# Rachel Miller’s Beyond Authority and Submission



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 12, 2019)

Rachel Miller’s book _Beyond Authority and Submission_ has come out. I have not read the book. I did read Kerry Baldwin's very lengthy and very favorable review. I also listened to her interview with Miller. What stuck out to me was her flat-out _rejection_ of the ideas like...

women were created to be submissive, responsive, soft
men were created to be leaders, providers, strong
women are supposed to be at home and not in the workforce 
She chalks these up entirely to Greco-Roman paganism and Victorian chauvinism. I do not deny that any of these may be (and have been) taken to an unbiblical extreme. But it seems obvious to me that these themes are indeed present in Scripture and in nature. Rejecting them wholesale strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bath water. But I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Sep 12, 2019)

I listened to Theology Gals: Beyond Authority and Submission by Rachel Miller https://strivingforeternity.org/theologygals-128-bas/ half-listening. At that point, she struck me as similar to Aimee Byrd. I listening to about half of it again

Some thoughts (open to correction)

Her major is history. What is her background that would make her qualified to write a theology book? This goes for men too, why should I put the time for these books that is just some laymen like me.
I agree with your assessment of her rejection of the points you laid out.
She seems to conflate fruits of the spirit (~13min) with the roles ordained by God, & nature. Aka, gentleness listed even though that is commonly a female trait. Not sure how that has to do with the discussion, besides bringing something in that no one is going to object to.
She seems to contrast society roles (e.g. leading) (~18min) with how women are treated by Christians. Since Christians treat women well, it seems to imply that certain roles are kept from women is bad. Hint of intersectionality or maybe I am just misreading?
She is getting into the Danvers statement (~28mins). She doesn't like John Piper's stance on woman not being drill sergeants and policemen (whoops I mean policepersons). Generally speaking, does not John Piper make sense in this sense -- i.e. these jobs make sense that a man would take?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 12, 2019)

Perhaps the real problem is so much _looking for Laws_--the irreligious want civil legislation, the religious want ecclesiastical sanctions--that will keep everyone or put everyone in his (her!) place?

In a world with respect for nature, I suspect there would be a few female drill sergeants and policemen--neither quotas nor social engineering, nor even prohibitions; but high standards--so there would be some of those: women in physically demanding roles normally occupied by men; but where she's the best for the job, better than the male volunteers, why not? Or should we go without in that case? Or settle for a lesser dude... mainly or entirely because he's a dude and not a dame?

We shouldn't be fundamentalist (in the pejorative sense) about this. I think R.Miller's point is that Reformed folk shouldn't be baited into identifying the whole "role play" business as a matter of faith. It is so pedantic, and it's the enemies of the core of our faith who use Christian social contentment on secondary matters as wedge issues.

Because many in the church are at peace with certain habits of the world, that portion of the church decided those things are the way they are because there's a tie-in to be found with some Bible passage. Then, having fixed it all very rigidly, they balk at every challenge as if it was a matter of immovable doctrine, so making their enemies case for them: that Christians are just old-fashioned rather than principled.

Why can't the majority of Christians prompt their daughters to another course--if that's what the majority of Christian parents freely choose--and let the world society around the church promote it's nonsense (if it so be)? Why does anyone outside BethlehemBaptist, or Minneapolis at most, care what JohnPiper thinks about how Americans from coast to coast live their lives? Because he's a Christian celebrity, with "influence" meaning (in the world's parlance) political power.

Meanwhile, those influenced either don't have pastors they can go to for local counsel, or they are ignoring their local pastor who is providentially positioned to guide them with knowledge. People gravitate to Law-givers like Piper, because they think that the more people are marching to one drummer, the more right they must be. But the answer to those who are hostile to nature and to the law of Christ is not _Christians who know their place and the old laws thereof_, who oppose the imposition of unnatural laws with contrary legislation of their own.

I think that's Rachel Miller's position. And btw, she's more Reformed than Piper.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 12, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think that's Rachel Miller's position. And btw, she's more Reformed than Piper.


She may indeed agree with your statements here. I don't much disagree with you. But it certainly isn't all she is saying. And I do not regard thinking seriously about the scriptures teaching on men and women as being baited into some "role play" trap. Nor am I concerned with how much more "Reformed" she is than Piper. Though I'm no fan of Piper, such a remark is unserious and fails to address the matters I've raised.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 12, 2019)

I consider myself neither a comp nor an egal (and honestly I don't care, but on the important things I inevitably fall toward the comp side on submission and elder office) and this is my first and last comment on this thread as I am not interested in prolonged debate as I have done so many times with others, not on here though.
I have not read her book but followed extensively. I have also read many books on both sides (I bet most here haven't read 250 words from CBE aside from the late great Roger Nicoe) being extremely disillusioned after the whole EFS controversy and the weird behavior that certain mainsteam complementarians were advocating as they came out of the wood work so to speak. I agree with Rachel Miller and plan to see what she can teach me.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> She may indeed agree with your statements here. I don't much disagree with you. But it certainly isn't all she is saying. And I do not regard thinking seriously about the scriptures teaching on men and women as being baited into some "role play" trap. Nor am I concerned with how much more "Reformed" she is than Piper. Though I'm no fan of Piper, such a remark is unserious and fails to address the matters I've raised.


By your own admission, you have not read her book. So, your own view _of her views _suffers as much from the accusation of "unserious" as anything I offered. The OP is essentially commentary on commentary originally given as a bid to get people to read (buy) a book in order to take in an entire argued POV. One might have to actually read her book to find out her exact take on a text like Titus 2:5.

I've heard some of her views, and read some of her writing. My assessment of her stances is that I would be comfortable giving her a platform. And I think I'm quite a conservative type theologically, also fairly traditional in practical matters as I live out my faith with my family in a church setting where we aren't too different from those around us, besides being a strong advocate for Christian liberty.

My impression of RGM is that she too would on any other account be regarded as deeply conservative theologically (being Confessionally Reformed, and firmly opposed to women's ordination), and fairly traditional in practical matters; and yet there are some judges who will not grant her conservative theology or weigh her traditional habits _because _of this challenge of hers and how they perceive it.

If the three "bullets" in your OP ought (in your view) to be regarded as a baseline truths, then I don't mind admitting that I've moved away from being able to affirm that stance (I think I always was somewhat latitudinarian when I was able). I think "created to be" estimates of the natures of women and men (as opposed to the one human nature) is so stretchable into various practical expressions that are still biblically legitimate--still _natural _in fact, even when they seem for some cause less than ideal--that absent legislation they cannot be "normed." Such notions imprison or straitjacket people, and infringe on Christian (and natural) liberty.

In my opinion, based on what I've learned, I don't think married women in general _like _"being in the workforce," when they would rather be with and raising their offspring unencumbered. There are forces that impose to varying degrees on women in our culture, beyond the preferences of many of them. There are forces "encouraging" them in habits that are not in their best and commonsense interests (as I see them).

But for all that, a woman "in the workforce" isn't sinning, and to say she "should" implies a strong negative, even hostile regard for her existence there, howbeit she came to be there. Freeing her from _*demand *_that she serve there could be a happy result of restoring a truly natural estate for the human family. But it isn't something that ought to be legislated, by the state or by the church.

Ultimately, it is Christ's mercy that provides in social context what is in the best interest of his people who have to make their living here below while we wait for the Second Coming. His habit for deep-rooted social change seems to take the long road, not the revolutionary (thank God). With this in mind, we should also recognize that social changes experienced in the past 50yrs flow from causes that are much earlier, emanating from the previous 50yrs, and from the previous century. The crashing wave was generated far out in the ocean, well beyond your sight, not right where you see it rising up to crest.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Sep 13, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Reformed folk shouldn't be baited into identifying the whole "role play" business as a matter of faith


That's fair.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 13, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> By your own admission, you have not read her book. So, your own view _of her views _suffers as much from the accusation of "unserious" as anything I offered. The OP is essentially commentary on commentary originally given as a bid to get people to read (buy) a book in order to take in an entire argued POV.


No need to be cross. I said I agreed with most of what you said. But I found a single statement regarding "who is more Reformed" to be unserious and unhelpful.

The 45 minute interview I listened to made those specific bullet points I listed sufficiently clear that they are fair representations of her views on those matters. So I'm interested in discussing the points listed above which were made abundantly clear in her interview with Kerry Baldwin and which are affirmed as her viewpoint by Baldwin in her uncritical review.

So this discussion is not about ESS, patriarchy, or John Piper. I'm interested in discussing the specific points above.

*Question:* Am I understanding what you said above to mean that if a woman is married with children, there is nothing wrong with her putting them in daycare and working outside of the home?


----------



## ZackF (Sep 13, 2019)

I’d like to read the book but I don’t know if I’ll get to it. I look forward to reviews from dependable people.

My wife and I share Bruce’s convictions at the same time our life together looks like what Christopher describes. My strategy is to advocate and encourage the path we’ve taken while respecting others’ decisions.

What is evermore disturbing are intersectionality and critical theory and the affect they will have on the workplace and church. They are toxic, nihilistic modes of thought. This drive to see equal and now equitable (worse) sex, gender, sexuality, racial and so forth representation and compensation in every job title is going to do more damage to church and society than Christian women working.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 13, 2019)

I've just listened to the Theology Gals podcast.

Let's be clear up front: her very writing of this book is in contravention of 1 Timothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." She breaches all three clauses of this prohibition. Women are explicitly forbidden from teaching. They should not be writing books like this.

Here are my thoughts on the discussion on the podcast:

-She begins by talking about the authority that "we", i.e. men _and_ women, were given over Creation. But though we are told that He gave Man dominion, it was to Adam that the authority to name the animals was given. They went to him. And it was from Adam which Eve was created and he named her too. So even in this area where we would say Mankind has dominion over the Earth, there was a specific authority given to the man which was not given to the woman.

-She then talks about authority and submission being aspects in all our relationships and that we are never _completely _in authority or submission in these relationships. The Bible says otherwise. The Bible specifically teaches within the church and within marriage authority is given to men and subjection is placed upon women. Women are to remain silent in the church, they are not to teach, they are to comport themselves with modesty and if they have questions they are to ask their husbands at home. They are to submit to their husbands. These are absolute commands. So whatever may be the case out in the world, at least in the church and in the house authority is given to the man and subjection is placed upon the woman (in terms of their relationship to each other. They both have authority over the children, which is also clearly taught in Scripture).

-She then spoke about how the church had brought in secular attitudes towards men and women and essentially baptised them. She made a pretty clean break between the world's attitudes on the one hand and Scripture's on the other. She certainly implied that in this area of masculine and feminine if it was not explicitly laid down in Scripture then it was de facto secular/worldly and _at odds with_ what the Bible teaches. She had no concept of natural order. She didn't even mention 1 Corinthians 11:14 where Paul makes an argument _from nature _and applies it to male/female relations and indeed masuclinity and femininity. Our very natures teach us something about what it is to be male and female and how we are to relate.

She then said that there were these notions in the Greco-Roman world which sharply divided the sexes (which were also therefore unBiblical). Then Christianity came along and things got a little better and then came the Victorians [poof! just like that] and they adopted these ideas and brought them into the church. No mention of the intervening years. Were these years a period of wonderful equality between the sexes where men and women mixed together in all levels of society and church before the nasty Victorians came along? Or was it a period of pretty much consistent understanding on the nature of men and women and how they relate?

She said that the ancient world had the idea that women were inferior to men and this was adopted by the Victorians. She did not address 1 Corinthians 11:3, 7, 8, 9; 1 Timothy 2:13, 14. These passages do indeed suggest an inferiority of of the woman to the man _in some sense_: Adam was formed first; Eve was created for Adam; Eve was deceived, not Adam. Eve was the last formed and the first to fall.

-We then got a discussion of feminism kicked off with a mention of Galatians 3:28 which one of the hosts said wasn't really connected to the issues being discussed but thought she'd mention it anyway. What does this verse teach us? That there is neither male nor female _in Christ_. It does not teach a general equality. It does not teach that there is no such thing as "masculinity" or "femininity" other than our being males or females. It teaches that believers are one in Christ: that _in salvation_ it advantages a man not a jot to be a man and disadvantages a woman not a jot to be a woman. But it says nothing about their respective places in society, the church, in nature. There is neither bond nor free in Christ either but there certainly were slaves and freemen and masters in the church.

The discussion of 20th century history followed a pretty standard feminist interpretation: progress and reaction, progress and reaction. While there was criticism of "second wave" feminism (some of it) there was an agreement with the fundamental emancipatory efforts of the 20th century. No Biblical support was given. Where is the Biblical mandate for the equal franchise? Where is the Biblical mandate for laxer divorce laws? Where is the Biblical mandate that there must be "equality of treatment and access" to work, education? These were just assumed. They might be good things, they might be bad, but no actual exegesis was given.

-We were then told that any accusations against them as being "feminist" or "egalitarian" was a 9th Commandment violation because they are all "confessional presbyterians" and "members in good standing". But in what denominations? What standards are they held to? I have no idea. They must be judged on their actions and words.

Now I'm not saying they are teching egalitarianism _formally_ and nor are they teaching that women should hold _ordained office_. But let's examine what was said here. We were told that to hold ordained office one must be a "qualified man". We heard this refrain over and over. We were told specifically that authority was not invested in men because they were men, but because they were qualified men. Being a man was merely _one _of the qualifications along with the rest. However if we turn to Scripture and look at 1 Timothy 3 we read "This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." Being a man is not a mere qualification. It is a presupposition. _Only_ men can hold positions of authority _because_ they are men. _Then _we look at the qualifications which a man must meet.

Rachel Miller was right to say that a man must meet the qualifications and that a man shouldn't be elevated to office for no other reason than he is a man. But there is clear teaching as to the _nature_ of office and leadership in the church: it is male. Regardless of qualifications or gifts such a position in the church is denied women because they are women.

And reference was made to Beth Moore and the Presidency of the SBC as an example of a leadership role in the church in which laymen are eligible. Therefore, according to the hosts, that position was open to _un_qualified men and thus was not regulated by Paul's teaching on elders. And the very strong implication of this point made by one of the hosts- though it went unsaid- was that Beth Moore would be eligible to be elected as President and that there would be no contravention of Scripture if that happened.

-Now one general point. Throughout reference was made to the "servant leadership" of the husband and the "willing submission" of the wife. These terms are not in Scripture. Nowhere is the husband's authority described as "servant leadership". This is taken from husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. So _an aspect_ of the _relationship_ between husband and wife is that the husband should show sacrificial love. But that is one aspect. To describe it as "servant leadership" is to make his leadership _essentially_ and _definitionally_ servant-like to the exclusion of ruler, lawgiver, priest and patriarch of the family (all Biblical roles given to the husband, the head of the home). And one should also point out that it is the husband's _love_ for his wife which is described in a sacrifical manner, _not_ his authority, his leadership or his rule over his wife and the home.

Then we have the concept of "willing submission". Now we all agree that a wife should not be brutalised into submission and she must resist any submission which would require her to sin. However what does "willing submission" actually mean? Why is it "willing" submission and not just submission? The submission of the wife is not voluntary. It's not a suggestion or a recommendation. It is a command.

There is more I could say. As mentioned above she rejected any natural definitions of masculinity or feminity. Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 11:14 would sugest there is a natural element to these. To reduce them to merely being a man or being a woman is absurd on its face. One criticism of the complementarian movement which was given is that by adopting (cultural) notions of masculinity and femininity it was playing into the hands of the progressives today who claim to be able to choose whether they are male or female. This is absolutely backwards. These ideas of femininity and masculinity pre-date the transgender movement and it is the transgenders who themselves illustrate the very real natural definitions of masculinity and femininity. How do men who want to be women dress? They adopt the most feminine style they can. And vice versa. Perhaps this speaks to an ontological reality of maleness and femaleness?

I intend to get the book to get the details but just from the interview there is a lot which is very worrying here.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Let's be clear up front: her very writing of this book is in contravention of 1 Timothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." She breaches all three clauses of this prohibition. Women are explicitly forbidden from teaching. They should not be writing books like this.


It's great that there are books like this.

Alexander, did you learn anything from your mother? Could she still teach you anything today? It's wrong to take a text and apply it beyond its lawful bound.

RGM isn't taking a church office or rising to lead worship. Those are Paul's concerns, and not whether it was wrong for Priscilla to educate Apollos, Act.18:26--a necessary conclusion, if your interpretation of 1Tim.2:12 stands.

It is important to be strict and stringent upon the dictates of Scripture. It is also important not to encroach (esp. with threats of divine sanction) on Christian liberty.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 1 | Amen 4


----------



## mvdm (Sep 13, 2019)

Here's a thoughtful critique of RGM's book:

"Ladies, God did not create you to be a man. He created you to be a woman. You do not need to be an inferior man. I would have you be a superior woman, fully living out, in Christ, your femininity where God has called you to live. The thesis of books like “Beyond Authority and Submission” undermines your God given nature as woman. For, if the body is ignored, then you are just the same as a man. But your body is a stubborn thing. Do not ignore it. If you do, where will the next generation of God’s people come from? If not you, then who? Without women acting as mothers, the church will die. Look at Europe.

Gnosticism is an old error; but it seems to be wearing new clothes. "

https://calvinistruminant.wordpress.com/2019/09/05/beyond-authority-and-submission-review/

Reactions: Like 6 | Funny 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Am I understanding what you said above to mean that if a woman is married with children, there is nothing wrong with her putting them in daycare and working outside of the home?


You haven't given me much of a description of the financial situation of the household, who provides the daycare, or... I can invent details ad infinitum. The "Why?" questions are some of the first and most important inquiries a pastor whose counsel is sought should make.

And if I'm not asked for my counsel, I think I would have to be careful about presenting my "wisdom" as to how such a family might best order itself. As a matter of study, I might conclude that the mother's decision was along a spectrum from foolish to wise.

Even if it was foolish, I'm pretty sure I could not determine simply on the basis of that decision if I could or would recommend the church address the matter as sin.

In a more general approach, I might preach the benefits to children and marriage of the role of a stay-at-home mother from a text like Tit.2:4-5. If there is a single mom and breadwinner in the congregation, I would need to preach in such a way that did not make her feel like a loser. Sometimes the language of Scripture expresses a positive view of an ideally stable condition, without assuming that it is the only godly expression of life, or even that the specific condition must be sought after as of the true goal of happiness.

Titus 2:4-5 is part of a larger text in which Timothy is told to teach the older women how to give good teaching and advice to the younger. It isn't really about listing the essential and proper duties of younger women, but dealt with subjects many older women had the experience of. Some of those younger women--like young people generally in all ages of the world--were headstrong, overconfident, distractable, and open to temptations from the world; others were probably too timid, fearful, and closeminded. It isn't as if the young men (v6) _only _needed Titus' guidance in sobermindedness, and all would be well in their case.

I'm confident you would not find fault in ALL cases of a mother working and using daycare. If just hearing about such a choice in a family was enough for a session to instigate an investigation to determine if church discipline is in order--well, I suppose I'd think that was an unhealthy church environment.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 4


----------



## bookslover (Sep 13, 2019)

Well - in this thread we have reviews of a podcast the author participated in and reviews of reviews of the book.

Is it fair to the author to opine specifically about a book _that none of the posters has actually read?
_
In that sense, isn't this thread a form of gossip?

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## ZackF (Sep 13, 2019)

Didn’t Mark’s reference read the book?

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Well - in this thread we have reviews of a podcast the author participated in and reviews of reviews of the book.
> 
> Is it fair to the author to opine specifically about a book _that none of the posters has actually read?
> _
> In that sense, isn't this thread a form of gossip?


I think it is fair to examine what her words presented from the podcast meant. I also believe it is profitable to understand the context as those words should reflect the book.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

ZackF said:


> Didn’t Mark’s reference read the book?


It referenced the book but it seems none of the posters of this forum have read the book.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

BTW, I was raised by a single mother in the work place who functioned well in her Church. We do need our Deborah's.


----------



## mvdm (Sep 13, 2019)

Reviews of books (or of podcast statements) are routinely published and read by folks who have yet to read the book or heard the podcast. A quality review will provide citations to the original work and analysis of it. It's not "gossip" to share or benefit from such.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## mvdm (Sep 13, 2019)

ZackF said:


> Didn’t Mark’s reference read the book?



Yes, he did.


----------



## Susan777 (Sep 13, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> That's fair.


I don’t understand what is meant by the “whole role-playing business”. I struggle to have a quiet and gentle spirit, though this is not something I have by nature. Yet I know that this is pleasing to my Lord. Is this just role-playing? I don’t care what the world says a woman should be, I want to be what God designed me to be as a woman. Maybe I’ve misunderstood this comment.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> I don’t understand what is meant by the “whole role-playing business”. I struggle to have a quiet and gentle spirit, though this is not something I have by nature. Yet I know that this is pleasing to my Lord. Is this just role-playing? I don’t care what the world says a woman should be, I want to be what God designed me to be as a woman. Maybe I’ve misunderstood this comment.


Chris was quoting my post. The problem is not in typical and even natural roles for men and women. My comment originally spoke to the way that "sex roles" have been weaponized by one side against "traditionalists" (including Christians), and the latter have tended to react against this attack by turning sex-roles into sex-rules, by become even more "rigid" than ever they were when these things were simply recognized as ancient, reliable standards.

In other words, when we react to false-criticism by becoming the caricature, we play into the hands of the enemies of order and common sense. Turning to the Bible, descriptions of what is typical and normal (but not so absolute as to rule out variety) has been cast in terms of law. And to deviate from the Bible--as we know--is sin; so some Christians came to think of a typical or normal family order as LAW (which I cast in terms of "fundamentalism"). The attitude is then seen when folks say: "We're good people, because we follow this rule," rather than: "We're going to keep to what is natural and normal; and you nuts can't make us feel guilty for acknowledging tried and true patterns and habits for humanity."

We could afford to be not-so-rigid, now as much as then, because it was never about role-rules, but accepting the human condition and learning what works best. And there were always outliers from the normal ways of things, and we bore with those with little trouble. But now the abnormal types have demanded that they be allowed the same acceptance as the normal-but-atypical.

So the attack on nature has taken two forms. In one form, the very idea of nature is attacked, since it implies constraint on the human will. In the other form, aberrant behavior demands acceptance within the bounds of "normal," extending the trailing edges of the bell-curve of acceptability. Behavior simply "is," absent any value judgments; and this too destroys natural/normal, because if everything is natural/normal then nothing is--the category has evaporated.

So, I was not denying the concept of sex roles, or the benefit of them.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Sep 13, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> I don’t understand what is meant by the “whole role-playing business”. I struggle to have a quiet and gentle spirit, though this is not something I have by nature. Yet I know that this is pleasing to my Lord. Is this just role-playing? I don’t care what the world says a woman should be, I want to be what God designed me to be as a woman. Maybe I’ve misunderstood this comment.



Bruce spoke in this already, but to answer you directly, I was agreeing with Bruce about making it into "a law" is a concern. I either didn't catch Rachel's articulation of that or she didn't articulate it. What is ideal isn't always possible, so while I may advocate for a position (e.g. homeschooling) I don't want put out a position that isn't possible for some (e.g. single parent).

I affirm your desire conform your life to what you see God is calling you to be. I think my wife would agree with your sentiment that it is not always easy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 13, 2019)

bookslover said:


> In that sense, isn't this thread a form of gossip?



If you bothered reading the OP you would see how you've misunderstood my purpose in starting the discussion. I said I had not read the book but listened to Miller's lengthy interview where she made some specific statements that I wanted to discuss here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 13, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> You haven't given me much of a description of the financial situation of the household


I am happy to admit there are many circumstances when a woman has no choice but to go out of the home and seek employment. Please don't misunderstand my questions as denying that reality. But I would still say that for the believer, there is a need to acknowledge that a mother working outside of the home is not the ideal. It invariably creates real and lasting problems in a family. Where the ideal of a mother being at home is possible, there is a duty for a husband and wife to order their lives accordingly.

So with that in mind, let me get back to my earlier question. So you wanted to know more about their financial situation. Okay, let's say her husband is a successful engineer making over a 100k per year. Let's say she only works because she wants a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment in the work place. Would you be unwilling to say that is unbiblical?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I am happy to admit there are many circumstances when a woman has no choice but to go out of the home and seek employment. Please don't misunderstand my questions as denying that reality.


I don't misunderstand, as I wrote, "I'm confident you would not find fault in ALL cases of a mother working and using daycare."



C. M. Sheffield said:


> let's say her husband is a successful engineer making over a 100k per year. Let's say she only works because she wants a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment in the work place. Would you be unwilling to say that is unbiblical?


I would be unwilling, barring strife and discord in the home as a result of her choice. If the husband came to me with a request to help them with the fallout from that choice, it would be appropriate to detect the origin there (if so be) and direct them to a solution grounded in biblical wisdom that helps one see plainly with corrective lenses.

But to assume that discord was certain to come--as if there was a single blueprint for domestic harmony in Scripture, and a key to the ideal marriage and home life--I could not know that. I can come up with variations on your proposed situation that reveal the wife-and-mother as something akin to the Prv.31 woman. Reality comes to expression on a bell-curve. I can warn people of the dangers of a course of action, and pray for God's will, and then wait for the results. Sometimes, stridently directing people where "most people have success" and against this couple's instincts is a terrible pastoral decision.

No doubt, there would be a range of potential outcomes, some better, some worse. I don't think it is possible to tell every woman that would fit in the case as described, that under a current set of social "givens," she must surely fail in her principal task of motherhood. Some women have made this work. Her children rise up today, and call her Blessed. Maybe it isn't quite the typical success story, but neither is prior restraint that won't allow people to make potentially bad _but not sinful_ decisions typically a successful disciplinary strategy.

Simply the desire to have the "sense of accomplishment" and outside "fulfillment in the work place" isn't sinful; it isn't "rebellion against divine order" coming from a woman. Nor is it wrong for her to have the wherewithal to execute a plan to fulfill her desire in a way that does not evidently promote evil. But stubbornness and refusal to face honestly and with a biblical mind problems that could come up--resistance to a needful reevaluation--that is Proverbial, blameworthy folly. But it isn't unique to a woman's constitution. It is a human failing.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 5 | Sad 1


----------



## bookslover (Sep 14, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I think it is fair to examine what her words presented from the podcast meant. I also believe it is profitable to understand the context as those words should reflect the book.



Yes, it's fair to do those two things. But that's still not the same thing as reading and reviewing the actual book. A podcast and a book are two very different things, since an author can go into depth, and at length, about the points he or she is trying to make in a book-length work - something that's hard to do on a podcast.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Sep 14, 2019)

mvdm said:


> Reviews of books (or of podcast statements) are routinely published and read by folks who have yet to read the book or heard the podcast. A quality review will provide citations to the original work and analysis of it. It's not "gossip" to share or benefit from such.



Yes, but none of the posters in this thread can "provide citations to the original work and an analysis of it" because none of them has read the book, as of yet. Responding to a podcast is not the same thing as responding to a book.


----------



## bookslover (Sep 14, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> If you bothered reading the OP you would see how you've misunderstood my purpose in starting the discussion. I said I had not read the book but listened to Miller's lengthy interview where she made some specific statements that I wanted to discuss here.



You are correct. I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Sep 14, 2019)

By the way, I'm not trying to either defend or attack Rachel Miller's views. I haven't read the book either and I haven't heard the podcast or read any interviews.

I'm just concerned that an unread book is being criticized.

Also, keep in mind that a book represents the author's "official position" regarding it's subject matter (unless and until he or she changes his or her views and publishes a revised edition of the work). Podcasts and interviews are relatively ephemeral, but books are more or less permanent.

If I _were_ to interact with Miller's views, I would make sure to respond only to the book since, as I noted, that represents the author's "official" published position on the matter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 14, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> It's great that there are books like this.
> 
> Alexander, did you learn anything from your mother? Could she still teach you anything today? It's wrong to take a text and apply it beyond its lawful bound.
> 
> ...



Aquila and Priscilla counselled him privately ("took him unto them"). It was not a public correction or teaching, which is what this book is, but private as that was the only way it would have been proper for Priscilla to correct him. That is clear from the text and is the view of the godly interpreters of the past.

Scripture also speaks to the teaching mothers give their children so this example of yours also fails. Yes one can continue to learn (in private conversation) from one's mother and other women. But not in this public manner in which a woman seeks to teach the church at large.

There is nothing in 1 Timothy 2:12 about office bearers or leading worship. It is a general prohibition against women assuming teaching authority in the church and comes in the midst of a passage addressing how men and women are to conduct themselves in the church. Not just office bearers but men and women in general. This book is written by one in the church and its audience is the church at large.

It is not great that there are books like these. First because they teach error and second because they're written by women.

And you know people really need to start justifying their reference to "Christian liberty". Merely invoking it doesn't prove the point. I categorically reject this as a matter of Christian liberty. It is a clear violation of clear Biblical teaching. The disastrous consequences of women usurping male authority in the church are all around us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 14, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> BTW, I was raised by a single mother in the work place who functioned well in her Church. We do need our Deborah's.



I'm sceptical Deborah would have approved of being used the way she is nowadays to justify all sorts of things clearly prohibited in Scripture.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## bookslover (Sep 14, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I for one have made no comment about the contents of the book. I have spoken about the contents of the podcast which is freely available. So I hope you will qualify any accusations of gossip to explicitly exclude me from them.



Consider it done.


----------



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

Contra_Mundum said:


> I would be unwilling, barring strife and discord in the home as a result of her choice. If the husband came to me with a request to help them with the fallout from that choice, it would be appropriate to detect the origin there (if so be) and direct them to a solution grounded in biblical wisdom that helps one see plainly with corrective lenses.
> 
> But to assume that discord was certain to come--as if there was a single blueprint for domestic harmony in Scripture, and a key to the ideal marriage and home life--I could not know that. I can come up with variations on your proposed situation that reveal the wife-and-mother as something akin to the Prv.31 woman. Reality comes to expression on a bell-curve. I can warn people of the dangers of a course of action, and pray for God's will, and then wait for the results. Sometimes, stridently directing people where "most people have success" and against this couple's instincts is a terrible pastoral decision.
> 
> ...


Brother, thank you for your candid response. I am currently taken up with preparations for this Lord's day, as I'm sure you are as well. But I do intend to engage with you further. Until, then have a blessed Lord's day!


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 14, 2019)

How about a "house husband" or stay-at-home dad where the wife is the breadwinner? I'm not referring to cases of disability or where the husband can't find a job but to cases such as her being able to make more money.

I think I may have read something on her blog a while back that suggested that this wasn't necessarily wrong, but I couldn't find it when I checked earlier today.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 14, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Aquila and Priscilla counselled him privately


You're moving the goalposts. And you're proposing "private" in a way that makes the great majority of other business "public;" that's not even a sense of "privately" which is relevant. Was it "private" because just the three of them? Would four make it public? Neither do we know if there was only the three; but that the setting was removed from the synagogue--an instance of official space, where crowds assemble for human interactions under various rules. I.e, it was comparatively private, and that's all the notice testifies to.



alexandermsmith said:


> But not in this public manner in which a woman seeks to teach the church at large.


So, your mother can still teach the adult you, but no other woman; and Mom better mind her speech to you on the street? Here you use "public" as a synonym for "wide open and indiscriminate." Priscilla is still indicted, since she wasn't Apollos' mother; as well as any book written by a woman, if it doesn't clearly advertise that men should steer clear.

Most business is private in nature even when large numbers are involved, _except _for official business which is public in nature. Reading a book is practically the definition of a private communication, one-on-one and repeated many times over. Moreover, the author cannot compel even one person to read his/her book. A typical book lacks intrinsic or imputed authority.



alexandermsmith said:


> There is nothing in 1 Timothy 2:12 about office bearers or leading worship. It is a general prohibition against women assuming teaching authority in the church and comes in the midst of a passage addressing how men and women are to conduct themselves in the church. Not just office bearers but men and women in general. This book is written by one in the church and its audience is the church at large.


Actually, 1Timothy is named one of the Pastoral epistles _because _it is written to an office bearer, and according to Paul's programmatic statement in 3:15, his purpose is particularly so that Pastor Timothy will know how to conduct himself in the house of God. The matter before and after is geared toward Timothy's duties under several areas of oversight entrusted to him.

1Tim.2:12 is embedded in a chapter dealing with worship behaviors; and in this way the passage is not only linguistically parallel but thematically parallel to 1Cor.14 (N.B. v34). And 2:11-15 falls _immediately _prior to the the discussion of church office bearers. So, I believe I am on good ground (with numerous solid commentary on my side) when I reiterate that Paul's prohibition on women speaking/teaching in the church has specific reference to the official, authoritative proclamation of truth by the church, principally in worship.

A person does not have to be an officer bearer to know the truth or have skill to teach it where opportune. Nor is this gift exclusive to the male sex (as already noted) or its exercise by women stifled in general. But only restricted in a specific context; whereas, it seems you understand it is _allowed _only in a specific context. 1Cor.14:34, where (pace 1Tim.2:12) it is explicitly stated, "your women keep silent *in the churches*," helps inform the interpretation here (and vice versa) so we see the apostles do not prevent women's speech in "any setting that conceivably falls under the heading of church." But that they do not usurp the teaching office of the church in its official exercise--especially worship.

Publishing a Christian book is not usurping the teaching office of the church in its official exercise _by any means_; and it is especially not worship. Unless you believe it is the right of the church to _suppress publication _(i.e. censorship) or to own certain rights of lawful publications that purport to be Christian (akin to Rome's _imprimatur), _then authoring a book--even a Christian book--is a free act belonging to Christians in general, nor restricted to one sex or the other. A book's success is measured mostly by its sales and by cumulative judgment of its content. God will judge its worth.

I am not ashamed to thank God for all the women who have educated me in various ways--starting with my godly mother, continued by teachers in Sunday School and Christian grade school, especially carried on by my wife for longer time now than my mother; and since adulthood, one and another wise women (2Sam.20:16) in person and in print. None of them to my knowledge would ever admit themselves to ordination authority; so they demonstrated their respect of Scripture.



alexandermsmith said:


> And you know people really need to start justifying their reference to "Christian liberty". Merely invoking it doesn't prove the point. I categorically reject this as a matter of Christian liberty. It is a clear violation of clear Biblical teaching. The disastrous consequences of women usurping male authority in the church are all around us.


Most challenges to Christian liberty are not baldfaced additions to divine prohibitions and prescriptions, but begin with selective appeal to particular Scripture texts. Hostility to alcohol consumption is one of the most well-known. Certain texts are chosen, and given a particular interpretation and weight; other interpretations are quashed, other texts ignored or minimized. We should regard such tendency as legalist, fundamentalist, or both.

Christian liberty is no minor category. Machen's dictum is true: "Those who begin by forbidding what the Scripture's permit, will end by permitting what the Scriptures forbid." Therefore, we should take seriously those who claim that our habits have taken the force of law, even if in the end we don't agree with them that those things are merely habits, and not law. We must prove once again that they are law, not habit; or else admit that we need reformation.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 4


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 16, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> You're moving the goalposts. And you're proposing "private" in a way that makes the great majority of other business "public;" that's not even a sense of "privately" which is relevant. Was it "private" because just the three of them? Would four make it public? Neither do we know if there was only the three; but that the setting was removed from the synagogue--an instance of official space, where crowds assemble for human interactions under various rules. I.e, it was comparatively private, and that's all the notice testifies to.
> 
> So, your mother can still teach the adult you, but no other woman; and Mom better mind her speech to you on the street? Here you use "public" as a synonym for "wide open and indiscriminate." Priscilla is still indicted, since she wasn't Apollos' mother; as well as any book written by a woman, if it doesn't clearly advertise that men should steer clear.
> 
> ...



You dodge the issue. The godly commentators of the past are quite clear on what occurred when Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos aside. Why should I follow your interpretation?

The rest of what you said is just obfuscation. You know full well the difference between public teaching and private counselling/conversation. You have already admitted in this thread that your view has moved from the conservative to the liberal position. This is evident.


----------



## Kinghezy (Sep 16, 2019)

Theology Gals: Are Women More Easily Deceived? https://strivingforeternity.org/theologygals-129/

It appears that Rachel will be the new co-host of theology gals, and they will be devoting some of the upcoming episodes on topics from the book. This episode is one of those. In deference to bookslover, it is not directly a review of the book itself, but I think can still provide insights on the orientation of the author towards topics that are addressed in the book.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 16, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> You dodge the issue. The godly commentators of the past are quite clear on what occurred when Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos aside. Why should I follow your interpretation?
> 
> The rest of what you said is just obfuscation. You know full well the difference between public teaching and private counseling/conversation. You have already admitted in this thread that your view has moved from the conservative to the liberal position. This is evident.


You didn't like my _exegetical _response, so to you it's a "dodge." Fine, you are redefining and restricting terms all over the place to suit your own position. You could reject/accept my handling of the text for various reasons; I'm not that concerned about what you conclude. But there should be a sober reply to points you raised that allow godly readers to sift for gold.

You referenced no commentator in particular, so there's no _exegesis _good or bad to interact with. No one knows if you are reading whomever you think supports what you wrote in a neutral or a tendential manner. Vague claims to stalwart support don't fix bad or missing argumentation.

As for addressing your posts _in partem _and at some length, that you dismiss the effort as pretense is telling, but not surprising. It is an expected response to challenges given to what is "obviously true," whether it really is or not.

There *is *a difference between public teaching and private counseling, but you and I think that a certain species of thing fits in the opposite category.

You call my views "the liberal position," because you have reserved the term "the conservative position" to exactly describe what you think, subject I) subpoints a) b) c) and d). Doesn't work that way. There is no single "conservative" or "liberal" position.

A _fundamentalist _attitude identifies the very precise views to hold on that, this, and eventually many subjects; and renders every slight deviation from the current Very Important Topic "defection from the truth," and usually _liberal.
_
My views on Scripture hermeneutics would probably be judged as more-or-less _fundamentalist _today by most interpreters across the spectrum, until arrival at my fellow Reformed-types. Only the Traditionalist Fundamentalist would regard me as a fellow-traveler with "the liberals."

I've admitted to _never being as rigid _as some others whose category-views I once was able to subscribe. And I admit that today I will not subscribe to them, _because _they are become a false litmus test for careful (conservative) handling of Scripture; and because I'm convinced that my older, comfortable views were more traditional than strictly exegetical.

I'm more constrained now by Scripture to my views than I was before.

Reactions: Like 4 | Sad 1


----------



## a mere housewife (Sep 16, 2019)

The whole church is to Christ as female to male. Surely this is one of the most substantial reasons why ordained, representative-of-Christ offices should be filled by men. It's not about men being unable to learn anything valuable from women in spiritual matters so much as about how even men are part of 'the bride' when it comes to the head of the church, Christ. 

I've mentioned elsewhere that there is an invitation to discipleship in John first by Jesus himself (1:38,39), then by one male disciple to one another (1:46), and then from a woman to men (4:28,29): 'come and see'. The first person besides the prophet John the baptist in his vision of the descending Spirit who says 'I have seen' in witness of Christ is Mary Magdalene (20:18) -- who has seen the risen Lord, and has been commissioned by him to go tell her_ brothers _something from his mouth. Only the best news ever which they did not yet know.

Note that in Proverbs 8 and 9, wisdom is depicted as a woman outside of her home -- crying out to simple men on the streets. The foolish woman is doing the same (Proverbs 9:13-18). They've both prepared feasts. It's not in the public address to men or the fact they are offering wares that the difference lies. The difference is that the foolish woman's commodities are stolen and can only be eaten in secret. Certainly there is a symbolism to all of this. So I note especially that there was not anything in the female constitution that disqualified a female figure from being the symbol of sound instruction for men in OT times. In somewhat more recent days -- Boethius made Philosophy a woman.

I don't want to argue this or other points raised here which have already been discussed well by Pastor Bruce -- and I don't know much about Ms. Miller's writings in any case -- so will leave my observations there. But I increasingly think wise people would take truth gladly to heart anywhere they came across it, even if the creature relating it were not given the dignity of the image of God, but were only a talking donkey.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 17, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> You didn't like my _exegetical _response, so to you it's a "dodge." Fine, you are redefining and restricting terms all over the place to suit your own position. You could reject/accept my handling of the text for various reasons; I'm not that concerned about what you conclude. But there should be a sober reply to points you raised that allow godly readers to sift for gold.
> 
> You referenced no commentator in particular, so there's no _exegesis _good or bad to interact with. No one knows if you are reading whomever you think supports what you wrote in a neutral or a tendential manner. Vague claims to stalwart support don't fix bad or missing argumentation.



The godly commentators I was referencing are Henry, Gill and Poole. A consistent interpretation across these three effectively makes such an interpretation the most trustworthy unless _very _good reasons are given against. I haven't heard such reasons. I have read vague reasoning such as:

"In my opinion, based on what I've learned, I don't think married women in general _like _"being in the workforce," when they would rather be with and raising their offspring unencumbered."

This is not reasoning from Scripture nor from Nature but from anecdotes which are disproven by society at large where many women are happy to work even when they have children. Or just kill their babies and save themselves any inconvenience whatsoever. Furthermore what women _want _isn't really relevant. The consistent example of godly women in Scripture is that they were submissive to their husband's rule, they were not "out in the world" working the way women and mothers are today and they did not teach. Obviously with the nature of society and the economy back then women were involved in "work" but women out working in the family's field isn't analogous to having a career outside the home today.



Contra_Mundum said:


> As for addressing your posts _in partem _and at some length, that you dismiss the effort as pretense is telling, but not surprising. It is an expected response to challenges given to what is "obviously true," whether it really is or not.
> 
> There *is *a difference between public teaching and private counseling, but you and I think that a certain species of thing fits in the opposite category.



I did not dismiss it as pretense but as "dodging" and "obfuscation" because of your reducing the argument down to silly examples such as my mother talking to me in the house or on the street. This is absurd because you know full well there is a difference between issuing to the public what one considers to be an authoritative teaching on religious matters on the one hand, and private conversation between Christians on the other. When Christians have a conversation together that is Christians speaking one with another about Christ and is very good. When I choose to publish a book in order to _teach_ what Scripture says on a particular point, or to _exegete _Scripture that is assuming to myself a _teaching authority_. It is saying that my teaching will benefit the church and therefore it should be widely disseminated. One does not teach publicly, write a book, host a podcast if one does not think one has something to say to the Christian church at large. If one does not think one has a gift of teaching.

A difference between, say puritan board and a podcast is that there is interaction on puritan board. It's discussion, conversation. It's a two way system. On a podcast it is one way. There may be a discussion _on _podcast but that reinforces the point: these two or more people discussing the topic have something to say that you the listener should listen to and you're not part of the discussion because you don't have something to say. (James White is actually a very good example of this. He's quite explicit that his show and debates are teaching and that the random audience member doesn't have a right to interact or that their opinion is of the same worth as his. For example he has been very dismissive of questions from the audience at his debates and would happily forego them altogether.) A book is one way. What is said on a podcast or in a book is a _statement_, a declaration. When a theologian writers his systematic theology he's not putting it forward as an opinion to be argued over and edited or retracted. He's offering it as his definitive interpretation and exegesis of Scripture. Books on doctrine and theology are of that nature. (Blogs often have comments sections but a lot don't. A lot of Christian blogs, indeed, don't allow for comments or moderate the comments quite strictly.)

Modern discourse today has become very informal but that should not mean we begin to blur the lines. What is the difference between a woman hosting a podcast teaching doctrine, or writing a book teaching doctrine and a woman teaching systematic theology at a seminary? Take away all the window dressing of titles and an office it is the same fundamental activity: teaching the church. Or maybe you think we should have women teaching our ministers in seminary? Or to use the example mentioned in the podcast: *would it be ok for a woman to be elected President of the SBC?* It's not an office. (I don't know the specific rules here but certainly on the podcast they suggest that it would _technically_ be possible for a woman to be elected.)

To clarify: I am talking about teaching specifically. The church has greatly benefited from biographies, autobiographies and diaries of godly women. But biographies are not teaching. If a minister stood up in the pulpit and told the life story of a godly Christian we would not think he had performed his duty of preaching. The book under consideration falls under the teaching category. It is concerned with doctrine and exegesis. These are not the realms for Christian women writers.

If Paul's prohibition of women teaching is restricted to not holding office in the local congregation does that mean Paul would have been happy for women to teach theology at a seminary (obviously being anachronistic)? To go around the churches instructing in doctrine to the men and women? Effectively performing the role of an Apostle just without the title? Does such a picture in any way harmonise with Paul's general teaching on women? Of course not.

What teaching of women do we have preserved in Scripture? We have Paul's epistles, Peter's, James', the Gospels, Moses' teaching, the Prophets'. Where is the teaching from the women? If women have so much to offer in this area and it is perfectly in keeping with Scripture for women to teach why don't we have any of it recorded? Why were all the writers of the Bible men? Why, indeed, are women so conspicuously _silent_ throughout Scripture?

(There are obviously a few notable exceptions. But interestingly the books of the Bible most focused on women- Ruth and Esther- are biographical in nature. The lessons we learn from these books are from the lives and experiences of the women, which is in keeping with my earlier point. And then of course we have Deborah who said "I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." So hardly a rallying cry for more women teaching the church!)

The distinction between public and private is not so much whether or not no one else could possibly hear you but i) the nature of the conversation and ii) the intended audience. The conversation between Aquila, Priscilla and Apollos was to offer counsel to Apollos and he alone and was not intended for anyone else to hear, thus saving Apollos from any embarrassment. It may or may not have been in their home, but it was private and that is crucial. It's also worth pointing out that Priscilla did it with her husband, not on her own.

So private conversation is intended only for those involved in the conversation. Public teaching is intended for the church at large, indiscriminately. If Aquila and Priscilla had published a letter to the churches correcting Apollos' teaching would that have been just the same thing as what they actually did? Of course not. Private, spiritual conversation is encouraged for all Christians (though must be done carefully and tactfully); public teaching is restricted to men.

And you said in an earlier post that the success of a book is largely based on sales and God will judge its worth. So does that mean it's fine for any trash to be published under the heading Christianity and cast on the winds for any unsuspecting Christian to pick up and be lead astray? That we shouldn't criticise that? That we should just let it go? It is one of the great tragedies of the Christian world today that most Christian bookshops aren't deserving of the name Christian and have shelves full of the most heinous teaching. I'm not saying there should be a formal publishing house for "the church at large" but we should have Christian publishers we can trust. This book has been published by P&R. Their imprimatur carries weight, especially in our circles.





Contra_Mundum said:


> You call my views "the liberal position," because you have reserved the term "the conservative position" to exactly describe what you think, subject I) subpoints a) b) c) and d). Doesn't work that way. There is no single "conservative" or "liberal" position.
> 
> A _fundamentalist _attitude identifies the very precise views to hold on that, this, and eventually many subjects; and renders every slight deviation from the current Very Important Topic "defection from the truth," and usually _liberal._



Terms are relative. There is here clearly a more and a less conservative position. You say it is fundamentalist to identify precise views on a myriad of subjects, and that this is a wrong thing to do. This assumes that there aren't precise views on a myriad of subjects; that holding to precise views on a myriad of subjects is de facto unScriptural or "legalistic". This is the same problem you have with your invoking Christian liberty: you leave it undefined. You didn't define the nature and limits of Christian liberty and you haven't stipulated what subjects we are and aren't allowed to have precise views on. You may say those subjects to which Scripture speaks. But then we would have a difference of opinion on what subjects Scripture speaks. Now some people argue that unless Scripture addresses a specific topic explicitly it is a matter of liberty. I certainly don't hold that view- because it's wrong- and I'm sure you don't. But I also don't think because Scripture does not mention a specific topic explicitly that we cannot have rules about it. So you need to tell me what subjects you have in mind.

But also I don't believe this topic comes under this category. Scripture is clear: women are not to teach in the church. Readers of books, listeners to podcasts are members of the visible chuch. They are joined to specific congregations. They are imbibing the teachings of those who are also members of the visible church and joined to specific congregations. The church is not the four walls around you on a Sabbath and midweek prayer meeting.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 2, 2019)

Mark Jones reviews the book here:

https://mereorthodoxy.com/book-review-beyond-authority-and-submission/

"She’s actually abandoning a lot of classical Reformed thought on male-female anthropology. Other than Miller affirming male ordination, the book comes across as arguing for a form of egalitarianism." 

He’s trying to be nice but accuses her of being disingenuous in her handling of things he’s written along with mishandling the teaching of others as well. Keep in mind that Dr Jones was very critical of CBMW’s subordinationist teaching. 

When the subordination controversy exploded several years ago, Dr Trueman said that if we end up with a bunch of evangelical Arians in the coming years, the teaching of Bruce Ware et al will be the reason. 

The veteran PuritanBoard poster Pilgrim says that if evangelicalism (including some NAPARC denominations) soon becomes egalitarian by and large, including ordaining women to all church offices, the influence of writers like Byrd, Miller and evidently Goligher and Trueman themselves (given their endorsements of these books) will be to blame. 

I can’t for the life of me see how their continued stance against the ordination of women is anything but arbitrary and ****horror of horrors**** the product of biblicist proof texting in order to maintain the absolute minimum necessary to be in compliance with their church’s teaching. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1 | Amen 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2019)

I actually have her book on my shelf. Don't know when I will read it, though. On one hand, I actually like much of what she has done. She did a great job exposing Wilson. She did a good job getting the material together so others could rebuke the ESS crowd. Good for her.

On the other hand she unfriended me on Facebook. I think it was because I support Trump.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## bookish_Basset (Oct 2, 2019)

Thanks so much for drawing attention to the Mark Jones review--very helpful. The questions he raises, about her historical account in particular, are concerns I've had based on what I've heard about the book. I'm still planning to read and discuss it with my husband eventually so we can evaluate for ourselves. I'd be interested in your review, Jacob, if and when you get around to it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Susan777 (Oct 2, 2019)

bookish_Basset said:


> Thanks so much for drawing attention to the Mark Jones review--very helpful. The questions he raises, about her historical account in particular, are concerns I've had based on what I've heard about the book. I'm still planning to read and discuss it with my husband eventually so we can evaluate for ourselves. I'd be interested in your review, Jacob, if and when you get around to it.


The review seemed fair and balanced. I too would be interested in the thoughts of others who read the book, although I don’t care to buy it myself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 3, 2019)

"The reader will note that she generally avoids speaking of men and women in unique ways based on their inherent nature because that could lead to certain emotional, physical, and spiritual traits that are unique to each sex – a problem found in pagan literature, according to Miller, but not in the Bible."—Mark Jones


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 3, 2019)

Nailed it!

"Her stated aim is to show how the New Testament radically altered Greco-Roman views on male-female relationships (p. 58). Yet the book gives the impression that she really doesn’t want to discuss the positive aspect of what it means, for example, for a woman to submit to her husband in everything, as Paul commands in Ephesians. We are told what “subjection” passages don’t mean, but the reader is left wondering what they _do_ mean. The book, ironically enough, lives up to its title."—Mark Jones​

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Kinghezy (Oct 9, 2019)

http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-...Ci1jTiHldSInYOumovgUhpSmMYfYpsovlDFxkDfYhFyw8

_*Jonathan Master* (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is professor of theology and dean of the School of Divinity at Cairn University. He will will assume the presidency of Greenville Seminary in July of 2020. Dr. Master also serves as the Alliance[ of Confessing Evangelicals]'s editorial director, as well as co-host of the Theology on the Go podcast._

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 10, 2019)

This has been an interesting discussion.

I think the interesting thing about Bruce's remarks is an appeal to both prudence and liberty as well as a natural law argument about men and women.

By saying that I'm not arguing that this is all Bruce does but he does widen the aperture in a way I believe is Biblically faithful. What do I mean by that? I mean that the Scriptures (especially wisdom) appel to natural law and there is a lot of truth densely packed into wisdom where some people want to treat wisdom as if it can be boiled down to a few basic truths.

Need to know about what women can or can't do? Just quote 1 Tim 2 and that's all you need to know as a Christian. Of course, this kind of folly is not the way that Reformed people have thought through these things for centuries.

What I find fascinating is that Bruce sort of commends Rachel (if I'm not misreading) for a broader argument about not trying to shoehorn all of life into a few Scriptures but it appears (from Jones' and Masters' reviews) that she generalizes and doesn't really deal with natural law arguments and then leaves the key Biblical texts untouched from an exegetical standpoint.

Given the aiming point for her critiques, I can understand why she probably seems unbalanced to some. I remember years ago listening to pretty much all that Doug Wilson had to offer with respect to how he handled the Proverbs and male/female relationships. For those who want to have a cookbook for a happy family and Godly kids with a good vocation, DW offers an explanation on how to specifically apply Proverbs the way he sees them with lots of prescriptive "do's" and "don'ts". Wisdom literature becomes didactic teaching under his tutelage. You know exactly what a man or a woman should do.

The problem is that he manhandles the Scriptures and teaches people who follow this method that something as complicated as life can be solved by removing all the density of Proverbial wisdom into a few easy categories for life and living.

It reminds me years ago when I was learning a Biblical counseling book from a PCA Church and I was shocked at how shallow the answers were to people's problems. Everything and I mean everything, had to have a specific verse attached to it. It didn't matter how much you had to torture context to answer a life problem as long as the verse itself addressed the specific issue.

There's an awful lot of folk wisdom or "personal views" dressed up as "this is what the Bible definitively says about the roles of women."

To my thinking, the problem is the ignoring of natural law and the circumstances of life and living. I see that in the thread where someone is trying to "find the verse" that's going to answer all questions. They'll torture a text to ask whether a woman might be able to write a book about men and women and, if a man happens to read it who is a Christian, then she is bound not to write it. Her whole career (and presumably the careers of every person) are bound up in trying to find the "life verse" that speaks to that issue. This is not a "conservative" view of Scripture but it is a form of casuistry similar to what the Scribes and Pharisees engaged in. Don't worry about how to apply Scripture, there's a Rabbi somewhere who has figured out whether or not "this Book" crosses the line.

Life is way more complicated when you try to create rules from a handful of NT verses that govern Christian life. I'd invite some of you to travel to a market in Korea and ask yourself whether it is appropriate whether this or that Christian woman ought to be selling in the marketplace.

Should my daughter study Engineering? Some will have opinions but I can honestly tell some of you that I would never listen to your advice based on some of the folly spilled in this thread.

If, for instance, she increasingly finds herself in a culture filled with man-children who decide that 30-something is a good time to grow up (or never) ought she just avoid some sort of professional career?

Life is filled with questions that require a Biblical grounding so that we understand the "Body of Divinity" as the Puritans called it. We understand the nature of God, man, sin, salvation (justification, sanctification) and our duties to one another. Even the WLC (written for adults) is not a casuistic list answering whether Sally ought to help Bobby with his homework because (heaven forbid) she's a girl and is better at math than him. It gives the Biblical principle and then counts on the process of applying wisdom to the situation. A lot of life is a blend of these principles and the law of nature that we see all around us.

It sounds like Rachel's book could probably be improved by noting that there are natural law principles of ontology that she appears to be ignoring. While rightly taking aim at the "Rabbis" she could do a better job of more fully integrating a proper view of Scripture with the reality of the differences between men and women. The bottom line is that it what we all need to do. Boiling everything down to life verses demonstrate to men that a person does not have a very good grasp on the Scriptures or life.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 10, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-...Ci1jTiHldSInYOumovgUhpSmMYfYpsovlDFxkDfYhFyw8
> 
> _*Jonathan Master* (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is professor of theology and dean of the School of Divinity at Cairn University. He will will assume the presidency of Greenville Seminary in July of 2020. Dr. Master also serves as the Alliance[ of Confessing Evangelicals]'s editorial director, as well as co-host of the Theology on the Go podcast._


_“Beyond Authority and Submission_ spends a great deal of time explaining what, in the author's judgment, authority and submission does _not _entail. This is to be expected given the title. But almost no effort is given to explaining with any clarity what these biblical concepts actually _do_ mean and what they ought to look like in practice. Once again, this is not to suggest that the author deserves to be criticized for writing a different kind of book. Rather it is to suggest that in failing to offer anything like a positive explanation for the biblical notions of authority and submission - the broad understanding of which she has termed Greco-Roman and Victorian - Miller's book fails to deliver on the promise of the project she did undertake. It would seem that getting beyond authority and submission leaves us with little guidance in our present age._”_—Jonathan Master


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 10, 2019)

Semper Fidelis said:


> What I find fascinating is that Bruce sort of commends Rachel (if I'm not misreading) for a broader argument about not trying to shoehorn all of life into a few Scriptures but it appears (from Jones' and Masters' reviews) that she generalizes and doesn't really deal with natural law arguments and then leaves the key Biblical texts untouched from an exegetical standpoint.
> 
> Given the aiming point for her critiques, I can understand why she probably seems unbalanced to some. I remember years ago listening to pretty much all that Doug Wilson had to offer with respect to how he handled the Proverbs and male/female relationships. For those who want to have a cookbook for a happy family and Godly kids with a good vocation, DW offers an explanation on how to specifically apply Proverbs the way he sees them with lots of prescriptive "do's" and "don'ts". Wisdom literature becomes didactic teaching under his tutelage. You know exactly what a man or a woman should do.


Yep. I agree. I haven't read her book yet, its on my to do list. I initially listened because of some of the most bizarre thinking in books and blogs by those now fairly critical (and they are rarely if ever self critical of this point of their theology) of her.
I have found that they are absolutely unable to shake the presupposition that the main God given difference between the sexes is authority, based upon an extrapolation of 1 Tim. 2.
These people then try to ground it from extreme stereotypes that they then claim is essence of either sex and suddenly they become rules with a prooftext. Ex. "Women are emotional neurotic. *LEAP* Ergo, they aren't ever fit to lead." The vast majority of the inductive, while in some places might come from natural law, should have little basis for what a Christian man or woman ought to be as described in the Bible. It strikes me that Mark Driscoll's abhorrent theology of manhood and womanhood has had the last laugh in some sectors of evangelical and reformedom.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 10, 2019)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Need to know about what women can or can't do? Just quote 1 Tim 2 and that's all you need to know as a Christian. Of course, this kind of folly is not the way that Reformed people have thought through these things for centuries.


That's a straw-man. Those taking issue with Miller espouse no such nonsense. This issue is stated fairly by Master:

The result of all this is that Miller presents the Bible's teaching in such a way so as to suggest that the significant distinctions between males and females - apart from how the bodies of each are constructed - lie only in the roles they are given within marriage and especially the church. Even with respect to the family, Miller takes passages which hold up the goodness of the wife's special responsibilities and privileges and minimizes their distinctive home-ward orientation. The instruction in Titus 2:4, which points young women toward the end of loving their husbands and children, is placed next to the ideal of 1 Tim 3:4, which states that elders must "manage their households well." Miller's point in this close juxtaposition is to show, "the Scriptures indicate that both women _and _men should be inclined 'toward the home.'" In one sense, this is true, but it serves to obscure the proportionality of the instruction to each. Additionally, in this case, the fact remains that the word translated, "manage", given with respect to man's home-ward orientation, simply means, "to lead."

At a broader level, throughout the section on scripture, Miller does not engage with any notion of nature itself as it relates to ontology. In fact, she spends much of the book responding to the notion that there are actual ontological differences between men and women (beyond bodily composition). To be fair, she never promised to engage in natural theology in this book; and perhaps she is opposed to doing so. While it is tedious to criticize an author for failing to write the book she never set out to write, the Bible _does_ appeal to nature at certain key junctures with respect to men and women. Scripture cites pre-Fall created realities when answering fundamental questions about the differences between males and females. These created differences are connected directly and explicitly to questions of authority and submission. Since this plays such a central role in Christian teaching on authority and submission, this might be an area where it would be good for Miller to write further and more clearly.​
A think a fair-minded approach to the subject will avoid both the extreme of placing too much emphasis on the ontological differences between the sexes and that of pretending they are nonexistent or irrelevant to the subject of authority and submission.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## earl40 (Oct 10, 2019)




----------



## Susan777 (Oct 10, 2019)

earl40 said:


>


That’s little Peggy March, who recorded the song at age 14. The song was an old French love song, not original to her or her time. I’m not sure why you posted it but it seems like a perfectly reasonable sentiment for a young woman very much in love.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Susan777 (Oct 10, 2019)

arapahoepark said:


> These people then try to ground it from extreme stereotypes that they then claim is essence of either sex and suddenly they become rules with a prooftext. Ex. "Women are emotional neurotic. *LEAP* Ergo, they aren't ever fit to lead."


What or who are you reading Trent? I’ve never heard these extreme stereotypes expressed either in conversation or in print. I suppose these views must be out there somewhere if you’ve come across them but they certainly don’t represent the viewpoints held by most conservative Christians.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 10, 2019)

Doesn't the Apostle Paul affirm that women are more easily deceived, as part of his reasoning as to why they should not lead?

"And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became sinner."—1 Timothy 2:14

Paul gives 2 arguments for male headship: (1) Adam was created first, and (2) Eve was deceived.

Though folks in 2019 want to explain it away because it makes them uncomfortable, it seems Paul gives us a clear 2-point argument, and the 2nd point is that women are more easily deceived. I see no way around this interpretation. This statement by Paul appears to give an ontological difference between men and women and grounds male headship in the church as being due to Eve's nature of being more easily deceived.


A representative treatment of this text by one commentary admits that the Church for 2,000 years believed this. But then the writer feels he must contradict the text and church history to make it more palatable:

"Now, *most commentators in the history of the church have taken this very simply to mean that women are more vulnerable to deception, and therefore should not be given the responsibility of leading and teaching the church*. My guess is, from what I have read and experienced, that women are more vulnerable to deception in some kinds of situations and men are more vulnerable to deception in other kinds of situations."

Notice above how much the author is a slave to his modern Western culture. As are almost all women who write on these verses and try to twist them, saying, for example, that "helpmeet" doesn't really mean a helper at all but a fellow warrior, etc. You almost never hear some teachers mention the submission of wives without the tired reminder that, elsewhere, we are told to submit to one another as well (as if this nullifies the submission of wives to their husbands).

In real life, the tendency for women to be more easily deceived seems to play out in voting, women being bread-and-butter voters for many awful issues such as abortion on demand and open borders.

I fully support treating women well. And I abhor how women are treated in many countries. But I just don't trust writers in 2019 America to get this issue correct.

We may try to make the argument that the early Church's opinion on these verses is irrelevant because they were enslaved to Hellenistic and Roman conceptions of what it means to be male and female. But is America in 2019 any less a slave?

p..s I do support older women teaching younger women. This Biblical command seems largely ignored today.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 4 | Funny 1


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 10, 2019)

Pergs, you raised in another thread whether 'the woman' being saved in childbearing means that all women have to bear children in order to be proper women, basically (sorry if I'm putting that over-bluntly). You concluded not, because that is not actually what this text or any other says.
No more does it follow that because 'the woman' was deceived all women are more easily deceived. 
It would wind up in abuse if you tried to say that the text means all women have to bear children. It winds up in abuse if you try to say that the text means all women are more easily duped. 
It says 'the woman' had this particular part in the entrance of sin. Then it goes on to speak about the woman having a particular part in redemption. These are reasons for order in the church that rely on creation (Adam first formed) and redemptive history. And we should not fudge about them.
But it would be fudging about them to say:
Every woman is more easily deceived.
Every woman must bear children in order to be saved.

That is not what the text says.

Jesus is the second Adam, and the church is His bride. I think we're probably supposed to understand things about the church's relation to Him through this teaching about order between male and female in the church.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 10, 2019)

a mere housewife said:


> Pergs, you raised in another thread whether 'the woman' being saved in childbearing means that all women have to bear children in order to be proper women, basically (sorry if I'm putting that over-bluntly). You concluded not, because that is not actually what this text or any other says.
> No more does it follow that because 'the woman' was deceived all women are more easily deceived.
> It would wind up in abuse if you tried to say that the text means all women have to bear children. It winds up in abuse if you try to say that the text means all women are more easily duped.
> It says 'the woman' had this particular part in the entrance of sin. Then it goes on to speak about the woman having a particular part in redemption. These are reasons for order in the church that rely on creation (Adam first formed) and redemptive history. And we should not fudge about them.
> ...



But for there to be exceptions, doesn't there have to be a general rule?

In general, most women bear children, right? That is one of their roles on this earth, despite the exceptions.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 10, 2019)

Pergs I don't think the passage is giving us a rule of thumb or exceptions. It's giving us an overview of the woman in creation and redemptive history. These are big themes and they are hugely important for what authority means and points us to in the church.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 11, 2019)

I will add my tentative thought here -- throughout Paul's epistles he connects 'Adam' to Christ, and when he suddenly moves to OT female figures like Hagar and Sarah he is thinking in a way that ties into his whole theology and eschatology. I think his switching here to Eve, talking about the 'Woman' (taken from Man, first formed) and the part she played in sin and the promise of a Saviour to her, connects with his whole 'Adam' theology. Creation points us toward new creation.

I think C. S. Lewis says that we are all feminine to His masculinity in _That Hideous Strength_. The Woman (in the new creation, the church) does need protection from false teaching. The second Adam does that for her. Christ's masculinity is symbolised to his church in male office bearers.
This new creation significance of 'male and female' bears on how we live out male and female especially in those arenas (marriage, church) where we are showing these realities forth.

I understand how the questions of generalisations come in, and how obvious some of them are on the face of things. There is real biological created difference, and that often factors into psychological (for lack of a better word) difference. In general, women are more tender hearted than men and emotion is easier to manipulate. (Yet I can easily think of a number of men who are more emotional than their wives.) In general women are weaker in their physical frame than men, though some women are stronger than their husbands (and some women are very strong!). We have historically been more easily abused in that weakness and tender heartedness. Because of that one -- there should be such caution about false steps here. Leaps with texts can so easily come to making us *less human*, less capable of rational thought or judgment, less allowed to form or express an opinion, etc. These verses have been used that way by Christian men toward their wives and daughters. That is fudging what God has actually said. But it is also in real lives, endangering those that in general, men should care more specially to protect.

Paul can say in Galatians that in Christ, there is no male or female -- and call us not to compete but to love. I think that when we apprehend all that we are heirs of we're able to live out the roles we are called to more lovingly because the focus is not on us, or what we're able to scrape out of this world. It's on Jesus, and maleness we all have in Him (sons and heirs) and femaleness we all are to Him (his bride) and the world to come.

I have probably said much inadequate in all this, and don't wish to become argumentative about it so I won't.  Just to give a positive explanation of some of what I think Paul is getting at in calling up creation and redemptive history.

Pergy you are a beloved brother and I try to pray for you daily. I hope I didn't sound snarky above -- forgive me if so. I know you how much you value your wife as a wife and mom and also in her insights and training and ability to do highly skilled work beside you in a hard field. Many men aren't treating their wives with that kind of respect, and misinterpreted verses seem to give them a 'right' to the *pride* of being male that one is called to lay aside in Christ. Pride is a root in all of us of so much evil -- definitely in me. Though from what has been said there is much I'd disagree with in Ms. Miller's book -- I can deeply appreciate her concern for that.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 11, 2019)

a mere housewife said:


> I will add my tentative thought here -- throughout Paul's epistles he connects 'Adam' to Christ, and when he suddenly moves to OT female figures like Hagar and Sarah he is thinking in a way that ties into his whole theology and eschatology. I think his switching here to Eve, talking about the 'Woman' (taken from Man, first formed) and the part she played in sin and the promise of a Saviour to her, connects with his whole 'Adam' theology. Creation points us toward new creation.
> 
> I think C. S. Lewis says that we are all feminine to His masculinity in _That Hideous Strength_. The Woman (in the new creation, the church) does need protection from false teaching. The second Adam does that for her. Christ's masculinity is symbolised to his church in male office bearers.
> This new creation significance of 'male and female' bears on how we live out male and female especially in those arenas (marriage, church) where we are showing these realities forth.
> ...



The Apostle Paul says there is no bond or free in Christ and yet still tells servants to obey their masters.

Yes, I also appreciate her book. She is certainly no heretic, but a solid sister. 

And yes, there are some awful men out there looking for any excuse to dominate. I see reaction and counter-reaction constantly on these issues, and the teams line up along gender lines.

In Papua we are working towards the rights of women, ironically, to go to school and to not be married off without consent and we have preached and advocated against domestic violence. I suppose I am a first wave feminist.

And yes, I believe women are more tender-hearted and relational. 

Otherwise, I hold to traditional gender roles that existed for hundreds of years before these strange new labels such as Complementarian and Egalitarian sprung up.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 11, 2019)

Yes, we're still called to live out the authority and submission -- with this understanding that like slave and master it isn't ultimate. It isn't based in our humanity or intelligence or ability or in any ultimate way on degrees of created glory (because we share even now in the sonship of Christ, as you do in the bride).
I was not trying to undermine the teaching on authority and submission to which we are called here -- just to explain why I think Paul is basing all the specific instruction about this around creation, new creation, Christ and the church -- rather than saying 'all women are _x_ (or even, most women are _x_), therefore they cannot do _y_'.

[edit: I'm sure the part about the degrees of glory could be better phrased -- what I mean is that I believe even that is teaching us especially about Christ's eminence, and what we all put on in Him in the new creation.]


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 11, 2019)

Re: 1 Timothy 2:14, I once gladly agreed, my own experience confirming it, so I thought, that a woman’s greater susceptibility to deception was part of the the grounds for her not teaching or having authority over men. I still would gladly agree to it, but came to see it differently, helped through an old thread on Puritanboard. Basically, if being easily deceived to such magnitude was inherit only in women’s nature, and a reason for her prohibition in teaching men, then it logically follows she should not teach anyone. Yet we do see that older women are to teach younger women (not doctrine, per se; yet how to love and care for their husbands and families will involve doctrinal truths); and we see Priscilla named along with her husband Aquila as helping Apollos.

I will add that I also hold to more traditional views of Christian women taking public leadership positions. I’m uncomfortable about books like the one being discussed here. I do believe that God’s command for women to have a meek and quiet spirit is our guide, and works itself out in so many ways in the home and in public. Still a work in progress!

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 11, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> That's a straw-man. Those taking issue with Miller espouse no such nonsense. This issue is stated fairly by Master:


I think you need to read my post more carefully. Where did I write that anyone who takes issue with Ms. Miller's book fits the broad category that I described? If you re-read what I wrote I stated that she is reacting a a shallow Christianity that pretends that all of life can be proof-texted by a couple of verses. I'm not "straw-manning" anyone. I've met them in real life and gave Doug Wilson as an example who has the appearance of wisdom but his approach to Wisdom literature is casuistic.

It's interesting because, just today, I was talking to a friend who heard from a woman who is now divorced from a man who bought the patriarchy movement hook, line, and sinker. Even now, after abandoning his wife, he still is trying to act as "head of household". I've seen the wreckage in multiple families literally abandon the faith because their dad gloms on to a shallow "Scribes and Pharisees" approach to the Scriptures on the issue of manhood and womanhood.

It'd be convenient to paint me in the pattern of the "liberal guy" who just thinks that submission means we're supposed to submit to one another but it would just be another example of the childish inability of many to think that if you're not *FOR* a shallow patriarchy that you're against Biblical manhood. It's the same shallow idea that if you're not for the heresy of Eternal Subordination of the Son then you're an egalitarian. 

I made the specific point that I had read the article you quoted and I agree with it. I also read Jone's article and agree with it. Their criticisms are valid and I pointed out that she needs work thinking through some of the Scriptural and natural law issues rather than simply criticizing a patriarchy-movement and coming up with a shallow alternative to it. The point is, however, that some people can only be shallow critics of her. They won't engage in the broader natural law issues or the theological broadness but the solution to one kind of abuse of proof-texting is simply to engage in another form of proof-texting. My larger point is that life and Godliness is much, much broader than trying to find a single verse that fits all the issues that life throws at us.

So, in summary, I'm sympathetic to the concern raised by the book that people abuse the Word in the construction of a "Scribes and Pharisees" form of the roles of men and women. What I don't agree with is the way that people are using a "scribes and Pharisees" rule set to criticize her. I prefer the criticism in the articles raised that point out the shallowness of her Biblical treatment, historical treatment and that the solution to the problem would be found by a healthy combination of deeper exegesis combined with Biblical and law of nature wisdom.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 11, 2019)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think you need to read my post more carefully. Where did I write that anyone who takes issue with Ms. Miller's book fits the broad category that I described? If you re-read what I wrote I stated that she is reacting a a shallow Christianity that pretends that all of life can be proof-texted by a couple of verses. I'm not "straw-manning" anyone. I've met them in real life and gave Doug Wilson as an example who has the appearance of wisdom but his approach to Wisdom literature is casuistic.
> 
> It's interesting because, just today, I was talking to a friend who heard from a woman who is now divorced from a man who bought the patriarchy movement hook, line, and sinker. Even now, after abandoning his wife, he still is trying to act as "head of household". I've seen the wreckage in multiple families literally abandon the faith because their dad gloms on to a shallow "Scribes and Pharisees" approach to the Scriptures on the issue of manhood and womanhood.
> 
> ...



I've seen this, too. There is a growing "Red Pill" Movement within Christian circles that seems to promote a caricature of masculinity and which bears many similarities to the MGTOW Movement (Men Going Their Own Way). Many of them seem to hate women. I believe many Christian men (tired of feminism and tired of evangelical pastors that look effeminate) gravitate towards these caricatures out of a reaction. But it only worsens the already-bad battle of the sexes.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Susan777 (Oct 11, 2019)

Semper Fidelis said:


> They won't engage in the broader natural law issues


Rich, what are the natural law issues you are referring to? How does natural law play into the conversation? I’ve gone back a number of times to old PB threads to try to get a better understanding of it but it’s still really murky to me. In the present context would it mean looking at what God has revealed in nature concerning spheres of activity of each sex or is it something entirely different?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 11, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> Rich, what are the natural law issues you are referring to? How does natural law play into the conversation? I’ve gone back a number of times to old PB threads to try to get a better understanding of it but it’s still really murky to me. In the present context would it mean looking at what God has revealed in nature concerning spheres of activity of each sex or is it something entirely different?



He probably means that it is only natural (according to nature) that we would see more men as lumberjacks and and crane operators, and more women as pedicurists and daycare workers.


----------



## ZackF (Oct 11, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I've seen this, too. There is a growing "Red Pill" Movement within Christian circles that seems to promote a caricature of masculinity and which bears many similarities to the MGTOW Movement (Men Going Their Own Way). Many of them seem to hate women. I believe many Christian men (tired of feminism and tired of evangelical pastors that like effeminate) gravitate towards these caricatures out of a reaction. But it only worsens the already-bad battle of the sexes.



I was red pilled before the Matrix and I was probably in those categories about 15 years ago for two years though I wasn't angry but exhausted. Never considered myself an alpha power man nor loser beta man on the other side. I didn't hate women but was certainly tired of feminism and women I thought would be great to go out with or marry if they would just get over this desire to pay homage to feminism for reasons they couldn't explain. "Who are you trying to impress?" was a common thought?

One woman I was getting to know was planning on racking up nearly six figures in student loans to become a counselor. When I told her I wasn't interested in pursuing things any further because of that decision she became indignant about my "old fashion" beliefs. This was after hearing how much she wanted to be at home and raise a family but work part-time and put kids in daycare 20 hour per week. My argument to her was why not study as you can, debt free, over a longer period and enjoy family life and then begin a counseling practice. No dice.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 11, 2019)

Typical of modern arguments about the current categories of complementarianism and egalitarianism is this comment just sent to me on Facebook:

"complementarianism....you don't think Edwards held to that? Pretty sure he did. If I recall, he rejected egalitarianism."

What? Edwards didn't affirm one and deny the other because these labels would be anachronisms if we tried to place them on Jonathan Edwards. These labels simply did not exist until about 3 or 4 decades ago at the most.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 11, 2019)

ZackF said:


> I was red pilled before the Matrix and I was probably in those categories about 15 years ago for two years though I wasn't angry but exhausted. Never considered myself an alpha power man nor loser beta man on the other side. I didn't hate women but was certainly tired of feminism and women I thought would be great to go out with or marry if they would just get over this desire to pay homage to feminism for reasons they couldn't explain. "Who are you trying to impress?" was a common thought?
> 
> One woman I was getting to know was planning on racking up nearly six figures in student loans to become a counselor. When I told her I wasn't interested in pursuing things any further because of that decision she became indignant about my "old fashion" beliefs. This was after hearing how much she wanted to be at home and raise a family but work part-time and put kids in daycare 20 hour per week. My argument to her was why not study as you can, debt free, over a longer period and enjoy family life and then begin a counseling practice. No dice.


Well, how did things finally work out for you? Did you land a June Cleaver at last?


----------



## ZackF (Oct 11, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Well, how did things finally work out for you? Did you land a June Cleaver at last?


We'll "June" and I just celebrated 10 years of marriage last year. No Beaver or Wally. Just two Beavettes!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 12, 2019)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think you need to read my post more carefully.


My reading is fine. You just need to _speak_ more carefully.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 12, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> My reading is fine. *You just need* to you need to _speak_ more carefully.



From the stutter above, it looks like Rich is in good company!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 12, 2019)

py3ak said:


> From the stutter above, it looks like Rich is in good company!


Typos are not the same as substantive disagreements. But thanks for pointing it out.


----------



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

Steven Wedgeworth posted this on _The Calvinist International_. Herman Bavinck provides some very balanced observations on the ontological distinctions between men and women...

Nevertheless, we can both underestimate and overestimate this distinction. The first defect often hobbled people in previous centuries. In practice people frequently viewed the woman as a being of lower order than the man, and theoretically people often denied her the status of being fully human. Over against that view, we must maintain, with the help of Scripture which alone supplies an explanation regarding the origin and essence of a human being, that both man and woman are created in God’s image, and that therefore both are human beings in the fullest sense of the term. The second chapter of Genesis presents the woman especially as a helper suitable for the man, but let us not forget that this chapter has been preceded by the first chapter of Genesis. Here we read that God created man and woman together in his image; the woman can be a helper suitable for the man only because she is his equal and reflects God’s image just as much as he does. The question that has been raised upon occasion in the past, namely, whether the woman may be called a human being, is not at all appropriate. The woman is a human being no less than the man, because she no less than he was created in God’s image. Scripture speaks in a very human way about the essence of God, but it never transfers the sexual differentiation to him; God is never portrayed or presented as being feminine. But if the woman is said to be created along with man in the image of God, then that includes the fact that the uniqueness and richness of feminine qualities no less than those of the masculine capacities find their origin and example in the divine Being. God is a Father who takes pity on his children, but he also comforts like a mother comforts her son.

Because of this unity of human nature, then, the well-known saying is not entirely true that claims that the man is incomplete and half a person without the woman, and the woman without the man. It is true only insofar as each is viewed separately in his or her own particularity. But the expression is less correct when one thinks of human nature, which is common to both. Each of the two is complete as a person. Man and woman each have a soul and a body, a mind and a will, a heart and a conscience, a spirit and a personality. There is no single capacity of the body and no single quality of the soul that is exclusively unique either to the man or to the woman. Each of the two has a fully human nature and is a uniquely independent personality. For that reason, the question is so difficult to answer as to whether the woman possesses less of an aptitude for some activities and functions than the man. For although understanding and rationality, head and hand, undoubtedly function in a different way with the woman than with the man, that does not at all imply either a different or an inferior aptitude, and is not at all identical to inability.

Related to this is the difficulty of describing crisply and clearly the distinction between man and woman. Judgments span a wide range, and it requires no artistry to arrange alongside one another the contradictory opinions of those with profound understanding of human nature. Down through the centuries and among all nations, among philosophers and among the unreflective masses, women haters have exchanged places with women worshippers. And men have hardly remained constant in their own judgment, but frequently move from the one to the other extreme. At one time or another, the woman is an angel or a devil, a queen or a vixen, a dove or a serpent, a rose or a thorn. The feminine is identified as divine, and then again as demonic. The man kneels before her in worship, only then to pin her under his foot. Frequently the conclusion is that the woman is a riddle; the man does not understand her, and yet he often understands her even better than she knows herself.

Nevertheless, the distinction exists, and it is set in terms of its main features as well. There is outward difference between man and woman, in terms of the body and all of its organs. Difference in the size of the head, in the development and weight of the brain, in the tint of the skin, in the growth of hair, in the shape of breast and stomach, in the form of the hands and feet. Difference also with regard to the strength and tone of the muscles, the sensitivity of the nervous system, the gracefulness of movements, the color of the blood, the flow of tears, the pulse rate, the sound of the voice, the multiplicity of needs, the capacity to suffer, the weight and strength of the body. In her entire development, the woman is closer to the child and reaches full adulthood sooner than the man.

No less important is the distinction between man and woman that exists in the life of the soul. People have said that the soul has no sexual differentiation, but even though the nature and capacities of the soul are the same for man and woman, they function in a different way. By means of observation the woman acquires sense impressions more quickly and retains them longer and more deeply than the man. Her imagination is characterized by greater liveliness and quicker connectivity. Her thinking and evaluating are characteristically more visual than analytic, attaching more value to the amenities of life than to abstract principles and rules. She seeks truth preferably along the route of an idealizing view of reality, rather than by the method of conceptual analysis. With the man, the volitional capacity is more logical, more capable of persistence, more persevering in striving for a goal, but the woman surpasses him in forbearance and patience, in the capacities for suffering and adapting.

The human nature given to man and woman is one and the same, but in each of them it exists in a unique way. And this distinction functions in all of life and in all kinds of activity. Already the outward appearance of the woman makes an entirely different impression than that of the man, and has an entirely different significance for her than for him. Clothes and jewelry are less important for the man, but with the woman they are an important part of her life. For that reason people often call women “the fairer sex.” That entails no insult, as long as it does not intend to portray the masculine sex as “the ugly sex.” For just as the description of women as “the weaker sex” [1 Peter 3:7] does not imply that all forms of weakness are combined in the woman, similarly the description of women as “the fairer sex” does not imply that all beauty has been bestowed on the woman. The man is beautiful as well. Only an unhealthy school of thought relating to beauty and art acknowledges no higher beauty than that of a naked female body, time and again abusing her in various seductive and hideous poses as though she were nothing more than an ornament.

Such an unhealthy school of thought also entails that people no longer have an eye for the beauty of the man. Yet, such beauty exists as well. It is a different beauty, quite surely, but of no less value. It is the beauty of loftiness that the man embodies, even as the beauty of comeliness is the possession of the woman. But both man and woman are beautiful; both display the features of the image of God in which they are created. To the man belongs the strength of physical prowess, the wide chest, the commanding eye, the full beard, the powerful voice; to the woman belongs a delicate shape, sensitive skin, full bosom, round shape, soft voice, long hair, elegant carriage, and supple movement. He engenders respect, she engenders tenderness. In terms of beauty, Michelangelo’s _Moses_ is not inferior to Raphael’s _Madonna_.

Similarly, the woman is constructed differently than the man in terms of religion, intellect, and morality. The same laws of logic and morals, the same religion and morality apply to both. The man is not intellectually superior to the woman, and the woman is not morally superior to the man. But how entirely different each of them takes hold of religion and morality, art and science! The man sees in religion first of all a duty, the woman considers it a pleasure and a privilege. For the man, the good functions more in the form of justice, for the woman it takes the shape of love. The man wants justice and law, the woman sympathy and participation. The man strives for the truth of an idea, the woman pursues the reality of life.

Accordingly, each must be on guard for a particular set of sins. The man must struggle against forcing his principles and pressing upon others every possible consequence, and the woman must wrestle continually against her deficiency in logic that is manifested both in rigid tenacity and incorrigible willfulness, as well as in a fickleness that defies every form of argument. The man is susceptible to the danger of doubt and unbelief, rationalism and dead orthodoxy, while the woman risks no less a danger of superficial piety and superstition, mysticism and fanaticism. The loquaciousness of the woman contrasts with the incommunicativeness of the man. The vanity of the woman is no worse than the coarse indifference of the man. The infidelity of the man is matched by the stubbornness of the woman. Indeed, man and woman have nothing to hold against each other. Each has quite glorious virtues and each has rather serious defects. There is room for neither disparagement nor deification with respect to either of them.

_The Christian Family, _pp. 65-70.​

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 16, 2019)

To that fulsome and fairly balanced perspective offered by Bavinck (which is in certain respects a reflection of 19th century psychological theories blended with biblical insight), we must take into account that men and women as individuals and combined into their respective sexes as collectives occupy two rather well-distributed bell-curves of combined character traits.

Consider Bavinck's unnuanced declaration that man is the _logical _sex, and the woman the _sensitive _sex. He writes, "the woman must wrestle continually against her deficiency in logic." That's a rather blanket assessment; and I can assure the reader that there are many women "logically superior" to many men; this is a truth, even if it were possible to rate all men and women everywhere on a scale of logical prowess or inclination, and the men were definitely "ahead."

That is because those bell-curves that would plot the distribution of logical strength (or another trait) by sex, against an axis of a standard, *overlap*_. _The median value could possibly be, or perhaps (to give Bavinck a measure of respect for natural insight) most likely is higher on the Male bell-curve, than on the Female bell-curve.

The "general rules" that are used to classify this trait or that as "masculine" or "feminine" are for the most part not much more than very indistinct, almost vague generalities. Then also, every individual person of either sex possesses a unique _collection _of those very same widely variable character traits. The man of great logic is not necessarily for that strength found equally weak in sensitivity (emotion). At best, it appears to someone like Bavinck that _in the general distribution, _these two isolated for consideration seem to correlate within each sex collective as dominant to a comparable degree. Logic and sensitivity are not, strictly speaking, contraries; however they do appear in certain lights to be complementary, and so might be indicative of a helpful balance between the sexes.

So, it is possible for a man or a woman to have great strength (or weakness) in both logic and sensitivity. This person might be on the tail end of a bell-curve plot of these two traits combined. There could be more men or maybe more women who are found in that tail-end cluster, but what would such confidence of knowledge tell us? Each person is so much more than either logic or sensitivity alone or combined. There are a thousand different character traits and inclinations; and each one is capable of being registered at a high point or a low. Each person is composite of those myriad traits, and we often have little choice in the kind of person that we are, given our genotype, and epigenetic factors; not to mention the environmental factors that interplay with the epigenetic, and the psychological. And the Christian would add spiritual factors to the picture.

People are complicated. Wisdom is required for the purposes of counseling, encouraging, correcting sin and promoting healthy development of one's character and personality in a God-honoring, respectful manner. To tell a "sensitive man_,_" who is having troubles fitting in to some social scene: _Hey, the answer is in recognizing that you're not MAN enough, _and that the solution is to take testosterone supplements and anabolic steroids, and be assertive; and make your life verse Ps.144:1--is in no way to point him to godliness. Manliness of itself is no closer to godliness than cleanliness, even if either could be a way to glorify God--and otherwise, to demonstrate pride and godlessness.

Some great male artists were "sensitive men." Did that mean they were sinning in their calling, and taking on a too "feminine" role in society? Should Rembrandt or van Gogh have hung up his painter's smock, and thrown on a firefighter's helmet? Perhaps he was sinning simply by not being more logical, or more brawny...?

I doubt that Bavinck was so ham-handed as that. What he wrote was but little controversial for his era, yet I suspect he had room in his taxonomy for people who were not perfectly in sync with "ideal" standards of masculinity and femininity for his time. This is not to claim there are no limits on what is acceptable in terms of our inclinations (all imperfect and fallen), when it comes to defining, describing, and exhibiting our character. Much of our native character is supposed to be mortified, the rest sanctified in accordance with the Word.

But I'm afraid there is a wisdom-deficiency in our time, when much sane reliance on commonsense norms is being undermined; so we have a desperate grabbing for laws (with a biblical prooftext for each) that it is believed will give a neat prescription, so reducing the complex human nature to a convenient 2D map for conformity. But, as Rich was pointing out, there is a distinction to be respected between law and wisdom.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 16, 2019)

Certainly men and women exhibit aspects of all qualities. But I see no reason why what Bavinck said in the 19th Century should be any more controversial for those of us in the 21st Century who are willing to look at this situation objectively. For what it's worth the studies are numerous which show that the distinctions described by Bavinck are true: to boil it down to the most basic level men, on average, prefer things and women, on average, prefer people. So men gravitate towards activites and professions which are concerned with things (like engineering, mathematics, the STEM fields) and women towards activies and professions which are involved with people (like nursing, teaching, social work). At the risk of posting cringe, Jordan Peterson does talk about this a lot. His favourite example is Sweden where there has been a concerted effort by the government to flatten out the percevied "gender inequality". Policies have been enacted to make it as easy and as attractive as possible for men and women to enter any profession they want, and not to follow "gender stereotypes". But what happened was that despite all that the field of engineering was still overwhelmingly male and nursing female. When given the choice men and women make, overall, predictable choices based on their sex. The differences between the sexes in these attributes may, statistically, not be much but, again as Peterson would say, even one deviation point can have a profound effect on how things play out on the ground.

We see this in all sorts of places. We're always being told that women are discriminated against in software engineering: Google has a 4-1 ratio of male to female software engineers. Society at large is 1-1 therefore there must be discrimination. But of course society at large is not the place to look for how many men and women we should _expect_ to be software engineers, rather we should look at those training to be software engineers. And currently the ratio of men and women training to be software engineers is around 4-1. According to the statitistics the _highest_ percentage of women studying in the field was around 35% in the 80s after increasing from around 11% in the 70s and then declining again to current levels. These are just some examples of how these differences in temperament, logic, sensitivity &c. play out. Generalities actually produce quite concrete results in how people interact and behave and which are replicated across society. 

We all have a mixture of these various attributes but to say that we are complicated, when it comes to talking about this sort of thing, is too romantic a view of humanity. We often hear today that we are all unique individuals and we should be free to express ourselves however we want. This is often said by people who have adopted the identical "uniform" of the modern radical: dyed hair, black clothing and grossly overweight. Once we get past all the noise about how we are all unique and the patriarchy isn't going to tell us how to be, we see that actually, the vast majority of people are not unique. We're not special. We're not originals. Millennials whine about how individual they are while they all have an iphone and wear exactly the same hipster clothing. We're just average people who follow the same route through life and the same patterns as everyone else and as those who went before us. There are _periods _of radical change and then everyone fits into the new trends, the new reality and society carries on. Sure there are always different groups in society: those who are more traditional, those who are more radical. But people, by and large, are followers. They find the group identity they like and they assimilate to it. This is as true for the "radicals" as for the traditionalists.

All this is to say that generalities actually speak to the reality of men and women. We can go through periods where the distinctions are more or less enforced from the top down, but these distinctions are fundamental. If women had never been given the vote would society be just the same as it is today? Giving women the vote, allowing them to be involved in the political process, has had a profound effect on the course of our societies. "Empathy" has become the guiding principle of our politics. Empathy is not necessarily a good thing in politics. It has resulted in the ever expanding welfare state, in the intrusion of the government into private and family life, "hate speech" laws, the erosion of liberty. Women are nurterers and when this is expressed on a national level we get the sort of policies we are seeing today.

Men are the builders of our societies. Look around you: who is building the ships, laying the roads, operating the cranes, digging the coal, sweeping the streets, unclogging the sewers, building the buildings, keeping the electricty on, maintaing our offices, unloading the containers from the ships, fitting your new kitchen and plumbing in your new bathroom. It's men. Camille Paglia said that if women had been in charge of building civilisation we'd still be in grass skirts. Generalities speak to the ontological reality of men and women. As women have come into politics and the professions they have been altered dramatically. As women have come into the workforce, it has altered dramatically. The MeToo movement is just the logical consequence of men and women working in close proximity together for the first time basically in human history. It wasn't so much a problem for our mothers and gradmothers because they wanted to fit in, they didn't rock the boat. But with women becoming more assertive in our society and not willing to assimilate to the working culture, the differences are coming into play and the inevitable tension and incompatibility is manifesting.

These realities are just a few reasons why this sort of book is very worrying. To reduce the difference between men and women to our anatomical differences and nothing else is a recipe for disaster. By ignoring the ontological differences between men and women and how this plays out in our psychology, physicality, understanding of the world and how Paul uses these ontological differences as justification for his rules is dangerous and unBiblical. People have said "that's not the book she wanted to write". And yeah that's the problem. She didn't want to deal with these realities.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Elizabeth (Oct 16, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> It wasn't so much a problem for our mothers and gradmothers because they wanted to fit in, they didn't rock the boat. But with women becoming more assertive in our society and not willing to assimilate to the working culture, the differences are coming into play and the inevitable tension and incompatibility is manifesting.



Women today also want to fit in, and not rock the boat. 

If women could only see what they've given up, and the price they are paying for their 'freedom'. That the feminine has as much worth as the masculine in God's rubric.

Women are told over and again by many MEN and some women, that to have worth they must ape men. That men's roles are the only roles worth emulating. You are seeing the modern version of 'not rocking the boat' play out in front of your eyes.

Little in it for men not to like. They can become restful creatures, depending on their women for keep. They can sexually dally as they like, with little fallout, etc. 

Men are doing quite well under this new rubric, aren't they? At least by secular measure. 

In other words,: this mash-up of men/women into a great blender of sameness is due not solely to women stepping out of roles, but also to men encouraging them to do so and become 'little men'. 

Same old story, right back to Adam: "she gave me to eat..".

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 16, 2019)

In the latest on Twitter the author and her female friends are seeming to claim persecution or misogyny because some male writers disagree with her premises. 

Now, I am sure that could possibly be true. But it does seem that many women authors run to the high ground of victim-hood when their writings are critiqued. It's not because of bad scholarship, or misunderstanding her sources, they claim. The critiques come due to hatred from males and misogyny, many claim.

I am prone to dismiss all that these women are saying out-of-hand following these tactics. Misogyny must mean more than merely disagreeing with a woman, after all.

....and then.....I find that some who are critiquing her are the likes of Douglas Wilson and I have to back up and say, "hmmm.....she might be right. It might be misogyny, after all."


Elizabeth said:


> Women today also want to fit in, and not rock the boat.
> 
> If women could only see what they've given up, and the price they are paying for their 'freedom'. That the feminine has as much worth as the masculine in God's rubric.
> 
> ...




"Women are told over and again by many MEN and some women, that to have worth they must ape men. That men's roles are the only roles worth emulating. You are seeing the modern version of 'not rocking the boat' play out in front of your eyes."

Who are these men? Point them out and I'll go slap them around for the good of all of us!


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 16, 2019)

Elizabeth said:


> Women today also want to fit in, and not rock the boat.
> 
> If women could only see what they've given up, and the price they are paying for their 'freedom'. That the feminine has as much worth as the masculine in God's rubric.
> 
> ...



This is true to a degree. But I don't think one can look at the workplace, or the university, and argue seriously that it is _men_ who are benefitting from the increasing participation of women in areas of life once the preserve of men. There is widespread hysteria over "sexual harrassment", young men are being persecuted on college campuses because of imagined offences (or by young girls who are trying to cover up their promiscuous behaviour). For those men to whom you refer I think they would say their plan had backfired.


----------



## Susan777 (Oct 16, 2019)

Elizabeth said:


> Women are told over and again by many MEN and some women, that to have worth they must ape men. That men's roles are the only roles worth emulating


In my experience it has actually been the exact opposite, that is, many women and some men are denigrating women’s traditional roles. It is not a movement fueled by men.
In my lifetime it is startling to see the extent to which the ascendancy of the female has occurred. In American culture today the (white, heterosexual) man is the oaf, the clueless one, the butt of the joke. Or else he is an oppressor, a possessor of “toxic masculinity”. In terms of the Church, and those who name the name of Christ, it is alarming to see some of the same subtle attitudes being displayed, the same kind of grasping after authority and power.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 16, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> In my experience it has actually been the exact opposite, that is, many women and some men are denigrating women’s traditional roles. It is not a movement fueled by men.
> In my lifetime it is startling to see the extent to which the ascendancy of the female has occurred. In American culture today the (white, heterosexual) man is the oaf, the clueless one, the butt of the joke. Or else he is an oppressor, a possessor of “toxic masculinity”. In terms of the Church, and those who name the name of Christ, it is alarming to see some of the same subtle attitudes being displayed, the same kind of grasping after authority and power.



I think it is true to say that for a certain section of men, women's "liberation" was very convenient. It gave them greater access to women (and what they wanted from women), less or zero responsibility and it cast aside the old protections men owed to women. And this proved a pretty good deal for men for a while. But we are living with the disastrous consequences of that revolution in our society. The only way it was ever going to work out is if trust could be maintained between the sexes but that trust has been eroded over the years. Maybe it wasn't inevitable and men and women really can live and work in close proximity on a society wide scale without these problems. I personally don't think that is the case. But of course it is more than just whether men and women are working in the same office.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 16, 2019)

About sums up the on-going argument:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



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

Contra_Mundum said:


> Some great male artists were "sensitive men." Did that mean they were sinning in their calling, and taking on a too "feminine" role in society? Should Rembrandt or van Gogh have hung up his painter's smock, and thrown on a firefighter's helmet? Perhaps he was sinning simply by not being more logical, or more brawny...?


Both Rembrandt and van Gogh were immoral men. Van Gogh was a homosexual who cut off his ear during an argument with his male lover. Their being accomplished artists doesn't negate whatever was blameworthy in their character. But that seems irrelevant to the discussion.

I don't deny their is overlap in between the characteristics of the sexes. But I do deny it is as blurry and indistinct as you make it out to be. It is, I believe, much closer to Bavinck's description than many suspect. But that is owing to the widespread and continuous rejection of these differences by the broader society. They might easily observe them if they would open their eyes. But as it is, their are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

I am thankful for those fair-minded individuals who recognize Miller's sloppy scholarship and have been willing to call it out. I would hope it would have the effect of making her give more thought to this subject and reconsider her conclusions. But as @Pergamum points out, it is more likely she will double-down and accuse detractors of chauvinism and misogyny. But such is the state of things.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Oct 16, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> ...it is more likely she will double-down and accuse detractors of chauvinism and misogyny. But such is the state of things.



Indeed, the topic of the OP aside, it is the state of _many_ things in the church. Long gone, it seems, are the days when actual arguments are made. Now, the easiest thing to do is attach some heat-generating, baggage-encumbered label to someone. It's almost as if we are living in _The Crucible_, and all it takes is the accusation "witch" to get people to draw their pitchforks. No trial necessary.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 16, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Both Rembrandt and van Gogh were immoral men. Van Gogh was a homosexual who cut off his ear during an argument with his male lover. Their being accomplished artists doesn't negate whatever was blameworthy in their character. But that seems irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> I don't deny their is overlap in between the characteristics of the sexes. But I do deny it is as blurry and indistinct as you make it out to be. It is, I believe, much closer to Bavinck's description than many suspect. But that is owing to the widespread and continuous rejection of these differences by the broader society. They might easily observe them if they would open their eyes. But as it is, their are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
> 
> I am thankful for those fair-minded individuals who recognize Miller's sloppy scholarship and have been willing to call it out. I would hope it would have the effect of making her give more thought to this subject and reconsider her conclusions. But as @Pergamum points out, it is more likely she will double-down and accuse detractors of chauvinism and misogyny. But such is the state of things.



I would not call it sloppy. It was a commendable effort, but just flawed. It is not heretical. And is no more flawed than some patriarchal views. 

It was a pretty good effort....for a woman! 

But it was written in a context, and that context is a reaction against what is perceived as patriarchal views. Some womenfolk have just got to get in there and correct us men. This is an itch that some must scratch and it becomes their main focus. I have suspicions about woman such as this, just as I have suspicions of any "patriarchal man" whose main message is about how the wife must submit to the husband. If that is the drum they are always beating, this is indicative of a major problem in both their theology and their own psychology.

Instead of writing books about how to be a better wife and mother to their household, many women are focusing on books like Aimee Byrd's book on why adult men and women (even those married to somebody else) can be close friends. This is an evidence of foolishness. It is clear that many of these authors do not delight in motherhood and serving their home or traditional femininity, but they have an itch to push back and correct traditional views and to fight against the prevailing view held by many traditional men who are Reformed.

I'd like to call all Reformed women authors to write also about keeping the home, bearing children, raising a family, and loving and serving their husbands, and then I will listen to their musings on theology. If their only body of work consists of grievances, then I'll never give a dime to any of their writings.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 17, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I would not call it sloppy. It was a commendable effort, but just flawed.


On that, I hope we can agree to disagree. 


Pergamum said:


> But it was written in a context, and that context is a reaction against what is perceived as patriarchal views. Some womenfolk have just got to get in there and correct us men.


This comment assumes Miller speaks for all women against the viewpoint of all men. But of course, she doesn't. Thinking of men and women as a monolith is a error exploited by the proponents of identity politics. There are as any men who subscribe to her view as women who don't. Reactionary arguments never age well. We don't tolerate them in serious scholars. Doing so in Miller's case would only be another example of the _'soft bigotry of low expectations.'_

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 17, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Indeed, the topic of the OP aside, it is the state of _many_ things in the church. Long gone, it seems, are the days when actual arguments are made. Now, the easiest thing to do is attach some heat-generating, baggage-encumbered label to someone. It's almost as if we are living in _The Crucible_, and all it takes is the accusation "witch" to get people to draw their pitchforks. No trial necessary.



If we were living in _The Crucible_ things would be a lot better, In my humble opinion.


----------

