male lay disciple in communicating God’s word, communing in it, and passing it down to the next generation? What’s distinctly meaningful about male and female disciples? What is our aim? I was warned that I may lose everything if I write on this topic. I may get kicked out of the reformedish writing and speaking world. I will probably lose friendships. It could affect my own church life. This is dangerous stuff, you know. (Whatever happened to regular critique, I wondered?) I’m already experiencing some of this. But I only began writing in the first place because I found a need for certain books that I wanted to read. That’s why I write. And if I get kicked out of the whole writing world, I would be very happy to open a modern-day speakeasy or work at a fruit stand. It would be a lot less stressful.

Writing friends also advised me that maybe I should give this gender stuff a break. This book will pigeonhole me, and I am capable of writing on much broader topics. Ah, but that’s the whole point. Remember my worst-selling book?

My worst-selling book is also my favorite topic to speak on. I get to address three areas: 1) How perseverance is not an individual training exercise: we hold fast to the confession of our hope within the covenant community of the church. 2) The confession of our hope is also David’s in the most quoted Psalm in the New Testament (110), with 14 confessions of how Jesus is Lord in his person and his work. 3) We can hold fast without wavering because he who promised is faithful. Man, those basic truths are exciting to me.”_








My Worst-Selling Book


Oh, the irony of it all.




www.reformation21.org


----------



## Castle

A.Joseph said:


> ok, the publisher is Zondervan
> 
> I could see where that could be problematic as far as confessional publishing standards, or lack thereof.
> 
> Didnt she say it was the publisher that encouraged the controversial yellow paper cover and title? The publishers bottom line is sales, so controversy is good maybe?
> 
> This smells a bit opportunistic, not necessarily a problem in and of itself, but open to unintended consequences possibly.
> 
> Shes obviously building her brand and expanding her reach which may lead her into the arms of liberalism..... MAY.


The yellow wallpaper cover and motif from Gilman were both original ideas of Mrs. Byrd.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## A.Joseph

Now this discussion was good. Very balanced and helpful.








Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: The Trial


Defendant Aimee Byrd is called in, and the trial has begun. She’s representing herself in the court case, The Patriarchy vs. Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It is alleged that the defendant is the ringleader in an underground hysterical feminist movement. Among her crimes...




www.reformation21.org





And to echo Ms. Tanner, I don’t think it’s the Reformed church that is looking to market fru fru literature to women or keep them separate. From my experience, men and women are joined together in study and worship under the authority of male teachers.
So what’s the problem? Now, unfortunately she does seem to want to take it a little further....

But none of our circles are fostering a patriarchal-CBMW mentality.

I’ll move on from this thread, but I learned a bit, this was an interesting discussion nonetheless. And I’m relieved that I don’t have to man-up more than God requires. Fortunately, I was never made to feel like I had to.


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> But none of our circles are fostering a patriarchal-CBMW mentality.



I've met a few, some in pastoral candidate interviews. Patriarchy of that type isn't widespread, in God's mercy, but it does exist among Reformed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

BayouHuguenot said:


> I've met a few, some in pastoral candidate interviews. Patriarchy of that type isn't widespread, in God's mercy, but it does exist among Reformed.


But she is advocating for female teachers, readers and study leaders (not all female- but I think single sex groups are better for topical group discussions more than bible study) or at least opening that door. She could have asked Carl and Todd how well that would go over. Can she promote the legit issue that has biblical support and/or neutrality and not the unbiblical one? She set herself up to get hurt by ones who could have been allies in her pursuit for clarity and faithfulness.


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> Can she promote the legit issue that has biblical support and/or neutrality and not the unbiblical one?



If you were to ask her that she would rightly respond that you have begged the question over legit vs. unbiblical. It's like asking someone if he stopped beating his wife.


A.Joseph said:


> She set herself up to get hurt by ones who could have been allies in her pursuit for clarity and faithfulness.



She won't get hurt. The only people who can bring sanctions against her is the OPC, not Geneva Commons. I doubt the OPC will be acting any time soon.


----------



## A.Joseph

I don’t get it. Her thesis is female subjugation -but then she uses it to make a case against biblical teaching authority. Isn’t that clear cut? How does asking someone if he stopped beating his wife fit metaphoricaly here?


BayouHuguenot said:


> If you were to ask her that she would rightly respond that you have begged the question over legit vs. unbiblical. It's like asking someone if he stopped beating his wife.


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> Isn’t that clear cut?



No. It's poisoning the well. What is considered "biblical teaching authority" is the crux of the debate. When her title says recovering from biblical manhood, she isn't talking about what she thinks the bible is teaching. She is talking about the movement.


----------



## A.Joseph

I think the element that is most controversial, and I don’t know if this is part of her book, it is discussed in the podcast episode, is the concept of female readers, bible study leaders, and teachers. In the OPC that is reserved for church office holders. That is the bridge too far and makes her a target of criticism even in her own circles. The content related to Biblical Manhood and Womanhood movement seems much less controversial (at least from our majority view as previously discussed on this thread). I believe the podcast episode helps lay down these lines of distinction, which I believe are reasonable. I trust Carl and Todd to be charitable, loving and distinct in these matters as they are in the episode.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> female readers, bible study leaders, and teachers



Per female readers, Presumably you mean within the official church office. 

Per bible study leaders within the church, do you mean, or does she mean, women teaching over men in the church? 

Per teachers, does this rule out women bible teachers in a local college?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A.Joseph said:


> I think the element that is most controversial, ...is the concept of female readers, bible study leaders, and teachers. In the OPC that is reserved for church office holders.


Reading Scripture (1Tim.4:13) is an element of worship, and (regardless of what is done irregularly wherever) belongs to the church's ministry, a function of authority. The controversy here should be with the practice of lay reading. Lay reading, to get the people "involved," is a mistake; however, even then the _perception _is often not that authority is being wielded. And many who do such (and invite female participation) don't intend to make this an _official _act. Hopefully, lay-reading (male and female) is uncommon in OPC churches, and will remain so.

Bible study leaders. There has to be a line drawn between worship/official church business, and other stuff. Otherwise, what will be done with Priscilla, Act.18:26; Rom.16:3? Titus 2:3-4, expressly gives at least one context in which more experienced women are commanded to teach. So, here we're shown a positive example, and a command for religious instruction. It's not worship, it's not usurping the exclusive function of the ministry.

Teaching. Again, if the most qualified person to speak is female, it is pride or fear on display if men resist taking the opportunity to hear--unless such teaching is presented as an overthrow, or in order to to overthrow church order. [Natural order, btw, can't be overthrown--try challenging gravity--real violations of natural law are invariably punished; and unlike church order, natural order is filled with exceptional and unusual adjustments; nature harbors variety.] Teaching allowance, performed even by males, is often overseen (by the ministry) in careless manner as well, to the detriment of good order and discipline.

Seen in a certain light, the entire issue being bandied about today is actually an effect of squeamishness on the part of late-modern Christians to affirm God-given order. People who are content to say, "This is how things must always be done, simply as a result of divine command," are in fact freed to listen to anyone or read an author's book without nervously considering if such learning is subversive in the nature of the case.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## A.Joseph

Yes, I was strictly speaking of official church offices and official church activity. I believe this would exclude laypersons.

I would think all church-sponsored bible study, readings, etc. would be led by a church-appointed authority. Those are the vital distinctions.

I may be wrong about what is permissible in the opc and where the line is drawn.

So I believe I’m agreeing with you both. And I thought that’s what Amiee was challenging, but if I heard her wrong that’s my bad. Young children are obviously an exception as far as Sunday school is concerned.

As far as non-church study and activity, I’m not too concerned about that.

As far as ministry training and education, I would think ordained ministers should provide that. But again, I’m not sure where the lines are drawn or if Ms. Byrd is challenging any of that.


BayouHuguenot said:


> Per female readers, Presumably you mean within the official church office.
> 
> Per bible study leaders within the church, do you mean, or does she mean, women teaching over men in the church?
> 
> Per teachers, does this rule out women bible teachers in a local college?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Contra_Mundum said:


> Reading Scripture (1Tim.4:13) is an element of worship, and (regardless of what is done irregularly wherever) belongs to the church's ministry, a function of authority. The controversy here should be with the practice of lay reading. Lay reading, to get the people "involved," is a mistake; however, even then the _perception _is often not that authority is being wielded. And many who do such (and invite female participation) don't intend to make this an _official _act. Hopefully, lay-reading (male and female) is uncommon in OPC churches, and will remain so.


I sincerely appreciate the concern for the integrity of worship, but I don't agree. I see nothing in God's Word that requires such a narrow policy. I involve the men of our church in both reading the Scriptures on the Lord's day and offering prayers in our prayer meetings. Those invited to perform these things are those men who have proven themselves both faithful churchmen and having the ability to read and pray unto edification. Hearing the voices of the men of the church reading God's Word and offering up prayer has a very salutary effect on the life of the body.

It does not follow that involving lay men requires involving women. We don't involve the women of the church in public reading of Scripture or public prayer because it would be contrary to the straightforward teaching of Scripture.

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but _they are commanded_ to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.—1 Cor. 14:34, 35 ​

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> I would think ordained ministers should provide that.



I would probably agree, but that raises the question of seminary vs. divinity school. I know that's not the main issue here, but it shows how no position can be nailed down in one fell swoop.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

BayouHuguenot said:


> I would probably agree, but that raises the question of seminary vs. divinity school. I know that's not the main issue here, but it shows how no position can be nailed down in one fell swoop.



What is the difference between a seminary and a divinity school?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> What is the difference between a seminary and a divinity school?


----------



## Taylor

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> What is the difference between a seminary and a divinity school?





C. M. Sheffield said:


>



As someone who went to "seminary" at a "divinity school," I have always understood it this way: Seminaries are standalone institutions, while divinity schools are seminaries within a university. So, for instance, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary are standalone institutions, while Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Yale Divinity School, Harvard Divinity School, and Beeson Divinity School are all schools within universities.

I could be totally wrong, but this is how I always understood it.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist

I always saw it as divinity schools aren't necessarily ministry-oriented, so if you went to a divinity school you could go on to a top-tier research program (which sometimes but not always doesn't accept M.Divs).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I sincerely appreciate the concern for the integrity of worship, but I don't agree. I see nothing in God's Word that requires such a narrow policy. I involve the men of our church in both reading the Scriptures on the Lord's day and offering prayers in our prayer meetings. Those invited to perform these things are those men who have proven themselves both faithful churchmen and having the ability to read and pray unto edification. Hearing the voices of the men of the church reading God's Word and offering up prayer has a very salutary effect on the life of the body.
> 
> It does not follow that involving lay men requires involving women. We don't involve the women of the church in public reading of Scripture or public prayer because it would be contrary to the straightforward teaching of Scripture.
> 
> Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but _they are commanded_ to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.—1 Cor. 14:34, 35 ​


I think that some of the disparity between your view and mine is attributable to different ecclesiology.

Plainly, under one view there's a logical fallacy that can be demonstrated: if one sex has not a limitation, this does nothing to show if the other sex has not that limitation.

On the other hand, it is a different but also logical deduction under (historic) Presbyterian principles: all _service _functions within worship (to distinguish between those and the works of the congregation) are the purview of the ministry; no laity are the ministry; ergo, no laity should perform a _service _or _ministry _function in worship. For the purpose of this argument, I include all the _ordained servants _(including elders and deacons) under the church's ministry broadly defined. [A more technical description recognizes elders and deacons as lay distinct from clergy/ministers; their ordinations are what engages them with the ministry]

Corollary to that deduction is one that pertains to the makeup of the ministry. All ministry functions are confined to the ordained; all the ordained are male (by prescription); no female is also a male; ergo, females may not perform ministry functions.

Under your ecclesiology, permission to perform certain ministry functions is determined by additional criteria to ordination. 1) "Worthiness" (_proven them faithful_ in your terms above) as judged presumably by the elders; but you might have another procedure, either as judged by the pastor alone or by the congregation as a whole. 2) "Competence" (_ability to unto edification)_ again, as judged.

And, because ordination is not alone decisive, though its makeup be already limited; yet further must be stipulated: the criteria of 3) "Male," but *not *_*because*_ ordination is restricted to males only (because every ministry function isn't assigned exclusively to them). *But because* e.g. 1Cor.14:34.

I know this has come up before, but how one interprets and applies 1Cor.14:34 has bearing then on a wide range of church activity, from the church's stated worship to other assemblies and works of the church. So, as the three criteria (1,2,3) above are regarded as qualifying standards for lay-engagement, stated worship is not "set off" for unique treatment. But also we see above in your post the stated prayer meeting is a place to apply those qualifiers.

Elsewhere (on the PB), we've seen that a different manner of interpretation and application of 1Cor.14:34 (not based on doubts about the authority of Scripture, but rather on distinct ecclesiology) yields a different kind of participation in prayer meetings. If 1Cor.14:34 is understood as a statement that excludes females from the church's _ministry—_not specifically excluding them from leading by reading or by praying in mixed company, nor as some might extremely interpret it (not attributing it here to you) not even allowed to sing in the worship assembly—then there's nothing about Paul's prohibition that would prevent women's vocal contributions in a church prayer meeting.

It turns out that the difference doesn't boil down to "narrowness" vs. "broadness," but to where and how narrowness and broadness is thought to apply. The Presbyterian ecclesiology described above is "narrow" in regard to stated worship, setting limits on ministry functions in general; but in regard to prayer meeting is "broad," when compared to the standards conceived by the alternative ecclesiology set in view.

The alternative proposes one fixed policy (using additional criteria besides ordination standards) in at least two distinct varieties of ecclesiastical gatherings. In practical terms, this means that in stated worship those invited or summoned to spokesmanship is "more generous" than the policy to which I am committed. And in prayer meeting I am committed to the "more generous" policy that encourages females to pray out loud as equal participants to the males present. It's because I don't think 1Cor.14:34 is applicable to a prayer meeting scenario.

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 3


----------



## Semper Fidelis

mvdm said:


> Another friendly, yet critical review, picking up on some of the same concerns Rev. Castle highlighted in his review:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - A (I Hope) Friendly Review - Reformed Arsenal
> 
> 
> Aimee Byrd, for those who are unfamiliar, is a popular blogger, podcaster, conference speaker, and writer. She is a member in good standing in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and has recently published a book titled Recovering from Biblical manhood and Womanhood. Before I get into my review...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reformedarsenal.com


I just had a chance to read this review this AM. I thought it was an accurate summary of the problems I saw with the book, which I articulated earlier in less detail. I think he nails it when he notes that the book tries to take on way too much and ends up with half-developed arguments.


----------



## BottleOfTears

Scott Swain has written a very interesting article about anthropology in relation to this discussion.

Steven Wedgeworth, after reading Swain's article weighed in with some more thoughts here.

I think these are both very useful contributions to the ongoing discussion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BottleOfTears said:


> Scott Swain has written a very interesting article about anthropology in relation to this discussion.
> 
> Steven Wedgeworth, after reading Swain's article weighed in with some more thoughts here.
> 
> I think these are both very useful contributions to the ongoing discussion.


Really good articles. Thanks for linking. I appreciate both for bringing in the dimension of 5th Commandment notions (superiors, inferiors, equals) that is often lacking in these conversations. When you use that paradigm, there are times when even a woman is in a superior relationship (with respect to dignity and deference) and, as Wedgeworth notes, may not be in authority but requires deference and respect either way.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Really good articles. Thanks for linking. I appreciate both for bringing in the dimension of 5th Commandment notions (superiors, inferiors, equals) that is often lacking in these conversations. When you use that paradigm, there are times when even a woman is in a superior relationship (with respect to dignity and deference) and, as Wedgeworth notes, may not be in authority but requires deference and respect either way.


I think Swain's is really good. I think W's isn't; it's hit and miss far as I'm concerned.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think Swain's is really good. I think W's isn't; it's hit and miss far as I'm concerned.


I have tended to notice most of the articles I read asserting the problems I see in this form of complementarianism have come out of Calvinist International unfortunately.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## mvdm

Yet another review identifying some of the same concerns expressed by others:










Book Review: Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Byrd) — Knowing Scripture


Despite her claim that only men can be pastors, Byrd consistently pushes her readers in the direction of feminism.




knowingscripture.com

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Susan777

Excellent review.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think Swain's is really good. I think W's isn't; it's hit and miss far as I'm concerned.


I think the latter raises some theological ideas that are useful but incomplete.

As I was reflecting upon the idea that if Byrd had dealt with the issue of relationships within the Church according to superior, peer and inferior duties (per the WLC on the 5th Commandment) she might have succeeded in what she (seems) to be aiming at but ended up using egalitarian authors to achieve.

You can sense that Byrd is trying to argue for this: "Hey, sometimes women are in inferior relationships within the Church but they also occupy superior and peer status with respect to other members of the Church."

When everything is flattened down to male-female relationships then you have to use egalitarian arguments to say: "Hey, sometimes women are just as smart as men (equals) or sometimes they are wiser than men (superiors)."

If you don't stick merely to the male-female distinction and adopt the richer framework of superiors, inferiors, and peers then you can understand why David could listen to the counsel of a wise woman (a mother in Israel) without having to do the "everything that a man can do a woman can do." The question really has to do with the station of the individual. That's why it's dumb to wonder whether a mom can still rebuke her teenage son. Shell always be (in a certain manner) in a superior status to him even as she might end up being in an inferiror status to him in some civil or ecclesiastical sphere.

When one adopts this Scriptural paradigm then it moves us beyond tropes. You don't have to fear saying general things about masculinity or femininity because very few things hinge (in terms of superior roles) on the sex of an individual in a relationship. 

I was interacting with my kids the other day about how movie reviewers like to give higher critical reviews to movies like Captain Marvel because it portrays the woman as "strong". The problem is that it makes the mistake (almost like this divide) of equating strength with the kinds of things that men excel at. I told my daughters that you don't need to be able to "kick butt like a man" in order to be heroic. There are feminine virtues that are prized precisely because women have a kind of strength and tenderness that is to be prized. I don't "box them in" by prizing their femininity nor do I restrict intellectual or theological pursuits in them but they will do so as women. They will be inferiors to some, peers to some, and superiors to others - not because they can be just like men but due to their gifts, station, age, wisdom, etc.

Reactions: Like 10


----------



## Andrew35

Semper Fidelis said:


> I was interacting with my kids the other day about how movie reviewers like to give higher critical reviews to movies like Captain Marvel because it portrays the woman as "strong". The problem is that it makes the mistake (almost like this divide) of equating strength with the kinds of things that men excel at. I told my daughters that you don't need to be able to "kick butt like a man" in order to be heroic. There are feminine virtues that are prized precisely because women have a kind of strength and tenderness that is to be prized. I don't "box them in" by prizing their femininity nor do I restrict intellectual or theological pursuits in them but they will do so as women. They will be inferiors to some, peers to some, and superiors to others - not because they can be just like men but due to their gifts, station, age, wisdom, etc.


It's funny how this translates into the current youth mindset.

We were discussing male/female roles in one of my classes (I teach 11th and 12th grade in an international school), and I made what I thought was the rather obvious statement that adult men are physically stronger than women, on aggregate. I could feel the discomfort in the room, as though I had said something seriously taboo, instead of a basic fact. I continued that, of course, individual differences had to be accounted for and, with training and relevant genetics, some women could become stronger than an untrained man.

One student finally spoke up and, with some sarcasm said, "So you're saying that with work, women can overcome their natural inferiority?" I was shocked to hear it cast in these terms but replied, "A chimpanzee is far stronger than a human. Are you presuming that chimps are superior to humans, due to their greater physical strength?"

None of the students knew how to respond, but the unease never left the classroom. I found the whole exchange absolutely fascinating.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim

She is now no longer affiliated with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Rather tellingly, I think, she posted the announcement on Scot McKnight’s blog. 









Byrd's New Nest


Aimee Byrd moves her blog to a new site




www.christianitytoday.com





While one may question the anonymous questions put to her and the impersonal way she was let go, to my recollection at least, most of the questions are legit and should be answered. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## A.Joseph

Pilgrim said:


> She is now no longer affiliated with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Rather tellingly, I think, she posted the announcement on Scot McKnight’s blog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Byrd's New Nest
> 
> 
> Aimee Byrd moves her blog to a new site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.christianitytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While one may question the anonymous questions put to her and the impersonal way she was let go, to my recollection at least, most of the questions are legit and should be answered.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep, saw that coming a mile away.....
I hope there will be transparency about the breaking point.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I read the blog post. So Mrs. Byrd is off the Truitt/Trueman podcast as well? She said something about no bookings for recordings so wasn't clear. Who is McKnight and why is that "telling"? Can someone list the questions? 



Pilgrim said:


> She is now no longer affiliated with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Rather tellingly, I think, she posted the announcement on Scot McKnight’s blog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Byrd's New Nest
> 
> 
> Aimee Byrd moves her blog to a new site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.christianitytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While one may question the anonymous questions put to her and the impersonal way she was let go, to my recollection at least, most of the questions are legit and should be answered.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





A.Joseph said:


> Yep, saw that coming a mile away.....
> I hope there will be transparency about the breaking point.....


----------



## Semper Fidelis

NaphtaliPress said:


> I read the blog post. So Mrs. Byrd is off the Truitt/Trueman podcast as well? She said something about no bookings for recordings so wasn't clear. Who is McKnight and why is that "telling"? Can someone list the questions?


She'll no longer be on MOS.

I find this all very sad. I know some of the players here and they are sad as well. Many are puzzled that she asked for counsel instead of just answering the questions.

The problem with being in leadership is that you often can't blog to give the other side of matters. Nobody is perfect and above reproach but I think the ACE board was reasonable.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## B.L.

NaphtaliPress said:


> Who is McKnight...?



Here's a little about the man - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scot_McKnight


----------



## Kinghezy

Pilgrim said:


> While one may question the anonymous questions put to her and the impersonal way she was let go,



Maybe. Also remember the below verse, and she has the benefit of speaking publically. 

Proverbs 18:17

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Frankly I think its a dollar short and a dollar late: she's already shot her wad and contributed to the ongoing liberalization of the church. I'm glad she's gone. I can only hope that ecclesiastical charges will follow in short order.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim said:


> She is now no longer affiliated with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Rather tellingly, I think, she posted the announcement on Scot McKnight’s blog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Byrd's New Nest
> 
> 
> Aimee Byrd moves her blog to a new site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.christianitytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While one may question the anonymous questions put to her and the impersonal way she was let go, to my recollection at least, most of the questions are legit and should be answered.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's not like she was given any chance to "say goodbye" on the MOS blog, right? So, here's a public forum graciously afforded her, and that by someone I'm guessing has more than a few differences with her theologically; though yes, with some sympathy for her efforts in a "pull" direction, rather than a "push."

She does not write that she plans any ongoing contributions to SMK's blog. Again, on what public forum was she supposed to let a wide swathe of interested parties know where she "disappeared" to? Any takers? Any suggestions?

And, she did respond to the questions, but she did so in a way that was not obsequious. She requested some additional respect in the way the questioning was delivered. "To whom am I speaking?" is not unreasonable, and I tend to think that _*if she'd been a man*_, rather than a woman author, she might have been accorded the courtesy. In other words, she made a call for some peerage, some back-and-forth showing of honor.

If someone or a group demanded of me that I prove my orthodox credentials, beyond what what already publicly available, I think I would be perfectly within my rights and dignity to make a counter-offer, one that was if possible even more respectful in tone than that by which the demand was laid. I think she did that much.

And the thing is, she really said not one word of disrespect for the rights of the (anonymous) Board to do as they would. She said no disparaging thing about the "Director." She did not _shame _anyone by name. She seems to me to be saying, "Your playground, your rules." That's not railing against the system, folks.

Reactions: Like 8


----------

