# Review of RGM’s BA&S



## A.Joseph

New review in New Horizons. Sounds like similar criticisms as those directed at Byrd.
Here‘s a portion....

_Beyond Authority and Submission: Women and Men in Marriage, Church, and Society, by Rachel Green Miller. P&R 2019. Paperback, 280 pages, $13.50. Reviewed by OP elder Michael A. Chartowich.

”....She then argues that in Scripture many of the attributes normally ascribed to men (strength, assertiveness, providing) are also said of women, and ones normally ascribed to women (gentleness, responsive, helping) are also said of men. This is true in many cases, but I found myself left with many questions. What then is masculinity and femininity? Why did God make men and women different? Why does he call men to lead in marriage and the church? Miller rejects many stereotypes, but spends little time building a positive case for masculinity and femininity.

Parts four through six address marriage, the church, and society. Miller makes several good points in reinforcing her argument that sometimes we wrongfully go beyond what Scripture teaches. I believe that she rightly rejects the idea, held by some, that all women are called to submit to all men in some general way rather than just to their own particular husband and church leaders. She also challenges the suspicion that some church leaders show when women want to learn theology. As part of the body, women should also learn theology to be protected from false doctrine and not be limited to only hospitality and children’s ministries. Some complementarians, however, will likely differ with her in several places. For example, Miller does not believe that women have a biblical calling to be particularly oriented toward the home. She also implies that prohibitions against women teaching men theology at co-ed Christian conferences or in co-ed adult church groups are extrabiblical.

Some of Miller’s methods of biblical interpretation are problematic. For example, she uses the context of one passage to interpret another. Referring to Titus 2:5 and 1 Timothy 5:14, she says, “First Timothy gives us the context for these passages” (252). She then cites 1 Timothy 5:13 and implies that Paul’s directions to focus on the home were a result of the widows being busybodies and not be- cause women have a unique orientation to the home. Whether or not this is true in 1 Timothy, it does not follow that this was also happening in Crete when Paul wrote Titus 2:5.

In conclusion, Miller does a good job of exposing some unbiblical ways of viewing men and women. However, her questionable interpretation of some key texts (and her neglect of others) detracts f rom the overall persuasiveness of her thesis.”_

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph

So why would these women want to remain in the OPC? I never understood why people who break from their denomination in doctrine and practice, or at least seem to want to push the envelope in that direction, don’t seek a religious home elsewhere? There are plenty of churches more accommodating to this line of thinking as highlighted in the prior quoted portion.

_“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 (in) the time for these books that is just some laymen like me.” _





Rachel Miller’s Beyond Authority and Submission


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...




www.puritanboard.com

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

A.Joseph said:


> So why would these women want to remain in the OPC? I never understood why people who break from their denomination in doctrine and practice, or at least seem to want to push the envelope in that direction, don’t seek a religious home elsewhere? There are plenty of churches more accommodating to this line of thinking as highlighted in the prior quoted portion.


I've gone down that line of inquiry many times. I suspect it has something to do with the liberal tendancy of never being content to simply join themselves to people and groups who are like-minded but also feel compelled to make all those who are not like-minded conform to their own opinion. In the minds of feminists and egalitarians, conservative Reformed churches are at the very least defrauding women of their rightful place in the body or even worse, actually oppressing them. If one really believes that is the case, one will naturally feel emboldened to tear down the "patriarchy" in the name of "justice." How exactly that takes shape will depend on the context.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Taylor

C. M. Sheffield said:


> In the minds of feminists and egalitarians, conservative Reformed churches are at the very least defrauding women of their rightful place in the body or even worse, actually oppressing them. If one really believes that is the case, one will naturally feel emboldened to challenge the _status quo_ in the name of "justice."



I would prefer they just leave. It would be a be a joyous occasion to bid them good riddance.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Taylor Sexton said:


> I would prefer they just leave. It would be a be a joyous occasion to bid them good riddance.


Yes, it would be nice if the Devil just left us be. But it would seem he is hell-bent on our destruction.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

Ok, this endorsement perplexes me. I’m not looking to open up criticism toward Carl Trueman. From what I know and have heard from him, I always believe him to be very solid and sound on matters of doctrine, theology and church history. I thought he maintained his objectivity without compromise in his recent exchanges with Aimee Byrd, which is why I find his endorsement of Miller’s book a bit surprising and kinda disappointing.


*Endorsements*
_“There is a very real danger in our current cultural moment that the polarization that characterizes the political landscape might well come to exert an unfortunate influence on both the rhetoric and the content of discussions among Christians on a number of controversial topics. The temptation to respond to one extreme error by adopting its mirror image is strong but rarely, if ever, correct. *And there are few topics in the public square that are more divisive than the relationship between the sexes. It is therefore a pleasure to commend this book by Rachel Miller, which eschews the cheap extremism and bombastic rhetoric that characterize conservative Christian responses to feminism and plots not a middle way but a biblical way through the subjects of authority, submission, masculinity, and the like. She is not interested in making the Bible fit 1950s ideals of what men and women should be; rather, she wants to help the reader to think about what the Bible actually means in the present. This is a refreshingly sane read.”

—Carl Trueman*, Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Grove City College_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Yes, it would be nice if the Devil just left us be. But it would seem he is hell-bent on our destruction.



Christopher, did you know that you look *exactly* like Winston Churchill? Maybe you guys are related.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Yes, it would be nice if the Devil just left us be. But it would seem he is hell-bent on our destruction.



[W]here God builds His church, the devil will be sure to have his chapel. - James Ussher. _James Ussher and a Reformed Episcopal Church: Sermons and Treatises on Ecclesiology. _Moscow, ID: The Davenant Institute. 2018.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## CathH

A.Joseph said:


> So why would these women want to remain in the OPC? I never understood why people who break from their denomination in doctrine and practice, or at least seem to want to push the envelope in that direction, don’t seek a religious home elsewhere? There are plenty of churches more accommodating to this line of thinking as highlighted in the prior quoted portion.
> 
> _“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 (in) the time for these books that is just some laymen like me.” _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rachel Miller’s Beyond Authority and Submission
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.puritanboard.com


What kind of woman is welcome in the OPC, would you say? It's just possible that "these women" want to remain in the OPC because it is the church home that best fits their theology as expressed in the Westminster Confession, so I'm just wondering what additional qualifications are necessary for a woman before they're expected to seek a religious home elsewhere.

What makes people think that BA&S is a theology book, incidentally? Have you read it?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

bookslover said:


> Christopher, did you know that you look *exactly* like Winston Churchill? Maybe you guys are related.


I get that a lot out in town.


----------



## A.Joseph

They are very welcome. I get the impression they would prefer a more progressive denomination. Is that not their position? If they are pleased with the standards set in the OPC is that clear or are they concerned?


CathH said:


> What kind of woman is welcome in the OPC, would you say? It's just possible that "these women" want to remain in the OPC because it is the church home that best fits their theology as expressed in the Westminster Confession, so I'm just wondering what additional qualifications are necessary for a woman before they're expected to seek a religious home elsewhere.
> 
> What makes people think that BA&S is a theology book, incidentally? Have you read it?


----------



## CathH

A.Joseph said:


> They are very welcome. I get the impression they would prefer a more progressive denomination. Is that not their position? If they are pleased with the standards set in the OPC is a that clear or are they concerned?


That is probably not the impression someone should get if they listened to what Miller and Byrd say when they affirm (and defend) the OPC's Confession of Faith.

But could you clarify for me, do you say that Miller and Byrd are welcome? Or only a certain (different?) kind of woman who meets unspecified criteria that Miller and Byrd do not?

Why, for example, does another man with OPC affiliation say here, 


Taylor Sexton said:


> I would prefer they just leave. It would be a be a joyous occasion to bid them good riddance.



What kind of woman is welcome, and what kind of woman should "just leave" and "good riddance"?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## a mere housewife

Taylor Sexton said:


> I would prefer they just leave. It would be a be a joyous occasion to bid them good riddance.



Regardless of who you are talking about, no church needs pastors, elders, deacons, or laypeople who are happy to wish souls for which Jesus died good riddance.

I probably would find much to disagree with in this book if I read it, though I'd doubtless also agree with a good bit. It's not my preferred reading and I have other things that I think profit more to engage with. On the same principle, I'm going to withdraw from future engagement with this board. You are all sincerely dear to me, no more problematic than any other group of people in life (and much less problematic than my own self!) -- but I am weary of seeing statements that demean the cost Christ paid and the church's mission to every soul -- every one of which is worth more than the whole world -- and wondering if I ought to feel responsible to say something and if it's worth having a controversy that will take time and is not pleasant, because of how the statement might affect some one reading or how the mindset might hurt someone in real life. I've had my own opinions and mindsets changed here also -- and have been grateful. But this is not the church -- though it does represent to a lot of people what the confessing church might believe. There are enough problems to engage everywhere else in life and opportunities for myself to change there also. God bless you all. (I will continue to get the prayer requests in my email and pray for each one of them.)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Where there is difference and error it should be addressed and worked through, ultimately through church discipline if necessary. The solution to disagreement and error is not division and schism and wishing folks off on other denomination which wouldn't exist as an option if not for schism and division.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor

CathH said:


> What kind of woman is welcome...



Women who "dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess to worship God," and women who are determined to follow the Apostle by "learning quietly with full submission" (1 Tim. 2:9-11).



CathH said:


> ...what kind of woman should "just leave" and "good riddance"?



Refer to the post quoted, to which my post was a response. "Feminists and egalitarians" who believe that "conservative Reformed churches are at the very least defrauding women of their rightful place in the body or even worse, actually oppressing them," have no place in Christ's Church, unless of course they repent of such a belief. I wouldn't think I would need to defend that assertion.



a mere housewife said:


> Regardless of who you are talking about, no church needs pastors, elders, deacons, or laypeople who are happy to wish souls for which Jesus died good riddance.



"They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us" (1 John 2:19).

I'm not talking about women who struggle with biblical patriarchy. See above. I'm talking about feminists and egalitarians.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph

I think they are creating more confusion than clarity in their contributions and proposed areas of reform. If these 2 particular ladies/authors do not believe the OPC is lacking in these areas I would hope they would be clear and explain exactly what they are proposing. If there is dissatisfaction, I’m assuming it would lie with them. Nobody is showing them the door but many would ask that their intentions be made specifically known. Is this an OPC problem and what would they like to see implemented in response ? Either these are biblical matters requiring denominational clarity and response or mere matters of Christian liberty, no?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

If Miller and Green are misrepresenting (for lack of a better term >) complementarianism, whether accidentally or no, I’m not sure how their books don’t generate more heat than light. Does our denomination wind up taking a bit of a hit, especially in these confusing times, as a result?
Is it wrong to see the author’s content (on biblical matters such as these) as a reflection on the denomination as a whole to some degree?

i don’t see how complementarianism in its most basic, pure, biblical and equally accountable form before God and man is not good.


----------



## Pilgrim

A.Joseph said:


> Ok, this endorsement perplexes me. I’m not looking to open up criticism toward Carl Trueman. From what I know and have heard from him, I always believe him to be very solid and sound on matters of doctrine, theology and church history. I thought he maintained his objectivity without compromise in his recent exchanges with Aimee Byrd, which is why I find his endorsement of Miller’s book a bit surprising and kinda disappointing.
> 
> 
> *Endorsements*
> _“There is a very real danger in our current cultural moment that the polarization that characterizes the political landscape might well come to exert an unfortunate influence on both the rhetoric and the content of discussions among Christians on a number of controversial topics. The temptation to respond to one extreme error by adopting its mirror image is strong but rarely, if ever, correct. *And there are few topics in the public square that are more divisive than the relationship between the sexes. It is therefore a pleasure to commend this book by Rachel Miller, which eschews the cheap extremism and bombastic rhetoric that characterize conservative Christian responses to feminism and plots not a middle way but a biblical way through the subjects of authority, submission, masculinity, and the like. She is not interested in making the Bible fit 1950s ideals of what men and women should be; rather, she wants to help the reader to think about what the Bible actually means in the present. This is a refreshingly sane read.”
> 
> —Carl Trueman*, Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Grove City College_



I think at least some of that has to do with the ESS controversy. Via her blog, (and the Aquila Report) Mrs Miller had been heavily involved in that. Plus, I think Dr. Trueman does think that some of complementarian teaching has less to do with the Bible than it does with macho American 1950s stereotypes than it does with the Bible. 

When it appears that an OPC minister and his wife seem to be gung ho for Critical Race Theory, these ladies are arguably rather harmless by comparison. That's not to say that their overall trajectory looks promising. But to be sure, some of what they are opposing probably needs to be opposed, at least to some extent.


----------



## A.Joseph

So maybe we need to blow up the term if it has too much baggage. I would think we could get 99.9% biblical consensus on God created gender distinctions and the way men and women should compliment each other in marriage, etc. 

The Church order is pretty set, so not sure how anything can get slipped in that’s going to challenge centuries of biblical standards and tradition. But at least we could cut through the grey and the muddy whether applied or incidental.

I don’t think macho+ is being taught in the church, but the macho- should be taught as that probably enters the realm of sin. And women can be guilty of being domineering and unreasonable and unsatisfied, etc. ..... we can go all day on this. If we stick to biblical basics, this, like the race stuff, will fall in line. It all comes down to whether Jesus is enough, if He’s not, we will fill the hole with all kinds of disordered(depraved) thoughts, practices and behaviors.




Pilgrim said:


> I think at least some of that has to do with the ESS controversy. Via her blog, (and the Aquila Report) Mrs Miller had been heavily involved in that. Plus, I think Dr. Trueman does think that some of complementarian teaching has less to do with the Bible than it does with macho American 1950s stereotypes than it does with the Bible.
> 
> When it appears that an OPC minister and his wife seem to be gung ho for Critical Race Theory, these ladies are arguably rather harmless by comparison. That's not to say that their overall trajectory looks promising. But to be sure, some of what they are opposing probably needs to be opposed, at least to some extent.


----------



## A.Joseph

Systematic Sin? I worry about the terminology that pastor uses. If he’s not feeding his congregation with Reformed teachings that transcends all settings (Urban) and adversities (Police brutality) isn’t he derelict in his duties and responsibilities?


Pilgrim said:


> I think at least some of that has to do with the ESS controversy. Via her blog, (and the Aquila Report) Mrs Miller had been heavily involved in that. Plus, I think Dr. Trueman does think that some of complementarian teaching has less to do with the Bible than it does with macho American 1950s stereotypes than it does with the Bible.
> 
> When it appears that an OPC minister and his wife seem to be gung ho for Critical Race Theory, these ladies are arguably rather harmless by comparison. That's not to say that their overall trajectory looks promising. But to be sure, some of what they are opposing probably needs to be opposed, at least to some extent.


And remember Pilgrim.... #TrollingIsSin! You led me to sin. I’m just kidding, I only read a few of his tweets and came across that pinned # on his page.

He seems to be a good guy but he is wasting the opportunity God has placed him to espouse temporal ideology that will have little true or even good impact. The gospel is so much more potent.

If he did a little homework on ‘the system‘ he would know he’s feeding into the further corruption of it and the enslavement of mankind. A sinful system cannot be resolved if it’s run by men with sinful hearts.


----------



## Taylor

Pilgrim said:


> When it appears that an OPC minister and his wife seem to be gung ho for Critical Race Theory...



Just for clarification, Mika Edmondson left the OPC for the PCA.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Taylor Sexton said:


> Just for clarification, Mika Edmondson left the OPC for the PCA.


Really? I didn’t know that.


----------



## arapahoepark

Another one of these ridiculous threads I see.
Yet again, I have come across too many on the blogosphere, by pastors, e.g. *cough* Bayly *cough* Wilson, etc. with enough clout who promote these bizarr-o stereotypes that I find Miller, et al justified in their rejection of it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor

A.Joseph said:


> Really? I didn’t know that.



Yes. And to be honest, after his "handling" (through Twitter, of course) of the shooting of the synagogue in California by an OPC member, in which he practically slandered the OPC and that pastor*, I wasn't all that sad or surprised that he left. I don't mean to sound harsh or bitter. I just think our denomination will be better off for it. Just scroll to a random tweet on his Twitter feed. Doesn't matter the date or year. There is a 95% chance it will be something about race. To say he is obsessed is an understatement.

But we should get back on topic.

——————————
*Yes, he did "clarify" his tweet afterward. Didn't change much, though. He clearly spoke from his heart the first time.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph

arapahoepark said:


> Another one of these ridiculous threads I see.
> Yet again, I have come across too many on the blogosphere, by pastors, e.g. *cough* Bayly *cough* Wilson, etc. with enough clout who promote these bizarr-o stereotypes that I find Miller, et al justified in their rejection of it.


But is that all Miller is doing? This is all for Wilson? He’s not on my grid.... Why is he on hers? She’s a member of the OPC. If this a problem in the OPC I think it should be addressed, but I dont think thats where Byrd and Miller are coming from. It sounds like they want women to have a more active leadership role in church. I think both men and women are losing their biblical foundations due to sin in general not false teachings on the matter, I think we need to stay focused. The Bible shows that both men and women are capable of great evil. I think we need to worry about what’s in front of us. I don’t think we need a book that speaks to Piper and Wilson or a few ex-PCA guys. This is a P&R publication.


----------



## arapahoepark

A.Joseph said:


> But is that all Miller is doing? This is all for him? He’s not on my grid.... Why is he on hers?


Their influence, hence why I said 'clout.' I really wasn't aware how much until you see a bunch of complementarians willing to sit down with FV Gospel deniers or other rank Pelagians trying to fight an elusive enemy. This is one area I disagree with James White partnering with Wilson.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Pilgrim

Taylor Sexton said:


> Just for clarification, Mika Edmondson left the OPC for the PCA.



Good to know. I had linked to them here a few times before, mainly because I had rarely if ever seen any mention of them by OPC or likeminded folks despite her being 1/3 of the controversial "Truths Table." Some might say that you can't go after an elder because of what his wife is doing, but many would say that part of what fueled the Lee Irons controversy about 15 years ago was what his wife was doing. (But getting into that would take us too far afield here.)


----------



## Pilgrim

I know I'll get hammered in some quarters for opining about some of this without having read the books in question. (I have read many blogs, etc. of theirs and think I have a pretty good grasp overall of what they are saying.) But I don't think I'm alone in having a sense of _deja vu_ here. I'm reminded of Carolyn Custis James going on and on about _ezer_ about 15 years ago while also insisting on her conservative evangelical and comp bona fides. If you look at her blog, etc. now, (defending Rachel Held Evans and so on) as well as her husband's current place of employment, I think most will concede that she's (and he?) ended up pretty much where the critics predicted.

All that to say that I'd be somewhat surprised if both ladies are still in the OPC in 10-15 years time if nothing has changed with regard to the OPCs stance on this and if they continue to draw from the egal well.

Unless the OPC congregations I've known (admittedly few) are anomalous, they are rather immune from the "A woman can do anything an unordained man can do" refrain that we hear in the PCA, perhaps in part because the PCA's BCO isn't part of their consititution, if I recall correctly. The OPC generally doesn't think there is anything at all that an unordained man can do in worship. I don't think I've ever even seen a RE do anything unless the pastor was away and there is no other TE available. I've never seen anyone teach adults in Sunday School who wasn't either an elder or a man under care. But my only experience there is in a church that was doing good to have 60 in attendance, so perhaps it isn't quite that "extreme" elsewhere.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

arapahoepark said:


> Their influence, hence why I said 'clout.' I really wasn't aware how much until you see a bunch of complementarians willing to sit down with FV Gospel deniers or other rank Pelagians trying to fight an elusive enemy. This is one area I disagree with James White partnering with Wilson.



White is friends with Michael L. Brown, so Wilson isn't a very big stretch by comparison.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I held off saying anything here, because I've already said my piece on RGM and AB. I think basically they ought to be left alone to sink or swim. I wish them well, and hope their (even now, quite modest) moderating influence on extreme leanings does them and the OPC proud.

I held off saying anything when there was a bit of condescension (in my opinion) shown to the fairer sex.

I even held off saying anything when it was first written, "good riddance" to a pastor (and family) when he took another call, and left behind a congregation that misses him, and which he served competently.

But now I'm going to pipe up, and say: YES, it matters if a man is forced to account for his wife's words or actions. This is not 2020 B.C., it's not 1620 A.D., it's not even 1920. And while probably a rational connection may be made between the old matter of MistyIrons and the present, the fact is that her public advocacy of SSUs was not part of her husband's trial for contravening the Confession's teaching on the moral law. That was on him, even if her outspokenness was an embarrassment to the presbytery and denomination, and a possible catalyst for action.

To my knowledge, Rev.Dr. Edmondson maintained a strict, confessional public ministry while he was pastor in my presbytery. He also ruled his own house well, and had a good reputation to those outside. He never had a bad word said against him in Presbytery, nor any hint of heresy or malpractice. What anyone may think or have thought or shared in private, I'm happy to say it did not taint our public conduct.

1 Timothy 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.

Furthermore, the accusation must be an offense, a charge, backed by evidence, of sin, of failure to maintain Confessional doctrine, or failure to adhere to the Book of Church Order, the latter two being constitutional documents in the OPC.

Otherwise, a man may teach the Bible and interpret it as best he can with the Spirit's help, or even failing to listen to the Spirit. His congregation and elders must hold him to account on silencing the Spirit as they may judge, not the "public."

If his views in interpretation are different from another man's, or even from the majority, that of itself is no reason to attack him, or question his ministerial office.

A man's politics may differ from another man's, or even the majority of his peers. And that is not impermissible. It could be hard (how should I know?) to be a theological conservative and a political liberal; but there should be no "political test" (compare w/ "no religious test" in the COTUS) for holding office in the church.

I recommend keeping as much as possible one's politics out of the pulpit. But again, if politics was ever in pastor ME's preaching (again, how should I know?) the Presbytery never heard a complaint about it "infecting" his ministry of the Word.

If it sounds like I'm defending Mika, let me be clear: I am, and I don't care who is bothered by that. I _probably _disagree with him in various ways outside of the church. Not that we had those issues come up in our conversations. I would have liked to have heard him sounding a bit less open to certain trends in public discourse and in hermeneutics; but the price we pay for our own liberty of conscience is allowing for the same liberty in others, and more reliance on prayer and the Holy Spirit to move another's heart in a direction we'd like.

No man is above criticism. A man's public statements allow those statements--and how they may reflect on his fitness--fair game for people with alternate views.

For all the criticism of well-known figures like TimKeller (PCA) or JohnPiper, who has ever said they should be judged by the opinions of their wives, their elders, or anyone around them?

It is disrespectful to Mika, and I want it on the record that--whatever our differences--I stood by him for the principles of equitable dealing, one standard for the lot, and the rights of the minority.

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 2


----------



## A.Joseph

Machen was really a gold standard on political matters and the intersection of church and state. The fact that 2 potential blind spots are on record, although the matters may have been less clear in his day, are unfortunate. Im speaking of race relations and creation. Outside of these, I think Machen was outstanding on preserving orthodoxy within the church as well as religious and civil liberty both inside and out.


----------



## Pilgrim

Contra_Mundum said:


> I held off saying anything here, because I've already said my piece on RGM and AB. I think basically they ought to be left alone to sink or swim. I wish them well, and hope their (even now, quite modest) moderating influence on extreme leanings does them and the OPC proud.
> 
> I held off saying anything when there was a bit of condescension (in my opinion) shown to the fairer sex.
> 
> I even held off saying anything when it was first written, "good riddance" to a pastor (and family) when he took another call, and left behind a congregation that misses him, and which he served competently.
> 
> But now I'm going to pipe up, and say: YES, it matters if a man is forced to account for his wife's words or actions. This is not 2020 B.C., it's not 1620 A.D., it's not even 1920. And while probably a rational connection may be made between the old matter of MistyIrons and the present, the fact is that her public advocacy of SSUs was not part of her husband's trial for contravening the Confession's teaching on the moral law. That was on him, even if her outspokenness was an embarrassment to the presbytery and denomination, and a possible catalyst for action.
> 
> To my knowledge, Rev.Dr. Edmondson maintained a strict, confessional public ministry while he was pastor in my presbytery. He also ruled his own house well, and had a good reputation to those outside. He never had a bad word said against him in Presbytery, nor any hint of heresy or malpractice. What anyone may think or have thought or shared in private, I'm happy to say it did not taint our public conduct.
> 
> 1 Timothy 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.
> 
> Furthermore, the accusation must be an offense, a charge, backed by evidence, of sin, of failure to maintain Confessional doctrine, or failure to adhere to the Book of Church Order, the latter two being constitutional documents in the OPC.
> 
> Otherwise, a man may teach the Bible and interpret it as best he can with the Spirit's help, or even failing to listen to the Spirit. His congregation and elders must hold him to account on silencing the Spirit as they may judge, not the "public."
> 
> If his views in interpretation are different from another man's, or even from the majority, that of itself is no reason to attack him, or question his ministerial office.
> 
> A man's politics may differ from another man's, or even the majority of his peers. And that is not impermissible. It could be hard (how should I know?) to be a theological conservative and a political liberal; but there should be no "political test" (compare w/ "no religious test" in the COTUS) for holding office in the church.
> 
> I recommend keeping as much as possible one's politics out of the pulpit. But again, if politics was ever in pastor ME's preaching (again, how should I know?) the Presbytery never heard a complaint about it "infecting" his ministry of the Word.
> 
> If it sounds like I'm defending Mika, let me be clear: I am, and I don't care who is bothered by that. I _probably _disagree with him in various ways outside of the church. Not that we had those issues come up in our conversations. I would have liked to have heard him sounding a bit less open to certain trends in public discourse and in hermeneutics; but the price we pay for our own liberty of conscience is allowing for the same liberty in others, and more reliance on prayer and the Holy Spirit to move another's heart in a direction we'd like.
> 
> No man is above criticism. A man's public statements allow those statements, and how they may reflect on his fitness, fair game for people with alternate views.
> 
> For all the criticism of well-known figures like TimKeller (PCA) or JohnPiper, who has ever said they should be judged by the opinions of their wives, their elders, or anyone around them?
> 
> It is disrespectful to Mika, and I want it on the record that--whatever our differences--I stood by him for the principles of equitable dealing, one standard for the lot, and the rights of the minority.



If an admin wants to wipe out my mention of the Edmondsons as well as the responses to it, it won't offend me. I would probably do it myself, but with the responses to it, it is too late. It was a classic hijacking of the thread. Plus, this is a public forum, which probably makes it even worse. I had simply wondered why I hadn't seen much outcry about it as opposed to someone like Thabiti (who admittedly has a bigger platform) and figured I'd keep posting about it until I got some response. But maybe I should mind my own business a little more often. I haven't been a member of the OPC or any Presbyterian church in over 10 years anyway. As with the PB, I don't check Twitter every day or even every week anyway, and hadn't even seen what another poster mentioned about a different controversy.

With regard to them or the Irons, my statement was more about the way things _could_ go down (or perceived to be that way) as opposed to how they _should_ go down. I was also basing it on my memory of a _New Horizons_ article about the Irons case. But that was, what, 2004, 2005? Maybe the writer didn't quite say it the way that I remember. I could also be mixing that up with some chatter I saw online in an old Yahoo group or something of that sort, the idea being that her teaching is "what happens" when you embrace what he was teaching about the moral law.

All that being said, it does seem to me that there has to be some point at which the actions of a lay-person become the concern of a Presbyterian church as a whole despite the fact that most Presbyterian churches don't have confessional membership. I'm not saying that any of the cases here necessarily rise to that level. But if the controversial opinions of a lay-person, heretical or not, were to reach such prominence that they become publicly identified with the denomination and the congregation takes no action, I'd think that some would want to try to find some way to do something about it. I think that's been discussed in another thread. I don't know if there has ever really been such a case. (My understanding is that the author of "Jesus Calling" is a member of the PCA for example, but if so I don't think that is very widely known.) People, congregations, and occasionally whole presbyterys eventually tend to move on if they get too out of step with others.


----------



## CathH

a mere housewife said:


> Regardless of who you are talking about, no church needs pastors, elders, deacons, or laypeople who are happy to wish souls for which Jesus died good riddance.
> 
> I probably would find much to disagree with in this book if I read it, though I'd doubtless also agree with a good bit. It's not my preferred reading and I have other things that I think profit more to engage with. On the same principle, I'm going to withdraw from future engagement with this board. You are all sincerely dear to me, no more problematic than any other group of people in life (and much less problematic than my own self!) -- but I am weary of seeing statements that demean the cost Christ paid and the church's mission to every soul -- every one of which is worth more than the whole world -- and wondering if I ought to feel responsible to say something and if it's worth having a controversy that will take time and is not pleasant, because of how the statement might affect some one reading or how the mindset might hurt someone in real life. I've had my own opinions and mindsets changed here also -- and have been grateful. But this is not the church -- though it does represent to a lot of people what the confessing church might believe. There are enough problems to engage everywhere else in life and opportunities for myself to change there also. God bless you all. (I will continue to get the prayer requests in my email and pray for each one of them.)



Heidi,

I'm really saddened to see this post. If you see this, I'm going to miss you and your contributions. I've been reading the PB for probably about 15 years now, on and off, and it's the place on the whole wide internet that I feel most at home in. But it's daunting, as a woman, to contemplate joining this board, and partly it was seeing your presence and contributions that made me brave enough recently to sign up at last. I hope that after withdrawing for a time you may feel ok to engage again eventually. In any case, I'll be sorry to see less of you and wish you all the best.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## CathH

a mere housewife said:


> Regardless of who you are talking about, no church needs pastors, elders, deacons, or laypeople who are happy to wish souls for which Jesus died good riddance.
> 
> I probably would find much to disagree with in this book if I read it, though I'd doubtless also agree with a good bit. It's not my preferred reading and I have other things that I think profit more to engage with. On the same principle, I'm going to withdraw from future engagement with this board. You are all sincerely dear to me, no more problematic than any other group of people in life (and much less problematic than my own self!) -- but I am weary of seeing statements that demean the cost Christ paid and the church's mission to every soul -- every one of which is worth more than the whole world -- and wondering if I ought to feel responsible to say something and if it's worth having a controversy that will take time and is not pleasant, because of how the statement might affect some one reading or how the mindset might hurt someone in real life. I've had my own opinions and mindsets changed here also -- and have been grateful. But this is not the church -- though it does represent to a lot of people what the confessing church might believe. There are enough problems to engage everywhere else in life and opportunities for myself to change there also. God bless you all. (I will continue to get the prayer requests in my email and pray for each one of them.)



Taylor, I'm not sure, but I'd have thought now might be a time to man up and apologise.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CathH

Taylor Sexton said:


> Women who "dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess to worship God," and women who are determined to follow the Apostle by "learning quietly with full submission" (1 Tim. 2:9-11).
> 
> 
> 
> Refer to the post quoted, to which my post was a response. "Feminists and egalitarians" who believe that "conservative Reformed churches are at the very least defrauding women of their rightful place in the body or even worse, actually oppressing them," have no place in Christ's Church, unless of course they repent of such a belief. I wouldn't think I would need to defend that assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> "They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us" (1 John 2:19).
> 
> I'm not talking about women who struggle with biblical patriarchy. See above. I'm talking about feminists and egalitarians.


Taylor,

You are assuming what needs to be proven, that there are women (although presumably not men) in your church who are "feminists and egalitarians". 

If there are indeed "feminists and egalitarians" in your denomination, it remains inappropriate to be joyous about bidding them good riddance if they leave. For one thing, you seem to have no interest in winning them over to a better understanding. For another thing, you seem to think that kicking people out into another denomination is a good solution, when it only perpetuates divisions in the visible body of Christ. For another thing, it looks like as long as the putative purity of your own denomination is preserved you do not care what is taught elsewhere. But perhaps none of this was what you intended?

For clarity, are you specifically accusing Miller and Byrd of being "feminists and egalitarians"? Presumably you are aware that "feminist" and "egalitarian" are not synonymous terms. Presumably you also understand what opinions someone needs to hold, and what opinions someone must not hold, in order to qualify as a "feminist" or an "egalitarian". Miller and Byrd's opinions do not match those of "feminists and egalitarians," as you would know if you had read their writings and listened to their statements. So I can only conclude that if you intended to include Miller and Byrd when you referred to "feminists and egalitarians" in your church, you are not using these terms in their generally accepted meaning, but simply as slurs and pejorative terms to blacken the reputations of these two church members. Would this conclusion be accurate?

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## CathH

A.Joseph said:


> I think they are creating more confusion than clarity in their contributions and proposed areas of reform. If these 2 particular ladies/authors do not believe the OPC is lacking in these areas I would hope they would be clear and explain exactly what they are proposing. If there is dissatisfaction, I’m assuming it would lie with them. Nobody is showing them the door but many would ask that their intentions be made specifically known. Is this an OPC problem and what would they like to see implemented in response ? Either these are biblical matters requiring denominational clarity and response or mere matters of Christian liberty, no?



Anthony,

It's funny, but these two particular authors have written books where they are clear and do explain exactly what they are proposing. Nobody is showing them the door (except the people who wish they would just leave) but they do actually make their intentions known. Have you not read their books or listened to any of their podcasts?



A.Joseph said:


> If Miller and Green are misrepresenting (for lack of a better term >) complementarianism, whether accidentally or no, I’m not sure how their books don’t generate more heat than light. Does our denomination wind up taking a bit of a hit, especially in these confusing times, as a result?
> Is it wrong to see the author’s content (on biblical matters such as these) as a reflection on the denomination as a whole to some degree?
> 
> i don’t see how complementarianism in its most basic, pure, biblical and equally accountable form before God and man is not good.



What exactly, in your view, is complementarianism "in its most basic, pure, biblical and equally accountable form before God and man"?



A.Joseph said:


> I don’t think macho+ is being taught in the church, but the macho- should be taught as that probably enters the realm of sin. And women can be guilty of being domineering and unreasonable and unsatisfied, etc. ..... we can go all day on this. If we stick to biblical basics, this, like the race stuff, will fall in line. It all comes down to whether Jesus is enough, if He’s not, we will fill the hole with all kinds of disordered(depraved) thoughts, practices and behaviors.



When you talk about "macho+" and "macho-", I have the nasty feeling that if you think that this discussion boils down to a good kind of macho and a bad kind of macho, you are demonstrating exactly why contributions like that of Miller and Byrd are essential. You think that Wilson is not on your grid (reply #25), but you adopt the same kind of approach without even realising how culturally specific, culturally driven, and unscripturally simplistic it is.

Anthony, you don't seem to be decided whether this is either (a) a really simple issue where just going back to the Bible is simple and will simply make things fall into the right place, or (b) a heinous outrage whose perpetrators have no right to belong to the church. It's quite possible that, if you sat down to read Miller and Byrd for yourself, you would understand the whole question better and realise that Miller and Byrd are neither dangerous nor difficult to understand, but your sisters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

I just caught that. I’m sorry as well. Debates can get a little heated. Nobody wants to see anyone go anywhere. I think dialogue is good. I think everyone here is good people.


CathH said:


> Heidi,
> 
> I'm really saddened to see this post. If you see this, I'm going to miss you and your contributions. I've been reading the PB for probably about 15 years now, on and off, and it's the place on the whole wide internet that I feel most at home in. But it's daunting, as a woman, to contemplate joining this board, and partly it was seeing your presence and contributions that made me brave enough recently to sign up at last. I hope that after withdrawing for a time you may feel ok to engage again eventually. In any case, I'll be sorry to see less of you and wish you all the best.


----------



## A.Joseph

Ok, first off, I like Ammie Byrd.

1. I think she’s a great voice and interesting and needed perspective on MoS. I encourage her as an author. It’s very, very hard to write a book and to open yourself up to scrutiny, especially in these circles. These men (and women) are brilliant.

2. I am not familiar with Ms. Miller and have not read her blog. I’m sure she is a fine lady with great knowledge and good intentions. I hope both Ms. Miller and Ms. Byrd stay put!

3. Are they saying a warped version of complementarianism is being taught in the churches or that complementarianism is warped (even a little bit) to begin with. I view complementarianism as man and woman made in Gods image to love and support one another. Man and woman were designed with unique gifts and roles to embrace. As a man, I fall so far short of a loving, nurturing, leading Christian man it’s absurd. But God is not finished with me and with my wife’s support I keep getting back up.

4. As far as OPC is concerned, I have not read or heard anything taught that would endorse a male machismo superiority mentality but maybe they have to add a bit of an anti-machismo curriculum if it’s truly a problem in our circles. If it is not an OPC problem that should be dealt with then I am relieved!

5. If women in our circles feel as if they are not ‘flourishing‘ (the word Aimee used), I think it’s an important discussion to have.

You wrote: “When you talk about "macho+" and "macho-", I have the nasty feeling that if you think that this discussion boils down to a good kind of macho and a bad kind of macho, you are demonstrating exactly why contributions like that of Miller and Byrd are essential.”

My response> No, let me clarify, I should have wrote a promotion of male superiority vs. the unlearning of such an unGodly caricature. IF they are learning this in church it should be unlearned. If they are learning this outside the church, are we surprised???

So these books sound worthwhile as discussion starters but it sounds like many of the reviews are expressing at least minor concerns and criticism- which is ok. We should continue to have open dialogue on these matters as needed if needed.





CathH said:


> Anthony,
> 
> It's funny, but these two particular authors have written books where they are clear and do explain exactly what they are proposing. Nobody is showing them the door (except the people who wish they would just leave) but they do actually make their intentions known. Have you not read their books or listened to any of their podcasts?
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly, in your view, is complementarianism "in its most basic, pure, biblical and equally accountable form before God and man"?
> 
> 
> 
> When you talk about "macho+" and "macho-", I have the nasty feeling that if you think that this discussion boils down to a good kind of macho and a bad kind of macho, you are demonstrating exactly why contributions like that of Miller and Byrd are essential. You think that Wilson is not on your grid (reply #25), but you adopt the same kind of approach without even realising how culturally specific, culturally driven, and unscripturally simplistic it is.
> 
> Anthony, you don't seem to be decided whether this is either (a) a really simple issue where just going back to the Bible is simple and will simply make things fall into the right place, or (b) a heinous outrage whose perpetrators have no right to belong to the church. It's quite possible that, if you sat down to read Miller and Byrd for yourself, you would understand the whole question better and realise that Miller and Byrd are neither dangerous nor difficult to understand, but your sisters.


----------



## Taylor

CathH said:


> If there are indeed "feminists and egalitarians" in your denomination, it remains inappropriate to be joyous about bidding them good riddance if they leave. For one thing, you seem to have no interest in winning them over to a better understanding. For another thing, you seem to think that kicking people out into another denomination is a good solution, when it only perpetuates divisions in the visible body of Christ. For another thing, it looks like as long as the putative purity of your own denomination is preserved you do not care what is taught elsewhere. But perhaps none of this was what you intended?



This is not at all a fair characterization, and is in fact quite speculative. Never once did I indicate I would be joyous about seeing people leave the church _as people_. Of course I wouldn’t. At the same time, I care deeply about the purity of the church, and if a feminist or egalitarian has no desire to repent, despite pleas to the contrary, and is only interested in propagating error and division, then yes, I would be joyful at their departure.



CathH said:


> For clarity, are you specifically accusing Miller and Byrd of being "feminists and egalitarians"? Presumably you are aware that "feminist" and "egalitarian" are not synonymous terms. Presumably you also understand what opinions someone needs to hold, and what opinions someone must not hold, in order to qualify as a "feminist" or an "egalitarian". Miller and Byrd's opinions do not match those of "feminists and egalitarians," as you would know if you had read their writings and listened to their statements. So I can only conclude that if you intended to include Miller and Byrd when you referred to "feminists and egalitarians" in your church, you are not using these terms in their generally accepted meaning, but simply as slurs and pejorative terms to blacken the reputations of these two church members. Would this conclusion be accurate?



No, it would not be accurate. I never spoke of Miller or Byrd. I merely responded to the post made by Pastor Sheffield about feminists and egalitarians in general. I never made any connection of those labels to Miller or Byrd, or accused them of being such. That you surmised that was entirely “reading between the lines.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Im sure it is hard for black men who are born and raised in and/or are familiar with urban/big city settings/culture not to make a stand for certain wrongs that hit close to home. But I would sure love for Pastor Edmondson to debate Darrell Harrison or Dr. Voddie Baucham. I kind of feel like black men who don’t walk the CRT/Intersectionality line are almost disregarded as if they were white. I just wonder if Edmondson is aware of manufactured consent, especially when he throws around terms like ‘systematic sin’ which is a religious reframing of systematic racism. The problem is the secular elites embrace and promote all of that kind of rhetoric. Not because they care or want anything resolved. It’s just another tool to divide and exploit.
ORDO AB CHAO - Can’t achieve ‘order’ without the ‘chaos.’




Pilgrim said:


> If an admin wants to wipe out my mention of the Edmondsons as well as the responses to it, it won't offend me. I would probably do it myself, but with the responses to it, it is too late. It was a classic hijacking of the thread. Plus, this is a public forum, which probably makes it even worse. I had simply wondered why I hadn't seen much outcry about it as opposed to someone like Thabiti (who admittedly has a bigger platform) and figured I'd keep posting about it until I got some response. But maybe I should mind my own business a little more often. I haven't been a member of the OPC or any Presbyterian church in over 10 years anyway. As with the PB, I don't check Twitter every day or even every week anyway, and hadn't even seen what another poster mentioned about a different controversy.
> 
> With regard to them or the Irons, my statement was more about the way things _could_ go down (or perceived to be that way) as opposed to how they _should_ go down. I was also basing it on my memory of a _New Horizons_ article about the Irons case. But that was, what, 2004, 2005? Maybe the writer didn't quite say it the way that I remember. I could also be mixing that up with some chatter I saw online in an old Yahoo group or something of that sort, the idea being that her teaching is "what happens" when you embrace what he was teaching about the moral law.
> 
> All that being said, it does seem to me that there has to be some point at which the actions of a lay-person become the concern of a Presbyterian church as a whole despite the fact that most Presbyterian churches don't have confessional membership. I'm not saying that any of the cases here necessarily rise to that level. But if the controversial opinions of a lay-person, heretical or not, were to reach such prominence that they become publicly identified with the denomination and the congregation takes no action, I'd think that some would want to try to find some way to do something about it. I think that's been discussed in another thread. I don't know if there has ever really been such a case. (My understanding is that the author of "Jesus Calling" is a member of the PCA for example, but if so I don't think that is very widely known.) People, congregations, and occasionally whole presbyterys eventually tend to move on if they get too out of step with others.


----------



## A.Joseph

Im just not sure what she’s clarifying???


----------



## CathH

1. Same! Admittedly I only listen to MoS as a special treat when the kids are quiet/occupied enough to permit me. And although I preordered _Recovering_ the nanosecond it became available, it has literally only arrived this afternoon (anyone would think there was a pandemic on or something). Can't wait to start it.

2. If you're interested finding out more about Miller's book and want my take, I reviewed BA&S on my blog some months ago. Review: Beyond Authority and Submission. Warning: it's long. Spoiler: I liked it.

3. I suppose this gets to the heart of the problem.
a) A warped teaching called complementarianism is being taught in the churches. According to some, men are ontologically superior to women. So if only women would just submit, everything would just be the way God intended. For these people, men being manly (leading) and women being feminine (submitting) is as important as the gospel itself (and more important than the doctrine of the trinity). Whether or not it is explicitly taught from pulpits as the teaching of the church, it seeps into congregations and church communities through famous preachers/writers like Piper and Grudem and influential frenemies like Wilson.

b) The view you outline, where men and women are made in God's image to love and support each other, is all that some people mean when they call themselves complementarian. However, this view is so benign and harmless that it is something that egalitarians (and feminists) would often not disagree with. So the label complementarian for this view is not especially useful.

I agree that open dialogue is important.



A.Joseph said:


> Ok, first off, I like Ammie Byrd.
> 
> 1. I think she’s a great voice and interesting and needed perspective on MoS. I encourage her as an author. It’s very, very hard to write a book and to open yourself up to scrutiny, especially in these circles. These men (and women) are brilliant.
> 
> 2. I am not familiar with Ms. Miller and have not read her blog. I’m sure she is a fine lady with great knowledge and good intentions. I hope both Ms. Miller and Ms. Byrd stay put!
> 
> 3. Are they saying a warped version of complementarianism is being taught in the churches or that complementarianism is warped (even a little bit) to begin with. I view complementarianism as man and woman made in Gods image to love and support one another. Man and woman were designed with unique gifts and roles to embrace. As a man, I fall so far short of a loving, nurturing, leading Christian man it’s absurd. But God is not finished with me and with my wife’s support I keep getting back up.
> 
> 4. As far as OPC is concerned, I have not read or heard anything taught that would endorse a male machismo superiority mentality but maybe they have to add a bit of an anti-machismo curriculum if it’s truly a problem in our circles. If it is not an OPC problem that should be dealt with then I am relieved!
> 
> 5. If women in our circles feel as if they are not ‘flourishing‘ (the word Aimee used), I think it’s an important discussion to have.
> 
> You wrote: “When you talk about "macho+" and "macho-", I have the nasty feeling that if you think that this discussion boils down to a good kind of macho and a bad kind of macho, you are demonstrating exactly why contributions like that of Miller and Byrd are essential.”
> 
> My response> No, let me clarify, I should have wrote a promotion of male superiority vs. the unlearning of such an unGodly caricature. IF they are learning this in church it should be unlearned. If they are learning this outside the church, are we surprised???
> 
> So these books sound worthwhile as discussion starters but it sounds like many of the reviews are expressing at least minor concerns and criticism- which is ok. We should continue to have open dialogue on these matters as needed if needed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## CathH

Taylor Sexton said:


> This is not at all a fair characterization, and is in fact quite speculative. Never once did I indicate I would be joyous about seeing people leave the church _as people_. Of course I wouldn’t. At the same time, I care deeply about the purity of the church, and if a feminist or egalitarian has no desire to repent, despite pleas to the contrary, and is only interested in propagating error and division, then yes, I would be joyful at their departure.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it would not be accurate. I never spoke of Miller or Byrd. I merely responded to the post made by Pastor Sheffield about feminists and egalitarians in general. I never made any connection of those labels to Miller or Byrd, or accused them of being such. That you surmised that was entirely “reading between the lines.”


You're right, I was reading between the lines. I should have realised that when the thread was about Miller and Byrd, the posts about feminists and egalitarians in the church could safely be seen as off topic. Thanks for explaining.


----------



## CathH

A.Joseph said:


> View attachment 7045
> Im just not sure what she’s clarifying???



Mentally translate the first sentence in each numbered paragraph into italics or quote marks. That's the myth or cultural stereotype she's challenging. The rest of each paragraph argues from the Bible to rebut each myth.


----------



## JOwen

> *Endorsements*
> _... * She is not interested in making the Bible fit 1950s ideals of what men and women should be; rather, she wants to help the reader to think about what the Bible actually means in the present. This is a refreshingly sane read.”
> 
> —Carl Trueman*, Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Grove City College_



Trueman disappoints here...
Wouldn't we much prefer that she would help the reader think about what the subject meant, not in the '50s, or "the present", but when it was written?

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph

CathH said:


> 1. Same! Admittedly I only listen to MoS as a special treat when the kids are quiet/occupied enough to permit me. And although I preordered _Recovering_ the nanosecond it became available, it has literally only arrived this afternoon (anyone would think there was a pandemic on or something). Can't wait to start it.
> 
> 2. If you're interested finding out more about Miller's book and want my take, I reviewed BA&S on my blog some months ago. Review: Beyond Authority and Submission. Warning: it's long. Spoiler: I liked it.
> 
> 3. I suppose this gets to the heart of the problem.
> a) A warped teaching called complementarianism is being taught in the churches. According to some, men are ontologically superior to women. So if only women would just submit, everything would just be the way God intended. For these people, men being manly (leading) and women being feminine (submitting) is as important as the gospel itself (and more important than the doctrine of the trinity). Whether or not it is explicitly taught from pulpits as the teaching of the church, it seeps into congregations and church communities through famous preachers/writers like Piper and Grudem and influential frenemies like Wilson.
> 
> b) The view you outline, where men and women are made in God's image to love and support each other, is all that some people mean when they call themselves complementarian. However, this view is so benign and harmless that it is something that egalitarians (and feminists) would often not disagree with. So the label complementarian for this view is not especially useful.
> 
> I agree that open dialogue is important.


I’ll check out your review, thanks!


----------



## A.Joseph

CathH said:


> Mentally translate the first sentence in each numbered paragraph into italics or quote marks. That's the myth or cultural stereotype she's challenging. The rest of each paragraph argues from the Bible to rebut each myth.


Those are all pretty loaded. So what do you believe to be some natural distinctions (male & female) we can gleam from God‘s word and His design? Im going to comment on each point when I get a chance. Have you ever encountered a female dominated relationship? Inside or outside Christian circles? They can also get pretty ugly. It’s basically the woman taking on and/or exhibiting various domineering traits. I don’t believe this is necessarily taught but it exists. Sin reveals itself in many forms. But I would like to remain on topic.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## CathH

JOwen said:


> Trueman disappoints here...
> Wouldn't we much prefer that she would help the reader think about what the subject meant, not in the '50s, or "the present", but when it was written?


How so? (This is a respectful question.) Standardly I thought the 'originally written' info was just the starting point of understanding what the text of Scripture means for us here and now?


----------



## CathH

A.Joseph said:


> Those are all pretty loaded. So what do you believe to be some natural distinctions (male & female) we can gleam from God‘s word and His design? Im going to comment on each point when I get a chance. Have you ever encountered a female dominated relationship? Inside or outside Christian circles? They can also get pretty ugly. It’s basically the woman taking on and/or exhibiting various domineering traits. I don’t believe this is necessary taught but it exists. Sin reveals itself in many forms. But I would like to remain on topic.


I'll be keen to hear what you say on these points. Is it okay if I tread cautiously about listing distinctions between male and female until I've seen what you say though? It's just that once you start concentrating on the distinctions, the effect is to polarise and persist in treating men and women almost as different species, when basically they have more in common than differences (in that, eg, both are created in God's image with the same chief end of glorifying him and enjoying him for ever). There are real distinctions, but what I want to avoid at this point is the risk of reducing us to what distinguishes us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark

JOwen said:


> Trueman disappoints here...
> Wouldn't we much prefer that she would help the reader think about what the subject meant, not in the '50s, or "the present", but when it was written?


The problem seems to lie with the founders of the modern complementarian movement who seem to start projecting the cultural norms of their childhood before the 60s onto what it means to be a man or a woman. That battle ended long ago for good or ill.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## A.Joseph

CathH said:


> I'll be keen to hear what you say on these points. Is it okay if I tread cautiously about listing distinctions between male and female until I've seen what you say though? It's just that once you start concentrating on the distinctions, the effect is to polarise and persist in treating men and women almost as different species, when basically they have more in common than differences (in that, eg, both are created in God's image with the same chief end of glorifying him and enjoying him for ever). There are real distinctions, but what I want to avoid at this point is the risk of reducing us to what distinguishes us.



This book doesn’t speak to me. Complementarianism is ultimately a distraction and this is why I hold to a more simplistic understanding of these concepts. You responded to my response,

”The view you outline, where men and women are made in God's image to love and support each other, is all that some people mean when they call themselves complementarian. However, this view is so benign and harmless that it is something that egalitarians (and feminists) would often not disagree with. So the label complementarian for this view is not especially useful.”

I find this whole discussion not especially useful. Unless one were made to feel trapped into one of these categories. Then it sounds as if the discussion can take you in circles with a few defined options. I guess Miller is trying to break that mold, but there may exist a reactionary element to what she espouses leaving too much left unsaid. Seems to leave a whole lot of middle ground...

Do you agree that Miller promotes:

God made man: male and female in the image of God
In Christ, male and female are equal before God
Husbands are called to sacrificial, servant leadership of their wives, loving them as Christ loves the church
Wives are called to voluntary submission to their husbands, submitting to them as the church submits to Christ
Ordination is restricted to qualified men in the church
Marriage is between one man and one woman, ideally for life
Men and women need each other and depend on each other
*Complementarianism:*


women were created to be submissive, responsive, soft
men were created to be leaders, providers, strong
men are supposed to be priests for their families
women are supposed to be at home and not in the workforce
divorce is wrong even when there is biblical justification for it
the eternal subordination of the Son, especially as it is applied to men and women
all women are rebellious feminists at heart and men must put down that rebellion (based on an erroneous interpretation of *Genesis 3:16*)


Jesus is the standard here as in every other matter and I don’t believe masculinity was a promoted trait of his. I think this is a good foundation. There are various illustrations of leadership and tyranny in the Bible. There are good men, good women, evil men and evil women. Similar passions and distinct attributes and gifts all inherent in design and tainted by the fall. No program can capture this.


----------



## JOwen

CathH said:


> How so? (This is a respectful question.) Standardly I thought the 'originally written' info was just the starting point of understanding what the text of Scripture means for us here and now?



The only intent worth knowing is what the Spirit meant when He inspired it. That meaning is transcendent, timeless, and impermeable to all cultural influences and interpretations. The _authorial intent_ is the endpoint, not the starting point. As Spurgeon once said, "_We shall not_ adjust our _Bible_ to the age; but before we have done with it, by God's grace, _we shall_ adjust the age to the _Bible_."

Blessings,

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 3


----------



## CathH

A.Joseph said:


> Do you agree that Miller promotes:
> 
> God made man: male and female in the image of God
> In Christ, male and female are equal before God
> Husbands are called to sacrificial, servant leadership of their wives, loving them as Christ loves the church
> Wives are called to voluntary submission to their husbands, submitting to them as the church submits to Christ
> Ordination is restricted to qualified men in the church
> Marriage is between one man and one woman, ideally for life
> Men and women need each other and depend on each other



From her book, this is my understanding of what Miller affirms. I expect that some people who regard themselves as complementarians will also affirm these. But other people who claim the "complementarian" label will not see them as sufficient.




A.Joseph said:


> *Complementarianism:*
> 
> 
> women were created to be submissive, responsive, soft
> men were created to be leaders, providers, strong
> men are supposed to be priests for their families
> women are supposed to be at home and not in the workforce
> divorce is wrong even when there is biblical justification for it
> the eternal subordination of the Son, especially as it is applied to men and women
> all women are rebellious feminists at heart and men must put down that rebellion (based on an erroneous interpretation of *Genesis 3:16*)



The bullets headed 'Complementarianism' - these are various teachings that Miller objects to. (Actually, afterthought, I can't remember if I've seen her say anything on divorce, I'll pass on that bullet point.) Maybe not everyone who regards themselves as "complementarian" takes a hard line on each of these, but these are the teaching of prominent complementarians. Whatever label you use, they are objectionable teachings. They owe more to secular culture/traditions than to the Bible, and they bring both men and women into legalistic bondage.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## CathH

JOwen said:


> The only intent worth knowing is what the Spirit meant when He inspired it. That meaning is transcendent, timeless, and impermeable to all cultural influences and interpretations. The _authorial intent_ is the endpoint, not the starting point. As Spurgeon once said, "_We shall not_ adjust our _Bible_ to the age; but before we have done with it, by God's grace, _we shall_ adjust the age to the _Bible_."
> 
> Blessings,



Sure. So it sounds like Trueman endorses Byrd for not adjusting the Bible to the 50s. So we're all good. 

As a side note, I don't think I'd like to go to the gallows for the wording of a blurb.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

MoS ?

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Andrew35

A.Joseph said:


> MoS ?
> View attachment 7052


Tbh, much as I loved MOS, it was nearing the end of its natural lifespan, as it was.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Andrew35 said:


> Tbh, much as I loved MOS, it was nearing the end of its natural lifespan, as it was.


You’re right.


----------



## CathH

A.Joseph said:


> MoS ?


Coroner's verdict: Assisted suicide


----------



## A.Joseph

Good references regarding this discussion:

*Report of the Committee on Women in Church Office*
Presented to the Fifty-fifth (1988) General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

*Report of the Committee on the Involvement of Unordained Persons in the Regular Worship Services of the Church*
Presented to the Fifty-eighth (1991) General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

*Report of the Committee on Women in the Military and in Combat*
Presented to the Sixty-eighth (2001) General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church



https://opc.org/ga_reports.html



*How do women deacons and women missionaries differ?



https://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=494



OPC Position on Deaconesses*
*


https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=8


*


----------



## A.Joseph

*Gender of God
Question:*
_I'm interested in learning about the Presbyterian church's concept that refers to God as feminine and/or masculine? Please direct me to resources._


https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=151


----------



## Pilgrim

A.Joseph said:


> MoS ?



Dead as we know it, anyway. If I'm not mistaken, the podcast existed before she joined it though, so I don't suppose they have to shut it down. They are doing "Best of" programs now. I'm not sure that they would do even that if they were going to shut it down.

EDIT:

A pastor posted this on Twitter, apparently after asking them for comment: " A statement will be coming shortly, but I remind you there are two sides of any story. And I am most pleased to let you know that Dr. Trueman (ordained in the OPC) and Rev. Pruitt (ordained in the PCA) feel at ease to continue Mortification of Spin.”


----------



## A.Joseph

They are creeping, though..... I know I’m using Byrd & Miller interchangeably. What think ye? Are they moving past concerns with _Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood_ to something else? I’m sensing some subtle, passive-aggressive bait and switch. And now she’s allowing the opc to be scapegoated? She says she’s still learning, but maybe she shouldn’t be writing these kinds of books while she’s still learning.















CathH said:


> From her book, this is my understanding of what Miller affirms. I expect that some people who regard themselves as complementarians will also affirm these. But other people who claim the "complementarian" label will not see them as sufficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bullets headed 'Complementarianism' - these are various teachings that Miller objects to. (Actually, afterthought, I can't remember if I've seen her say anything on divorce, I'll pass on that bullet point.) Maybe not everyone who regards themselves as "complementarian" takes a hard line on each of these, but these are the teaching of prominent complementarians. Whatever label you use, they are objectionable teachings. They owe more to secular culture/traditions than to the Bible, and they bring both men and women into legalistic bondage.


----------



## Pilgrim

A.Joseph said:


> They are creeping, though..... I know I’m using Byrd & Miller interchangeably. What think ye? Are they moving past concerns with BMAW to something else? I’m sensing some subtle, passive-aggressive bait and switch. And now she’s allowing the opc to be scapegoated? She says she’s still learning, but maybe she shouldn’t be writing these kinds of books while she’s still learning.



Everybody is still learning. Or at least, i would hope so. But there's learning, and there is the appearance of close association with those who you swear you disagree with, some of whom really can't be said to be conservative evangelicals on some issues besides comp vs egal. 

Let's use a hypothetical on a different topic. Let's say someone wrote a book about the New Perspective on Paul and how some evangelicals and Reformed people misunderstood them or whatever. In this book, they quote a bunch of NPP sources to bolster their case and don't really explain where they differ from them. They get pushback and are removed from their position. They go onto a NPP blog and announce that they've been booted from their former ministry. Now what would we suspect? Would we be right to be alarmed?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JOwen

CathH said:


> Sure. So it sounds like Trueman endorses Byrd for not adjusting the Bible to the 50s. So we're all good.
> 
> As a side note, I don't think I'd like to go to the gallows for the wording of a blurb.


Nor for commenting on it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Pilgrim said:


> Everybody is still learning. Or at least, i would hope so. But there's learning, and there is the appearance of close association with those who you swear you disagree with, some of whom really can't be said to be conservative evangelicals on some issues besides comp vs egal.
> 
> Let's use a hypothetical on a different topic. Let's say someone wrote a book about the New Perspective on Paul and how some evangelicals and Reformed people misunderstood them or whatever. In this book, they quote a bunch of NPP sources to bolster their case and don't really explain where they differ from them. They get pushback and are removed from their position. They go onto a NPP blog and announce that they've been booted from their former ministry. Now what would we suspect? Would we be right to be alarmed?


I suspect she’s egalitarian or something along those lines. My problem is the typical liberal trickery when one professes to be confessional then repeatedly undercuts it. It’s a tired game and I’m tired of seeing the defenders of orthodoxy getting scapegoated for it.


----------



## Pilgrim

A.Joseph said:


> I suspect she’s
> egalitarian



I don't know whether she is or not in a technical sense, but I think it is fair to be concerned that things seem to be moving in that direction.

She or others can say that she's mainly concerned about broad evangelicalism and ESS and various Piper statements, etc. all they want. I'm sure they are, and they are right to be concerned about some of those things. But if she's looking for more female participation in worship, etc. then it would seem that the OPC isn't a great fit. Based on what I've seen, the typical OPC congregation is WAY more restrictive in that regard than most Southern Baptist churches, for example, probably even some of those that heavily identify with CBMW.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookish_Basset

CathH said:


> The bullets headed 'Complementarianism' - these are various teachings that Miller objects to. (Actually, afterthought, I can't remember if I've seen her say anything on divorce, I'll pass on that bullet point.) Maybe not everyone who regards themselves as "complementarian" takes a hard line on each of these, but these are the teaching of prominent complementarians. Whatever label you use, they are objectionable teachings. They owe more to secular culture/traditions than to the Bible, and they bring both men and women into legalistic bondage.


Nothing to add to the Byrd/MoS bit, but a sincere question about Miller's distinctions--
Is her interpretation that it's a cultural myth to see men as naturally being leaders/providers _within_ marriage? Or that it's a cultural myth that they're supposed to be that way *in general*? I've understood the former to be biblical in light of Ephesians 5:29 (Christ feeding and caring for the church--though both my husband and I grew up in homes where our mothers were primary breadwinners due to particular circumstances, so I'm well aware of exceptions).

I guess another way of stating my confusion is this. How does it make sense to say that I'm not "created" for submission if I'm also called to submit within marriage? Is it more that I'm created with the capacity to submit, but that it only "activates" appropriately within the context of marriage? That's a bad way of phrasing it, but I keep getting tripped up on this point when I'm otherwise inclined to agree with the distinctions she draws.


----------



## CathH

Pilgrim said:


> Everybody is still learning. Or at least, i would hope so. But there's learning, and there is the appearance of close association with those who you swear you disagree with, some of whom really can't be said to be conservative evangelicals on some issues besides comp vs egal.
> 
> Let's use a hypothetical on a different topic. Let's say someone wrote a book about the New Perspective on Paul and how some evangelicals and Reformed people misunderstood them or whatever. In this book, they quote a bunch of NPP sources to bolster their case and don't really explain where they differ from them. They get pushback and are removed from their position. They go onto a NPP blog and announce that they've been booted from their former ministry. Now what would we suspect? Would we be right to be alarmed?


I see this concern, but I don't think the hypothetical is analogous. The NPP is an attack on the actual gospel. Questions of salvation are at stake - justification is the article by which the church stands or falls. 

By all means, be super sensitive about 'creeping' and 'subtle' and 'sensing' 'liberal trickery' when it comes to the doctrines of grace. 

But debates about gender are (or should be) so, so far below justification in our ranking of priorities. A better hypothetical would be, I don't know, the civil magistrate, or eschatology - or something that isn't even in the Confession - where there is so much confusion and so many grey areas that even when one of us is convinced of one position, we're still happy to acknowledge those who hold the other position as brothers and sisters instead of sinister threats to our entire way of life and western civilisation.

It's a sure sign of skewed priorities when an issue so transient and local and culture-bound as gender becomes equated with the actual doctrines of grace. I know it really seems hugely, vitally, intensely important, to North Americans in the 21st century, to pin down the precise rules for manliness and femininity that will earn us God's favour, but I have to break it to you that most of the rest of the Christian church across time and place would beg to differ there.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## CathH

bookish_Basset said:


> Nothing to add to the Byrd/MoS bit, but a sincere question about Miller's distinctions--
> Is her interpretation that it's a cultural myth to see men as naturally being leaders/providers _within_ marriage? Or that it's a cultural myth that they're supposed to be that way *in general*? I've understood the former to be biblical in light of Ephesians 5:29 (Christ feeding and caring for the church--though both my husband and I grew up in homes where our mothers were primary breadwinners due to particular circumstances, so I'm well aware of exceptions).
> 
> I guess another way of stating my confusion is this. How does it make sense to say that I'm not "created" for submission if I'm also called to submit within marriage? Is it more that I'm created with the capacity to submit, but that it only "activates" appropriately within the context of marriage? That's a bad way of phrasing it, but I keep getting tripped up on this point when I'm otherwise inclined to agree with the distinctions she draws.



I think the problem is with the formula, "created to X." 

According to the Catechism, we were created to glorify God and enjoy him for ever. I think a lot of complementarians will yes-of-course acknowledge this, but quickly shove it to the background in order to get on to the *really* important bit, that MEN are created for Chief End A For Authority while WOMEN are created for the Chief End of Submitting. But diminishing and distorting our chief end like this demeans us (and dishonours God). 

Obviously, as we go around as the Lord's redeemed people now striving to fulfil our actual chief end, that's going to involve providing (in some situations) and submitting (in some situations) and leading (in some situations) and responding (in some situations). 

But it's the situations that shape what we do, not our gender. It's not that all activities of submitting have to be done by women, while all activities of leading have to be done by men. Some providing roles have to be done by women (eg if they're the breadwinner) and some submitting roles have to be done by men (eg in the workplace). (PS when I say roles, I really do mean roles - in the sense of functions, things that you do and stop doing according to the situation. Not "roles" as some complementarians use the term, ie to mean essential features which are inflexibly fixed and define who you are as a person.)

So submitting even within marriage is not something you're created to do, but it's something that is included in some situations in life including marriage. Children have to submit to their parents, but we don't say that children were created _to submit_.

And I'll just add that submission is just one part of marriage/life. One big contribution that Miller has made to the discussion in BA&S is to point out that if you *reduce* marriage/life to authority/submission, you're missing out on the other facets of a healthy (scriptural) relationship - appreciation of our unity (as God's image-bearers, fallen in Adam, redeemed in Christ), our interdependence (how we need each other) and service (to each other, for God).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

bookish_Basset said:


> Nothing to add to the Byrd/MoS bit, but a sincere question about Miller's distinctions--
> Is her interpretation that it's a cultural myth to see men as naturally being leaders/providers _within_ marriage? Or that it's a cultural myth that they're supposed to be that way *in general*? I've understood the former to be biblical in light of Ephesians 5:29 (Christ feeding and caring for the church--though both my husband and I grew up in homes where our mothers were primary breadwinners due to particular circumstances, so I'm well aware of exceptions).
> 
> I guess another way of stating my confusion is this. How does it make sense to say that I'm not "created" for submission if I'm also called to submit within marriage? Is it more that I'm created with the capacity to submit, but that it only "activates" appropriately within the context of marriage? That's a bad way of phrasing it, but I keep getting tripped up on this point when I'm otherwise inclined to agree with the distinctions she draws.


I think there are a number of people who argue thus:

To start with the authority of Scripture:
1) The Bible calls for a number of things, including husband as head of wife, a wife's recognition of that and apt (not servile or unreserved) obedience.​Bare appeals to divine authority (God's _ipse dixit)_ make people uncomfortable, so Nature is interposed and natural advantages are turned into _norms_, leading to:
2) Nature ordains that female _should_ be subservient to male, as a kind of *rule*.​Conclusion, ergo:
3) In speaking of marriage and family relations, the Bible is actually making a _fabric of reality_ argument, which then is further read-into all manner of social relations and institutions.​
Is this really the creation-support appealed to in Scripture, buttressing the commands? There are numerous reasons to doubt this. Nature can provide plenty of useful guidance for human conduct, but it cannot teach morality. I question the 2nd premise.

Humans show very little dependency on instinct, but rather more on the education of experience, and the usefulness of habit and social norming, all which employ the potential of the mind/brain with which they are endowed. Furthermore, into the human condition is thrust the reality of divine authority from the outside, fully independent of nature.

This means that for mankind, authority or "leadership" is never something that is purely organic in its exhibit. There may be connections made with natural hierarchy, as it bubbles up from below; but in God's universe, authority begins Top-down. It is given a human register as an establishment, and not as of a King-of-the-hill product, or artifact of evolutionary development.

To address your question precisely, "Is her interpretation that it's a cultural myth to see men as naturally being leaders/providers _within_ marriage?," I don't think so. Context matters. Men must make the choice in marriage to act as the head their vocation appoints them to be; and likewise women must make their choice as well to fill the role in marriage which biblical authority appoints for them.

This is a MORAL commitment, and not something essentially instinctive, nor even a habit of life or an imposed social construct. In some societies, the present conditions may be more or less compared to a biblical, ethical norm, thus masking the moral-choice aspect that belongs to the Christian husband or wife. Even the non-Christians conform to a comfortable and culturally stable pattern.

What happens when a culture goes through a revolution? Christianity itself was a catalyst (along with other factors) in a centuries-long revolution back in the days of the Roman Empire. We'd argue (along with Augustin) the Christians not only took over the re-engineering of an ancient, slave-ridden, misogynist and brutal culture; but they also helped slow Rome's decadent slide into ruin, so that its fall (hard as it was) was softer than it would have been.

The culture around Christians in the globally-dominant West has been going through a massive social reconstruction, beginning in earnest not later than about 100yrs ago. So that, today we live in a condition where our Christian-moral choices are more obvious, more stark. Social-engineers have been deliberately adjusting the social-norms, so as to produce a new "morality": those aspects of life around members of a society which (for whatever reason) a majority or a critical mass of activist or elite components regard as *givens*, as that which brooks no toleration of deviance. Or else, you get the "immoral" label.

If you don't believe that Christianity must, inevitably given enough time and favorable circumstances, bring the world around it into a very SPECIFIC cultural expression, this view lets Christianity flourish in a wide variety of cultures. Let them be what they will, we will live as Christians in obedience to God in our families and in our church culture.

The church is not in the business of social-engineering the surrounding culture. If something is meant to change around us, then it will change; and only King Jesus is in any position to "guide" that development. But it is a very Presbyterian attitude to assert that the one place where cultural expression is most *defined* by the Bible is the church, the kingdom of God where it manifests in the world. Obviously, family structure (families being basic building-blocks) is also important to the church; but I think biblical guidelines for the family are inherently (not infinitely) elastic, allowing for considerable creativity in expression. That is not the case with the church, for which expression is prescribed, and creativity is limited.

"How does it make sense to say that I'm not "created" for submission if I'm also called to submit within marriage?" The same way that it makes sense to say of male persons that they were not _created _to be slaves, even though they are called "bondservants of God," 1Pet.2:16. Context is key. Instead of applying "womanly submission" everywhere, and always; instead of reasoning backwards from the call to be submissive to (one's own) husband in marriage to arrive there from a supposed argument that moves from the greater to the less;...

stick to accepting God's directions as that which is handed-down (from on high) for a particular context. Don't look for some "universal" ideal, which God uses to mediate his authoritative dictates; which then is turned into a natural "norm" of equivalent force to a moral command; so that submission is turned into an ontological priority; so that the ideal is regarded as "bubbling up" from beneath.

Interestingly, Eve made a similar shift in the garden, when she softened the divine threat into his "concern" for the man and his wife, when she described the prohibition, "..._*lest *_ye die," _for fear that_ ye will perish (oh, how sad!). Top down, vs. bottom up. Embarrassed by the stark authoritarian quality of God's decree vs. mediating his judgment through the "impersonal" dire consequence.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

Do you guys believe men and women are wired differently?Is this merely a biological thing or is there more that comes with it? Why did God do this? I’m not a Wilsonite, so please keep that in mind. Where’s the line between argument and rational Godly distinction? That’s all I’m really looking for. It’s a hill to die on to some degree if Godly distinctions matters. This is a God issue, not a conservative issue. I’ve already said that Jesus was not overly or overtly stereotypical “masculine” (although 100% Man) as a chief attribute but his apostles were all male. Is that a binding representation of Godly ordinance? He had a high view of women but there was distinction.

I agree that this is most prominently a Church issue (I view it as such) and not even a Christian-culture issue. The OPC does not role that way, at least in my neck of the woods. We are not a type of local theonomy or Bible Belt. In some ways all we have is the Church. I’m not sure what Ms. Byrd’s lens is. Is she part of the speakers circuit / celebrity Christian culture or is that what she may be aiming for? Maybe the OPC Church would seem stifling to her? She has 10.6k followers. I dont think she necessarily cares but shes built a pretty good following and has some influence. I just think the egalitarian view while noble in some areas, definitely allows for female pastors and female religious authorities.


----------



## bookish_Basset

CathH said:


> I think the problem is with the formula, "created to X."
> 
> According to the Catechism, we were created to glorify God and enjoy him for ever. I think a lot of complementarians will yes-of-course acknowledge this, but quickly shove it to the background in order to get on to the *really* important bit, that MEN are created for Chief End A For Authority while WOMEN are created for the Chief End of Submitting. But diminishing and distorting our chief end like this demeans us (and dishonours God).
> 
> Obviously, as we go around as the Lord's redeemed people now striving to fulfil our actual chief end, that's going to involve providing (in some situations) and submitting (in some situations) and leading (in some situations) and responding (in some situations).
> 
> But it's the situations that shape what we do, not our gender. It's not that all activities of submitting have to be done by women, while all activities of leading have to be done by men. Some providing roles have to be done by women (eg if they're the breadwinner) and some submitting roles have to be done by men (eg in the workplace). (PS when I say roles, I really do mean roles - in the sense of functions, things that you do and stop doing according to the situation. Not "roles" as some complementarians use the term, ie to mean essential features which are inflexibly fixed and define who you are as a person.)
> 
> So submitting even within marriage is not something you're created to do, but it's something that is included in some situations in life including marriage. Children have to submit to their parents, but we don't say that children were created _to submit_.
> 
> And I'll just add that submission is just one part of marriage/life. One big contribution that Miller has made to the discussion in BA&S is to point out that if you *reduce* marriage/life to authority/submission, you're missing out on the other facets of a healthy (scriptural) relationship - appreciation of our unity (as God's image-bearers, fallen in Adam, redeemed in Christ), our interdependence (how we need each other) and service (to each other, for God).


 
I agree that "created to X" is a big part of the problem. The example of children also helps clarify things. I think I'm better understanding the distinction that's being made between functions and essential features. And I definitely agree that submission is just one aspect of marriage and that it's reductive to make it the center.

All this would probably be easier to understand if feminism hadn't been such a big influence in my formative years. After coming out of that, taking a more "essential" view of gender felt like finally coming into alignment with the way I was really made to be. It's possible it just fed into additional confusion, though. Thinking in terms of functions/roles feels deflating somehow, but if pressed I don't know that I could clearly articulate how it really changes anything about my marriage or other relationships. I agree that keeping our real "chief end" in view helps put things into perspective.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A.Joseph said:


> Do you guys believe men and women are wired differently?Is this merely a biological thing or is there more that comes with it? Why did God do this? I’m not a Wilsonite, so please keep that in mind. Do you understand how this can get confusing. Where’s the line between argument and rational Godly distinction? That’s all I’m really looking for. It’s a hill to die on to some degree if Godly distinctions matters. This is a God issue, not a conservative issue. I’ve already said that Jesus was not masculine as a chief attribute but his apostles were all male. Is that a somewhat binding representation of Godly ordinance. He had a high view of women but there was distinction.


Men and women occupy two different bell-curves of trait-combinations. There is enough commonality within each sex so it might be possible to describe certain traits or qualities as predominantly one or the other; but it is manifest that these are generalities. And that if it is fair to say that "such and such" is typically masculine or feminine, it is just as unfair to label a man as "fey" if he wasn't born with a bass voice; or a woman as "butch" if she has extra facial hair.

Some couples may seem like strange pairings to us, but there is bound to be some mutual help there, each one having a strength for the other's weakness. The world is full of little cruelties against those whose uniqueness is only appreciated by the spouse who understands, who alone gives the balm of unconditional acceptance, saying "You are more than man (or woman) enough for me."

There are certain women who are simply better than certain men at some tasks that call for bodily strength. They may be outliers, but they aren't for that reason less men or less women. I would not want firefighter standards to be lowered so that the same number of women as men could fill the job. I don't believe in double standards either, in the interest of pursuing parity. Men and women with comparable experience and skill should be paid the same, and (in spite of misleading statistics) this is normal in today's workaday world. That said, I believe it would be better for my ideal society if families could get by easier today on one salary (like they used to), if men earned the bread and women "kept" the home, Tit.2:5.

Women were built for childbirth and nurture (though some women are not able to fulfill or easily to fulfill such function); and I strongly believe they also are generally the more temperamentally suited to ongoing "motherly" tasks. Men do not have the same potential coded in their XY chromosomes. They have other drives and ends, generally speaking. Biology is a big part of how people come into the world; but also social formation has impact on how males and females express the material they were born with. Sin and righteousness do too.

Jesus chose twelve men as his prime ministers. And so far as we can tell, his choice was not impacted by whether he was free to choose a woman. He chose not to, and thus established continuity with the religious ministry of the previous age. His apostles maintained the pattern in their church planting, and the qualities for church officers (when they are spelled out in the NT) are plainly designated for men specifically.

Jesus was a man, he was not androgynous. In appointing men to represent him, and not choosing women for the same task, the Christian faith is guarded from becoming monistic (in this vein). Christianity continues to be a religion of distinctions, affirming in something as simple as the composition of its ministry the fact that differences matter. In traditional churches, even men and women in the pews are distinguished, as women bear on their heads some "sign of authority," 1Cor.11:10. Even if we fail to fully articulate _why_ it is so, that we state and stand on the distinction is enough.

Men and women both are the image of God. They both stand individually as sinners and as redeemed before God. But men are not women, nor women men. Jesus was a man, and so men are suited to be his ordained ministers, in a way that women are not. This fact changes no one's worth. It is a matter of the church's submission to God's will.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## bookish_Basset

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think there are a number of people who argue thus:
> 
> To start with the authority of Scripture:​1) The Bible calls for a number of things, including husband as head of wife, a wife's recognition of that and apt (not servile or unreserved) obedience.​
> Bare appeals to divine authority (God's _ipse dixit)_ make people uncomfortable, so Nature is interposed and natural advantages are turned into _norms_, leading to:​2) Nature ordains that female _should_ be subservient to male, as a kind of *rule*.​
> Conclusion, ergo:​3) In speaking of marriage and family relations, the Bible is actually making a _fabric of reality_ argument, which then is further read-into all manner of social relations and institutions.​
> 
> Is this really the creation-support appealed to in Scripture, buttressing the commands? There are numerous reasons to doubt this. Nature can provide plenty of useful guidance for human conduct, but it cannot teach morality. I question the 2nd premise.
> 
> Humans show very little dependency on instinct, but rather more on the education of experience, and the usefulness of habit and social norming, all which employ the potential of the mind/brain with which they are endowed. Furthermore, into the human condition is thrust the reality of divine authority from the outside, fully independent of nature.
> 
> This means that for mankind, authority or "leadership" is never something that is purely organic in its exhibit. There may be connections made with natural hierarchy, as it bubbles up from below; but in God's universe, authority begins Top-down. It is given a human register as an establishment, and not as of a King-of-the-hill product, or artifact of evolutionary development.
> 
> To address your question precisely, "Is her interpretation that it's a cultural myth to see men as naturally being leaders/providers _within_ marriage?," I don't think so. Context matters. Men must make the choice in marriage to act as the head their vocation appoints them to be; and likewise women must make their choice as well to fill the role in marriage which biblical authority appoints for them.
> 
> This is a MORAL commitment, and not something essentially instinctive, nor even a habit of life or an imposed social construct. In some societies, the present conditions may be more or less compared to a biblical, ethical norm, thus masking the moral-choice aspect that belongs to the Christian husband or wife. Even the non-Christians conform to a comfortable and culturally stable pattern.
> 
> What happens when a culture goes through a revolution? Christianity itself was a catalyst (along with other factors) in a centuries-long revolution back in the days of the Roman Empire. We'd argue (along with Augustin) the Christians not only took over the re-engineering of an ancient, slave-ridden, misogynist and brutal culture; but they also helped slow Rome's decadent slide into ruin, so that its fall (hard as it was) was softer than it would have been.
> 
> The culture around Christians in the globally-dominant West has been going through a massive social reconstruction, beginning in earnest not later than about 100yrs ago. So that, today we live in a condition where our Christian-moral choices are more obvious, more stark. Social-engineers have been deliberately adjusting the social-norms, so as to produce a new "morality": those aspects of life around members of a society which (for whatever reason) a majority or a critical mass of activist or elite components regard as *givens*, as that which brooks no toleration of deviance. Or else, you get the "immoral" label.
> 
> If you don't believe that Christianity must, inevitably given enough time and favorable circumstances, bring the world around it into a very SPECIFIC cultural expression, this view lets Christianity flourish in a wide variety of cultures. Let them be what they will, we will live as Christians in obedience to God in our families and in our church culture.
> 
> The church is not in the business of social-engineering the surrounding culture. If something is meant to change around us, then it will change; and only King Jesus is in any position to "guide" that development. But it is a very Presbyterian attitude to assert that the one place where cultural expression is most *defined* by the Bible is the church, the kingdom of God where it manifests in the world. Obviously, family structure (families being basic building-blocks) is also important to the church; but I think biblical guidelines for the family are inherently (not infinitely) elastic, allowing for considerable creativity in expression. That is not the case with the church, for which expression is prescribed, and creativity is limited.
> 
> "How does it make sense to say that I'm not "created" for submission if I'm also called to submit within marriage?" The same way that it makes sense to say of male persons that they were not _created _to be slaves, even though they are called "bondservants of God," 1Pet.2:16. Context is key. Instead of applying "womanly submission" everywhere, and always; instead of reasoning backwards from the call to be submissive to (one's own) husband in marriage to arrive there from a supposed argument that moves from the greater to the less;...
> 
> stick to accepting God's directions as that which is handed-down (from on high) for a particular context. Don't look for some "universal" ideal, which God uses to mediate his authoritative dictates; which then is turned into a natural "norm" of equivalent force to a moral command; so that submission is turned into an ontological priority; so that the ideal is regarded as "bubbling up" from beneath.
> 
> Interestingly, Eve made a similar shift in the garden, when she softened the divine threat into his "concern" for the man and his wife, when she described the prohibition, "..._*lest *_ye die," _for fear that_ ye will perish (oh, how sad!). Top down, vs. bottom up. Embarrassed by the stark authoritarian quality of God's decree vs. mediating his judgment through the "impersonal" dire consequence.



Rev. Buchanan,
This is very helpful, thank you. I will be thinking about it more.

I think I've been assuming the "fabric of creation" argument had to hold true somehow, but I think I see what you're saying about top-down vs. bottom-up. And the moral choice element is helpful as well, and even rings true to my own experience, since there's actually not much about marriage that has been "naturally instinctive" to me whatsoever, as I think about it.

I suppose also I need to quell my analytical "but why?" about these things and accept that the commands are for my good, even if I can't box them up in a way that "makes sense" and feels comfortable to me.


----------



## Pilgrim

CathH said:


> I see this concern, but I don't think the hypothetical is analogous. The NPP is an attack on the actual gospel. Questions of salvation are at stake - justification is the article by which the church stands or falls.



I wasn't comparing the two as if they are equally serious with regard to the faith. I didn't have much time and was simply grasping for an example of a teaching that has been controversial in recent years. All analogies break down at some point. And the issue in question is indeed a confessional one if she wants women to read Scripture in stated worship, for example. So in that sense (if that is indeed something she has said, as reported earlier) it is a confessional issue whereas amil vs postmil is not.


----------



## A.Joseph

I just want to add, I think we need to guard against personal attacks, especially when they enter the realm of mockery, sexism, etc...
I’m off facebook, twitter and the like, partly for these reasons. I’m hoping we can be purged of this debate in the OPC and the outside influences that distract us and take us off course. This has become a bad look. Maybe MoS should be put to rest and all Wilsonite thought and practice (if it does linger) be once and for all purged from our ranks.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

A.Joseph said:


> I just want to add, I think we need to guard against personal attacks, especially when they enter the realm of mockery, sexism, etc...
> I’m off facebook, twitter and the like, partly for these reasons. I’m hoping we can be purged of this debate in the OPC and the outside influences that distract us and take us off course. This has become a bad look. Maybe MoS should be put to rest and all Wilsonite thought and practice (if it does linger) be once and for all purged from our ranks.



I muted a lot of my Facebook pages/groups/people midway through this COVID stuff and I have to say it’s been rather restful. 

I agree to a point however. Gouge and other Divines in their writings would for sure be called sexist and at some points mocking in our current culture. However they are not wrong. 

Also remember there are those calling the Divines thoughts in these matters “non-confessional” with statements like “we don’t confess Calvin/Beza/Gillespie/ etc.” and attempting to redefine the confessional and biblical standard while disregarding Natural Law. Then they equivocate the thoughts of the Divines and other confessional and faithful men with Wilson and others.

We need a process of building up the truth in this area before we start defining things out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35

A.Joseph said:


> I just want to add, I think we need to guard against personal attacks, especially when they enter the realm of mockery, sexism, etc...
> I’m off facebook, twitter and the like, partly for these reasons. I’m hoping we can be purged of this debate in the OPC and the outside influences that distract us and take us off course. This has become a bad look. Maybe MoS should be put to rest and all Wilsonite thought and practice (if it does linger) be once and for all purged from our ranks.


I left Facebook, Twitter, et alia years ago. Only thing left is a LinkedIn account. Even that's started to get depressing. I'm becoming partly convinced of the argument that social media is basically a "human-nature hack" that shortcuts rationality and brings out the worst in us.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor

Andrew35 said:


> I left Facebook, Twitter, et alia years ago. Only thing left is a LinkedIn account. Even that's started to get depressing. I'm becoming partly convinced of the argument that social media is basically a "human-nature hack" that shortcuts rationality and brings out the worst in us.



It truly is the worst evil of the internet.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## A.Joseph

CathH said:


> *It's a sure sign of skewed priorities when an issue so transient and local and culture-bound as gender becomes equated with the actual doctrines of grace. *I know it really seems hugely, vitally, intensely important, to North Americans in the 21st century, to pin down the precise rules for manliness and femininity that will earn us God's favour, but I have to break it to you that most of the rest of the Christian church across time and place would beg to differ there.


I think I know what you are getting at, but can you clarify a bit? How is gender any of those things?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

A.Joseph said:


> So why would these women want to remain in the OPC? I never understood why people who break from their denomination in doctrine and practice, or at least seem to want to push the envelope in that direction, don’t seek a religious home elsewhere? There are plenty of churches more accommodating to this line of thinking as highlighted in the prior quoted portion.



Quite simply because they wish to alter their denominations brining them in line with modern, liberal thought.



CathH said:


> What kind of woman is welcome in the OPC, would you say? It's just possible that "these women" want to remain in the OPC because it is the church home that best fits their theology as expressed in the Westminster Confession, so I'm just wondering what additional qualifications are necessary for a woman before they're expected to seek a religious home elsewhere.
> 
> What makes people think that BA&S is a theology book, incidentally? Have you read it?



I have read some of the book. It is certainly theological. Women shouldn't be writing theological books anyway and ones such as this are contrary to Biblical teaching.



Contra_Mundum said:


> I held off saying anything when there was a bit of condescension (in my opinion) shown to the fairer sex.



Don't you mean the "weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7)?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

alexandermsmith said:


> Quite simply because they wish to alter their denominations brining them in line with modern, liberal thought.
> 
> 
> 
> I have read some of the book. It is certainly theological. Women shouldn't be writing theological books anyway and ones such as this are contrary to Biblical teaching.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean the "weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7)?



I believe you’re right on the money here. It’s instructive to go look at the comments regarding Rev. DeYoung’s most recent TGC article on having children and catechizing them in the faith etc. 

Even the “moderate” voices opposing Rev. DeYoung’s article (laying out pretty vanilla and ancient orthodox belief) have swallowed feminist and worldly presuppositions.

Coupled with the wave of Christian celebrities apostatizing or liberalizing the course is pretty clear.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> I believe you’re right on the money here. It’s instructive to go look at the comments regarding Rev. DeYoung’s most recent TGC article on having children and catechizing them in the faith etc.
> 
> Even the “moderate” voices opposing Rev. DeYoung’s article (laying out pretty vanilla and ancient orthodox belief) have swallowed feminist and worldly presuppositions.
> 
> Coupled with the wave of Christian celebrities apostatizing or liberalizing the course is pretty clear.


Link to the comments? I found the article, it was a good read.


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

G said:


> Link to the comments? I found the article, it was a good read.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1273338376524095491

Beware, the comments are toxic

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph

The concern is evident when we clearly see the position of some of Amiee’s supporters. I think these discussions can turn ugly and get off track really quick. Denominational declines and slippery slopes are often synonymous. It doesn’t excuse bad behavior and overcorrection can be just as damaging. The lesson learned is not every voice is authoritative and deserves to be treated as such. We remove that aspect, the room for frustration and slander is also diminished.

I made the point a few days ago that Jesus chose 12 MEN. Somebody else made this point below. The other side views that as a temporal accommodation for the sake of the gospel. That’s a pretty wide divide right there.....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

I believe this was needed as well. Hopefully, repentance and reset is in order and we can move on... An Open Letter from Concerned Ministers and Elders in the OPC
https://aimeebyrd.com/2020/06/22/an...ers-in-the-opc/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It may be the timing and order of the reading since I read the Trueman/Truitt letter that hit my news feed first, but this letter does not seem nearly as guarded and concerned as it should be about the doxing issue, which likely will eclipse and be the largest part of this mess of a scandal. As mentioned in this letter, and already mentioned above, folks are looking at losing jobs in guilt by association. https://julesdiner.org/2020/06/22/an-open-letter-to-the-contributors-creators-of-the-gcscreenshots/


A.Joseph said:


> I believe this was needed as well. Hopefully, repentance and reset is in order and we can move on... An Open Letter from Concerned Ministers and Elders in the OPC
> https://aimeebyrd.com/2020/06/22/an...ers-in-the-opc/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## A.Joseph

NaphtaliPress said:


> It may be the timing and order of the reading since I read the Trueman/Truitt letter that hit my news feed first, but this letter does not seem nearly as guarded and concerned as it should be about the doxing issue, which likely will eclipse and be the largest part of this mess of a scandal. As mentioned in this letter, and already mentioned above, folks are looking at losing jobs in guilt by association. https://julesdiner.org/2020/06/22/an-open-letter-to-the-contributors-creators-of-the-gcscreenshots/


Hmmm. Is this an instance of doxing since it was a private group? I think repentance and public confession is in order and then all parties can start to heal. I’m not sure it’s going to go down that way, however. Do we know who posted the screen shots? What a mess....


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

A.Joseph said:


> Hmmm. Is this an instance of doxing since it was a private group? I think repentance and public confession is in order and then all parties can start to heal. I’m not sure it’s going to go down that way however.



I’d say so. This is like selectively screenshotting conversations in the Reformed Pub or in Theology Gals of which both are private groups which have membership in which unkind words can fly about all manner of people and positions.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## arapahoepark

A.Joseph said:


> Hmmm. Is this an instance of doxing since it was a private group? I think repentance and public confession is in order and then all parties can start to heal. I’m not sure it’s going to go down that way however. Do we know who posted the screen shots? What a mess....


Yes. Both sides are acting like safe space millennials; tarring and feathering anybody who disagrees in the slighest.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

A.Joseph said:


> Hmmm. Is this an instance of doxing since it was a private group? I think repentance and public confession is in order and then all parties can start to heal. I’m not sure it’s going to go down that way, however. Do we know who posted the screen shots? What a mess....


The creator of the doxing site is hiding behind anonymity while unveiling others'. I have actually seen this defended after it is noted that innocent folks were hoovered up in this doxing and are facing backlash already at their employment, with "oh, well, they shouldn't have belonged to such a horrible group.' This is mind numbing insanity.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

NaphtaliPress said:


> The creator of the doxing site is hiding behind anonymity while unveiling others'. I have actually seen this defended after it is noted that innocent folks were hoovered up in this doxing and are facing backlash already at their employment, with "oh, well, they shouldn't have belonged to such a horrible group.' This is mind numbing insanity.



Ironically it’s a violation of the same 9th Commandment principles they list as being violated on their website.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

As I wrote in a comment on a facebook post liking the OPC ministers' letter, "As reported innocents are already having jobs put in jeopardy as noted by T&T in their letter and in another appeal to the anonymous doxer. This is the nature of scandal; it spirals with all sorts of collateral damage both sides hunker down yet more, with more collateral until both sides are totally discredited. It does not matter if on the original issue there was a right or more right side. The ensuring war eclipses the original issue. Case study: the protester resolutioner division in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, to which this is nothing by comparison but can show the height to which these things can go. Folks need to study Durham on Scandal and similar works; folks act like the scriptures don't apply to social media behavior."

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 3


----------



## A.Joseph

At least I’m not going crazy after reading Todd’s FB post on the matter. He said regarding AB, and I’m paraphrasing, ‘ if your views change you should say so, if your friends ask for clarity you should give it.’ I thought she was being a little too vague, like she wanted to play both sides. But I also thought maybe I was misreading the situation, but I guess I wasn’t. 

I didn’t want to screenshot a screenshot. Anyone have the link for his public statement on the matter?


----------



## A.Joseph

Got it! https://www.reformation21.org/blog/coarse-joking-doxing-and-forgiveness


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Contra_Mundum said:


> I held off saying anything when there was a bit of condescension (in my opinion) shown to the fairer sex.





alexandermsmith said:


> Don't you mean the "weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7)?


No. But I can help you with that.

credit (mostly) to the OED:

fair
1. Beautiful to the eye; of pleasing form or appearance; good-looking. Phrases, fair to see (arch.); fair and free (obs. or arch.). No longer in colloquial use; in literature very common, but slightly arch. or rhetorical.

a. of persons; chiefly with reference to the face; in mod. use, almost exclusively of women. Also of the body or its parts.
C. 1205 Lay. 3886 ― He wes wis he wes fæir.
A. 1300 Cursor M. 4223 (Cott.) ― Ioseph··was fre and feir.
C. 1385 Chaucer L.G.W. 613 ― Cleopatras, Sche was fayr as is the Rose in May.
A. 1400-50 Alexander 601 ― Þe fax on his faire hede was ferly to schawe.
1602 Shaks. Ham. ɪ. i. 47 ― That Faire and Warlike forme.
1697 Dryden Virg. Georg. iv. 760 ― His Head, from his fair Shoulders torn.
1832 Tennyson Sisters, ― The earl was fair to see.
1864 Tennyson Aylmer’s F. 681 ― Fair as the Angel that said ‘Hail!’​
b. Applied to women, as expressing the quality characteristic of their sex. So, the fair sex (= Fr. le beau sexe), a fair one. Also in comparative.
1800 Med. Jrnl. III. 442 ― These melancholy cases··spread a general alarm over a considerable district among the fair sex.
1819 Sir Walter Scott Ivanhoe, I. 246 ― interest taken by the fair sex in this bloody game.
1825 A. Cunningham ‘Wet Sheet & Flowing Sea’ 10 ― O for a soft and gentle wind! I heard a fair one cry.
1878 J. H. Beadle Western Wilds xxix. 451 ― The fairer section of our party are startled at the crowds of men in the streets.​
c. of abstractions personified.
1742 Pope Dunc. iv. 24 ― There, stript, fair Rhet’ric languish’d on the ground.​
d. used in courteous or respectful address. Obs. exc. arch.
1588 Shaks. L.L.L. ᴠ. ii. 310 ― Faire sir, God saue you.
1820 Scott Abbot xi, ― ‘So much for your lineage, fair sir,’ replied his companion.
1889 Mark Twain Connecticut Yankee 230 ― Even so, fair my lord.​
You're welcome.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## A.Joseph

If you would like to close this thread. I have nothing else to add.... 


Contra_Mundum said:


> No. But I can help you with that.
> 
> credit (mostly) to the OED:
> 
> fair
> 1. Beautiful to the eye; of pleasing form or appearance; good-looking. Phrases, fair to see (arch.); fair and free (obs. or arch.). No longer in colloquial use; in literature very common, but slightly arch. or rhetorical.
> 
> a. of persons; chiefly with reference to the face; in mod. use, almost exclusively of women. Also of the body or its parts.
> C. 1205 Lay. 3886 ― He wes wis he wes fæir.
> A. 1300 Cursor M. 4223 (Cott.) ― Ioseph··was fre and feir.
> C. 1385 Chaucer L.G.W. 613 ― Cleopatras, Sche was fayr as is the Rose in May.
> A. 1400-50 Alexander 601 ― Þe fax on his faire hede was ferly to schawe.
> 1602 Shaks. Ham. ɪ. i. 47 ― That Faire and Warlike forme.
> 1697 Dryden Virg. Georg. iv. 760 ― His Head, from his fair Shoulders torn.
> 1832 Tennyson Sisters, ― The earl was fair to see.
> 1864 Tennyson Aylmer’s F. 681 ― Fair as the Angel that said ‘Hail!’​
> b. Applied to women, as expressing the quality characteristic of their sex. So, the fair sex (= Fr. le beau sexe), a fair one. Also in comparative.
> 1800 Med. Jrnl. III. 442 ― These melancholy cases··spread a general alarm over a considerable district among the fair sex.
> 1819 Sir Walter Scott Ivanhoe, I. 246 ― interest taken by the fair sex in this bloody game.
> 1825 A. Cunningham ‘Wet Sheet & Flowing Sea’ 10 ― O for a soft and gentle wind! I heard a fair one cry.
> 1878 J. H. Beadle Western Wilds xxix. 451 ― The fairer section of our party are startled at the crowds of men in the streets.​
> c. of abstractions personified.
> 1742 Pope Dunc. iv. 24 ― There, stript, fair Rhet’ric languish’d on the ground.​
> d. used in courteous or respectful address. Obs. exc. arch.
> 1588 Shaks. L.L.L. ᴠ. ii. 310 ― Faire sir, God saue you.
> 1820 Scott Abbot xi, ― ‘So much for your lineage, fair sir,’ replied his companion.
> 1889 Mark Twain Connecticut Yankee 230 ― Even so, fair my lord.​
> You're welcome.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

This is nightmarish, very discouraging on all accounts. I pray that ministers will be granted wisdom and discernment in navigating this. We all need to slow down as this seems to now be snowballing at an alarming rate. If you would not speak in such a way to a person’s face, then reframe from posting online, texting, or emailing the same nonsense.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I think what needs to happen and fast is a disavowal of the doxing from Mrs. Bird if she has not done so already. 
I see no reason to close this thread.


G said:


> This is nightmarish, very discouraging on all accounts. I pray that ministers will be granted wisdom and discernment in navigating this. We all need to slow down as this seems to now be snowballing at an alarming rate. If you would not speak in such a way to a person’s face, then reframe from posting online, texting, or emailing the same nonsense.





A.Joseph said:


> If you would like to close this thread. I have nothing else to add....

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

NaphtaliPress said:


> I think what needs to happen and fast is a disavowal of the doxing from Mrs. Bird if she has not done so already.
> I see no reason to close this thread.


I hope so. A thread split might be better considering the original can subject.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

True; folks can get back to the original topic and moderators can ponder if we need to split things. 


G said:


> I hope so. A thread split might be better considering the original can subject.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

NaphtaliPress said:


> I think what needs to happen and fast is a disavowal of the doxing from Mrs. Bird if she has not done so already.
> I see no reason to close this thread.



Unfortunately it seems that both sides have started an arms race in which no side wants to be the first to blink.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I'm hearing but have not confirmed that the anonymous blogger has taken the membership lists down from the doxing site.

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## A.Joseph

NaphtaliPress said:


> True; folks can get back to the original topic and moderators can ponder if we need to split things.


Feel free to keep it going as is. It’s all relative.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Contra_Mundum said:


> No. But I can help you with that.
> 
> credit (mostly) to the OED:
> 
> fair​1. Beautiful to the eye; of pleasing form or appearance; good-looking. Phrases, fair to see (arch.); fair and free (obs. or arch.). No longer in colloquial use; in literature very common, but slightly arch. or rhetorical.​​a. of persons; chiefly with reference to the face; in mod. use, almost exclusively of women. Also of the body or its parts.​C. 1205 Lay. 3886 ― He wes wis he wes fæir.​A. 1300 Cursor M. 4223 (Cott.) ― Ioseph··was fre and feir.​C. 1385 Chaucer L.G.W. 613 ― Cleopatras, Sche was fayr as is the Rose in May.​A. 1400-50 Alexander 601 ― Þe fax on his faire hede was ferly to schawe.​1602 Shaks. Ham. ɪ. i. 47 ― That Faire and Warlike forme.​1697 Dryden Virg. Georg. iv. 760 ― His Head, from his fair Shoulders torn.​1832 Tennyson Sisters, ― The earl was fair to see.​1864 Tennyson Aylmer’s F. 681 ― Fair as the Angel that said ‘Hail!’​
> ​b. Applied to women, as expressing the quality characteristic of their sex. So, the fair sex (= Fr. le beau sexe), a fair one. Also in comparative.​1800 Med. Jrnl. III. 442 ― These melancholy cases··spread a general alarm over a considerable district among the fair sex.​1819 Sir Walter Scott Ivanhoe, I. 246 ― interest taken by the fair sex in this bloody game.​1825 A. Cunningham ‘Wet Sheet & Flowing Sea’ 10 ― O for a soft and gentle wind! I heard a fair one cry.​1878 J. H. Beadle Western Wilds xxix. 451 ― The fairer section of our party are startled at the crowds of men in the streets.​
> ​c. of abstractions personified.​1742 Pope Dunc. iv. 24 ― There, stript, fair Rhet’ric languish’d on the ground.​
> ​d. used in courteous or respectful address. Obs. exc. arch.​1588 Shaks. L.L.L. ᴠ. ii. 310 ― Faire sir, God saue you.​1820 Scott Abbot xi, ― ‘So much for your lineage, fair sir,’ replied his companion.​1889 Mark Twain Connecticut Yankee 230 ― Even so, fair my lord.​
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.



What's all that got to do with the Bible? One would think someone who repeatedly criticises "cultural" norms being elevated to Biblical teaching in this issue would refrain from using a secular phrase to make his point. The Holy Spirit describes women as the weaker vessel. There is a reason for that. It is clear the Bible teaches that the woman's inferiority (to use the language of the Catechism) and subordination to man is ontological.


----------



## alexandermsmith

A.Joseph said:


> Hmmm. Is this an instance of doxing since it was a private group? I think repentance and public confession is in order and then all parties can start to heal. I’m not sure it’s going to go down that way, however. Do we know who posted the screen shots? What a mess....



Doxxing is the making public any personal information which was intended to be kept private. If one joined a private group where the privacy was made clear and an obligation to maintain the privacy of the group required from the participants to expose that information is doxxing and therefore immoral. It may have been foolish to assume that this information or these statements would never be made public (liberals are not known for their integrity or their ethics) but that's another matter.


----------



## alexandermsmith

A.Joseph said:


> Ok, this endorsement perplexes me. I’m not looking to open up criticism toward Carl Trueman. From what I know and have heard from him, I always believe him to be very solid and sound on matters of doctrine, theology and church history. I thought he maintained his objectivity without compromise in his recent exchanges with Aimee Byrd, which is why I find his endorsement of Miller’s book a bit surprising and kinda disappointing.
> 
> 
> *Endorsements*
> _“There is a very real danger in our current cultural moment that the polarization that characterizes the political landscape might well come to exert an unfortunate influence on both the rhetoric and the content of discussions among Christians on a number of controversial topics. The temptation to respond to one extreme error by adopting its mirror image is strong but rarely, if ever, correct. *And there are few topics in the public square that are more divisive than the relationship between the sexes. It is therefore a pleasure to commend this book by Rachel Miller, which eschews the cheap extremism and bombastic rhetoric that characterize conservative Christian responses to feminism and plots not a middle way but a biblical way through the subjects of authority, submission, masculinity, and the like. She is not interested in making the Bible fit 1950s ideals of what men and women should be; rather, she wants to help the reader to think about what the Bible actually means in the present. This is a refreshingly sane read.”
> 
> —Carl Trueman*, Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Grove City College_





A.Joseph said:


> At least I’m not going crazy after reading Todd’s FB post on the matter. He said regarding AB, and I’m paraphrasing, ‘ if your views change you should say so, if your friends ask for clarity you should give it.’ I thought she was being a little too vague, like she wanted to play both sides. But I also thought maybe I was misreading the situation, but I guess I wasn’t.
> 
> I didn’t want to screenshot a screenshot. Anyone have the link for his public statement on the matter?



Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt have to take a lot of responsibility for what is happening now. They elevated Aimee Byrd by putting her on their podcast and giving her cover with their (undeserved in my opion) Reformed credentials. Even after receiving a lot of legitimate criticism they defended her and ridiculed her critics. It was only now, when the criticism had reached critical mass, that they took action (probably told to). Todd Pruitt has deleted his twitter because the same mob which he helped create turned on him. Where is Carl Trueman?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Elizabeth

CathH said:


> Mentally translate the first sentence in each numbered paragraph into italics or quote marks. That's the myth or cultural stereotype she's challenging. The rest of each paragraph argues from the Bible to rebut each myth.



Did just as you asked, and found her myths to be, well, mythical. Typical feminine logic/reasoning there. I can say that, as a woman.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

alexandermsmith said:


> What's all that got to do with the Bible? One would think someone who repeatedly criticises "cultural" norms being elevated to Biblical teaching in this issue would refrain from using a secular phrase to make his point. The Holy Spirit describes women as the weaker vessel. There is a reason for that. It is clear the Bible teaches that the woman's inferiority (to use the language of the Catechism) and subordination to man is ontological.



Wouldn’t an understanding that removes such an ontological understanding also negate any idea of sins particular to men and sins particular to women?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

alexandermsmith said:


> Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt have to take a lot of responsibility for what is happening now. They elevated Aimee Byrd by putting her on their podcast and giving her cover with their (undeserved in my opion) Reformed credentials. Even after receiving a lot of legitimate criticism they defended her and ridiculed her critics. It was only now, when the criticism had reached critical mass, that they took action (probably told to). Todd Pruitt has deleted his twitter because the same mob which he helped create turned on him. Where is Carl Trueman?


Brother Alexander, best to avoid stating motives regarding those things we don’t know for sure (for instance those two men taking action because “probably told to”, and speculation on what motivated Todd Pruitt’s Twitter deletion.) Praying for straight-forward and above-board talk from all those on the side of truth.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## BottleOfTears

alexandermsmith said:


> Doxxing is the making public any personal information which was intended to be kept private. If one joined a private group where the privacy was made clear and an obligation to maintain the privacy of the group required from the participants to expose that information is doxxing and therefore immoral. It may have been foolish to assume that this information or these statements would never be made public (liberals are not known for their integrity or their ethics) but that's another matter.


I'm not sure I understand this reasoning. Doxxing comes from areas of the internet where everyone interacts via anonymous accounts. To dox someone would be to link their anon account with personal identifying information such as their home address or facebook page. Yes, Facebook page. It makes next to zero sense to talk about doxxing in terms of a website like Facebook, where no one is anonymous and people have private information like their jobs and hometown freely avaliable.

The problem with the website was that it listed all members of the group indiscriminantly, tying them all in to the sins of some of the more active members. That is the main issue here. If anything comes close to doxxing, it's this, though finding out who is in a Facebook group isn't exactly incredibly private info either. That said, the fact and the manner in which it was presented was indeed slanderous to many innocent individuals.

However, it is nonsensical to say that just because one is in a private conversation or group means that one cannot ever reveal details of these conversations. I would argue on the contrary that if you are member of a "private" conversation in which sinful behaviour or slander was being encouraged and dissenting voices were disregarded or silenced, that you are morally obligated to reveal some part of that conversation, especially if it has potential to cause harm to others. Sharing screenshots of a pastor using their personal Facebook account to slander a sister in Christ is not doxxing. Saying "no matter what you hear in this group its a sin to tell anyone else about it" sounds far more like bullying than anything else.

And please, please stop using polemical terms like "liberal" to refer to anyone you disagree with, it's incredibly unhelpful at best.



alexandermsmith said:


> Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt have to take a lot of responsibility for what is happening now. They elevated Aimee Byrd by putting her on their podcast and giving her cover with their (undeserved in my opion) Reformed credentials. Even after receiving a lot of legitimate criticism they defended her and ridiculed her critics. It was only now, when the criticism had reached critical mass, that they took action (probably told to). Todd Pruitt has deleted his twitter because the same mob which he helped create turned on him. Where is Carl Trueman?


Are you saying Carl and Todd are not Reformed? In what way are their "credentials" undeserved? And has anyone who jumped in instantly to say things before everything has been revealed come out looking well in this scenario? I think Carl and Todd's hesistance to say anything is rather reasonable, seeing as they will be flayed alive by which ever "side" they do not take in this debate. It is not as though it is only the "liberals" who have a mob is it?



A.Joseph said:


> I suspect she’s egalitarian or something along those lines. My problem is the typical liberal trickery when one professes to be confessional then repeatedly undercuts it. It’s a tired game and I’m tired of seeing the defenders of orthodoxy getting scapegoated for it.


My problem is when people who are orthodox in most areas are accused of being complete "liberals" who have a secret plan to undermine the church. People get accused of this for things like talking about abuse or racism in the church and all sorts of things. It is a mistake to divide everything into "US vs THEM". The screenshot you posted is a good example. One could use the fact that apparently Aimee supports women reading scripture in the service as evidence that she is a secret feminist. The hypocrisy of this position lies in the fact that is never applied evenly across the board. I doubt anyone here would call any elders in a church that practices this "undercover feminists" or "liberals".


A.Joseph said:


> The concern is evident when we clearly see the position of some of Amiee’s supporters. I think these discussions can turn ugly and get off track really quick. Denominational declines and slippery slopes are often synonymous. It doesn’t excuse bad behavior and overcorrection can be just as damaging. The lesson learned is not every voice is authoritative and deserves to be treated as such. We remove that aspect, the room for frustration and slander is also diminished.
> 
> I made the point a few days ago that Jesus chose 12 MEN. Somebody else made this point below. The other side views that as a temporal accommodation for the sake of the gospel. That’s a pretty wide divide right there.....


Who is "the other side" here? This is exactly the sort of language that causes these issues in the first place. Anyone who has concerns about the views of men and women (or a miriad of other issues) espoused by someone on "our side" gets immediately exiled to "their side". It is like saying that all complementarians are secretly misogynists because some turn up on twitter. Or that they are all secretly trying to bring abuse into the church and it is all just a big slippery slope. Would you listen to anyone who said that?

I find it shocking that people think the sole reason all these critics of complementarianism are turning up is that Aimee or someone has snuck in the "feminist poison" into the church. Often what happens is that genuine sin occurs, whether it is abuse or something else, and it gets covered up or excused. Anyone who questions this gets told they are a "liberal", "marxist" or "feminist" and are not welcome. It is less that they slide slowly down a slippery slope, but more that they get pushed.

Then they hear the egalitarians actually calling this stuff out, but they are stuck between wanting to remain orthodox in theology and wanting to avoid these other errors. So it is actually a relief for many to hear people like the Denhollanders and Aimee pointing out some of these problems but wanting to stay confessional. But often all they are presented with a false dichotomy. Sometimes these "defenders of orthodoxy" create more feminists or liberals than the people they are attacking do. Geneva Commons is a thousand times better at arguing for egalitarianism that Aimee Byrd will ever be.

Another problem is assuming that only non-Christian point of view is a feminist one. But there are many out there who also hate feminism, but have their own group of problems. When we become reductionistic and think that feminism is the only error, it is very easy to ally ourselves with other groups because they are "on our side". I have seen orthodox Christians accuse other Christians of being "feminists" because of certain phrases they use, while in the same breath using phrases and "statistics" from groups like the "Pick-Up Artists" and "Red-Pillers".

I'm not saying we cannot disagree, but drawing arbritrary lines in the sand and talking about "the other side" is not the way to go. Nor is deciding that every person who makes the slightest of errors really a complete liberal who _really_ denies the faith deep down and is only in the church to destroy it.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph

BottleOfTears said:


> I'm not sure I understand this reasoning. Doxxing comes from areas of the internet where everyone interacts via anonymous accounts. To dox someone would be to link their anon account with personal identifying information such as their home address or facebook page. Yes, Facebook page. It makes next to zero sense to talk about doxxing in terms of a website like Facebook, where no one is anonymous and people have private information like their jobs and hometown freely avaliable.
> 
> The problem with the website was that it listed all members of the group indiscriminantly, tying them all in to the sins of some of the more active members. That is the main issue here. If anything comes close to doxxing, it's this, though finding out who is in a Facebook group isn't exactly incredibly private info either. That said, the fact and the manner in which it was presented was indeed slanderous to many innocent individuals.
> 
> However, it is nonsensical to say that just because one is in a private conversation or group means that one cannot ever reveal details of these conversations. I would argue on the contrary that if you are member of a "private" conversation in which sinful behaviour or slander was being encouraged and dissenting voices were disregarded or silenced, that you are morally obligated to reveal some part of that conversation, especially if it has potential to cause harm to others. Sharing screenshots of a pastor using their personal Facebook account to slander a sister in Christ is not doxxing. Saying "no matter what you hear in this group its a sin to tell anyone else about it" sounds far more like bullying than anything else.
> 
> And please, please stop using polemical terms like "liberal" to refer to anyone you disagree with, it's incredibly unhelpful at best.
> 
> 
> Are you saying Carl and Todd are not Reformed? In what way are their "credentials" undeserved? And has anyone who jumped in instantly to say things before everything has been revealed come out looking well in this scenario? I think Carl and Todd's hesistance to say anything is rather reasonable, seeing as they will be flayed alive by which ever "side" they do not take in this debate. It is not as though it is only the "liberals" who have a mob is it?
> 
> 
> My problem is when people who are orthodox in most areas are accused of being complete "liberals" who have a secret plan to undermine the church. People get accused of this for things like talking about abuse or racism in the church and all sorts of things. It is a mistake to divide everything into "US vs THEM". The screenshot you posted is a good example. One could use the fact that apparently Aimee supports women reading scripture in the service as evidence that she is a secret feminist. The hypocrisy of this position lies in the fact that is never applied evenly across the board. I doubt anyone here would call any elders in a church that practices this "undercover feminists" or "liberals".
> 
> Who is "the other side" here? This is exactly the sort of language that causes these issues in the first place. Anyone who has concerns about the views of men and women (or a miriad of other issues) espoused by someone on "our side" gets immediately exiled to "their side". It is like saying that all complementarians are secretly misogynists because some turn up on twitter. Or that they are all secretly trying to bring abuse into the church and it is all just a big slippery slope. Would you listen to anyone who said that?
> 
> I find it shocking that people think the sole reason all these critics of complementarianism are turning up is that Aimee or someone has snuck in the "feminist poison" into the church. Often what happens is that genuine sin occurs, whether it is abuse or something else, and it gets covered up or excused. Anyone who questions this gets told they are a "liberal", "marxist" or "feminist" and are not welcome. It is less that they slide slowly down a slippery slope, but more that they get pushed.
> 
> Then they hear the egalitarians actually calling this stuff out, but they are stuck between wanting to remain orthodox in theology and wanting to avoid these other errors. So it is actually a relief for many to hear people like the Denhollanders and Aimee pointing out some of these problems but wanting to stay confessional. But often all they are presented with a false dichotomy. Sometimes these "defenders of orthodoxy" create more feminists or liberals than the people they are attacking do. Geneva Commons is a thousand times better at arguing for egalitarianism that Aimee Byrd will ever be.
> 
> Another problem is assuming that only non-Christian point of view is a feminist one. But there are many out there who also hate feminism, but have their own group of problems. When we become reductionistic and think that feminism is the only error, it is very easy to ally ourselves with other groups because they are "on our side". I have seen orthodox Christians accuse other Christians of being "feminists" because of certain phrases they use, while in the same breath using phrases and "statistics" from groups like the "Pick-Up Artists" and "Red-Pillers".
> 
> I'm not saying we cannot disagree, but drawing arbritrary lines in the sand and talking about "the other side" is not the way to go. Nor is deciding that every person who makes the slightest of errors really a complete liberal who _really_ denies the faith deep down and is only in the church to destroy it.


I understand the points you are making. I would just say that my 'side' is the opc side. I dont consider myself egalitarian or complementatian due to all the things those terms represent. I reject those boxes. However, Amiee is shaky about women in leadership in the church and other related biblical teachings and all the supporters coming out of the woodwork are pro-women in church leadership. You may or may not have a problem with that, but leaving that door open can be problematic. This is why a lack of upfront clarity breeds this type of controversy, for better or for worse. I dont believe Amiee is a feminist but she is presenting herself as an authority - is it wrong to seek clarification regarding exactly were she stands? Many of her supporters are very vocal about where they stand and that is when it becomes a side, just like the wilsonites are a side. The OPC, to my knowledge, stands firm against both fronts. Give me an example of somebody in the opc writing a book promoting hard-complentarianism and Im sure the OPC will stand firm against.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

As for abuse and racism, if and where it exists it should be discussed by people in authority. It should be quantified in a specific, case-by-case and if it is found to be a denominational problem it should be dealt with and condemned. It should be called out from the pulpit, but I would be turned off by an activist sermon on the evils of abortion from the pulpit or even God's design for marriage. If these things are not understood to the point that you need a 7-part series, then maybe the whole foundation is off and you need to start with Reformed 101 and total depravity of man, Justification and life in Christ.


----------



## BottleOfTears

A.Joseph said:


> I understand the points you are making. I would just say that my 'side' is the opc side. I dont consider myself egalitarian or complementatian due to all the things those terms represent. I reject those boxes. However, Amiee is shaky about women in leadership in the church and other related biblical teachings and all the supporters coming out of the woodwork are pro-women in church leadership. You may or may not have a problem with that, but leaving that door open can be problematic. This is why a lack of upfront clarity breeds this type of controversy, for better or for worse. I dont believe Amiee is a feminist but she is presenting herself as an authority - is it wrong to seek clarification regarding exactly were she stands? Many of her supporters are very vocal about where they stand and that is when it becomes a side, just like the wilsonites are a side. The OPC, to my knowledge, stands firm against both fronts. Give me an example of somebody in the opc writing a book promoting hard-complentarianism and Im sure the OPC will stand firm against.


Aimee would say the same thing about being confessional and on the OPC side, which you took exception to when she said it. And are all the people who are supporting her "pro-women in church leadership"? That just isn't true at all. Is everyone who objects to Aimee misogynistic just because some in GC are? Collapsing everyone's views together based on their reaction to one topic is just pointless. There are almost certainly those who were in GC at one point who hold the exact same views on men and women as the elders who wrote the OPC letter against it, but it would be silly to say one "side" is a bunch of misogynistic bullies and the other a bunch of liberal feminist infiltrators.

You say you don't believe Aimee is feminist and say you seek clarification, but would you actually listen to her if she did? She has repeated time and time again that she believes only men should be ordained and yet you said this:


A.Joseph said:


> I suspect she’s egalitarian or something along those lines.


I have no issue with you saying you are on the OPC side, but why do you deny that Aimee can say that and accuse her of "liberal trickery" when she does?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Here’s the thing though: Complementarianism itself was a surrender to feminism/egalitarianism.

We have folks in the NAPARC denoms calling themselves ”Complementarian” but they deny Natural Law and say that women can be soldiers and cops but for some reason they can’t be pastors. That’s a hole big enough to drive a tank through. Especially when Paul grounds his arguments in Natural Law.


Egalitarians or people with ostensibly good motives exploit that loophole and from there it’s a game of inches aka the CRC all over again. If women can be soldiers and do anything a man does why can’t they read scripture from the pulpit during worship? It’s not *really* church leadership. If they can read scripture during worship why can’t they lead Bible studies? Yea hath God said that women shall not sit on denominational committees and exercise authority over ordained men?

I agree that Aimee might not be an egalitarian but her and RGM’s work here gives ammo to those moving the church towards Modernism and the culture. Just like you said, pro-women in church leadership folks are coming out of the woodwork to support her.

Would we be acting the same if Federal Visionists were coming out of the woodwork to support a mans work?

Antinomians?

Lets take it back further, a lot of men came out to support Truth’s Table from Todd Pruitt and others warnings in a situation similar to this. How did that go? At least one of those hosts is now a Pastrix in a liberal church and Truth’s Table is pumping out approval of CRT and BLM.

NAPARC as a whole needs to go back ad Fontes to the Divines and Calvin on this issue before we start making pronouncements.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

alexandermsmith said:


> Don't you mean the "weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7)?





alexandermsmith said:


> What's all that got to do with the Bible? One would think someone who repeatedly criticises "cultural" norms being elevated to Biblical teaching in this issue would refrain from using a secular phrase to make his point. The Holy Spirit describes women as the weaker vessel. There is a reason for that. It is clear the Bible teaches that the woman's inferiority (to use the language of the Catechism) and subordination to man is ontological.



Hilarious. Let me try...
​_That word you used, "ontological"--it isn't in the Bible. Don't you mean the "glory of man" (1 Cor.11:7)?_​
How ridiculous it is to police the terms other choose for communication.

Besides, my use of "fair" is arguably synonymous with the expression of Gen.29:17, "Rachel was *beautiful of form and appearance*."
Thus, biblical.

But furthermore, you have perverted the Catechism's meaning by the term, "inferior." When the woman is referenced, in the WLC Q&A 123-130, it is repeatedly in that parallel with the man--as parents, father and mother--who are styled "superiors." Secondly, all other implications drawn from the prooftexts either affirm mutual parental superiority, or else define the superior-inferior relation as that which is handed down from on high, "received from God," A.129; which is to say that it is authority that comes to expression "top down," and not "bottom/up" or ontological.

So far from the wife's submission being a matter of her being (or "ontology"), it is a matter of *offices*.

But there is still one more rather astounding fact about the prooftexts for WLC Q&A 123-130: there is not one reference to Eph.5:22, 24; Col.3:18; 1Pet.3:1 (or 1Tim.2:11-13 or 1Cor.14:34) in that entire stretch pertaining to superiors and inferiors. Evidently the divines (I ref'd the original WCF) not once appealed to such texts to establish relative ontological stations of men vs. women. Of course they didn't, because these passages are not predicated upon the idea, nor do they predicate such.

Reactions: Like 9 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol

Contra_Mundum said:


> Hilarious. Let me try...
> ​_That word you used, "ontological"--it isn't in the Bible. Don't you mean the "glory of man" (1 Cor.11:7)?_​
> How ridiculous it is to police the terms other choose for communication.
> 
> Besides, my use of "fair" is just synonymous with the expression of Gen.29:17, "Rachel was *beautiful of form and appearance*."
> Thus, biblical.
> 
> But furthermore, you have perverted the Catechism's meaning by the term, "inferior." When the woman is referenced, in the WLC Q&A 123-130, it is repeatedly in that parallel with the man--as parents, father and mother--who are styled "superiors." Secondly, all other implications drawn from the prooftexts either affirm mutual parental superiority, or else define the superior-inferior relation as that which is handed down from on high, "received from God," A.129; which is to say that it is authority that comes to expression "top down," and not "bottom/up" or ontological.
> 
> So far from the wife's submission being a matter of her being (or "ontology"), it is a matter of *offices*.
> 
> But there is still one more rather astounding fact about the prooftexts for WLC Q&A 123-130: there is not one reference to Eph.5:22, 24; Col.3:18; 1Pet.3:1 (or 1Tim.2:11-13 or 1Cor.14:34) in that entire stretch pertaining to superiors and inferiors. Evidently the divines (I ref'd the original WCF) not once appealed to such texts to establish relative ontological stations of men vs. women. Of course they didn't, because these passages are not predicated upon the idea, nor do they predicate such.


Pastor Bruce,

Would you say that within a marriage union, there exist a superior / inferior relationship?

I am thankful for your post but I want to make sure I follow. I can cleary see this superior / inferior in relation to Elder / Laymen, cop / civilian, and parent / child.

Are you saying this does not exist between husband / wife regarding authority?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

G said:


> Would you say that within a marriage union, there exist a superior / inferior relationship?


Sure there is, because it's in the Bible, Eph.5:23 (text referenced in WLC Q&As 60 & 66, which have to do with salvation and union with Christ).



G said:


> I can cleary see this superior / inferior in relation to Elder / Laymen, cop / civilian, and parent / child.
> Are you saying this does not exist between husband / wife?


Once again, but in the negative: no, I say no such thing; but the matter is not predicated on *being* but on _*office*_. The prooftext 1Pet.3:6 is offered in A.127, "The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in ... word," the Scriptural example being Sarah to Abraham.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Smeagol

Contra_Mundum said:


> Sure there is, because it's in the Bible, Eph.5:23 (text referenced in WLC Q&As 60 & 66, which have to do with salvation and union with Christ).
> 
> 
> Once again, but in the negative: no, I say no such thing; but the matter is not predicated on *being* but on _*office*_. The prooftexts 1Pet.3:6 is offered in A.127, "The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in ... word," and the example is Sarah to Abraham.


Thanks very helpful. So basically the superior / inferior relationship exist because of the essence of the office God has assigned to each (specifically within a marriage)?

Therefore you would say it is erroneous to say a women is an inferior to a man because of her being? In other words a women of no familial or civil relationship to me, beyond neighbor, is not my inferior? And also this helps us understand how my mother is actually my superior..... correct?


----------



## BottleOfTears

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Here’s the thing though: Complementarianism itself was a surrender to feminism/egalitarianism.
> 
> We have folks in the NAPARC denoms calling themselves ”Complementarian” but they deny Natural Law and say that women can be soldiers and cops but for some reason they can’t be pastors. That’s a hole big enough to drive a tank through. Especially when Paul grounds his arguments in Natural Law.
> 
> 
> Egalitarians or people with ostensibly good motives exploit that loophole and from there it’s a game of inches aka the CRC all over again. If women can be soldiers and do anything a man does why can’t they read scripture from the pulpit during worship? It’s not *really* church leadership. If they can read scripture during worship why can’t they lead Bible studies? Yea hath God said that women shall not sit on denominational committees and exercise authority over ordained men?
> 
> I agree that Aimee might not be an egalitarian but her and RGM’s work here gives ammo to those moving the church towards Modernism and the culture. Just like you said, pro-women in church leadership folks are coming out of the woodwork to support her.
> 
> Would we be acting the same if Federal Visionists were coming out of the woodwork to support a mans work?
> 
> Antinomians?
> 
> Lets take it back further, a lot of men came out to support Truth’s Table from Todd Pruitt and others warnings in a situation similar to this. How did that go? At least one of those hosts is now a Pastrix in a liberal church and Truth’s Table is pumping out approval of CRT and BLM.
> 
> NAPARC as a whole needs to go back ad Fontes to the Divines and Calvin on this issue before we start making pronouncements.


I think there are multiple points here that are not as black and white as you draw them out to be. Firstly, the idea of Natural Law and women not being able to hold certain jobs. I think it is pretty clear there is a massive difference between a woman police officer and a woman pastor. Or a female politician and a female elder. I'm not sure the hole is necessarily all that big. Not that there isn't an argument to made there, but I'm mostly just hearing "this is a concession to feminism so it must be wrong". If a woman in your church/denomination was a politician, would you place them under church discipline? Is a church that does not do that denying natural law? Are they moving inevitably towards denying the Deity of Christ? In my own church there are times when women read scripture from the pulpit. You might object to that, but will you say the elders in my church are on a slippery slope to liberalism?

Even in this thread there is a discussion about whether woman are "ontologically inferior" to men. I'm not sure disagreeing with that stance is a slippery slope to feminism either. One could even argue that saying that men are ontologically superior to women because of their difference in authority is a tank-sized hole which could lead to saying that a minister of the word is ontologically superior to a lay-person because of his authority, and therefore it leaves a door open to Catholicism or something.

I find nailing down the precise co-ordinates of all these slippery slopes to be a rather slippery affair in itself. It seems like they can be weaponised against anyone one wishes to discredit, but not against others. Pulpit and Pen once wrote an article saying my minister was a "papist wolf in sheeps clothing" because he repeatedly quoted Ratzinger in a book. A lot of the rhetoric I hear around these things is rather similar. You do/say one thing that sounds "feminist" or whatever and all of a sudden you are an undercover agent who at any moment could just suddenly betray orthodoxy completely. And in almost all situations there are multiple examples of others doing, allowing, or saying similar things but not receiving the same treatment.

I'm not sure why you are warning against others making pronouncements, when you are making plenty of your own about people in NAPARC. I think if you need to say that the significant portion of people in NAPARC who call themselves complementarians are actually just conceeding ground to egalitarians and are on one big slippery slope in order to say that RGM or Aimee are out of line with the confessions, you might need to make a bit more of an argument. It sounds like you are saying they are in line with NAPARC, but most of NAPARC is out of line.

That doesn't mean you are wrong of course, but it seems like a pretty serious charge to me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

BottleOfTears said:


> In my own church there are times when women read scripture from the pulpit.


I don't think you'd have to use the concept of a slippery slope to say that this is wrong, however; it's quite contrary to Scripture, and represents a downgrade in the RPW that happened at some point in your denomination's history and remains to be corrected. How long have women been permitted to do this in the FCoS?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

BottleOfTears said:


> Aimee would say the same thing about being confessional and on the OPC side, which you took exception to when she said it. And are all the people who are supporting her "pro-women in church leadership"? That just isn't true at all. Is everyone who objects to Aimee misogynistic just because some in GC are? Collapsing everyone's views together based on their reaction to one topic is just pointless. There are almost certainly those who were in GC at one point who hold the exact same views on men and women as the elders who wrote the OPC letter against it, but it would be silly to say one "side" is a bunch of misogynistic bullies and the other a bunch of liberal feminist infiltrators.
> 
> You say you don't believe Aimee is feminist and say you seek clarification, but would you actually listen to her if she did? She has repeated time and time again that she believes only men should be ordained and yet you said this:
> 
> I have no issue with you saying you are on the OPC side, but why do you deny that Aimee can say that and accuse her of "liberal trickery" when she does?


Leading mixed bible studies, readings in church, instructing men. She seems to want to branch out in these areas. So I believe she is transitioning a bit. This will be a problem in the OPC. Let’s see where she goes. Todd and Carl were concerned about where she was headed. Todd alluded to this on his FB. She shouldn’t apologize if that’s where her understanding is or if she’s finding her female voice in Scriptures (I don’t recall how exactly she phrased it). But she should try to be transparent about how she may be evolving. I don’t view her as this bad person or anything, I just think she’s heading in a different direction and she has to be honest with herself and others but there are many who are using this opportunity to bash the OPC specifically, at least on Twitter, and that’s why I take a more defensive posture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

BottleOfTears said:


> I think there are multiple points here that are not as black and white as you draw them out to be. Firstly, the idea of Natural Law and women not being able to hold certain jobs. I think it is pretty clear there is a massive difference between a woman police officer and a woman pastor. Or a female politician and a female elder. I'm not sure the hole is necessarily all that big. Not that there isn't an argument to made there, but I'm mostly just hearing "this is a concession to feminism so it must be wrong". If a woman in your church/denomination was a politician, would you place them under church discipline? Is a church that does not do that denying natural law? Are they moving inevitably towards denying the Deity of Christ? In my own church there are times when women read scripture from the pulpit. You might object to that, but will you say the elders in my church are on a slippery slope to liberalism?
> 
> Even in this thread there is a discussion about whether woman are "ontologically inferior" to men. I'm not sure disagreeing with that stance is a slippery slope to feminism either. One could even argue that saying that men are ontologically superior to women because of their difference in authority is a tank-sized hole which could lead to saying that a minister of the word is ontologically superior to a lay-person because of his authority, and therefore it leaves a door open to Catholicism or something.
> 
> I find nailing down the precise co-ordinates of all these slippery slopes to be a rather slippery affair in itself. It seems like they can be weaponised against anyone one wishes to discredit, but not against others. Pulpit and Pen once wrote an article saying my minister was a "papist wolf in sheeps clothing" because he repeatedly quoted Ratzinger in a book. A lot of the rhetoric I hear around these things is rather similar. You do/say one thing that sounds "feminist" or whatever and all of a sudden you are an undercover agent who at any moment could just suddenly betray orthodoxy completely. And in almost all situations there are multiple examples of others doing, allowing, or saying similar things but not receiving the same treatment.
> 
> I'm not sure why you are warning against others making pronouncements, when you are making plenty of your own about people in NAPARC. I think if you need to say that the significant portion of people in NAPARC who call themselves complementarians are actually just conceeding ground to egalitarians and are on one big slippery slope in order to say that RGM or Aimee are out of line with the confessions, you might need to make a bit more of an argument. It sounds like you are saying they are in line with NAPARC, but most of NAPARC is out of line.
> 
> That doesn't mean you are wrong of course, but it seems like a pretty serious charge to me.


The Christian Church has made a lot of accommodations to the culture. I think we need to take a serious look at Godly distinctions and ordinances while avoiding overcorrection. Pastors are servants. Those who are the greatest are the least, etc... but if there are Godly distinctions and great responsibility that comes with them, we are most blessed when we honor them. I think you are leaning into the grey a bit as a starting point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Unfortunately, in retrospect, Todd and Carl, if it was their choice, placed Aimee in a position that would open her up to scrutiny. The internet is toxic and brings out the indwelling sin of the saved and hypocrisies of the lost. Todd and Carl put themselves in a position that they had to protect her when they disagreed with her. And Amiee also put them in that position. Those who bashed Amiee may want to look very closely at what they said and take inventory as I do believe they really hurt her. I think Carl and Todd should seek to restore her. Carl is going to look like a bad guy here if he doesn’t reach out to her one more time with regret about the way she has been treated. I know he’s defended her but she really got hit hard with attacks about her looks, her demeanor, her intellect and her place.

I am guilty of questioning her intent because I thought she departed from established OPC practice and belief and I was surprised she didn’t think it was problem. When called out she said she’s still learning. But when you write an authoritative type of book, there is responsibility that goes with it. Unfortunately, the theological and biblical discussion took a backseat to the politics which is a shame. I’m concerned with the denomination, not politics or a culture war... which is more of a devils domain at this point. Even though God controls all of it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BottleOfTears

Jeri Tanner said:


> I don't think you'd have to use the concept of a slippery slope to say that this is wrong, however; it's quite contrary to Scripture, and represents a downgrade in the RPW that happened at some point in your denomination's history and remains to be corrected. How long have women been permitted to do this in the FCoS?


I have zero idea, I don't even think I agree with it myself. It's possible that there was never an explicit rule about this. That would be my guess. I will look it up. I only pointed it out to say that incorrect practices are not always symptomatic of a slippery slope. I have no problem with people objecting to it, but I think people are often rather inconsistent in what they call slippery slopes and where lines are drawn.



A.Joseph said:


> but there are many who are using this opportunity to tear down the OPC, at least on Twitter, and that’s why I take a more defensive posture.


The only mention I have seen of specific denominations on twitter is more along the lines of "I cant believe elders in the OPC are allowed to use this kind of language" when discussing GC. Which is completely fair in my opinion. I haven't seen anyone say "I cant believe the OPC doesnt let woman lead bible studies the misogynist scum". Some outside of NAPARC circles who have heard about this have said negative things about complementarianism and its inevitable results or something which is of course opportunistic, but most people who are familiar with the OPC sound more disappointed that this could go on in a denom they respected and are usually hopeful that it will be dealt with. 
I very much understand the desire you have to defend your own denomination though, and I think many who are upset about what went on react out love as you do. It's a very sad situation all around, and many innocent people have been hurt.



A.Joseph said:


> The Christian Church has made a lot of accommodations to the culture. I think we need to take a serious look at Godly distinctions and ordinances while avoiding overcorrection. Pastors are servants. Those who are the greatest are the least, etc... but if there are Godly distinctions and great responsibility that comes with them, we are most blessed when we honor them. I think you are leaning into the grey a bit as a starting point.


Saying pastors are to be honoured is very different from saying they are ontologically superior. If that is what you are replying to, I'm unsure here.

My main issue here though is that "culture" is taken to be this monolithic entity which is very feminist and egalitarian, which is untrue and often leads to the assumption that anything that is opposed to this is godly and biblical. It is similar to how people often go on and on about the errors of Postmodernism but say very little about Modernism, which leads to the assumption that everything was fine and dandy in philosophical thought until Derrida or someone came along and ruined everything. But actually Modernist thought is also incredibly incompatible with Christianity too, and by refusing to acknowledge the valid critiques Postmodernism makes of it (though we may disagree with their conclusions), we implicitly fall into a Modernist way of thinking. The same happens in other areas. Communism is ungodly, so free market capitalism is the God-ordained economic system. We see all the madness that the riots and BLM are causing today, and in reaction fall back into advocating what they are reacting against, maybe the Confederacy if you are a US Southerner, or Imperialism if you are British like me. Is it not true that in the past the church made many accomodations to the Modernist culture as well? Did we not also stain our hands? And I am not talking about liberal theology here.

Even today, there are those who despise Christianity, but have a rather Modernist view on things. The New Athiests are the prime example. They hate all things feminism and "SJW" and are often dragged over the coals for it. Many who are influenced by them have a very misogynistic view of women and have all sorts of strategies based on "scientific" data to get them to sleep with them. They have a whole vocabulary based around this. Some of the same language is used by some in Christian circles, in places like GC. This is always seen as isolated incidents of individuals being rude, but never as a capitulation to culture or a slippery slope.

When most Christians say "culture" they seem to only refer to one specific section, which often leads to lack of nuance, both in how we react to other parts of our culture, but also in how we analyse the philosophies behind it. It also seems to lead to a very conspiratorial way of thinking, where everyone who is not us is perfectly in-sync and is always trying to destroy us regardless of what they say. Which leads to "I'm not a feminist, so I _cannot_ be capitulating to the culture" and "this other 'christian' is critiquing me on this point, they _must_ be capitulating to the culture". I am increasingly suspicious of charges of "postmodern", "liberal", and "marxist" being levelled at other Christians. I'm also very wary of the explanations some give of what these things are as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

G said:


> Thanks very helpful. So basically the superior / inferior relationship exist because of the essence of the office God has assigned to each (specifically within a marriage)?


Fundamentally, all true authority rolls DOWN (there's a _nature_ analogy (gravity) for you; of course it's relative...) from ON HIGH. It does not _derive_ from a "law" of nature, though nature supplies no end of illustrations and analogies. God has ALL authority, and that which men possess is delegated. I already pointed out some of this in an earlier post, where creation and instinct have but a limited role in determining how _moral creatures_ find their rights and obligations. Man was expressly NOT subjected to nature, but rather was placed in _dominion _over it. Therefore, nature _cannot _norm; all it can do is guide. Otherwise, we might as well agree with those who deplore medicine, or view airplanes as "contrary to nature" (_if God meant man to fly...!)._



G said:


> Therefore you would say it is erroneous to say a women is an inferior to a man because of her being? In other words a women of no familial or civil relationship to me, beyond neighbor, is not my inferior? And also this helps us understand how my mother is actually my superior..... correct?


Absolutely. Is man the summit of creation _because _he was formed last of all? Not at all; but if he was, would not then the woman's creation _after the man_ argue for her superior position? If not the latter, then also not the former; but he is the ruler of creation by appointment, and by his being "made in the image of God," which is expressly declared true of both male and female, Gen.1:27. Ontologically, the two share a single essence.

Furthermore, she was taken from his side (as many exegetes have observed) and not from his head or his feet, witnessing the side-by-sidedness of man's dualistic forms. As Paul notes, Adam was formed first, then Eve; which order of creation is taken to be instructive _for the church, _on account of it's instruction _for marriage._ The woman was _brought to _the man, rather than the other way round. If we suppose the first marriage had been described contrariwise (he being brought to her), we would be witness to the opposite sort of _presentation_ than we are actually given, and with it a different teaching.

Sometimes 1Cor.11:3 is appealed to, as though it might support the notion of "ontological" female inferiority. But I would cast such an appeal aside, both as that interpretation is overturned by other Scripture e.g. Gal.3:28 and Eph.5:22; and better exegesis calls for admitted limiting factors apt to the context. Yes, it may be said that Christ is head of all creation (and all men indiscriminate); but Paul has in mind specifically the Church when he is acclaimed "head of every man." Nor does Christ fail to be the head of every woman of the church as well, though that fact is not stated; and directly so, not _mediated _through any lesser authority.

As in the last expression of the v, "the head of Christ is God," where the truth refers particularly to the economy of redemption and no wise to being/essence; so too are all the other expressions of headship bound in an ecclesiastical frame. The economy of marriage is incorporated into the economy of the church, families being still the essential (not excluding singles) building blocks of the church (see. Mk.10:1-16). What Paul refers to in the second clause, "the head of woman is man," should not be extrapolated from the marital order whence it has original expression, and the family's standing within the church's organic order.

The woman _in general_ is not in a position of _inherent natural dependency_ on man. The children of parental union _are _so naturally dependent; deriving all their substance from each parent's contribution. Their very existence is dependent, as is their survival; as their debt is natural and deep, so goes their subordination. Every departure from this order is noteworthy for its exceptional quality. Your mother is your superior because she is your mother (and any other woman with whom you find yourself in a legitimate comparable relationship is, for that reason, also your superior) even if you are male. Is she your queen? Then show her the honor of her rank, regardless of your manliness.

But any random woman of herself is not _by nature_ inferior to any random man. If the average woman has particular disadvantages to the average man--noting that natural dominion of the animal kingdom is typically indexed to size and strength--those disadvantages are in certain categories, and in other categories the average woman has particular advantages over the average man. Brute power does confer one kind of advantages, but it is manifest that these are not for such reason _moral _in nature or descriptive of ontological superiority. There are no moral lessons to be learned from average superiority in physical speed, dexterity, flexibility; or even in mental acuity, agility, or soundness of reason. Greater emotion or sensitivity to intuitive clues--which are sometimes regarded as more feminine--neither confer nor diminish moral authority. Nature has the savant capacity to teach (e.g. Prv.6:6), but is subservient to mankind, not its master.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Smeagol

BottleOfTears said:


> It's a very sad situation all around, and many innocent people have been hurt.






Contra_Mundum said:


> Fundamentally, all true authority rolls DOWN (there's a _nature_ analogy (gravity) for you; of course it's relative...) from ON HIGH. It does not _derive_ from a "law" of nature, though nature supplies no end of illustrations and analogies. God has ALL authority, and that which men possess is delegated. I already pointed out some of this in an earlier post, where creation and instinct have but a limited role in determining how _moral creatures_ find their rights and obligations. Man was expressly NOT subjected to nature, but rather was placed in _dominion _over it. Therefore, nature _cannot _norm; all it can do is guide. Otherwise, we might as well agree with those who deplore medicine, or view airplanes as "contrary to nature" (_if God meant man to fly...!)._
> 
> Absolutely. Is man the summit of creation _because _he was formed last of all? Not at all; but if he was, would not then the woman's creation _after the man_ argue for her superior position? If not the latter, then also not the former; but he is the ruler of creation by appointment, and by his being "made in the image of God," which is expressly declared true of both male and female, Gen.1:27. Ontologically, the two share a single essence.
> 
> Furthermore, she was taken from his side (as many exegetes have observed) and not from his head or his feet, witnessing the side-by-sidedness of man's dualistic forms. As Paul notes, Adam was formed first, then Eve; which order of creation is taken to be instructive _for the church, _on account of it's instruction _for marriage._ The woman was _brought to _the man, rather than the other way round. If we suppose the first marriage had been described contrariwise (he being brought to her), we would be witness to the opposite sort of _presentation_ than we are actually given, and with it a different teaching.
> 
> Sometimes 1Cor.11:3 is appealed to, as though it might support the notion of "ontological" female inferiority. But I would cast such an appeal aside, both as that interpretation is overturned by other Scripture e.g. Gal.3:28 and Eph.5:22; and better exegesis calls for admitted limiting factors apt to the context. Yes, it may be said that Christ is head of all creation (and all men indiscriminate); but Paul has in mind specifically the Church when he is acclaimed "head of every man." Nor does Christ fail to be the head of every woman of the church as well, though that fact is not stated; and directly so, not _mediated _through any lesser authority.
> 
> As in the last expression of the v, "the head of Christ is God," where the truth refers particularly to the economy of redemption and no wise to being/essence; so too are all the other expressions of headship bound in an ecclesiastical frame. The economy of marriage is incorporated into the economy of the church, families being still the essential (not excluding singles) building blocks of the church (see. Mk.10:1-16). What Paul refers to in the second clause, "the head of woman is man," should not be extrapolated from the marital order whence it has original expression, and the family's standing within the church's organic order.
> 
> The woman _in general_ is not in a position of _inherent natural dependency_ on man. The children of parental union _are _so naturally dependent; deriving all their substance from each parent's contribution. Their very existence is dependent, as is their survival; as their debt is natural and deep, so goes their subordination. Every departure from this order is noteworthy for its exceptional quality. Your mother is your superior because she is your mother (and any other woman with whom you find yourself in a legitimate comparable relationship is, for that reason, also your superior) even if you are male. Is she your queen? Then show her the honor of her rank, regardless of your manliness.
> 
> But any random woman of herself is not _by nature_ inferior to any random man. If the average woman has particular disadvantages to the average man--noting that natural dominion of the animal kingdom is typically indexed to size and strength--those disadvantages are in certain categories, and in other categories the average woman has particular advantages over the average man. Brute power does confer one kind of advantages, but it is manifest that these are not for such reason _moral _in nature or descriptive of ontological superiority. There are no moral lessons to be learned from average superiority in physical speed, dexterity, flexibility; or even in mental acuity, agility, or soundness of reason. Greater emotion or sensitivity to intuitive clues--which are sometimes regarded as more feminine--neither confer nor diminish moral authority. Nature has the savant capacity to teach (e.g. Prv.6:6), but is subservient to mankind, not its master.


Not asking this with the same attitude as another PB user, but in meekness, how would approach “the weaker vessel” attribution to the female?

How does your reasoning ( which was very helpful) compliment the concept of women not to have authority over men (in the context of church)? A qualified layman might be allowed to teach a mixed sabbath school of adults, but would you say a women could as well?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

G said:


> A qualified layman might be allowed to teach a mixed sabbath school, but would you say a women could as well?


How do you define Sabbath school? I ask because there are people from a number of different countries represented on the PB. Eg, in my country Sabbath school means Sunday school which means teaching the Bible to children. Thus some would argue a woman could teach children but not a congregation of adults. In other words, I am not sure how you are defining Sabbath school would be true in my country.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Stephen L Smith said:


> How do you define Sabbath school? I ask because there are people from a number of different countries represented on the PB. Eg, in my country Sabbath school means Sunday school which means teaching the Bible to children. Thus some would argue a woman could teach children but not a congregation of adults. In other words, I am not sure how you are defining Sabbath school would be true in my country.


In this case, for simplicity, adults.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

G said:


> how would approach “the weaker vessel” attribution to the female?
> 
> How does your reasoning ( which was very helpful) compliment the concept of women not to have authority over men (in the context of church)? A qualified layman might be allowed to teach a mixed sabbath school of adults, but would you say a women could as well?


Are there three Q's here? or one? or two?
What does "weaker vessel" have to do with 1Tim.2:12? Is there an argument here for me to handle? Not seeing it...
May or ought a woman lead a mixed-adult S.S. class? This may or may not be doubtful; it is a question for the session, and the answer may vary, God grant the wisdom. I'm sure 1Cor.11:5 & 10 would be minimally pertinent; which is to say: IF the circumstance did permit it (the prior question), some sign of recognition of higher authority would be doubly demanded in that circumstance.


The text in question, 1Pet.3:7, is interested in family/marriage relation, man (husband) and woman (wife). It is not a passage geared toward church government or teaching.

It should be first noted: the emphasis in v7 is on the _jointness_ of the two persons' inheritance, one male, the other female. Which in a word, as a singular Christian perspective, overthrows the whole second-class regard for women that existed as a rule in the ancient and heathen world (find whatever exceptions you will). The female is not vouchsafed an inheritance in God's kingdom on account of her father, brother, or husband. But she is heir, and he is heir, both on the same ground (personal union with Christ).

So, it is important to understanding the v, that Peter's point is maintained _notwithstanding _any such weakness as may be found in the woman vis-a-vis the man. Attribute any relative weakness to the woman (wife), and she is still not set behind the man (husband) in the way of the grace in view. That man is himself frail comes as no surprise, Ps.90; Ps.39:4; Ps.103:14. The mighty king David came to the point of weakness, where he could not keep himself warm; he needed a wife of greater energy and strength to help him, 1Ki.1.

Yet, the male sex's outstanding exhibits of physical strength--on display in the more bodily punishing and dangerous occupations, or in military service, or sports played at peak conditioning levels--show that on average, she is weaker by those measures. She may be able to endure pain with equal stoicism or for just as long a time; though some think hers is greater on average. She might have the willpower to keep going as long as the man does; but statistics will show that her muscle-failure point will come quicker than his, all things being equal. Women (and their children) are commonly the vulnerable victims of war.

But let the relative physical prowess of each sex be what it is, Peter uses the metaphor of "vessel" (cf. 1Ths.4:4; Act.9:15), standing for a body, but more significantly that body as a container and an instrument of the self. There is a natural duet in a marriage relation, a complementarity between the two instruments or vessels. And the "weaker"--for the purpose of description in this marriage relation (the singular sense for which Peter has taken up the term)--will forever be tied in marriage relationships (even a couple in which the _*wife*_ is a physically or mentally stronger specimen of humanity than her husband) to the vulnerability--cast as delicacy and fragility, _weakness _in other words--on account of that which she CARRIES inside her.

The mark of gestating women: their vulnerability, their need for help and protection, for the sake of the life within; and during her recovery; and we may add for the years she typically spends distracted by the cares of more than just her own body. If there is no husband both finding the sustenance and standing guard... is it no wonder (given the trials of single mothers in our modern age) that the widows of Israel (even!) were to be pitied and shown kindness, for only Jehovah stood guard and provided for them, Ps.146:7, 9. This, and not the lack of upper body strength, or the "hormones," or the alleged mental vacuity (how demeaning!), is what is "weak" about this vessel of the two.

Every female Olympic sprinter will blow my doors off. Female body builders will bench press more than I can lift. Those women are not bound to marry only those men who can best them in those departments. The average woman is slower and less muscular than the average man, but her character shouldn't be any weaker. She's not more easily duped, on account of her sex (in spite of misinterpretations of 1Tim.2:14). But however her strengths and weaknesses manifest, the maternal needs of her sex are what chiefly validates the label, "weaker vessel." In marriage, there are two vessels, and pregnancy marks the weaker.

I don't see how the issue of weak/weaker has direct bearing on the teaching office of the church, or on informal teaching. 2Tim.3:6 identifies certain women as "weak" (but not the sex in general). Tit.2:3 identifies certain (older or mature) women as doing a service in teaching, particularly of the younger women.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum

_“Being more easily deceived, she more easily deceives. Last in being, she was first in sin—indeed, she alone was deceived. The subtle serpent knew that she was ‘the weaker vessel’ (1 Peter 3:7). He therefore tempted her, not Adam. She yielded to the temptations of sense and the deceits of Satan; he, to conjugal love. Hence, in the order of God’s judicial sentence, the serpent, the prime offender, stands first; the woman, who was deceived, next; and the man, persuaded by his wife, last (Genesis 3:14-19)”_ (Jamieson-Fausset Commentary).


_“…Now inasmuch as the serpent did not attack Adam, he being the stronger and more knowing person, and less capable of being managed and seduced; but made his attempt on Eve, in which he succeeded; and since not Adam, but Eve, was deceived, it appears that the man is the more proper person to bear rule and authority, as in civil and domestic, so in ecclesiastic affairs; and it is right for the woman to learn, and the man to teach: and seeing that Eve was the cause of transgression to Adam, and of punishment to him and his posterity, the subjection of the woman to the man was confirmed afresh”_ (Gill’s Exposition).


Everybody wants to read old dead theologians until they say non-PC things. Look up Calvin and witches and the traditional view of the Curse of Ham as well. Either we are more enlightened and they were ignorant children of their time...or perhaps...sometimes.... we are clouded by our current fog of culture. Most non-Western Christians untainted by modern Western thinking would still agree with the quotes above.




(don't dox me, yo!)

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 3


----------



## Smeagol

Pergamum said:


> _“Being more easily deceived, she more easily deceives. Last in being, she was first in sin—indeed, she alone was deceived. The subtle serpent knew that she was ‘the weaker vessel’ (1 Peter 3:7). He therefore tempted her, not Adam. She yielded to the temptations of sense and the deceits of Satan; he, to conjugal love. Hence, in the order of God’s judicial sentence, the serpent, the prime offender, stands first; the woman, who was deceived, next; and the man, persuaded by his wife, last (Genesis 3:14-19)”_ (Jamieson-Fausset Commentary).
> 
> 
> _“…Now inasmuch as the serpent did not attack Adam, he being the stronger and more knowing person, and less capable of being managed and seduced; but made his attempt on Eve, in which he succeeded; and since not Adam, but Eve, was deceived, it appears that the man is the more proper person to bear rule and authority, as in civil and domestic, so in ecclesiastic affairs; and it is right for the woman to learn, and the man to teach: and seeing that Eve was the cause of transgression to Adam, and of punishment to him and his posterity, the subjection of the woman to the man was confirmed afresh”_ (Gill’s Exposition).
> 
> 
> Everybody wants to read old dead theologians until they say non-PC things. Look up Calvin and witches and the traditional view of the Curse of Ham as well. Either we are more enlightened and they were ignorant children of their time...or perhaps...sometimes.... we are clouded by our current fog of culture. Most non-Western Christians untainted by modern Western thinking would still agree with the quotes above.


Those have been some of my same thoughts, Matthew Henry runs along those same lines.



> 3. They must be silent, submissive, and subject, and not usurp authority. The reason given is because Adam was first formed, then Eve out of him, to denote her subordination to him and dependence upon him; and that she was made for him, to be a help-meet for him. And as she was last in the creation, which is one reason for her subjection, so she was first in the transgression, and that is another reason. Adam was not deceived, that is, not first; the serpent did not immediately set upon him, but the woman was first in the transgression (2 Co. 11:3 ), and it was part of the sentence, Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, Gen. 3:16 . But it is a word of comfort (v. 15) that those who continue in sobriety shall be saved in child-bearing, or with child-bearing—the Messiah, who was born of a woman, should break the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15 ); or the sentence which they are under for sin shall be no bar to their acceptance with Christ, if they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety. II. Here observe, 1. The extensiveness of the rules of Christianity; they reach not only to men, but to women, not only to their persons, but also to their dress, which must be modest, like their sex; and to their outward deportment and behaviour, it must be in silence, with all subjection. 2. Women are to profess godliness as well as men; for they are baptized, and thereby stand engaged to exercise themselves to godliness; and, to their honour be it spoken, many of them were eminent professors of Christianity in the days of the apostles, as the book of Acts will inform us. 3. Women being more in danger of exceeding in their apparel, it was more necessary to caution them in this respect. 4. The best ornaments for professors of godliness are good works. 5. According to Paul, women must be learners, and are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority, and the woman must not usurp authority over the man, but is to be in silence. But, notwithstanding this prohibition, good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of religion. Timothy from a child had known the holy scriptures; and who should teach him but his mother and grandmother? 2 Tim. 3:15 . Aquila and his wife Priscilla expounded unto Apollos the way of God more perfectly; but then they did it privately, for they took him unto them, Acts. 18:26 . Here are two very good reasons given for the man’s authority over the woman, and her subjection to the man, v. 13, v. 14. Adam was first formed, then Eve; she was created for the man, and not the man for the woman (1 Co. 11:9 ); then she was deceived, and brought the man into the transgression. 7. Though the difficulties and dangers of childbearing are many and great, as they are part of the punishment inflicted on the sex for Eve’s transgression, yet here is much for her support and encouragement: Notwithstanding she shall be saved, etc. Though in sorrow, yet she shall bring forth, and be a living mother of living children; with this proviso, that they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety: and women, under the circumstance of child-bearing should by faith lay hold of this promise for their support in the needful time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

G said:


> Those have been some of my same thoughts, Matthew Henry runs along those same lines.



How easily we cling to the Reformers and to Church History over things like Sabbatarianism and yet throw them all out wholesale when they talk about the nature of men and women. Selective acceptance! 

Who actually is more impacted by current culture and who more impacted by Scripture, I want to ask.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

BottleOfTears said:


> I think there are multiple points here that are not as black and white as you draw them out to be. Firstly, the idea of Natural Law and women not being able to hold certain jobs. I think it is pretty clear there is a massive difference between a woman police officer and a woman pastor. Or a female politician and a female elder. I'm not sure the hole is necessarily all that big. Not that there isn't an argument to made there, but I'm mostly just hearing "this is a concession to feminism so it must be wrong". If a woman in your church/denomination was a politician, would you place them under church discipline? Is a church that does not do that denying natural law? Are they moving inevitably towards denying the Deity of Christ? In my own church there are times when women read scripture from the pulpit. You might object to that, but will you say the elders in my church are on a slippery slope to liberalism?



The idea of Natural Law is a huge one since Paul grounds his prohibition of women as elders in it. Women should not be soldiers for reasons of natural law. Women should not be pastors for reasons of natural law. Selective enforcement of this in one area gives rise to charges of hypocrisy and inconsistency.
In regards to women being politicians, Calvin said female rulers were “a deviation from the primitive and established order of nature” and “ought to be held as a judgment on man.” In his commentary on 1 Corinthians he wrote “unquestionably, wherever even natural propriety has been maintained, women have in all ages been excluded from the public management of affairs. It is the dictate of common sense, that female government is improper and unseemly.”

Would I say that churches should discipline women in political leadership? I’d say it depends. I believe America is under judgment. So why wouldn’t we have women like Nancy Pelosi ruling us?

Do I think churches doing this are similar to deniers of the Trinity? No. Of course not. But there are degrees of error.

In regards to women reading scripture during Lord’s Day worship thats a rather big violation of the RPW. It would remain such even if an unordained man was doing it.






BottleOfTears said:


> Even in this thread there is a discussion about whether woman are "ontologically inferior" to men. I'm not sure disagreeing with that stance is a slippery slope to feminism either. One could even argue that saying that men are ontologically superior to women because of their difference in authority is a tank-sized hole which could lead to saying that a minister of the word is ontologically superior to a lay-person because of his authority, and therefore it leaves a door open to Catholicism or something.
> 
> I find nailing down the precise co-ordinates of all these slippery slopes to be a rather slippery affair in itself. It seems like they can be weaponised against anyone one wishes to discredit, but not against others. Pulpit and Pen once wrote an article saying my minister was a "papist wolf in sheeps clothing" because he repeatedly quoted Ratzinger in a book. A lot of the rhetoric I hear around these things is rather similar. You do/say one thing that sounds "feminist" or whatever and all of a sudden you are an undercover agent who at any moment could just suddenly betray orthodoxy completely. And in almost all situations there are multiple examples of others doing, allowing, or saying similar things but not receiving the same treatment.
> 
> I'm not sure why you are warning against others making pronouncements, when you are making plenty of your own about people in NAPARC. I think if you need to say that the significant portion of people in NAPARC who call themselves complementarians are actually just conceeding ground to egalitarians and are on one big slippery slope in order to say that RGM or Aimee are out of line with the confessions, you might need to make a bit more of an argument. It sounds like you are saying they are in line with NAPARC, but most of NAPARC is out of line.
> 
> That doesn't mean you are wrong of course, but it seems like a pretty serious charge to me.



Pergy nails it in this thread. I think there are those uncomfortable with what the Divines had to say on this topic. It’s not just an issue in NAPARC

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum

What text of Scripture teaches that Eve was of such character: "being more easily deceived?"
What text of Scripture teaches that Eve took on such character: "she more easily deceives?"
More easily... than previously she could? Than Adam would?
And who did she deceive? Herself? The same author admits, correctly, that Adam was not deceived...
Or is this an indictment of her sex? Ah, now I think I see...
Then, which text teaches that women are *the *deceivers of our race?

Look... we're told the serpent saw she was "weaker;" but not physically vulnerable (perhaps only modern Western Christians would be so foolish as to think Peter so superficial); but rather mentally and emotionally fragile, quite open to Satan's psychological tricks and manipulations (that men, especially non-Western, non-modern Christian men are so strong to avoid). So, of course "_the subjection of the woman to the man was confirmed afresh." _Of course it was, and no doubt given God's seal of approval too! But, can we have a text for this too, please?

When we have actual texts, we can start to interrogate them, pick them apart, and sift the wheat (of God's directions) from the chaff (of men's opinions). Those paragraphs of commentary are full of opinions, and not very much text on which to base them.



Pergamum said:


> _“Being more easily deceived, she more easily deceives. Last in being, she was first in sin—indeed, she alone was deceived. The subtle serpent knew that she was ‘the weaker vessel’ (1 Peter 3:7). He therefore tempted her, not Adam. She yielded to the temptations of sense and the deceits of Satan; he, to conjugal love. Hence, in the order of God’s judicial sentence, the serpent, the prime offender, stands first; the woman, who was deceived, next; and the man, persuaded by his wife, last (Genesis 3:14-19)”_ (Jamieson-Fausset Commentary).
> 
> 
> _“…Now inasmuch as the serpent did not attack Adam, he being the stronger and more knowing person, and less capable of being managed and seduced; but made his attempt on Eve, in which he succeeded; and since not Adam, but Eve, was deceived, it appears that the man is the more proper person to bear rule and authority, as in civil and domestic, so in ecclesiastic affairs; and it is right for the woman to learn, and the man to teach: and seeing that Eve was the cause of transgression to Adam, and of punishment to him and his posterity, the subjection of the woman to the man was confirmed afresh”_ (Gill’s Exposition).

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 4


----------



## Pergamum

Contra_Mundum said:


> What text of Scripture teaches that Eve was of such character: "being more easily deceived?"
> What text of Scripture teaches that Eve took on such character: "she more easily deceives?"
> More easily... than previously she could? Than Adam would?
> And who did she deceive? Herself? The same author admits, correctly, that Adam was not deceived...
> Or is this an indictment of her sex? Ah, now I think I see...
> Then, which text teaches that women are *the *deceivers of our race?
> 
> Look... we're told the serpent saw she was "weaker;" but not physically vulnerable (perhaps only modern Western Christians would be so foolish as to think Peter so superficial); but rather mentally and emotionally fragile, quite open to Satan's psychological tricks and manipulations (that men, especially non-Western, non-modern Christian men are so strong to avoid). So, of course "_the subjection of the woman to the man was confirmed afresh." _Of course it was, and no doubt given God's seal of approval too! But, can we have a text for this too, please?
> 
> When we have actual texts, we can start to interrogate them, pick them apart, and sift the wheat (of God's directions) from the chaff (of men's opinions). Those paragraphs of commentary are full of opinions, and not very much text on which to base them.



"Sifting the wheat from the chaff" seems to shift each decade as our culture drifts away from its traditional views. 

The voice of the Church throughout 2 millenia of history has been somewhat consistent on these points. These current views are a historical anomaly.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Pergamum said:


> "Sifting the wheat from the chaff" seems to shift each decade as our culture drifts away from its traditional views.
> 
> The voice of the Church throughout 2 millenia of history has been somewhat consistent on these points. These current views are a historical anomaly.


Right now it's just an assertion, a claim that 2K yrs of church history has given us an exegetical pattern. That's an argument from authority, minus the authority, hence lacking both the pattern and the argument.

Right now, we have on the table a 19th century commentary paragraph, paired with an 18th century paragraph of similar stripe; neither of which is doing much to strip down whatever text they may be expounding. Two authorities offering up too little in the way of textual engagement.

The Matthew Henry (18th C, but also not MH himself) paragraph submitted by another poster does a better job of exposition, and consequently there's more there to be approved; but not the whole piece without exception, in my view.

You may disagree with what I've expressed in my previous posts, but at least I've gone to the text. I'd rather have an offering laid down of a piece that purports to be better exegesis than I've given. I'm open to persuasion to improve my effort or reconsider.

By all means, let's hear our fathers' testimony and receive it with grace. But they would be the first to tell us to judge them by the text. And I'm not persuaded that _our _problem is uniquely one in which we are listening to the current culture rather than history and the text.

Rather, I'm convinced that the modern age is deeply anti-authoritarian, or devoted to radical autonomy (which will open them up eventually to despotism); and that too many, resisting them, have resorted to the passe authorities of "science" (and its putative objectivity) or "history" (claiming the weight of tradition).

Both of these are "bottom up" authorities. Nature, physics, chemistry, math, evolution... all supposed to ground what can be "sure." Or tradition: the ways that worked and should still; objective history, what "really" happened and what it may teach us: to replicate past success and avoid the pitfalls of our progenitors.

The text of Scripture is an historic document, but its form is dictated into history from eternity. The authority of Scripture is "top down," from God, who delegates authority, and uses nature, but who is not ruled by it; who instilled his moral authority in man's heart _de novo,_ not arising from ethical trial and error.

This is the authority of true miracles, which is not embarrassed to claim the sea was divided into walls of water with dry land between; or that the sun stood still; or that the dead man Lazarus was raised to life; without resorting to naturalistic, "scientific" explanations.

Men can long misread the text (as history attests they did), and recover the proper sense of it; because they are not slaves to history and blind tradition. We can acknowledge OUR OWN quite human tendency to read passages with cultural spectacles coloring our interpretation; and still manage to overcome the inclination.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 3


----------



## A.Joseph

Did anybody mention 1Timothy2 ? That seems to cover all the bases..... not that the woman is more blameworthy but pretty much the rest of the ground we’ve been covering.


----------



## A.Joseph

“ She's not more easily duped, on account of her sex (in spite of misinterpretations of 1Tim.2:14).”

_“9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

*11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.*

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”_

What is being conveyed here?



Contra_Mundum said:


> Are there three Q's here? or one? or two?
> What does "weaker vessel" have to do with 1Tim.2:12? Is there an argument here for me to handle? Not seeing it...
> May or ought a woman lead a mixed-adult S.S. class? This may or may not be doubtful; it is a question for the session, and the answer may vary, God grant the wisdom. I'm sure 1Cor.11:5 & 10 would be minimally pertinent; which is to say: IF the circumstance did permit it (the prior question), some sign of recognition of higher authority would be doubly demanded in that circumstance.
> 
> 
> The text in question, 1Pet.3:7, is interested in family/marriage relation, man (husband) and woman (wife). It is not a passage geared toward church government or teaching.
> 
> It should be first noted: the emphasis in v7 is on the _jointness_ of the two persons' inheritance, one male, the other female. Which in a word, as a singular Christian perspective, overthrows the whole second-class regard for women that existed as a rule in the ancient and heathen world (find whatever exceptions you will). The female is not vouchsafed an inheritance in God's kingdom on account of her father, brother, or husband. But she is heir, and he is heir, both on the same ground (personal union with Christ).
> 
> So, it is important to understanding the v, that Peter's point is maintained _notwithstanding _any such weakness as may be found in the woman vis-a-vis the man. Attribute any relative weakness to the woman (wife), and she is still not set behind the man (husband) in the way of the grace in view. That man is himself frail comes as no surprise, Ps.90; Ps.39:4; Ps.103:14. The mighty king David came to the point of weakness, where he could not keep himself warm; he needed a wife of greater energy and strength to help him, 1Ki.1.
> 
> Yet, the male sex's outstanding exhibits of physical strength--on display in the more bodily punishing and dangerous occupations, or in military service, or sports played at peak conditioning levels--show that on average, she is weaker by those measures. She may be able to endure pain with equal stoicism or for just as long a time; though some think hers is greater on average. She might have the willpower to keep going as long as the man does; but statistics will show that her muscle-failure point will come quicker than his, all things being equal. Women (and their children) are commonly the vulnerable victims of war.
> 
> But let the relative physical prowess of each sex be what it is, Peter uses the metaphor of "vessel" (cf. 1Ths.4:4; Act.9:15), standing for a body, but more significantly that body as a container and an instrument of the self. There is a natural duet in a marriage relation, a complementarity between the two instruments or vessels. And the "weaker"--for the purpose of description in this marriage relation (the singular sense for which Peter has taken up the term)--will forever be tied in marriage relationships (even a couple in which the _*wife*_ is a physically or mentally stronger specimen of humanity than her husband) to the vulnerability--cast as delicacy and fragility, _weakness _in other words--on account of that which she CARRIES inside her.
> 
> The mark of gestating women: their vulnerability, their need for help and protection, for the sake of the life within; and during her recovery; and we may add for the years she typically spends distracted by the cares of more than just her own body. If there is no husband both finding the sustenance and standing guard... is it no wonder (given the trials of single mothers in our modern age) that the widows of Israel (even!) were to be pitied and shown kindness, for only Jehovah stood guard and provided for them, Ps.146:7, 9. This, and not the lack of upper body strength, or the "hormones," or the alleged mental vacuity (how demeaning!), is what is "weak" about this vessel of the two.
> 
> Every female Olympic sprinter will blow my doors off. Female body builders will bench press more than I can lift. Those women are not bound to marry only those men who can best them in those departments. The average woman is slower and less muscular than the average man, but her character shouldn't be any weaker. She's not more easily duped, on account of her sex (in spite of misinterpretations of 1Tim.2:14). But however her strengths and weaknesses manifest, the maternal needs of her sex are what chiefly validates the label, "weaker vessel." In marriage, there are two vessels, and pregnancy marks the weaker.
> 
> I don't see how the issue of weak/weaker has direct bearing on the teaching office of the church, or on informal teaching. 2Tim.3:6 identifies certain women as "weak" (but not the sex in general). Tit.2:3 identifies certain (older or mature) women as doing a service in teaching, particularly of the younger women.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A.Joseph said:


> Did anybody mention 1Timothy2 ? That seems to cover all the bases..... not that the woman is more blameworthy but pretty much the rest of the ground we’ve been covering.


I mentioned misrepresentations of 1Tim.2:14. Two (then three) commentators were set forth, on that passage, of which the first two (but not the third) affirmed that the woman Eve was more susceptible to the wiles of the devil.

I don't think Scripture attests to that. That's textbook eisegesis.


----------



## A.Joseph

Contra_Mundum said:


> I mentioned misrepresentations of 1Tim.2:14. Two (then three) commentators were set forth, on that passage, of which the first two (but not the third) affirmed that the woman was more susceptible to the wiles of the devil.
> 
> I don't think Scripture attests to that.


But that does seem to be implied there, no? It’s connected to how women should not teach. It seems to imply that she is under the authority of the man and left exposed is more susceptible, no?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A.Joseph said:


> But that does seem to be implied there, no? It’s connected to how women should not teach. It seems to imply that she is under the authority of the man and left exposed is more susceptible, no?


No, it doesn't. That's eisegesis, reading something into a text that's not there. A true implication (something not spelled out) is a proper inference, needing support from other Scripture; or an actual deduction, a good-and-necessary consequence.

What do we have in vv11-15 as you quote it above.

v11, a statement about proper decorum for a woman in the church's stated worship.
v12, a further statement, reference what is not proper for a woman in the church's stated worship.
v13, a (first) rationale for the positive and negative descriptions of the above proprieties, derived from the order of creation.
v14, a (second) rationale for the positive and negative descriptions of the above proprieties, derived from the order of the sinning in the garden.
This fact brings back to mind Eve's shame, but it is stated as that which affected "the woman;" notice how it impacts all women, as seen in the next v.
(v14 echoes precisely how God addressed the two in judgment, see Gen.3:9, 17, "Adam," and 3:13, 15, "the woman")​v15, a reminder of the grace (Gen.3:15) that accompanied the curse (on A&E affecting posterity), a blessing specifically tied to Eve and her daughters to follow.​
Notice, there is nothing there that makes any claim whatsoever about women's nature in general. Eve is said to have been deceived, but not _why_ she was. There's no tying her inadequate "nature," or women's in general, to the office of teaching. As if there had to be some kind of defect there to _explain_ or _justify _God's refusal, beyond the positive reason in the order of creation, and the negative consequence that echoes down through the generations impacting all Eve's daughters.

Why must it be assumed there is a temperamental defect, or something else? I think I know why. Because people are uncomfortable with a reason so simple, and an imputation that stark; and they want something "natural" that softens God's decree.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Andrew35

Contra_Mundum said:


> Men can long misread the text (as history attests they did), and recover the proper sense of it; because they are not slaves to history and blind tradition. We can acknowledge OUR OWN quite human tendency to read passages with cultural spectacles coloring our interpretation; and still manage to overcome the inclination.



Fully agree with this. And would extend it a little, back to the topic at hand.

What troubles me most about Byrd's thought, and not just her, of course (I have no idea how widespread this is), is her appearing to partly embrace the notion that certain communities have access to certain knowledge by virtue of their experiences, gender, etc. that is closed off to others. Note, this is _not _to say that we can't learn a great deal from others; in fact, that's the very opposite of what I am saying (and ironically, if you take this to its logical conclusion, that is exactly what they are saying!). It's more the notion that certain minority groups, female, black, LGBT+, etc. have knowledge of the Scriptures, etc. that_ must be deferred to_. Typically, this seems to only flow one way, since the majority's knowledge is claimed to be perfectly assimilated by the minority, which seems illogical, but there you have it. 

So, for example, I regularly see things now about what a woman's perspective on the Bible, an Asian perspective on the Bible, an LGBT+ reading of the Bible... And it's always emphasized that this is a special reading and perspective that you just wouldn't get as a white, Western man. To which I want to reply: _OK, if that's a better reading of the text, let's compare and then incorporate it, switching it out with the inferior reading we've been holding._ But never seems to be the point!

I'm sure Byrd, as a conservative, and others would disagree with this conclusion, but it seems logical to me that if a perspective (or "woman's voice") is only discoverable by women, then it must ultimately be accessible _to _only women. If we must have a woman's voice, a black voice, an Asian voice, to complete our reading of Scripture, then our understanding must be limited by and to our identity, and we cannot fully assimilate the perspective they bring to the table. Again, deference is the only way forward here.

I feel like in this POV, each community's perspective is a cage that prevents it from reaching toward an objective understanding (of reality, the text, etc.) at all. Because in this model, knowledge is not something _discovered _(which had its weaknesses as a model, I admit), but *purely* (and this is key) constructed. While appearing affirming, it's actually the very postmodern understanding of reality that we've been desperately trying to avoid, in conservative garb.

I'm sorry if this is confusing, as I'm trying to work through all my thoughts on this thoroughly for the first time. But I just wanted to see if anyone else was considering the matter in the same way or if I'm out on my own here. 

Btw, to say I don't condone all the nastiness against these women should be so obvious, I shouldn't have to say it. But I will anyway, because internet. Besides, pragmatically speaking, all this has done is to make it so much harder to make a legitimate case against their work and to interact legitimately with their thought--which I consider a sign of respect, not an insult.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

So there is no predisposition implied there? Ok, I’m fine with that rendering. Because God says so is good enough for me. I thought there was a natural (design-oriented) consequence related to not following Gods ordinance (which is why the devil used that back door of sorts), not merely a supernatural decree. And I don’t mean to appear to be picking on women, if there is something in scripture about men prone to shortcomings in a certain area due to some design incompatibility I would be willing to accept that possibility. But I may be going off the rails a bit with that sort of thinking. Gods thoughts are much higher than mine, that’s for sure.

But it’s the ordained order that is the emphasis, I definitely see that, thank you!


Contra_Mundum said:


> No, it doesn't. That's eisegesis, reading something into a text that's not there. A true implication (something not spelled out) is a proper inference, needing support from other Scripture; or an actual deduction, a good-and-necessary consequence.
> 
> What do we have in vv11-15 as you quote it above.
> 
> v11, a statement about proper decorum for a woman in the church's stated worship.​v12, a further statement, reference what is not proper for a woman in the church's stated worship.​v13, a (first) rationale for the positive and negative descriptions of the above proprieties, derived from the order of creation.​v14, a (second) rationale for the positive and negative descriptions of the above proprieties, derived from the order of the sinning in the garden.​This fact brings back to mind Eve's shame, but it is stated as that which affected "the woman;" notice how it impacts all women, as seen in the next v.​(v14 echoes precisely how God addressed the two in judgment, see Gen.3:9, 17, "Adam," and 3:13, 15, "the woman")​
> v15, a reminder of the grace (Gen.3:15) that accompanied the curse (on A&E affecting posterity), a blessing specifically tied to Eve and her daughters to follow.​
> Notice, there is nothing there that makes any claim whatsoever about women's nature in general. Eve is said to have been deceived, but not _why_ she was. There's no tying her inadequate "nature," or women's in general, to the office of teaching. As if there had to be some kind of defect there to _explain_ or _justify _God's refusal, beyond the positive reason in the order of creation, and the negative consequence that echoes down through the generations impacting all Eve's daughters.
> 
> Why must it be assumed there is a temperamental defect, or something else? I think I know why. Because people are uncomfortable with a reason so simple, and an imputation that stark; and they want something "natural" that softens God's decree.


----------



## A.Joseph

One more thing, what is the link exactly between the order of creation in 13 and the order of sinning in 14? I’m missing it, if there is a direct one.


Contra_Mundum said:


> No, it doesn't. That's eisegesis, reading something into a text that's not there. A true implication (something not spelled out) is a proper inference, needing support from other Scripture; or an actual deduction, a good-and-necessary consequence.
> 
> What do we have in vv11-15 as you quote it above.
> 
> v11, a statement about proper decorum for a woman in the church's stated worship.​v12, a further statement, reference what is not proper for a woman in the church's stated worship.​v13, a (first) rationale for the positive and negative descriptions of the above proprieties, derived from the order of creation.​v14, a (second) rationale for the positive and negative descriptions of the above proprieties, derived from the order of the sinning in the garden.​This fact brings back to mind Eve's shame, but it is stated as that which affected "the woman;" notice how it impacts all women, as seen in the next v.​(v14 echoes precisely how God addressed the two in judgment, see Gen.3:9, 17, "Adam," and 3:13, 15, "the woman")​
> v15, a reminder of the grace (Gen.3:15) that accompanied the curse (on A&E affecting posterity), a blessing specifically tied to Eve and her daughters to follow.​
> Notice, there is nothing there that makes any claim whatsoever about women's nature in general. Eve is said to have been deceived, but not _why_ she was. There's no tying her inadequate "nature," or women's in general, to the office of teaching. As if there had to be some kind of defect there to _explain_ or _justify _God's refusal, beyond the positive reason in the order of creation, and the negative consequence that echoes down through the generations impacting all Eve's daughters.
> 
> Why must it be assumed there is a temperamental defect, or something else? I think I know why. Because people are uncomfortable with a reason so simple, and an imputation that stark; and they want something "natural" that softens God's decree.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A.Joseph said:


> So there is no predisposition implied there?


What's the argument? How does anyone get from what's in the text, to a "predisposition" belonging to a party mentioned in the text? It seems apparent to me that the _predisposition_ is located in the mind of the interpreter.


A.Joseph said:


> One more thing, what is the link exactly between the order of creation in 13 and the order of sinning in 14? I’m missing it, if there is a direct one.


The transition from Gen.2 to Gen.3? Two historic moments, covering about 25-30 verses consecutive. Paul simply gives the reader two rationales, born out of the beginning of the world. It would be possible to simply leave it there, as individual if proximate testimonies. But perhaps we can do more.

The first is the order of creation. Adam was appointed to minister. Eve, who came after him, was not; but, as suited her vocation, was ministered unto. It suits that original distinction, which was exhibited in the sex-difference, that Adam's role and then Christ's role be filled by persons bearing the same original distinction. Psychologically as well as physiologically, not only do we know next to nothing of our first parent's visual presentations, their personalities, or their proclivities, given the mixing of their profiles in all their offspring, we have no clue whether a random male or female is phenotypically more similar to the prototype father or prototype mother. We are shut up to the most basic, and obvious distinction, the irreducible binary of human biological sex. Moreover, it is not an order with which evolutionary theory (bottom up) agrees. How could there be a male, prior to its own gestational body?

The second is the order of their sins. To Eve's shame, she was deceived. Should she have refused the exchange of one word with the serpent? She offered him a correction of his alleged religious premise. Did she have the truth accurately from Adam, or was the mischaracterization her own invention? Who is responsible for the original verbal corruption of God's decree, as it was relayed to the tempter? We know this inaccuracy was a costly failure of being a minister of the divine word. When she was put on the defensive, she did not then call her husband.

She put herself in a position to (attempt to) _weigh _the relative reliability of the two contradictory words which she now possessed, one from God, through Adam, and restated *precisely, with confrontational force* by the serpent; and the serpent's alternative, with its barbed lure. She was already dangerously compromised; because God's word is not subject to review or evaluation. He, and it, ought to be obeyed immediately _because he is God and the creature owes it to him._ The creature is in no position to judge the word of God. Eve had already softened the word, or she had received it softened, which softening is a judgmental act. Now, she gave the weight of her approval ("seeing that the tree was good...," Gen.3:6) to the denial of God's word. The lie had done its work, and the falsehood was taken for truth.

Eve completed her sinful act by ministering the forbidden fruit to her husband (having taken, and eaten, she gave...). This inverted and perverted the ministerial order of creation from start to finish. Prophet (word), king (judgment), priest (service). The problem is not that Eve didn't have the "correct" vessel; the problem is not that she had an "inadequate" mind for the work. Unprepared, she was made the point of attack, and the man assigned to tend and keep her (as much as the garden) did not fulfill his task.

Eve's sins were an altogether _empirical _failure, she experimented with herself. Adam's sin was more of the _rational _variety, she was his guinea pig. Whether the original verbal deviation was his or hers, he did not correct his wife's errant representation of the divine decree (close enough, he reasons). He left her to judge what she was in no position to judge; and he regarded her (erroneously) to be successful in escaping death by (forbidden) fruit (she didn't surely die, so it's safe for me to eat, he reasons). He accepted her new role as minister/servant on his behalf (she's bringing me closer to god(like), he reasons). Adam abdicates his responsibility entirely, and in the judgment he blameshifts on Eve, and on God.

Adam is required to resume his original ministerial assignment, but under a new promissory covenant. The patriarch must fill the role of mediator for his family. Eve must relinquish the usurped ministry she assumed and overturned. That she was deceived is only a slight mitigating factor for her guilt, her penalty is tinged with mercy; her responsibility, however, is not diminished. Adam enjoys no mitigating factor, and is penalized without a word of mercy for his guilt. When interpreters make Eve's experience of being deceived an effect of her innately "weak" constitution, it diminishes her responsibility (of course).

I don't think her responsibility is diminished. And I think her daughters have had to help her bear that responsibility. I think they do this abundantly when they reverently and humbly accept what Paul says in 1Tim.2:11-15.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## CathH

Andrew35 said:


> I'm sure Byrd, as a conservative, and others would disagree with this conclusion, but it seems logical to me that if a perspective (or "woman's voice") is only discoverable by women, then it must ultimately be accessible _to _only women. If we must have a woman's voice, a black voice, an Asian voice, to complete our reading of Scripture, then our understanding must be limited by and to our identity, and we cannot fully assimilate the perspective they bring to the table. Again, deference is the only way forward here.
> 
> I feel like in this POV, each community's perspective is a cage that prevents it from reaching toward an objective understanding (of reality, the text, etc.) at all. Because in this model, knowledge is not something _discovered _(which had its weaknesses as a model, I admit), but *purely* (and this is key) constructed. While appearing affirming, it's actually the very postmodern understanding of reality that we've been desperately trying to avoid, in conservative garb.



Byrd is explicit in _Recovering_ that there is not one Bible for men and another Bible for women. She isn't saying that there are parts of the Bible only discoverable or accessible to women. She is objecting to the view that the Bible is a man's book which needs to be rewritten or specially explained in order for women to be able to relate to it or learn from it. Feminists are wrong to say that the Bible is a patriarchal text. But also Complementarians are wrong to say that the Bible is a patriarchal text - a text for men, by men, with women as an irrelevant afterthought needing to accommodate themselves to the men's text. 

There are women's voices and women's perspectives in the Bible. They are not there just for women, they are there for men too. Women and men have to learn from the weeping and lamentations of a man (eg Jeremiah) and men and women sometimes have to learn from the bravery of a woman (eg Abigail). It's all there for all of us, so men are doing everyone (themselves included) a disservice to the extent that they ignore or dismiss the parts that perhaps connect more directly to a woman's experience (just as women would, if women decided that because the Book of Job is all about a man there's nothing there for women).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Andrew35

CathH said:


> Byrd is explicit in _Recovering_ that there is not one Bible for men and another Bible for women. She isn't saying that there are parts of the Bible only discoverable or accessible to women. She is objecting to the view that the Bible is a man's book which needs to be rewritten or specially explained in order for women to be able to relate to it or learn from it. Feminists are wrong to say that the Bible is a patriarchal text. But also Complementarians are wrong to say that the Bible is a patriarchal text - a text for men, by men, with women as an irrelevant afterthought needing to accommodate themselves to the men's text.
> 
> There are women's voices and women's perspectives in the Bible. They are not there just for women, they are there for men too. Women and men have to learn from the weeping and lamentations of a man (eg Jeremiah) and men and women sometimes have to learn from the bravery of a woman (eg Abigail). It's all there for all of us, so men are doing everyone (themselves included) a disservice to the extent that they ignore or dismiss the parts that perhaps connect more directly to a woman's experience (just as women would, if women decided that because the Book of Job is all about a man there's nothing there for women).


Right... but I'm disagreeing that there _is_ such a thing as a distinct men's voice or women's voice.


----------



## CathH

Andrew35 said:


> Right... but I'm disagreeing that there _is_ such a thing as a distinct men's voice or women's voice.


Do you mean in general, or in Scripture?


----------



## Andrew35

CathH said:


> Do you mean in general, or in Scripture?


Both/and. 

But I would also add, I don't think Byrd is being fully consistent with the philosophical position she's staked out on this either. That's what I meant earlier when I implied her conclusions are conservative, but her foundation is not.


----------



## CathH

CathH said:


> Do you mean in general, or in Scripture?





Andrew35 said:


> Both/and.
> 
> But I would also add, I don't think Byrd is being fully consistent with the philosophical position she's staked out on this either. That's what I meant earlier when I implied her conclusions are conservative, but her foundation is not.



Can you explain this a bit more - you don't think there is such a thing as a distinct men's voice and women's voice?


----------



## alexandermsmith

@BottleOfTears Doxxing is making public, with malicious intent, information that was meant to be private. That is what happened here. Why was the information published on a public website and why did Byrd draw attention to it? The only reason is to harass and intimidate those mentioned. If the intent was to report wrongdoing then the information should have been taken directly to the relevant bodies. It should not have been plastered over the Internet. Isn't that what you defenders of Byrd keep saying about those who criticise her? Of course the difference is that those who criticise her teachings do so in public because her teachings have been disseminated to the church at large. However if there have been specific alleged offences and people think disciplinary procedures should be initiated then there is no need to involve the world. Unless, of course, there is more to the agenda.

As to Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt I believe them to be moderately Reformed at best. They do not adhere to the RPW. They celebrate Christmas and think Halloween is fine. They're libertarian on culture. These are not in line with the historic Reformed position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

@Contra_Mundum

It was clear from what I said that I was using the _terms_ of the Catechism. I never once claimed that in that question the Catechism explicitly taught what I was arguing. I don't need to because Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, does. He teaches a clear hierarchy of God, man, woman:

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." 1 Corinthians 11:7-9

I was not referring to husband and wife. That is a separate point. My point is about the hierarchy clearly taught by Paul as relates to men and women. This is not about salvation but station. Yes, in the home and the church but also in society. You limit all such verses relating to the natural relations between men and women to marriage with no justification. You reference Gal. 3:28 but that verse is specifically about salvation. And you reference Eph. 5:22 which addresses the manner of a wife's submission but says nothing about the reason for her submission (if it it does it suggests the husband is the representative of God in the home, which would only reinforce the man's superiority in the hierarchy). 

@BottleOfTears asks about what should be done, under such a view, with female politicians. That is more complicated because a) the Bible does not address that and similar issues (female cop, for example) explicitly the way it does relations in the home and the church and b) our churches have been so conditioned by modernity that such a thing is unthinkable today.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Wouldn’t an understanding that removes such an ontological understanding also negate any idea of sins particular to men and sins particular to women?



If I'm following you correctly you are arguing that we _should _have an understanding of human nature that allows for sins particular to men and women? If so I would agree. The obvious cases would be men being derelict in their responsibilities and duties as men and women usurping authority which does not belong to them. I think this understanding relates to office and station. Beyond that men and women are capable of committing the same sins, though there are certainly sins to which men are more prone on the one hand and women more prone on the other. 

Is that what you were meaning?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35

CathH said:


> Can you explain this a bit more - you don't think there is such a thing as a distinct men's voice and women's voice?


Maybe I could put it this way: I don't find it a concept particularly more useful than a "women's face."

To be sure, women have faces. And they tend to have characteristics that make them distinguishable from men's faces (thankfully). Whether that warrants the construction of a conceptual "women's face," and deep deliberation on what the "women's face" brings to the table seems a bit much.

Do we talk of a "women's strokes" in painting, or a "women's calculating" in math?

Or going further, is there an Asian voice, or a Black voice? How about a Southern voice? _They_ have distinct experiences as well.

I'm guess mostly I'm just suspicious of a concept that I'm not quite sure what it means; and dipping for clarification comes up empty, except for vague references to diverse experience and domesticities. 

It might be there's not much there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

BottleOfTears said:


> Aimee would say the same thing about being confessional and on the OPC side, which you took exception to when she said it. And are all the people who are supporting her "pro-women in church leadership"? That just isn't true at all. Is everyone who objects to Aimee misogynistic just because some in GC are? Collapsing everyone's views together based on their reaction to one topic is just pointless. There are almost certainly those who were in GC at one point who hold the exact same views on men and women as the elders who wrote the OPC letter against it, but it would be silly to say one "side" is a bunch of misogynistic bullies and the other a bunch of liberal feminist infiltrators.
> 
> You say you don't believe Aimee is feminist and say you seek clarification, but would you actually listen to her if she did? She has repeated time and time again that she believes only men should be ordained and yet you said this:
> 
> I have no issue with you saying you are on the OPC side, but why do you deny that Aimee can say that and accuse her of "liberal trickery" when she does?



People are questioning her because of her output, those she is associating with, those she favourably references in her books to substantiate her arguments. Are you seriously suggesting that merely claiming to be in line with one's denominational standards is sufficient evidence against all accusations? I find this astonishing. Church and denominational history give us every reason against such a naive view. Every downgrade which has ever happened within a church was instigated by those "in good standing" and who claimed to adhere to the church's standards.

It must also be borne in mind that Byrd does not hold office: she is a layman. In the OPC what is required for someone to become a member? Do they formally and solemnly promise to uphold the standards of the opc, the way an officer does? I don't know. In my denomination only those ordained to an office are required to explicitly subscribe to specific documents. If members in the opc are not required to do so then she has not made such promises. That is important.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith

Andrew35 said:


> Right... but I'm disagreeing that there _is_ such a thing as a distinct men's voice or women's voice.



Personally I don't see a problem with talking about a man's voice and a woman's voice. My question would be: granting that there is such a thing as a woman's voice, why is it necessary that we hear it? In Scripture we certainly hear from individual women (rarely but we do) and Scripture holds up many examples of godly women. But none of the books are written by women. Any female voice we hear is thus mediated by a male writer. None of the Apostles were women. I'm not talking about the fellowship of believers: obviously there is much to be gained from speaking with godly Christians of either sex. But Byrd's and others' thesis seems to be that there is a necessity to hear the woman's voice in the practice of the church and in theology. That these "female interruptions" (which of course are no such thing but anyway) are in themselves good and valuable. Why?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

alexandermsmith said:


> If I'm following you correctly you are arguing that we _should _have an understanding of human nature that allows for sins particular to men and women? If so I would agree. The obvious cases would be men being derelict in their responsibilities and duties as men and women usurping authority which does not belong to them. I think this understanding relates to office and station. Beyond that men and women are capable of committing the same sins, though there are certainly sins to which men are more prone on the one hand and women more prone on the other.
> 
> Is that what you were meaning?



Exactly my meaning brother.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BottleOfTears

alexandermsmith said:


> People are questioning her because of her output, those she is associating with, those she favourably references in her books to substantiate her arguments. Are you seriously suggesting that merely claiming to be in line with one's denominational standards is sufficient evidence against all accusations? I find this astonishing. Church and denominational history give us every reason against such a naive view. Every downgrade which has ever happened within a church was instigated by those "in good standing" and who claimed to adhere to the church's standards.
> 
> It must also be borne in mind that Byrd does not hold office: she is a layman. In the OPC what is required for someone to become a member? Do they formally and solemnly promise to uphold the standards of the opc, the way an officer does? I don't know. In my denomination only those ordained to an office are required to explicitly subscribe to specific documents. If members in the opc are not required to do so then she has not made such promises. That is important.


As I said, I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with a whole denominations take on things. I was specifically replying to someone who said that they were in line with their denomination, but didn't allow Mrs Byrd to say that and called her an egalitarian. That seemed rather unfair to me. Then someone else pointed out that many in NAPARC were out of line on this subject. I never once gave the "naive view" that this was irrelevant. I only asked the person in question to actually provide an argument along with such a serious charge.



EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Pergy nails it in this thread. I think there are those uncomfortable with what the Divines had to say on this topic.





Pergamum said:


> traditional view of the Curse of Ham as well


What is this traditional view exactly? Are you talking about the one used to justify the view that black people are inferior to white people? That isn't even the "traditional" position. I find it very interesting that this interpretation became increasingly common around the time when the culture wanted to justify slavery. It sounds a lot like that was a capitulation to culture, doesn't it? This is exactly what I was talking about. Anyone even questioning doubtful claims about "natural law" gets labelled a feminist, but all of sudden slavery is okay? What?

I'm really struggling to see how people using the Bible to justify slavery and explotation of fellow image-bearers shouldn't make us uncomfortable.


EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> The idea of Natural Law is a huge one since Paul grounds his prohibition of women as elders in it. Women should not be soldiers for reasons of natural law. Women should not be pastors for reasons of natural law. Selective enforcement of this in one area gives rise to charges of hypocrisy and inconsistency.


Okay but can you actually provide me with an argument? All I'm hearing is "because Natural Law" and "people are denying Natural Law", what does that even mean? Does that require us to say women are ontologically inferior to men?

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

BottleOfTears said:


> As I said, I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with a whole denominations take on things. I was specifically replying to someone who said that they were in line with their denomination, but didn't allow Mrs Byrd to say that and called her an egalitarian. That seemed rather unfair to me. Then someone else pointed out that many in NAPARC were out of line on this subject. I never once gave the "naive view" that this was irrelevant. I only asked the person in question to actually provide an argument along with such a serious charge.



Apologies then I misunderstood you. I would say, however, that those whom I have seen question her fidelity have given reasons why they do so. And I'm sure those doing so would not object to being asked why they believe they are in line with said standards as well as explaining why they believe she is not. It's not so much a matter of "not allowing" her to say this but of demonstrating why they believe she is not (in accord).

Byrd and Miller have used the fact they are members in good standing as evidence in itself that what they are saying is orthodox and have also used it as a weapon to silence those who are criticising them. That should not be allowed to stand. If people raise objections with evidence then they should answer those objections and should not use their ecclesiastical standing as a means of shutting down the conversation.


----------



## Afterthought

If there is no basis in nature for the roles of authority in the home or the church but instead such positions are arbitrarily assigned by a purely positive command, then it is unnatural to exclude women from positions of authority in those settings. This is not to say that a son must rule his mother (should the father die) because he is male or that all men must be qualified for church office or to be husbands: all the ways in which one stands in relation to inferiors and superiors must be taken into account when determining authority. However, it is to say that there is something naturally fitting that--having taken into consideration all other factors and supposing all other factors being equal--a man be in positions of authority in those areas and woman subordinate to that authority.

Positive commands are often built upon nature: Presbyterian government is of Divine Right and also built upon nature. A whole day set aside for worship each week is both by positive command and built upon natural law that some time must be devoted to the public worship of God. All our duties with superiors and inferiors are grounded in nature too: the older are supposed to be more wise, parents have given us life and we owe them, civil magistrates have great responsibilities for our welfare and are (theoretically) chosen to be wise, the gifted (including the stronger) or more knowledgeable have things that the less gifted or more ignorant lack, God is the Supreme Being, Creator, Governor, and Sustainer of the world to whom we owe everything.

It is true though that texts need to be interpreted in their proper context. The passage about the "weaker vessel" has to do with duties in a marriage relationship. Not all men should treat all women with the same honor towards the "weaker vessel" that a husband is to show his wife: a man has a duty to treat his wife with special honor that he does not have towards all women by the mere fact that they are women. However, it is still possible for these texts to say or presuppose something about the nature of men and women that can be carried into other contexts or allow us to see why positions in the home and church are fitting for men to have and other positions fitting for women. If one looks at older commentators, they will give reasons in nature for the command to give honor as unto the weaker vessel or for women to submit themselves to their husbands. Sometimes, they go to speculative extremes, but they still find the positive commands to be rooted in nature.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Are men, in general, designed to reflect and represent an image of God more conducive to the tasks of household head, leadership in the church, etc? Could we say that due to the order of creation those attributes are implied as the woman was made from and for the man. Im not trying to establish a model of superiority that scripture does not support nor do I believe man is superior(unique,distinct) in a carnal sense. 

Are you saying that men are chosen for these tasks solely by decree and not by design? May the opposite argument still be made, not in place of, but as a secondary argument? Even if scriptures are more implicit on this point.

Also, what about the female makes her the weaker vessel in the marriage union? Is this simply because the Bible explicitly says this or is there a tangible aspect as well. We are living evidence of Creation by design obviously.

Im asking these questions as a defense against a type of egalitarian view which I think Amiee was slightly flirting with. I think somebody like Ms.Byrd and Ms. Miller are sound on the explicit but drift if given a little wiggle room. How much wiggle room is acceptable?

When I mentioned my concerns to her, she was diplomatic. ...

“I do not depart from established OPC practice. If you read the OPC statement on women in the church, there is freedom for lay women to function in general office as teachers in mixed groups. I do not answer the question of women reading Scriptures in church and do say that it is the practice of my denomination to only have elders read. I have honored that, but my book is not only written for OPC. I bring it up as something to think about, not taking a position there.”

What does she refer to here specifically?
“there is freedom for lay women to function in general office as teachers in mixed groups.”





Contra_Mundum said:


> What's the argument? How does anyone get from what's in the text, to a "predisposition" belonging to a party mentioned in the text? It seems apparent to me that the _predisposition_ is located in the mind of the interpreter.
> The transition from Gen.2 to Gen.3? Two historic moments, covering about 25-30 verses consecutive. Paul simply gives the reader two rationales, born out of the beginning of the world. It would be possible to simply leave it there, as individual if proximate testimonies. But perhaps we can do more.
> 
> The first is the order of creation. Adam was appointed to minister. Eve, who came after him, was not; but, as suited her vocation, was ministered unto. It suits that original distinction, which was exhibited in the sex-difference, that Adam's role and then Christ's role be filled by persons bearing the same original distinction. Psychologically as well as physiologically, not only do we know next to nothing of our first parent's visual presentations, their personalities, or their proclivities, given the mixing of their profiles in all their offspring, we have no clue whether a random male or female is phenotypically more similar to the prototype father or prototype mother. We are shut up to the most basic, and obvious distinction, the irreducible binary of human biological sex. Moreover, it is not an order with which evolutionary theory (bottom up) agrees. How could there be a male, prior to its own gestational body?
> 
> The second is the order of their sins. To Eve's shame, she was deceived. Should she have refused the exchange of one word with the serpent? She offered him a correction of his alleged religious premise. Did she have the truth accurately from Adam, or was the mischaracterization her own invention? Who is responsible for the original verbal corruption of God's decree, as it was relayed to the tempter? We know this inaccuracy was a costly failure of being a minister of the divine word. When she was put on the defensive, she did not then call her husband.
> 
> She put herself in a position to (attempt to) _weigh _the relative reliability of the two contradictory words which she now possessed, one from God, through Adam, and restated *precisely, with confrontational force* by the serpent; and the serpent's alternative, with its barbed lure. She was already dangerously compromised; because God's word is not subject to review or evaluation. He, and it, ought to be obeyed immediately _because he is God and the creature owes it to him._ The creature is in no position to judge the word of God. Eve had already softened the word, or she had received it softened, which softening is a judgmental act. Now, she gave the weight of her approval ("seeing that the tree was good...," Gen.3:6) to the denial of God's word. The lie had done its work, and the falsehood was taken for truth.
> 
> Eve completed her sinful act by ministering the forbidden fruit to her husband (having taken, and eaten, she gave...). This inverted and perverted the ministerial order of creation from start to finish. Prophet (word), king (judgment), priest (service). The problem is not that Eve didn't have the "correct" vessel; the problem is not that she had an "inadequate" mind for the work. Unprepared, she was made the point of attack, and the man assigned to tend and keep her (as much as the garden) did not fulfill his task.
> 
> Eve's sins were an altogether _empirical _failure, she experimented with herself. Adam's sin was more of the _rational _variety, she was his guinea pig. Whether the original verbal deviation was his or hers, he did not correct his wife's errant representation of the divine decree (close enough, he reasons). He left her to judge what she was in no position to judge; and he regarded her (erroneously) to be successful in escaping death by (forbidden) fruit (she didn't surely die, so it's safe for me to eat, he reasons). He accepted her new role as minister/servant on his behalf (she's bringing me closer to god(like), he reasons). Adam abdicates his responsibility entirely, and in the judgment he blameshifts on Eve, and on God.
> 
> Adam is required to resume his original ministerial assignment, but under a new promissory covenant. The patriarch must fill the role of mediator for his family. Eve must relinquish the usurped ministry she assumed and overturned. That she was deceived is only a slight mitigating factor for her guilt, her penalty is tinged with mercy; her responsibility, however, is not diminished. Adam enjoys no mitigating factor, and is penalized without a word of mercy for his guilt. When interpreters make Eve's experience of being deceived an effect of her innately "weak" constitution, it diminishes her responsibility (of course).
> 
> I don't think her responsibility is diminished. And I think her daughters have had to help her bear that responsibility. I think they do this abundantly when they reverently and humbly accept what Paul says in 1Tim.2:11-15.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Since you quoted me, I guess you are asking me these questions. "One more try...," to get more or better from me? Could be it's not your fault, it's mine.

"_*Are men designed by God in a way that makes them more effective ministers and leaders at large*_"[?] More than... who? Women? Isn't it obvious that some men, at least, are _less effective _than 1) other men (to the point of incompetence), and 2) less effective _leaders at large _than, at least, some women?

Next, if you try to flesh-out what the word, "effective," means, you are bound to start quantifying various things. How well can some person exegete the text? How well can someone organize material and teach/preach it? How well does some person know the Bible, know what it says down to details, and how to get to a passage that will "hit home?" How well can some person see a situation for what it is, or see a person for who they are? Is this person a "spiritual" person? Is this person intelligent enough for the assignment? Empathetic enough? Christian ministry demands varying levels of physical and mental and emotional strength and endurance. In many cases, the _toll _of ministry could conceivably be borne by an average, if dedicated, person.

The thing is, one can find individual women who are capable of doing the kinds of things ministers generally are called to at a very high level, both as discrete skills, and as the package of capability that a competent minister is supposed to have. Already, among men alone the pool of qualified candidates is far smaller than the general availability of males. So, one may expect the number of women similarly gifted or skilled is also limited; but that they exist is indubitable.

But this dispersion of raw, quantifiable or otherwise estimable skills between the sexes (in which no two people are likely to have the same balance) doesn't prevent the common belief that there must be an _innate, _identifiable _superiority_ of some quintessence that is naturally the MAN's, which he has that the woman does not. And this special something is what gives the male sex the ministry, and not the female. Unfortunately for this theory, despite the DNA-driven differences that give an average advantage in physical strength to the male, aside from the alternative plumbing there doesn't seem to be a completely unique gift belonging to males.

On the other hand, the bearing of children and their natural attachment to her ongoing in childhood say something both unique and telic about women (in general). I'm of the mind to say, "*Women are designed by God in a way that makes them the proper recipients of the labors of effective ministers, most aptly presented in the male sex.*" As Adam was bound to minister to his wife in the order of creation, so even Christ's ministers are bound in imitation of their Lord, to serve the bride of Christ.

It's the fact that there's no unique telos in the man's design, compared to the unique telos of the woman's design; it's the fact that nature alone doesn't tell us that men should be Christ's ministers, and not women; it's the fact that there could be some women (by an endowment package of gifting) who _could otherwise make a minister; _confirms to us that it is specially the positive command of God, it is a matter of divine revelation and human submission to it, that we admit only men to the ministry. It has nothing to do with him being physically more imposing (on average), or smarter (as if), or less distractable, or you name it. Those could be reasons why, in nature the strong get to the top of the heap. But the Christian ministry is not about _ambition _or being "king of the hill." Not even a package of gifts, or one magnificent skill, makes a call; but the Spirit calls and adequately supplies the man summoned.

I may come back and say more, but I have other duties right this minute.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A.Joseph said:


> what about the female makes her the weaker vessel in the marriage union?


The average woman has less physical strength than the average man; the superior woman athlete does not compete well with the superior male athlete--hence, women's sports. What a horrid class of men (and their toady enablers), who think they make better women than actual women, and so demolish women's sports.

However, physical prowess isn't the only, but maybe just the first "strength" in a marriage; and marriage at its best is for mutual aid, each sex compensating for weakness in the other. Sometimes, the man just is not physically what the woman is. I previously explained, that I think "the weaker vessel" refers primarily--and always it is true, not just sometimes or most of the time--to the vulnerability of childbearing. Even the weakest dude has to step up his game, to "be there" for his lady when she's pregnant.

I don't think these women, AB & RGM, are "flirting with egalitarianism." You are entitled to your opinion, but that which has been offered as evidence has not convinced me.

She told you she reserves her thoughts in private, on the Q of women reading Scripture in a worship service. That means you don't know what she thinks, even if you think you do know. She says she wrote what she wrote for a wide variety of Christians. She says she's content with what her denomination does and limits. For all we know, she has thoughts today that contemplate the good in such female engagement; and tomorrow she'll abandon them to be more than content with the OPC's practice. While you may think she's off the reservation; you don't know where she is, or where she's headed. All you and everyone else can do is wait and see.

Meanwhile, she has invited criticism of her published positions, if in fact she has transgressed her denomination's published positions. She claims she's kept inside those bounds, as to what she clearly advocates. If she has strayed, state where, and "show your work" (as they used to say in algebra).



A.Joseph said:


> “there is freedom for lay women to function in general office as teachers in mixed groups.”


What does she mean? She thinks a woman may teach a class comprised of both men and women, _if the teaching referred to is not the biblically specified teaching role of the church's special office_. We know only the ordained office, limited to men, is appointed for Christian worship. As far as what other venues are suitable to co-ed religious instruction under a competent female instructor, that is for sessions to struggle with. It might even be OK for there to be differences of opinion, one congregation to the next.

Maybe she has been alienated by the GC treatment. I don't think it's anyone's job to "draw her back," other than her session; and a general outpouring of kind regard, such as the "open letter" approach gave out. I've known her pastor for about 13yrs, with much more interaction in the early years than lately. I have a lot of respect for him, as a man with intelligence, pastoral experience, and biblical wisdom. He's able to help what you or I are in no position to. But you and I can pray for grace to cover the whole situation.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Ok, thank you for your time. I respect and am challenged by your knowledge and insights.


Contra_Mundum said:


> The average woman has less physical strength than the average man; the superior woman athlete does not compete well with the superior male athlete--hence, women's sports. What a horrid class of men (and their toady enablers), who think they make better women than actual women, and so demolish women's sports.
> 
> However, physical prowess isn't the only, but maybe just the first "strength" in a marriage; and marriage at its best is for mutual aid, each sex compensating for weakness in the other. Sometimes, the man just is not physically what the woman is. I previously explained, that I think "the weaker vessel" refers primarily--and always it is true, not just sometimes or most of the time--to the vulnerability of childbearing. Even the weakest dude has to step up his game, to "be there" for his lady when she's pregnant.
> 
> I don't think these women, AB & RGM, are "flirting with egalitarianism." You are entitled to your opinion, but that which has been offered as evidence has not convinced me.
> 
> She told you she reserves her thoughts in private, on the Q of women reading Scripture in a worship service. That means you don't know what she thinks, even if you think you do know. She says she wrote what she wrote for a wide variety of Christians. She says she's content with what her denomination does and limits. For all we know, she has thoughts today that contemplate the good in such female engagement; and tomorrow she'll abandon them to be more than content with the OPC's practice. While you may think she's off the reservation; you don't know where she is, or where she's headed. All you and everyone else can do is wait and see.
> 
> Meanwhile, she has invited criticism of her published positions, if in fact she has transgressed her denomination's published positions. She claims she's kept inside those bounds, as to what she clearly advocates. If she has strayed, state where, and "show your work" (as they used to say in algebra).
> 
> 
> What does she mean? She thinks a woman may teach a class comprised of both men and women, _if the teaching referred to is not the biblically specified teaching role of the church's special office_. We know only the ordained office, limited to men, is appointed for Christian worship. As far as what other venues are suitable to co-ed religious instruction under a competent female instructor, that is for sessions to struggle with. It might even be OK for there to be differences of opinion, one congregation to the next.
> 
> Maybe she has been alienated by the GC treatment. I don't think it's anyone's job to "draw her back," other than her session; and a general outpouring of kind regard, such as the "open letter" approach gave out. I've known her pastor for about 13yrs, with much more interaction in the early years than lately. I have a lot of respect for him, as a man with intelligence, pastoral experience, and biblical wisdom. He's able to help what you or I are in no position to. But you and I can pray for grace to cover the whole situation.


----------



## alexandermsmith

"Coddling feminists in the church" :










Coddling Feminists in the Church Hurts Them and the Church


Aimee Byrd is a feminist, but you’re not allowed to say that.




medium.com





And Paul Barth responds to the malicious accusation that he called Byrd a whore:










The Danger of an Evil Report


I did not call Aimee Byrd a whore.




medium.com


----------



## kodos

This is a new review by Rev. Bryan Peters of the PRC (not sure if he is active on the PuritanBoard anymore, but he used to be). The review warns about the dangers of Byrd's book (and fairly gives credit to her when she is right) without resorting to some of the intemperate remarks found in social media. This is Part 1. Part 2 is evidently yet to come.



https://westportexperiment.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/rfbmwreviewpart1.pdf

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## lynnie

kodos said:


> This is a new review by Rev. Bryan Peters of the PRC (not sure if he is active on the PuritanBoard anymore, but he used to be). The review warns about the dangers of Byrd's book (and fairly gives credit to her when she is right) without resorting to some of the intemperate remarks found in social media. This is Part 1. Part 2 is evidently yet to come.
> 
> 
> 
> https://westportexperiment.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/rfbmwreviewpart1.pdf



Thank you for this. It is well written and he faithfully presents the way the whole ESS subject created such a mess originally with CBMW and Byrd/Goligher/Trueman, etc. He seems to have depth and a broad perspective. 

I have one general question that has come up earlier in the thread for me and this article reminded me of it. I forget who it was that expressed this view. That is, do people here believe that all women submit to all men? I don't, nor does my husband......the Greek word in I Cor 11 can be used for wife or woman, and we believe in context it refers to married wives. Not women in general. 

I wear a headcovering, as a sign to the angels of my submission to my husband, and especially that I was created for him (wired for him, designed for him, the right personality and giftings and even flaws for him). But, I do not for one split second accept that I submit to all men. I've had a few occasions over the years where some guy who would not get along with Byrd AT ALL was trying to run my life in some way, and it was like "dude, I submit to my husband not to you". There are men (ordained and non ordained) out there in Reformed circles as well as Calvinist non confessional churches who do ooze the attitude that just because they are a guy all women should submit. 

Given that the Greek can be interpreted either way, shouldn't this be a non essential? I didn't read Byrd's book and I haven't read all the posts and links on PB. But is this a big issue for you PB pastors? Do you think and teach all adult women should submit to (at a minimum) all adult Christian men? Because if that is the case it helps me understand Aimee better, and with sympathy.


----------



## Afterthought

lynnie said:


> I have one general question that has come up earlier in the thread for me and this article reminded me of it. I forget who it was that expressed this view. That is, do people here believe that all women submit to all men? I don't, nor does my husband......the Greek word in I Cor 11 can be used for wife or woman, and we believe in context it refers to married wives. Not women in general.


No. And 1 Cor 11 refering to women does not imply all women must submit to all men either.

Here is Spangler's attempt at clarification (from a public post on his FB page) when asked whether he believed all women should submit to all men.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph

I think this is where the concern of the moving target comes into play. If the issue is men in the church twisting and adding to scripture to create an abusive and oppressive climate, well that is plain inexcusable and indefensible. Are the men on the defense part of such an establishment or do they believe they are protecting a sliding descent into liberalism? Probably a little of both, maybe? I can’t say?
I’m not sure who they(RMG/AB) have if mind exactly and if this is something that is being taught....? Maybe this is more of a political/conservative mindset they are addressing. I do wish RGM and AB wrote their books in collaboration with a minister from the denomination just for the sake of clarity and focus. Who would argue with these concerns as stated below? She’s obviously fixed on actual instances of abuse, related to hard criticisms (bordering on slander) against Ms. Byrd. Are some of the GC men proving their point?

On a related note, is it preferable or allowable for women to be seen as authoritative or theologians? Is the whole concept of female theologian an oxymoron?

Is Amiee Byrd weak and vulnerable or an academic/authoritative peer susceptible to hard critique?

This debate is getting confusing.....
Is there a hard line to be found in this debate ?

”The world is watching *how the church treats women, how it responds
to abuse, and how it protects the vulnerable—or fails them. When women are belittled, when men in authority dismiss abuse charges and circle the wagons, when churches and institutions fail to protect the weak and vulnerable, the world sees this and judges. And it’s not only the individuals and particular churches that are judged. The gospel, Christianity, the universal church, and Christ Himself are judged by our response to abuse.* As Paul warned, the gospel is in danger of being reviled because of our actions.
- Rachel Green Miller, _Beyond Authority and Submission_, 241.
Because I want to be faithful to Scripture, and I want to uphold our Reformed confessions, I will continue to work to address areas such as these where extrabiblical and unbiblical ideas and beliefs are influencing what’s taught in our churches. What’s going on at the root of these discussions is too important to ignore.” -RGM








Getting to the Root


With the recent discussions about the Genevan Commons Facebook group, there is something important that I think needs to be addressed. The reason Aimee Byrd and I (and many others) are under attack…




rachelgreenmiller.com


----------



## CathH

A.Joseph said:


> I think this is where the concern of the moving target comes into play. If the issue is men in the church twisting and adding to scripture to create an abusive and oppressive climate, well that is plain inexcusable and indefensible. Are the men on the defense part of such an establishment or do they believe they are protecting a sliding descent into liberalism? Probably a little of both, maybe? I can’t say?
> I’m not sure who they(RMG/AB) have if mind exactly and if this is something that is being taught....? Maybe this is more of a political/conservative mindset they are addressing.



If I understand you here, you're referring to Rachel Green Miller's blog post you've linked below? It's entirely clear there who she has in mind because she gives specific quotes from specific named individuals with links. So maybe (if I'm following you here), your question is how widespread these views are? or how representative these voices are of complementarianism as a whole? 

If that's your question, I'd also like to know the answer! Do the self-identified complementarians here recognise these views as what complementarianism really distils down to in its most succinct form? Or are these views an aberrant form of complementarianism? 



A.Joseph said:


> I do wish RGM and AB wrote their books in collaboration with a minister from the denomination just for the sake of clarity and focus.



Mm, I've read some books by some ministers and they aren't all models of clarity and focus. 



A.Joseph said:


> On a related note, is it preferable or allowable for women to be seen as authoritative or theologians? Is the whole concept of female theologian an oxymoron?



Why would the concept of female theologian be an oxymoron? I learned the Shorter Catechism off by heart as a child, and as a teenager heard my pastor say that anyone with the Catechism at their fingertips was a theologian already. I don't feel like an oxymoron, somehow. Would it be preferable if girls and women weren't theologians? Is it allowable for any church member not to be a theologian?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor

CathH said:


> ...self-identified complementarians here...



Are there any self-identified _egalitarians_ here...?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CathH

Taylor Sexton said:


> Are there any self-identified _egalitarians_ here...?


Are you asking me? I'm not an egalitarian.


----------



## A.Joseph

Could you speak to the quote I posted. Who is weak and vulnerable? Women? Is that what she’s conveying?


CathH said:


> If I understand you here, you're referring to Rachel Green Miller's blog post you've linked below? It's entirely clear there who she has in mind because she gives specific quotes from specific named individuals with links. So maybe (if I'm following you here), your question is how widespread these views are? or how representative these voices are of complementarianism as a whole?
> 
> If that's your question, I'd also like to know the answer! Do the self-identified complementarians here recognise these views as what complementarianism really distils down to in its most succinct form? Or are these views an aberrant form of complementarianism?
> 
> 
> 
> Mm, I've read some books by some ministers and they aren't all models of clarity and focus.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the concept of female theologian be an oxymoron? I learned the Shorter Catechism off by heart as a child, and as a teenager heard my pastor say that anyone with the Catechism at their fingertips was a theologian already. I don't feel like an oxymoron, somehow. Would it be preferable if girls and women weren't theologians? Is it allowable for any church member not to be a theologian?


----------



## Taylor

CathH said:


> Are you asking me? I'm not an egalitarian.



I just wasn’t sure. To preface a question with something like "any self-identified complementarians here"—as if there might be some here who are not—on a forum like Puritan Board I found to be a little odd. Just asking.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

CathH said:


> Mm, I've read some books by some ministers and they aren't all models of clarity and focus. Why would the concept of female theologian be an oxymoron? I learned the Shorter Catechism off by heart as a child, and as a teenager heard my pastor say that anyone with the Catechism at their fingertips was a theologian already. I don't feel like an oxymoron, somehow. Would it be preferable if girls and women weren't theologians? Is it allowable for any church member not to be a theologian?


Expert in theology? That’s a high standard.

i find Green and Byrd sloppy and erratic in their handling of scripture, theology and doctrine in theory and application. They need help. Their shots at certain individuals and schools of thought is fine but not sure they are qualified to wage this war. Choose your target and stay on topic and get some help from qualified men who can sharpen your thesis. That’s my plea. Because they are women they probably are not qualified for this debate. Is that really controversial of me to say?


----------



## A.Joseph

Why do I get the feeling these GC guys are just as brutal with men. These debate-oriented polemic sites tend to be pretty brutal. The blogosphere and social media brings out the worst elements. They should probably go away, but Amy and Rachel are not above critique cause they are women. Can these women speak with authority on these matters? It’s a simple question and if they can we may have to rethink how we do church order.

If someone can explain how Ms Byrd and Ms Green can be considered authoritative on biblical matters that require clarification from biblical authority I’d be interested ....

I think it’s a slight on the men in authority in the opc, that Byrd and Green feel they have to set the record straight on these matters. I don’t say that to stir the pot, I’m saying that because it seems like a natural consequence...


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> Can these women speak with authority on these matters?



The key issue seems to be whether a woman is forbidden to speak with authority in the church, or just at all. 

That raises another point: if the woman is forbidden to speak with authority outside the church, albeit to Christian men, then she is in some sense, so it seems, subject to those men on that point. Yet even Wilson in all of his extremity never went that far.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> i find Green and Byrd sloppy and erratic in their handling of scripture, theology and doctrine in theory and application. They need help. Their shots at certain individuals and schools of thought is fine but not sure they are qualified to wage this war. Choose your target and stay on topic and get some help from qualified men who can sharpen your thesis. That’s my plea.



That might be true, but I can just as easily apply that to most theology arguments by lay Reformed men.


A.Joseph said:


> Because they are women they probably are not qualified for this debate.



That does not even remotely logically follow. In fact, it has a number latent fallacies in it: ad hominem, etc

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

BayouHuguenot said:


> That might be true, but I can just as easily apply that to most theology arguments by lay Reformed men.
> 
> 
> That does not even remotely logically follow. In fact, it has a number latent fallacies in it: ad hominem, etc


By what authority? A minimum requirement is the individual must be a man. That is God’s ordinance. The shortcomings of men do not negate that does it? This is why I don’t see Beth Moore as authoritative from the onset. Ms Byrd was an important part of the discussion but if Trueman and Pruitt weren’t present I would not listen to MoS. This sounds harsh, but is it Biblical? I think a woman could be a good complimentary voice with the ordained man present. If an orator of scripture is required, I think a qualified man (pastor/elder) should be present or in lawful instances approve the female leader.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

BayouHuguenot said:


> The key issue seems to be whether a woman is forbidden to speak with authority in the church, or just at all.
> 
> That raises another point: if the woman is forbidden to speak with authority outside the church, albeit to Christian men, then she is in some sense, so it seems, subject to those men on that point. Yet even Wilson in all of his extremity never went that far.


If they are from the OPC they probably have some authority if they are not then I think she should get their backing. Did you read RMG’s quote I posted? What do you think of it?


Isn’t this a bait and switch....?
“These beliefs about the nature of men and women play out in practical ways, as evidenced in the comments from the Genevan Commons group. I wrote _Beyond Authority and Submission_ because of my concerns about what is being taught about the nature of men and women and because of how women are being treated:



> The world is watching how the church treats women, how it responds
> to abuse, and how it protects the vulnerable—or fails them. When women are belittled, when men in authority dismiss abuse charges and circle the wagons, when churches and institutions fail to protect the weak and vulnerable, the world sees this and judges. And it’s not only the individuals and particular churches that are judged. The gospel, Christianity, the universal church, and Christ Himself are judged by our response to abuse. As Paul warned, the gospel is in danger of being reviled because of our actions.
> Rachel Green Miller, _Beyond Authority and Submission_, 241.


Because I want to be faithful to Scripture, and I want to uphold our Reformed confessions, I will continue to work to address areas such as these where extrabiblical and unbiblical ideas and beliefs are influencing what’s taught in our churches. What’s going on at the root of these discussions is too important to ignore.”

She is saying women are weak and vulnerable. But if an ordained minister would say this ....

I agree with her sentiment about protecting the vulnerable, but both sides are perfecting the art of bait and switch. I think GC should be shut down and Amiee (who is writing another book) and RMG should take a break.


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> If they are from the OPC they probably have some authority if they are not then I think she should get their backing. Did you read RMG’s quote I posted? What do you think of it?



I've probably read RMG's quote, though I can't remember specifics in this hthread (unless you just immediately posted it). If they are saying they should exercise teaching authority _within the church_ as a specific office, then I disagree with them. If they are saying that there exists situations where a woman may teach a man, then I have no problem with it. I reject the idea that woman qua woman submits to man qua man. Not even Wilson holds to that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> By what authority?



By what authority _what_, exactly? Your statement implied they weren't mentally competent to judge these issues. My point was that didn't logically follow.


A.Joseph said:


> A minimum requirement is the individual must be a man. That is God’s ordinance. The shortcomings of men do not negate that does it?



We are moving the goal posts. If all you are saying is that you must be a man to exercise a teaching office within the church, fine. But you don't have to be a man to judge theology issues, otherwise we are just telling women to turn their brains off.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> I think GC should be shut down and Amiee who is writing another book and RMG should take a break.



THat's fair. Anything to shut down GC and I am on board with that idea.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

BayouHuguenot said:


> By what authority _what_, exactly? Your statement implied they weren't mentally competent to judge these issues. My point was that didn't logically follow.
> 
> 
> We are moving the goal posts. If all you are saying is that you must be a man to exercise a teaching office within the church, fine. But you don't have to be a man to judge theology issues, otherwise we are just telling women to turn their brains off.


No, I would not go that far. I would say issues such as these that are pretty complex (mostly due to the sins of men) in certain ways require ordained men with the appropriate level of education and study of scriptures, maturity and sobriety. Are there women in the OPC that meet such qualifications in training and practice? It’s not just because they are women or that they are intellectually inferior. It’s because God has not ordained they would follow such a course. Unless I’m mistaken. I’m open to correction.

I support both of these women, but now Aimee is doubling down and writing a book on sexuality. I think we all agree that women are not second class citizens and shouldn’t be treated as such. But most Reviews from within opc circles have been lukewarm. I think these are worthy topics that require at the least a qualified co-writer for the sake of clarity and focus.

I want to say I’m super impressed with the level of maturity, charity and knowledge of any and every opc minister I’ve come across, both live and around here. If these men were to co-author or provide a full stamp of approval I would be receptive to such an offering but I would also anticipate a little more care with the overall material and content.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Trueman did endorse it, so there’s that. .....


----------



## A.Joseph

This quote seems to push the envelope. I’m wondering what her targets are exactly. It could be needful or needlessly disruptive, or maybe somewhere in between.

”*We are ripe for a positive kind of sexual revolution in the church *and recovering a good theological anthropology will have a lot to do with it. I am convinced that it will take a cooperation of academics, pastors, and informed/thoughtful laypeople (men and women) to do it. *We desperately need to peel away the Aristotelian mindset of men and woman that still pervades much of the teaching on sexuality in the church today*.” - _The True Sexual Revolution, Aimee Byrd, Inside the word. Outside the box. _
https://aimeebyrd.com/2020/06/30/the-true-sexual-revolution/

1. If women are leading the way on this, does it disrupt Biblical authority? I’d like to see what the plan looks like.....
2. Who are these informed academics she has in mind I wonder? 



My further questions would be,
3. Where is this being taught?
4. Is it clearly being taught the way she claims it to be?
5. Is this the most proper way to lead a movement against false teachings?

If this is truly an issue that needs widespread addressing within the greater Reformed community, it appears she’s attempting to go about it a right way. But I do predict similar resistance in some circles where she may be painted as threatening, including potential speaking engagements scrutinized (probably outside of her denomination where this may hit closer to home).

Im not seeing much good or productive come out of this if recent history is any indication, but if she has the right support it may clarify some things that truly need and deserve clarification. It seems like AB and RMG are tying these matters to abuse, potentially proposing a more direct correlation which could go either way. They just need to be as precise as can be.

Again, I do think the matter of correct teaching authority is at stake (a vital side issue) and that ordained men will ultimately need to take a lead on this if it is deemed a legitimate concern worth addressing on a grand scale.


----------



## Smeagol

I hope all parties take a breather. Personally it does not come across as very meek to continue to blog on and announce another new book on gender roles right after being asked to step down from a couple trustworthy platforms, regardless of proposed “wrongs”. I hope Mrs. Byrd can slow down and unplug for a season. I think that would serve her very well as she tries to move forward. I hope her Husband and Session can take the reins and be granted wisdom and discernment on how to help Mrs. Byrd navigate this situation. I also hope that some of the harshness (Deserved or Not) does not cause her to leave the reformed church.


----------



## RamistThomist

G said:


> Personally it does not come across as very meek to continue to blog on and announce another new book on gender roles right after being asked to step down from a couple trustworthy platforms, regardless of proposed “wrongs”.



Unless her session asked her to step down, then she is free to write. MOS and the Alliance do not have judicial authority.


----------



## Smeagol

BayouHuguenot said:


> Unless her session asked her to step down, then she is free to write. MOS and the Alliance do not have judicial authority.


Never said they did. But those should be sobering outcomes for any confessional minded Christian. If a friend comes to me and ask me to ”take a break from xyz” and then my very next move is to go out on my own and do “xyz”, I would just expect and least a period of a break. Maybe my expectations are unrealistic. Obviously this has taken a certain segment of the church by storm, so why in meekness and with wounds fresh would the answer be “keep cranking out blogs and books on similar subject matter”? I’m not saying she should “shut up and go home”. I saying that I think it would be wise to have an off season as things work out before deciding to keep the petal to the floor.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

G said:


> Never said they did.



That's precisely the point. If she is in contract with a publisher, as she probably is, and if some parachurch ministry told her to do something else, she is free to ignore them.


----------



## RamistThomist

If a friend told me to do x, but I knew I was right, I would thank him for his advice but continue to use my gifts. If my session told me to do x, then I would obey. Simple as that.

This is a tempest in a teapot. Reformed Christians in America are probably 1% of 1%. The article in CT is probably forgotten by now.


----------



## Smeagol

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's precisely the point. If she is in contract with a publisher, as she probably is, and if some parachurch ministry told her to do something else, she is free to ignore them.


Again, I’m not arguing contrary.


----------



## alexandermsmith

A.Joseph said:


> On a related note, is it preferable or allowable for women to be seen as authoritative or theologians? Is the whole concept of female theologian an oxymoron?



In regards to public theologians (e.g. Calvin), yes it is. I think it was Shane Anderson who pointed out that there are no great female theologians in the history of the church. That is not a coincidence. That is not to say that there aren't many, many Christian women with a great grasp of theology and that there aren't those Christian women whose personal diaries/memoirs, for example, haven't been of immense spiritual benefit to the church. But the role of Theologian, of teaching the church (whether that be in the pulpit or at large) is reserved to men.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> Shane Anderson who pointed out that there are no great female theologians in the history of the church. That is not a coincidence.



Shane is hardly qualified to speak on this (or any other subject). For much of church history, theology was done by monks and bishops. Not only did that rule women out, but most men as well.

As to Shane's comment, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil of Caesaria would disagree, since they both considered themselves inferior in theology to Sister Macrina.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist

If all Shane is saying, and he unfriended me (not the first time one of Doug Wilson disciples has done that for disagreeing with them), so I might be wrong, that there is a reason there haven't been any official female doctors of the church, that's fine. But if he is saying that women shouldn't engage in theological abstraction, then he is wrong.

If we are saying that women shouldn't engage in theological abstraction, then we shouldn't ever exhort them to be Bereans.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## NaphtaliPress

For those that don't have a scorecard, who is Shane Anderson?


BayouHuguenot said:


> Shane is hardly qualified to speak on this (or any other subject). For much of church history, theology was done by monks and bishops. Not only did that rule women out, but most men as well.
> 
> As to Shane's comment, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil of Caesaria would disagree, since they both considered themselves inferior in theology to Sister Macrina.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

NaphtaliPress said:


> For those that don't have a scorecard, who is Shane Anderson?



He is (or was) the administrator of Geneva Commons and an open fan, if not disciple, of Doug Wilson.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

BayouHuguenot said:


> He is (or was) the administrator of Geneva Commons and an open fan, if not disciple, of Doug Wilson.


Is he a minister or elder?


----------



## RamistThomist

NaphtaliPress said:


> Is he a minister or elder?



OPC elder, or was. I think he is a teaching elder. He's switched denoms several times so it is hard to say.

He is the reason why Aimee Byrd had some semblance of legitimacy in her complaint. If it were simply some random people making these comments, she should have ignored them. Since it was an OPC elder, maybe even a teaching elder, then it is a different situation.


----------



## alexandermsmith

A.Joseph said:


> Why do I get the feeling these GC guys are just as brutal with men. These debate-oriented polemic sites tend to be pretty brutal. The blogosphere and social media brings out the worst elements. They should probably go away, but Amy and Rachel are not above critique cause they are women. Can these women speak with authority on these matters? It’s a simple question and if they can we may have to rethink how we do church order.



This is but one of the results of women taking up roles which do not belong to them. On the one hand they want to be treated as equals and on the other they cry foul when they are treated "harshly". Luther and Calvin were treated pretty harshly. Did they cower and cry and whine as Byrd and Miller have done? Did they cry "we are vulnerable you must coddle us"? Social media certainly brings out the worst in people and has wrecked public discourse but it's also not true that theological debate and discussion has until now only been a realm of genteel and affable conversation. It has always had its contentious and combative side and that is why it is a realm reserved to men.

Byrd's and Miller's appeal to the "vulnerable" is a very cynical tactic. They wish to weaponise the (proper) respect and chivalry shown to women in order to deflect criticism of their work and as cover for refusing to answer questions put to them. Yes women are due a great deal of respect and curtesy because they are the weaker vessel. They are not meant to involve themselves in the teaching of the church or public discourse in this manner. They must choose: behave like women or be treated like men.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith

BayouHuguenot said:


> Shane is hardly qualified to speak on this (or any other subject). For much of church history, theology was done by monks and bishops. Not only did that rule women out, but most men as well.
> 
> As to Shane's comment, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil of Caesaria would disagree, since they both considered themselves inferior in theology to Sister Macrina.



Sister who? lol.

Yes most men were also ruled out. That is irrelevant, however. The point is that teachers are men. Men who are qualified, not (as Byrd and Miller would have it in their subtle way) qualified men. Being a man is the foundational qualification for being a teacher in the church.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> Sister who? lol.



The two greatest theologians on the Trinity talked about her this way. You might want to read up on the Cappadocian Fathers. Nicene Creed type stuff.


If Gregory of Nyssa is to be believed, much of what we talk about the soul and aspects of Trinitarian ontology were sharpened by their conversations with Macrina.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> On the one hand they want to be treated as equals and on the other they cry foul when they are treated "harshly"



Actually it deals with whether teaching elders in teh church can unrepentantly engage in coarse jesting about women.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## A.Joseph

I keep going back to Nancy Pearcey. I read two of her books quite some time ago, but she always came across as somebody who properly towed the line.
I dont know enough about her background (denomination, full views, etc.) so I may be contradicting myself. But I dont believe women need to turn off their brain.

We need women to stand with us. They need to be encouraged and supported. They need to know the full counsel of God. They need to know the snares that abound. They need to use their gifts in lawful ways. They must not be diminished nor taken for granted. They must desire the honor, worship and glory of their Lord and King along with their male counterparts.

Satan will try to drive a wedge and seduce women away with promises of greater opportunity and autonomy. Men, children and even God's ordained order can be seen as weights around the necks of women. Nobody wants that.

Aimee should proceed with caution, take her time, and collaborate through appropriate channels for her own protection and to ensure God is properly honored and approved. Reputations and denominations must be restored and (when a blind spot may arise) reformed within the bounds of God's created order, purpose and design, without losing any Biblical and theological distinctiveness.


----------



## Phil D.

BayouHuguenot said:


> Gregory of Nyssa and Basil of Caesaria would disagree, since they both considered themselves inferior in theology to Sister Macrina


Interesting. I've seen where they extolled her piety as exceeding theirs', but can you share where they applied this to theology generally?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

Phil D. said:


> Interesting. I've seen where they extolled her piety as exceeding theirs', but can you share where they applied this to theology generally?



Women have often been held up as exemplars of piety. That is proper for women and it is not the same thing as being great teachers/theologians.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Phil D. said:


> Interesting. I've seen where they extolled her piety as exceeding theirs', but can you share where they applied this to theology generally?



For them theology and piety weren't separable. It's been probably a decade since I read through Nyssa's works. I know for a fact it's in his treatise on the soul. It might be in On the Making of Man.

In any case, they saw her as their superior in intellect. 

On a similar note, read Gregory of Nazianzus's account of his own mother and her, for what we can only today call 'antics' in the church, and how he praised her acumen.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> Women have often been held up as exemplars of piety. That is proper for women and it is not the same thing as being great teachers/theologians.



The Cappadocian Fathers disagree. They do not separate piety and theology (most people didn't until modern times).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> Aimee should proceed with caution, take her time, and collaborate through appropriate channels for her own protection and to ensure God is properly honored and approved.



She would say she is doing all of that, since she has the approval of the only channel that really matters--her church. Parachurch organizations can go pound sand for the most part. At best they can only marginally help the church.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## A.Joseph

BayouHuguenot said:


> She would say she is doing all of that, since she has the approval of the only channel that really matters--her church. Parachurch organizations can go pound sand for the most part. At best they can only marginally help the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

BayouHuguenot said:


> She would say she is doing all of that, since she has the approval of the only channel that really matters--her church. Parachurch organizations can go pound sand for the most part. At best they can only marginally help the church.



Would you hold this same standard for a member of a CREC church?


----------



## RamistThomist

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Would you hold this same standard for a member of a CREC church?



As long as the CREC church isn't requiring them to sin in doctrine or practice, yes. I would urge them to join a safer church, but if they took an oath and the church isn't requiring them to sin, then yes.

Of course, that raises the question to what degree the CREC is a real church. The difference is that the CREC looks like a church and acts like one. Parachurch ministries, while acting like a church, don't look like one and don't have any of the marks.


----------



## CathH

Taylor Sexton said:


> I just wasn’t sure. To preface a question with something like "any self-identified complementarians here"—as if there might be some here who are not—on a forum like Puritan Board I found to be a little odd. Just asking.


Ha, ok, when you put it like that! I just wondered if anyone who'd read Rachel Miller's post would be able to comment on the views expressed there. (Getting to the Root) I think the first few bullet points should be uncontroversial:

* men and women are distinct and complementary
* husbands are leaders of their families
* wives should submit to their husbands
* marriage should be between one man and one woman
* sex should be within the bonds of marriage
* abortion is wrong
* motherhood is a blessing
* only qualified men should be ordained in our churches

Then there are some more views:

* patriarchy is “a universally recognized (except by modern Westerners) feature of the world, and the resulting attempt to live with the grain of nature.” 
* “Patriarchy is not merely a matter of ‘thus saith nature,’ but all the more, ‘thus saith the Lord.’”
* Women ... have begun the process of asking “has God really said?” At first, they have tried to get beyond submission and authority ...
* There aren't good women theologians because it is unnatural
* Women are not permitted to lead in the church because they are not permitted to hold positions of leadership in general. This is not only a matter of individual gifts but also of a kind of sexual hierarchy
* [It is concerning when someone] defines men and women as substantially equivalent and that the “co-laboring” ... in Scripture is a partnership of ontological equals. 

I suppose what I was hoping for was, someone who could say, "I'm a complementarian and ..." looking at the second set of views, either something like "... I don't recognise these as complementarianism" or something like "... of course, that's just complementarianism 101."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Some of those quotes are so random. Like drive-by shots. Matters of gender and sexuality are often shaped by modernity and postmodern thought in a fallen world, despite one‘s spin or bias. I think some of those quotes are uncharitable in tone. But who am I to cast a stone. Let’s just say there’s a reason Ms. Byrd (and RMG) has received the support she has and I think it’s legitimate, despite my other areas of concern.


CathH said:


> Ha, ok, when you put it like that! I just wondered if anyone who'd read Rachel Miller's post would be able to comment on the views expressed there. (Getting to the Root) I think the first few bullet points should be uncontroversial:
> 
> * men and women are distinct and complementary
> * husbands are leaders of their families
> * wives should submit to their husbands
> * marriage should be between one man and one woman
> * sex should be within the bonds of marriage
> * abortion is wrong
> * motherhood is a blessing
> * only qualified men should be ordained in our churches
> 
> Then there are some more views:
> 
> * patriarchy is “a universally recognized (except by modern Westerners) feature of the world, and the resulting attempt to live with the grain of nature.”
> * “Patriarchy is not merely a matter of ‘thus saith nature,’ but all the more, ‘thus saith the Lord.’”
> * Women ... have begun the process of asking “has God really said?” At first, they have tried to get beyond submission and authority ...
> * There aren't good women theologians because it is unnatural
> * Women are not permitted to lead in the church because they are not permitted to hold positions of leadership in general. This is not only a matter of individual gifts but also of a kind of sexual hierarchy
> * [It is concerning when someone] defines men and women as substantially equivalent and that the “co-laboring” ... in Scripture is a partnership of ontological equals.
> 
> I suppose what I was hoping for was, someone who could say, "I'm a complementarian and ..." looking at the second set of views, either something like "... I don't recognise these as complementarianism" or something like "... of course, that's just complementarianism 101."


----------



## CathH

A.Joseph said:


> Some of those quotes are so random. Like drive-by shots. Matters of gender and sexuality are often shaped by modernity and postmodern thought in a fallen world, despite one‘s spin or bias. I think some of those quotes are uncharitable in tone. But who am I to cast a stone. Let’s just say there’s a reason Ms. Byrd (and RMG) has received the support she has and I think it’s legitimate, despite my other areas of concern.


For the moment, I'm not too worried about the tone of these quotes. I'm more interested in the content.

Does complementarianism include these beliefs or not?
* Patriarchy is a feature of the world that goes with the grain of nature
* It is wrong to go beyond submission and authority in thinking about how men and women relate
* It is unnatural for women to be (good) theologians
* Women are not permitted to hold positions of leadership in general 
* It is problematic to define men and women as substantially equivalent and ontological equals.

If complementarianism does not include these beliefs, then why do complementarians not support Christians who object to them?

If complementarianism does include these beliefs, then why is it acceptable to call it biblical?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

CathH said:


> For the moment, I'm not too worried about the tone of these quotes. I'm more interested in the content.
> 
> Does complementarianism include these beliefs or not?
> * Patriarchy is a feature of the world that goes with the grain of nature
> * It is wrong to go beyond submission and authority in thinking about how men and women relate
> * It is unnatural for women to be (good) theologians
> * Women are not permitted to hold positions of leadership in general
> * It is problematic to define men and women as substantially equivalent and ontological equals.
> 
> If complementarianism does not include these beliefs, then why do complementarians not support Christians who object to them?
> 
> If complementarianism does include these beliefs, then why is it acceptable to call it biblical?


I will repeat what I said previously. In doing so, I don’t totally support or totally disavow their sentiments. (I’m happy none of them are in my denomination as to needlessly complicate things). I think this is a debate where sides and terms are so contemporary they needn’t be personally confessed or affirmed.

Like I said, “*Matters of gender and sexuality are often shaped by modernity and postmodern thought (and responses to it) in a fallen world*, despite one‘s spin or bias.” If you need me to expand on why that’s so relevant, and even vital, to this discussion, I will do so.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought

CathH said:


> Does complementarianism include these beliefs or not?


Complementarians, by definition, are those who can affirm the Danvers statement: https://cbmw.org/about/danvers-statement/

The definition is pretty broad, so as a result, there is a vast variety of views, forming a spectrum from "thin complementarianism" to "thick complementarianism." See Naseli's review for an explanation of the spectrum: https://cbmw.org/2020/05/04/does-an...covering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/

Patriarchy is rarely defined well, so some variants look no different from thick complementarianism, whereas other variants are gross overreaches of authority or assumptions of authority that men do not have.

The concern of some thick complementarians and those who identify as patriarchalists is that the thin complementarianism presented by Byrd, Miller, et. al either leads to egalitarianism, or--especially for some of those identifying as patriarchalists--that thin complemenatarianism in general is already too much of a compromise with feminism.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## CathH

Afterthought said:


> Complementarians, by definition, are those who can affirm the Danvers statement: https://cbmw.org/about/danvers-statement/
> 
> The definition is pretty broad, so as a result, there is a vast variety of views, forming a spectrum from "thin complementarianism" to "thick complementarianism." See Naseli's review for an explanation of the spectrum: https://cbmw.org/2020/05/04/does-an...covering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/
> 
> Patriarchy is rarely defined well, so some variants look no different from thick complementarianism, whereas other variants are gross overreaches of authority or assumptions of authority that men do not have.
> 
> The concern of some thick complementarians and those who identify as patriarchalists is that the thin complementarianism presented by Byrd, Miller, et. al either leads to egalitarianism, or--especially for some of those identifying as patriarchalists--is already too much of a compromise with feminism.


Ok, thank you for this. 

So would you say those bullet points are consistent with affirming the Danvers statement? 

Neither Miller and Byrd call themselves thin complementarians btw, so I'm not sure it's accurate to say that that's what they present.


----------



## Afterthought

CathH said:


> Neither Miller and Byrd call themselves thin complementarians btw, so I'm not sure it's accurate to say that that's what they present.


They might not identify as it, but if they affirm the views defined as thin complementarianism, then those are the views that they present.




CathH said:


> So would you say those bullet points are consistent with affirming the Danvers statement?


I can't answer with any expert opinion, so probably best to wait for someone else to answer that question, or you can look at the statement and see if the propositions are consistent or not. If you need an exposition, Grudem and Piper's book (the _Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood)_ is available somewhere online, where a large variety of questions are answered in the final chapter (and the first chapter/introduction) that might help clarify what is considered complementarian and what is not. Shooting from the hip, some complementarians take a more ontological approach, others do not, so the last two bullets (edit: though I guess it depends on what "leadership position" means) are likely consistent with the statement (although, as we discussed on FB, "ontology" has to be understood as mode of being, rather than category of being; if they are different categories of being, then that would be inconsistent with the Danvers statement). The first bullet depends on what is meant by "patriarchy." I don't know about the other two bullets without doing a careful review of the Danvers statement.


----------



## CathH

Afterthought said:


> although, as we discussed on FB



Ah, it is you then! I wanted to ask to check. Friendly hello.




Afterthought said:


> I can't answer with any expert opinion, so probably best to wait for someone else to answer that question, or you can look at the statement and see if the propositions are consistent or not. If you need an exposition, Grudem and Piper's book (the Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) is available somewhere online, where a large variety of questions are answered in the final chapter (and the first chapter/introduction) that might help clarify what is considered complementarian and what is not. Shooting from the hip, some complementarians take a more ontological approach, others do not, so the last two bullets are likely consistent with the statement (although, as we discussed on FB, "ontology" has to be understood as mode of being, rather than category of being; if they are different categories of being, then that would be inconsistent with the Danvers statement). The first bullet depends on what is meant by "patriarchy." I don't know about the other two bullets without doing a careful review of the Danvers statement.



Ok, thank you for this. 

So if I can summarise so far:

Complementarianism likely includes these views:
* Women are not permitted to hold positions of leadership in general 
* It is problematic to define men and women as substantially equivalent and ontological equals.

Complementarianism may or may not include this view depending on how you define patriarchy
* Patriarchy is a feature of the world that goes with the grain of nature

It's unclear whether complementarianism includes these views:
* It is wrong to go beyond submission and authority in thinking about how men and women relate
* It is unnatural for women to be (good) theologians

(Unless there is an expert waiting in the wings to clarify further.)


----------



## A.Joseph

CathH said:


> Ah, it is you then! I wanted to ask to check. Friendly hello.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, thank you for this.
> 
> So if I can summarise so far:
> 
> Complementarianism likely includes these views:
> * Women are not permitted to hold positions of leadership in general
> * It is problematic to define men and women as substantially equivalent and ontological equals.
> 
> Complementarianism may or may not include this view depending on how you define patriarchy
> * Patriarchy is a feature of the world that goes with the grain of nature
> 
> It's unclear whether complementarianism includes these views:
> * It is wrong to go beyond submission and authority in thinking about how men and women relate
> * It is unnatural for women to be (good) theologians
> 
> (Unless there is an expert waiting in the wings to clarify further.)


Those statements are unclear. They would need to be clarified before most would even be willing to give an opinion. You do see that, no?


----------



## CathH

A.Joseph said:


> Those statements are unclear. They would need to be clarified before most would even be willing to give an opinion. You do see that, no?



I am actually really hoping that someone will clarify that they don't mean what they look like they mean on a plain reading. Please do go ahead and clarify if you wish? I'm not sure where the hesitation comes in. On the one hand I hear this board is full of complementarians. On the other hand I hear it might take an expert to explain. How much clarification is needed in order to make these views biblical?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

My questions would be (with probably some level of ignorance on my part, which has never kept me from entering the fray)...
It’s probably a matter of extent and degrees as far as where one may fall, like alluded to by Afterthought.

* Patriarchy is a feature of the world that goes with the grain of nature
*My wife assumed my last name upon marriage... ? I’m not sure if that helps???*
* It is wrong to go beyond submission and authority in thinking about how men and women relate
*what else do you have in mind?*
* It is unnatural for women to be (good) theologians
*Well, how would God define unnatural in this context. Theologian is a very high educational/academic standard. How would that be achieved? Would teaching and instruction enter the equation? *
* Women are not permitted to hold positions of leadership in general 
*How about a Girl Scout troop? What is the standard/barometer in which we discern here? I would think we would want to build on what’s been revealed and what is potentially preferable as a starting point. We should start with First Things as far as what’s been revealed. I’m assuming the speaker has attempted to work that out. Has God spoken or revealed himself directly or indirectly on this matter?*
* It is problematic to define men and women as *substantially equivalent* and *ontological equals*.
*That is loaded. I would need those terms to be further clarified and defined before I would even touch it. Elect souls trump non-elect. There is no equivalency there. I don’t want a man in charge of a day care room. So there is a distinctiveness. There is no superiority. There are general differences and distinctions in design. And there are distinct roles, and levels of accountability and responsibility.

What would we even do with a man who aspires to take charge of a room full of 6 month year old babies? That would be truly unnatural.


If God is silent on something specific (especially an area limited to a more modern context), does that mean anything is preferable or permissible ? Does everything have to be spelled out word for word in scripture or is there a little room for inference?*


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> Well, how would God define unnatural in this context. Theologian is a very high educational/academic standard. How would that be achieved? Would teaching and instruction enter the equation?



That's probably where a lot of people on both sides get hung up. In the above sense, which goes back at least to Peter Lombard, only the most elite academics can be theologians, which rules out women (and most men). In today's usage, everyone from RC Sproul to Wayne Grudem says "everybody is a theologian, whether he admits it or not." In that case, women have to be theologians (as do we all).

Both sides in the debate are trading on ambiguous terms.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's probably where a lot of people on both sides get hung up. In the above sense, which goes back at least to Peter Lombard, only the most elite academics can be theologians, which rules out women (and most men). In today's usage, everyone from RC Sproul to Wayne Grudem says "everybody is a theologian, whether he admits it or not." In that case, women have to be theologians (as do we all).
> 
> Both sides in the debate are trading on ambiguous terms.


I thought of that. But I think in his heart of hearts, he knew that not everyone could be RC. I appreciated his sentiment though and he definitely instilled a desire for learning and knowledge.


----------



## Afterthought

CathH said:


> On the other hand I hear it might take an expert to explain. How much clarification is needed in order to make these views biblical?


I really hope that you didn't take my mention of "expert" woodenly literal like that. I only meant that I could answer the question no more than you could (I would also have to compare to the Danvers statement and read Grudem and Piper's book), and so someone who knew more about the position than I do would be better for answering, and that if you read the sources (I did far too long ago to remember the relevant info for answering these quesetions), I'm sure your questions could be answered.




CathH said:


> So if I can summarise so far:
> 
> Complementarianism likely includes these views:
> * Women are not permitted to hold positions of leadership in general
> * It is problematic to define men and women as substantially equivalent and ontological equals.
> 
> Complementarianism may or may not include this view depending on how you define patriarchy
> * Patriarchy is a feature of the world that goes with the grain of nature
> 
> It's unclear whether complementarianism includes these views:
> * It is wrong to go beyond submission and authority in thinking about how men and women relate
> * It is unnatural for women to be (good) theologians



So long as the qualifications that I gave in my post are kept in mind with the summary, yes, that is a fair summary, but also, it is not complementarianism that includes those views: instead, complementarians *can *hold those views and be called complementarians. Complementarianism is the Danvers statement, and various complementarians have their own views while affirming the statement, as Naseli pointed out and as the primary source of Grudem and Pipder's book explains (this is the terminology that they use, if I recall correctly).


----------



## alexandermsmith

CathH said:


> For the moment, I'm not too worried about the tone of these quotes. I'm more interested in the content.
> 
> Does complementarianism include these beliefs or not?
> * Patriarchy is a feature of the world that goes with the grain of nature
> * It is wrong to go beyond submission and authority in thinking about how men and women relate
> * It is unnatural for women to be (good) theologians
> * Women are not permitted to hold positions of leadership in general
> * It is problematic to define men and women as substantially equivalent and ontological equals.
> 
> If complementarianism does not include these beliefs, then why do complementarians not support Christians who object to them?
> 
> If complementarianism does include these beliefs, then why is it acceptable to call it biblical?



As has been mentioned above the term "complementarian" is unhelpful and a distraction. It's an ideological term which sprung out of a response to feminism. I understand that it serves as a shorthand but I would argue that if we are to properly, and Biblically, discuss these issues we shouldn't get caught up with trying to define complementarianism, per se. Since it first appeared on the scene the debate has subtly shifted to focus on what is and isn't complementarianism rather than focusing on what is and isn't Biblical. Complementarianism has produced its own sub-culture and identity and by focusing on this issue above others has produced an imbalance in what is taught in the church. It has become an interpretive lense for understanding the Bible and I think that's wrong.

With that said I would ask in reference to those bullet points: how is it acceptable to say they are not Biblical? Which of those points would not have been uncontroversial with conservative Christians 50-70 years ago? The only one I would take issue with, and specifically with how it is worded, is the second. I think the language of this point is very modern. I don't think our grandparents would have consciously examined all relations between men and women in terms of "authority and submission", i.e. a woman asking herself in every situation she finds herself during an ordinary day "how does this express authority and submission between the sexes?". But I also think that there would be basic assumptions about the role of men and women in society which would be manifested in day to day life. For example, the housewife who goes to the butcher on Monday would have been greeted courteously by the butcher, referred to as "Mrs Jones" (a sign of respect, especially towards women, which has been lost). She would have reciprocated. The butcher- a man- would sell her- a housewife- the meat for her to go home and cook for her family which they would eat in the evening when the husband returned home from work. This very ordinary system of relationships and roles is a reflection of the natural and Biblical order: the man is the provider who goes out into the world to work, the woman is the caregiver whose sphere is the home.

This pattern would be replicated throughout society: in who occupied positions of work outside the home, positions of authority, of leadership in society. A fitting term for this pattern is patriarchy. And patriarchy is Biblical. Is there any doubt that patriarchy is woven through the fabric of society and relationships throughout the Bible? Most of the time it is unspoken in the sense that there is no positive command to organise society on patriarchal grounds because that is the reality. But there still are positive commands given in Scripture by the Apostle. Now patriarchy may be taken to extremes by certain people and those people may wish to make those extremes definitional but we needn't concern ourselves with fringe elements. We needn't even consciously advocate for "patriarchy" (though I think at the current time we do), but merely recognise that the pattern throughout Scripture is patriarchal and anything which would seek to undermine that is unBiblical.

As I see it complementarianism has two fundamental flaws: 1) it is, as I said above, a modern movement that seeks to lay an ideological paradigm over all Scripture. I believe it is a movement that first constructs the doctrine and then seeks exegetical support from Scripture rather than arising naturally from Scripture into a systematic doctrine. That is not to say that what it teaches is necessarily wrong (even most of the time) but that the methodology is biblicist, seeking proof texts for specific propositions rather than seeking to produce a holistic Biblical anthropology and, as a result, 2) as the culture surrounding the church has become ever more egalitarian and radical, complementarianism has become narrower and narrower in its focus, retreating to defending the little ground it still holds: the roles of husband and wife, and church office. Because of its ideological approach, and its biblicist method of exegesis, complementarianism has no theology to counter most of what is happening today. It has no true theology of men and women and male and female relations. It has no theology for how society is to be ordered. I think this might have been what caused the whole ESS fiasco: an attempt to come up with a theological underpinning for their doctrinal positions. But for whatever reason- mediocrity, an unwillingness to challenge much of what is now accepted within the culture of the church- they ended up embracing a heresy repudiated centuries ago.

Ultimately all complementarianism actually has is a few passages which speak to the husband and wife and to the qualifications for office. Scripture addresses these areas specifically because they are of particular importance to the Christian who, being in the world but not of the world, is most concerned with those spheres of life which are directly related to the Christian walk. Christianity throughout history has sometimes been the dominant cultural influence in a particular society and sometimes utterly at odds with the surrounding culture (as was the case when Paul wrote). But even when a society is culturally Christian there is still the distinction between the visible and invisble church; the visible church and the society at large. But these directives given by the Apostle are not arbitrary: they are rules grounded in being, in ontology, in the creational and the natural order. Whilst preferable that these principles extend throughout society, it is obvious that cannot always be the case. The civil sphere is not under the control of the church and the church has to accept it will often be at odds with it. What the church has direct control over is the ecclesiastical/spiritual sphere: the ordering of the visible church and the discipline of its members.

Because complementarianism lacks a theology of Man it has had to retreat ever further as the surrounding culture becomes increasingly hostile to Biblical teaching. This is why complementariasnim has already failed and unless a true, holistic Biblical anthropology is rediscovered by the church, then these last remaining bulwarks of male authority will soon topple. In practice male headship in the family has already fallen. Male headship and authority has been so twisted and subverted that it no longer means what it always has meant and so we can have people affirming male headship whose behaviour and attitude is utterly contrary to it.

On the issue of women holding positions of leadership "in general" am I right in assuming you are referring to secular positions of leadership? If so I think this is an example of an area to which I referred: the distnction between the church and civil society. Whilst preferable that women not hold positions of leadership in society, at times they will do so just because the civil and ecclesiastical spheres do not always walk hand in hand throughout history. This situation of course is recognised in Scripture itself where we have Queens (who are referred to as nursing mothers of the church) and there are female judges raised up (as a judgment on the weakness of the men of the time). We see this ongoing throughout human history. John Piper's advice in this area, given at the time of the 2008 presidential election, was that it would have been better for Sarah Palin to remain in the home as an example of godly womanhood. I think that is the safest and most Biblical position to take. And I say that as someone who thought highly of Mrs Palin (at that time) and who believes Mrs Thatcher to be one of the greatest prime ministers Britain has ever had. Sometimes life confronts us with scenarios and choices which are not ideal and we must strive to make the best choice we can. I would have voted for Mrs Thatcher every time but I also believe that it would have been more appropriate and Biblical that a man had been in her place to do the work which was necessary. However there was no man willing or capable.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## CathH

alexandermsmith said:


> As I see it complementarianism has two fundamental flaws: 1) it is, as I said above, a modern movement that seeks to lay an ideological paradigm over all Scripture. I believe it is a movement that first constructs the doctrine and then seeks exegetical support from Scripture rather than arising naturally from Scripture into a systematic doctrine. That is not to say that what it teaches is necessarily wrong (even most of the time) but that the methodology is biblicist, seeking proof texts for specific propositions rather than seeking to produce a holistic Biblical anthropology and, as a result, 2) as the culture surrounding the church has become ever more egalitarian and radical, complementarianism has become narrower and narrower in its focus, retreating to defending the little ground it still holds: the roles of husband and wife, and church office. Because of its ideological approach, and its biblicist method of exegesis, complementarianism has no theology to counter most of what is happening today. It has no true theology of men and women and male and female relations. It has no theology for how society is to be ordered. I think this might have been what caused the whole ESS fiasco: an attempt to come up with a theological underpinning for their doctrinal positions. But for whatever reason- mediocrity, an unwillingness to challenge much of what is now accepted within the culture of the church- they ended up embracing a heresy repudiated centuries ago.



This, I completely agree with. Complementarianism is an ideology in search of a theology, and unfortunately both its ideology and its theology are deeply flawed.



alexandermsmith said:


> With that said I would ask in reference to those bullet points: how is it acceptable to say they are not Biblical? Which of those points would not have been uncontroversial with conservative Christians 50-70 years ago?



In reference to those bullet points. Depending on which ambiguity you embrace, they could be uncontroversial, or they could be very objectionable to our parents and grandparents, going back in the Scottish church to at least the Reformation. Like this:

* Patriarchy is a feature of the world that goes with the grain of nature
Possible response: As Reformed Christians, we don't rely on our perceptions of 'the grain of nature' to regulate our lives, because we have special revelation, the Scriptures. "The grain of nature" in some cultures means you never hit a woman. "The grain of nature" in other cultures means that domestic abuse is entirely acceptable. Thankfully we have a revelation which frees us from conforming to what seems natural to fallen man.

* It is wrong to go beyond submission and authority in thinking about how men and women relate
Possible response: As Reformed Christians, submission and authority is only one of multiple ways of thinking about how men and women relate. Scripture teaches us to relate to each other as brothers and sisters, neighbours, friends, church members, etc, in contexts which require us all to love, serve, teach, and admonish one another. It is not only _not wrong_, but necessary, to go beyond submission and authority.

* It is unnatural for women to be (good) theologians
Possible response: Only as unnatural for men. Human nature is fallen, but human nature is restless until we find rest in God. It's impossible for humans to be non-theological, whatever level of expertise you might or might not achieve in an academic discipline called theology. It takes grace for anyone to be a good theologian. We understand this when we think in generic or men-only terms, but somehow when it comes to women we're suddenly not talking in terms of sinful/redeemed nature, but as if men's nature is so different from women's nature that knowing about God becomes something that's natural for men and something unnatural for women. This is egregiously wrong.

* Women are not permitted to hold positions of leadership in general
Possible response: Scripture does not permit women to hold office in the church. Scripture does not prohibit women from holding positions of leadership in general. 

* It is problematic to define men and women as substantially equivalent and ontological equals.
Possible response: What does ontological mean again? What does substantial mean here and what does equivalent mean? The Westminster standards state that men and women are equally created 'with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it ... they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.' If 'substantially' refers to 'substance' or 'essence' or 'nature' then men and women are substantially equal. I'm not going to hazard a guess on which meaning of 'ontological' to attempt to work with here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

CathH said:


> * Patriarchy is a feature of the world that goes with the grain of nature
> Possible response: As Reformed Christians, we don't rely on our perceptions of 'the grain of nature' to regulate our lives, because we have special revelation, the Scriptures. "The grain of nature" in some cultures means you never hit a woman. "The grain of nature" in other cultures means that domestic abuse is entirely acceptable. Thankfully we have a revelation which frees us from conforming to what seems natural to fallen man.



I think you are confusing nature with culture. Some cultures are advanced, some are savage. I don't argue we should use the surrounding culture to determine our theology. But nature is not relative. We are humans, we have a nature. We were created in a particular way: men and women in particular ways respective to either sex. This is revealed in the Creation order, in the way humans interact across all cultures and also by special revelation. The nature of Man was not changed into something wholly new as a result of the Fall: we remained men and women, fallen but still human. In the most general sense Man was created to rule, Woman to submit to that rule.



CathH said:


> * It is wrong to go beyond submission and authority in thinking about how men and women relate
> Possible response: As Reformed Christians, submission and authority is only one of multiple ways of thinking about how men and women relate. Scripture teaches us to relate to each other as brothers and sisters, neighbours, friends, church members, etc, in contexts which require us all to love, serve, teach, and admonish one another. It is not only _not wrong_, but necessary, to go beyond submission and authority.



I would agree with you here. I suppose I was so focused on the immediate issue being discussed and that's how I understood this point. What I would add here is that even in these various relationships which are not intrinsically ones of authority and submission, the distinction of the sexes and respective responsibilities do come into play. For example: women do not pray publicly. Public prayer is restricted to men whether they hold office in the church or not. This is not an issue, per se, of "authority and submission"- the man praying is not exercising a personal, direct authority over each woman present- but it is one of teaching authority, which is vested in men, and quiet submission of the women to male authority in a general sense. Male and female Christians, again, are brothers and sisters in Christ yet there are restrictions on how men and women may interact with one another. Propriety must be maintained, for instance. So I think even in those areas where authority and submission is not forefront (not being exercised personally and directly) our maleness and femaleness is still involved in our relationships as men and women.



CathH said:


> * It is unnatural for women to be (good) theologians
> Possible response: Only as unnatural for men. Human nature is fallen, but human nature is restless until we find rest in God. It's impossible for humans to be non-theological, whatever level of expertise you might or might not achieve in an academic discipline called theology. It takes grace for anyone to be a good theologian. We understand this when we think in generic or men-only terms, but somehow when it comes to women we're suddenly not talking in terms of sinful/redeemed nature, but as if men's nature is so different from women's nature that knowing about God becomes something that's natural for men and something unnatural for women. This is egregiously wrong.



I'm referring specifically to public theologians: men within the visible church who either teach in seminaries or produce literature to be used in the training of pastors and the edification of the laity. If you wish to refer to all believers as theologians in a general sense then that is fine but I think it is proper (and avoids confusion) to reserve the term, in conversations on theology, to those men who produce work which teaches the visible church. This traditionally referred to those men who were almost always ordained pastors, even if they did not have a charge. Whether it is proper for men who do not hold an official position in the visible church to be taking it upon themselves to be writing theological works in order to teach the church is a matter for discussion but I do not believe it is proper for a woman to do so. That does not mean Christian women cannot produce Christian literature. But literature which is intended to teach doctrine- theology- should be reserved to men. The books produced by Byrd and Miller, for example, would fall squarely in the teaching bracket.



CathH said:


> * Women are not permitted to hold positions of leadership in general
> Possible response: Scripture does not permit women to hold office in the church. Scripture does not prohibit women from holding positions of leadership in general.



Not by positive command, no. Whether Scripture teaches an ethic which, ordinarily, prohibits women holding office outwith the church is a different matter. I think many Christians, traditionally, would have believed it does.



CathH said:


> * It is problematic to define men and women as substantially equivalent and ontological equals.
> Possible response: What does ontological mean again? What does substantial mean here and what does equivalent mean? The Westminster standards state that men and women are equally created 'with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it ... they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.' If 'substantially' refers to 'substance' or 'essence' or 'nature' then men and women are substantially equal. I'm not going to hazard a guess on which meaning of 'ontological' to attempt to work with here.



Perhaps ontological is the wrong word for what I am meaning. If so, perhaps you could offer an alternative. When I say ontological I mean that there is a hierarchy in nature: God, Man, Woman "forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: the woman is the glory of the man." As Gill explains: "...[the glory of God in the man] chiefly lay in the power and dominion he had over all the creatures, and even over the woman when made...man was first originally and immediately the image and glory of God, the woman only secondarily and mediately through man. The man is more perfectly and conspicuously the image and glory of God, on account of his more extensive dominion and authority." I do not mean anything to do with their substance, essence or human nature. But I also do not mean that men and women are equal in a general, or total, manner. All are equal as regards salvation "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one *in Christ Jesus*." But as regards order of creation and natural station there is a hierarchy.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

Very well done Alex. I think Aimee needs to interact with more thoughtful voices on these issues. 



alexandermsmith said:


> I think you are confusing nature with culture. Some cultures are advanced, some are savage. I don't argue we should use the surrounding culture to determine our theology. But nature is not relative. We are humans, we have a nature. We were created in a particular way: men and women in particular ways respective to either sex. This is revealed in the Creation order, in the way humans interact across all cultures and also by special revelation. The nature of Man was not changed into something wholly new as a result of the Fall: we remained men and women, fallen but still human. In the most general sense Man was created to rule, Woman to submit to that rule.
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with you here. I suppose I was so focused on the immediate issue being discussed and that's how I understood this point. What I would add here is that even in these various relationships which are not intrinsically ones of authority and submission, the distinction of the sexes and respective responsibilities do come into play. For example: women do not pray publicly. Public prayer is restricted to men whether they hold office in the church or not. This is not an issue, per se, of "authority and submission"- the man praying is not exercising a personal, direct authority over each woman present- but it is one of teaching authority, which is invested in men, and quiet submission of the women to male authority in a general sense. Male and female Christians, again, are brothers and sisters in Christ yet there are restrictions of how men and women may interact with one another. Propriety must be maintained, for instance. So I think even in those areas where authority and submission is not forefront (not being exercised personally and directly) our maleness and femaleness still is still involved in our relationships as men and women.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm referring specifically to public theologians: men within the visible church who either teach in seminaries or produce literature to be used in the training of pastors and the edification of the laity. If you wish to refer to all believers as theologians in a general sense then that is fine but I think it is proper (and avoids confusion) to reserve the term, in conversations on theology, to those men who produce work which teaches the visible church. This traditionally referred to those men who were almost always ordained pastors, even if they did not have a charge. Whether it is proper for men who do not hold an official position in the visible church to be taking it upon themselves to be writing theological works in order to teach the church is a matter for discussion but I do not believe it is proper for a woman to do so. That does not mean Christian women cannot produce Christian literature. But literature which is intended to teach doctrine- theology- should be reserved to men. The books produced by Byrd and Miller, for example, would fall squarely in the teaching bracket.
> 
> 
> 
> Not by positive command, no. Whether Scripture teaches an ethic which, ordinarily, prohibits women holding office outwith the church is a different matter. I think many Christians, traditionally, would have believed it does.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps ontological is the wrong word for what I am meaning. If so, perhaps you could offer an alternative. When I say ontological I mean that there is a hierarchy in nature: God, Man, Woman "forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: the woman is the glory of the man." As Gill explains: "...[the glory of God in the man] chiefly lay in the power and dominion he had over all the creatures, and even over the woman when made...man was first originally and immediately the image and glory of God, the woman only secondarily and mediately through man. The man is more perfectly and conspicuously the image and glory of God, on account of his more extensive dominion and authority." I do not mean anything to do with their substance, essence or human nature. But I also do not mean that men and women are equal in a general, or total, manner. All are equal as regards salvation "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one *in Christ Jesus*." But as regards order of creation and natural station their is a hierarchy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

What puzzles me enormously, and is perhaps a thread drift, is why, in my church past- which has been entirely male church leadership except for a PCA with humble, serving, feminine, deaconesses- I've gotten so much blatant and subtle negativity about wearing an inconspicuous headcovering that I don't push on anybody. I can't figure out why staunch Complementarians can be so against them.

When we were in SGM in the 90s one of the pastors told my best friend several years in, that when a woman wears a headcovering it is a spirit of legalism trying to make inroads into the church. She defended me, and another pastor there told me to my face that he knew I wasn't legalistic because in certain settings I wore jeans and sneakers. It was wierd. They were as gung ho Grudem-Piper- CBMW as any group can be. 

But here we have a command given by Paul using the same Greek word in verse 2 and 23 for a practice delivered over/handed down, applied to both headcovering and communion, the former symbolizing a husband's authority over his wife, and all the CBMW exposure I ever had was not neutral about coverings, but against. 

I tend to think that as long as you kick those verses out as for back then, and for that culture 2000 years ago but not for us, instead of admitting they are a sign to the angels, you will continue to get women kicking out other verses as also for back then in that culture. I think the two are tied together, and Complementarians trying to remove one and keep the rest is an exercise in futility. Any women with a few brain cells kicking together can make the connection that if 1 Corinthians in outward symbolism no longer applies, neither does the rest of that passage. Or other similar verses.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph

You touched on something important. And this is why I reject this debate and these terms. Complementarianism I reckon is a modern culture war-oriented movement. I never really even heard or considered the term until I casually listened to MoS. I hope I dont offend anyone when I say this (and Im open to correction) but It seems like the men concerned about this debate are from churches/circles that take more of an active interest in politics and/or are more reactionary to the culture (which could lead to extra-biblical emphasis/almost mandates and loss of focus on vital theology and doctrine). That's my quick take.

Being a member of the OPC has helped me to see that over-correction or overreaction is not necessary if we just hold fast to our biblical and theological tradition. Having experience in the NRC has given me respect for head coverings. It seems to be there is much biblical merit, possibly mandate. I cant understand why these men would take the position they did with you.

Are Ms. Green and Ms. Byrd both former Baptists? I believe Byrd is...... I dont think she's writing from an OPC mindset as much as a former culture-warrior mindset.

Im not saying members of the OPC do not take a rabid interest in politics, but its never encouraged from our literature or the pulpit. Machen set the tone I believe.




lynnie said:


> What puzzles me enormously, and is perhaps a thread drift, is why, in my church past- which has been entirely male church leadership except for a PCA with humble, serving, feminine, deaconesses- I've gotten so much blatant and subtle negativity about wearing an inconspicuous headcovering that I don't push on anybody. I can't figure out why staunch Complementarians can be so against them.
> 
> When we were in SGM in the 90s one of the pastors told my best friend several years in, that when a woman wears a headcovering it is a spirit of legalism trying to make inroads into the church. She defended me, and another pastor there told me to my face that he knew I wasn't legalistic because in certain settings I wore jeans and sneakers. It was wierd. They were as gung ho Grudem-Piper- CBMW as any group can be.
> 
> But here we have a command given by Paul using the same Greek word in verse 2 and 23 for a practice delivered over/handed down, applied to both headcovering and communion, the former symbolizing a husband's authority over his wife, and all the CBMW exposure I ever had was not neutral about coverings, but against.
> 
> I tend to think that as long as you kick those verses out as for back then, and for that culture 2000 years ago but not for us, instead of admitting they are a sign to the angels, you will continue to get women kicking out other verses as also for back then in that culture. I think the two are tied together, and Complementarians trying to remove one and keep the rest is an exercise in futility. Any women with a few brain cells kicking together can make the connection that if 1 Corinthians in outward symbolism no longer applies, neither does the rest of that passage. Or other similar verses.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

lynnie said:


> What puzzles me enormously, and is perhaps a thread drift, is why, in my church past- which has been entirely male church leadership except for a PCA with humble, serving, feminine, deaconesses- I've gotten so much blatant and subtle negativity about wearing an inconspicuous headcovering that I don't push on anybody. I can't figure out why staunch Complementarians can be so against them.
> 
> When we were in SGM in the 90s one of the pastors told my best friend several years in, that when a woman wears a headcovering it is a spirit of legalism trying to make inroads into the church. She defended me, and another pastor there told me to my face that he knew I wasn't legalistic because in certain settings I wore jeans and sneakers. It was wierd. They were as gung ho Grudem-Piper- CBMW as any group can be.
> 
> But here we have a command given by Paul using the same Greek word in verse 2 and 23 for a practice delivered over/handed down, applied to both headcovering and communion, the former symbolizing a husband's authority over his wife, and all the CBMW exposure I ever had was not neutral about coverings, but against.
> 
> I tend to think that as long as you kick those verses out as for back then, and for that culture 2000 years ago but not for us, instead of admitting they are a sign to the angels, you will continue to get women kicking out other verses as also for back then in that culture. I think the two are tied together, and Complementarians trying to remove one and keep the rest is an exercise in futility. Any women with a few brain cells kicking together can make the connection that if 1 Corinthians in outward symbolism no longer applies, neither does the rest of that passage. Or other similar verses.


There are more than a few reformed theologians who seemed to have significant brain cells who did not see a contradiction with head coverings being cultural and women being silent in public gathering as being perpetual. Those reformed writers were even prior to the label complementarian being born. I say this as one who is not settled fully on the head covering position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

lynnie said:


> What puzzles me enormously, and is perhaps a thread drift, is why, in my church past- which has been entirely male church leadership except for a PCA with humble, serving, feminine, deaconesses- I've gotten so much blatant and subtle negativity about wearing an inconspicuous headcovering that I don't push on anybody. I can't figure out why staunch Complementarians can be so against them.
> 
> When we were in SGM in the 90s one of the pastors told my best friend several years in, that when a woman wears a headcovering it is a spirit of legalism trying to make inroads into the church. She defended me, and another pastor there told me to my face that he knew I wasn't legalistic because in certain settings I wore jeans and sneakers. It was wierd. They were as gung ho Grudem-Piper- CBMW as any group can be.
> 
> But here we have a command given by Paul using the same Greek word in verse 2 and 23 for a practice delivered over/handed down, applied to both headcovering and communion, the former symbolizing a husband's authority over his wife, and all the CBMW exposure I ever had was not neutral about coverings, but against.
> 
> I tend to think that as long as you kick those verses out as for back then, and for that culture 2000 years ago but not for us, instead of admitting they are a sign to the angels, you will continue to get women kicking out other verses as also for back then in that culture. I think the two are tied together, and Complementarians trying to remove one and keep the rest is an exercise in futility. Any women with a few brain cells kicking together can make the connection that if 1 Corinthians in outward symbolism no longer applies, neither does the rest of that passage. Or other similar verses.


Evangelicals and the CBMW folks have a big whole in their interpretation of Paul's teaching on headcovering. They treat 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 in precisely the same way egalitarians treat 1 Timothy 2:11-14. In both passages, Paul's arguments are theological and not cultural. Egalitarians treat both of them consistently—"It's just cultural, so it doesn't apply to us today." Evangelicals on the other hand want it both ways. They like Paul in 1 Timothy 2 when he appeals to the Garden for why women must not teach in the church but when Paul does the same thing in regard to headcovering, they do a 180—"It's cultural; doesn't apply to us today." Egalitarians are right to point out their inconsistency here. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

G said:


> There are more than a few reformed theologians who seemed to have significant brain cells who did not see a contradiction with head coverings being cultural and women being silent in public gathering as being perpetual. Those reformed writers were even prior to the label complementarian being born. I say this as one who is not settled fully on the head covering position.


In the history of the church, there are many more with at least as many brain cells that affirmed both as perpetual. But in any case, it is a faulty appeal to authority.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie

About 35 years ago my darling pious Christian niece went off to "Christian college". Gordon Conwell. Her Mom, my Aunt, worked herself to the bone getting up at 5 AM to help with tuition. I was about 30 and had begun wearing a head covering. Back then a lot of women in the Charismatic type circles I was in wore them. Derek Prince believed in them. It was easier then, less backlash than from the Reformed and Calvinist Baptists for me later, even when we say nothing. 

By senior year darling niece had been throughly brainwashed. I won't blame the college, she knew better. But one popular professor started with headcoverings to explain why so much of Paul's teaching was cultural. It was important to be respectful back then, to not cause offense, and of course they didn't have modern birth control. But those things were for then, including prohibitions on fornication. It was all step by step logic. Niece was living with "gonna be a missionary" boyfriend the year after college. He backslid all the way and got an office job in NYC, and she ended up married to somebody else. The only way I could coherently debate her position was from the view that head coverings are perpetual, as is all the rest. ( Didn't help, people choose deception.)

There are blog articles and quotes here that imply that Aimee says something that is an open door to egalitarianism if you take her first step. The first step may seem innocuous, even logical or fair, but it leads to feminism. 

Maybe they are right. What do I know. But having lived through it up close and personal with a niece who looked to me as her older sister, I could say the same exact thing about anybody Reformed who claims head coverings are cultural. The things being said about Aimee I could say about you, not from just intellectual exegesis but from up close emotional grief that her Mom and I went through. How many other students at that college, whose parents thought it was Christian, were exposed to an evil prof tying together supposedly cultural mandates and fornication?

Please do not think I am accusing any person here of such a trajectory! I am NOT!!! But consider, when you discuss how Aimee handles certain passages and it bothers you, how a wolf in sheep's clothing can use your position against coverings to change modern standards of righteousness ( and not just women in leadership) compared to culture in Paul's day. 

We live in evil times. Pray for revival.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1 | Praying 1


----------



## Smeagol

C. M. Sheffield said:


> In the history of the church, there are many more with at least as many brain cells that affirmed both as perpetual. But in any case, it is a faulty appeal to authority.


I will simply provide others interested in quotes here, given the OP I will digress. The likes of Calvin, Henry, and Durham were likely very far from the charge of being inconsistent on this topic. And again, I am still unsettled as to my own conclusion, but my household currently does not practice coverings. And by the way, there is nothing wrong with appealing to our forefathers, given they are using scripture as their authority. And yes they can be flawed, but if being flawed means ALWAYS flawed then we better trash all our books minus the Bible.

1. 
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-against-women-headcoverings-pre-1900.82178/

2. 
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/womens-covering.91616/post-1120859

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

G said:


> And by the way, there is nothing wrong with appealing to our forefathers, given they are using scripture as their authority.


Brother, there is of course nothing wrong with appealing to them. But that involves actually putting forth their actual arguments from the Scriptures. Asserting that a position has merit merely because great men have affirmed it is the textbook definition an _argumentum ab auctoritate. _

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Brother, there is of course there is nothing wrong with appealing to them. But that involves actually putting forth their actual arguments from the Scriptures. Asserting that a position has merit merely because great men have affirmed it is the textbook definition an _argumentum ab auctoritate. _


I gave links to their arguments as opposed to placing pages of post to this thread that is not about physical head coverings.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

G said:


> I gave links to their arguments as opposed to placing pages of post to this thread that is not about physical head coverings.


My comment about a faulty appeal to authority was made before you shared any links.


----------



## alexandermsmith

lynnie said:


> What puzzles me enormously, and is perhaps a thread drift, is why, in my church past- which has been entirely male church leadership except for a PCA with humble, serving, feminine, deaconesses- I've gotten so much blatant and subtle negativity about wearing an inconspicuous headcovering that I don't push on anybody. I can't figure out why staunch Complementarians can be so against them.
> 
> When we were in SGM in the 90s one of the pastors told my best friend several years in, that when a woman wears a headcovering it is a spirit of legalism trying to make inroads into the church. She defended me, and another pastor there told me to my face that he knew I wasn't legalistic because in certain settings I wore jeans and sneakers. It was wierd. They were as gung ho Grudem-Piper- CBMW as any group can be.
> 
> But here we have a command given by Paul using the same Greek word in verse 2 and 23 for a practice delivered over/handed down, applied to both headcovering and communion, the former symbolizing a husband's authority over his wife, and all the CBMW exposure I ever had was not neutral about coverings, but against.
> 
> I tend to think that as long as you kick those verses out as for back then, and for that culture 2000 years ago but not for us, instead of admitting they are a sign to the angels, you will continue to get women kicking out other verses as also for back then in that culture. I think the two are tied together, and Complementarians trying to remove one and keep the rest is an exercise in futility. Any women with a few brain cells kicking together can make the connection that if 1 Corinthians in outward symbolism no longer applies, neither does the rest of that passage. Or other similar verses.



A very good observation. I think headcoverings were a casualty of the libertinism which came into the church as regards to attitudes regarding dress, personal conduct &c. As the church moved further and further from Scripture on these issues more and more was allowed and Scripture's pronouncements were reclassified as "cultural" and no longer binding. And of course the encroachments of feminism as well.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

_No gown worse becomes a woman than the desire to be wise._ 

–Martin Luther, Reformer

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Pergamum said:


> _No gown worse becomes a woman than the desire to be wise._
> 
> –Martin Luther, Reformer



Uh oh now you’ve done it, the slander bloggers are gonna call you all sorts of names on Twitter now


----------



## Contra_Mundum

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Uh oh now you’ve done it, the slander bloggers are gonna call you all sorts of names on Twitter now


On what basis? The alleged accuracy of the quote is debatable, see: http://www.weighted-glory.com/2016/06/did-luther-really-say-women-shouldnt-be-wise/

More to the point, what does dropping the quote in the thread say? Is it just a way of stirring the pot? Does it reflect the dropper's own view? Is the dropper mocking the view? There's no way to tell, really, unless the poster adds something.

And what does an past quip-artist's (alleged) published a-contextual opinion have to say by way of informing any present discussions? And since when does any current knee-jerk Twitterati spasm affect the PB? Our adult-level moderation tactics help dispel any rational basis for criticizing us.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## A.Joseph

Pergamum said:


> _No gown worse becomes a woman than the desire to be wise._
> 
> –Martin Luther, Reformer


That’s probably not too helpful. Although, Ive probably been guilty of being not too helpful myself from time to time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Contra_Mundum said:


> On what basis? The alleged accuracy of the quote is debatable, see: http://www.weighted-glory.com/2016/06/did-luther-really-say-women-shouldnt-be-wise/
> 
> More to the point, what does dropping the quote in the thread say? Is it just a way of stirring the pot? Does it reflect the dropper's own view? Is the dropper mocking the view? There's no way to tell, really, unless the poster adds something.
> 
> And what does an past quip-artist's (alleged) published a-contextual opinion have to say by way of informing any present discussions? And since when does any current knee-jerk Twitterati spasm affect the PB? Our adult-level moderation tactics help dispel any rational basis for criticizing us.



My post was a joke.

Based on the current “cancelling” trend in our society of taking statements and editing them, posting them out of context, etc. 

If I had specified a specific blog and said Pulpit and Pen would that have made the joke funnier?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Uh oh now you’ve done it, the slander bloggers are gonna call you all sorts of names on Twitter now



My Luther quote was not a joke. I believe Luther on this point.

Never has America had so many female professors, and so little women of quality. There has never been so many college-educated women, but college-educated women initiate about 90% of divorces. There has never been so many women against the evil Patriarchy, and yet so many children raised by daycares and single-parent homes and abortions. Women tend to vote more Socialistic and Liberal and promote open borders and bad policies. Letting them take over theology and pulpits is to abdicate the church into Social Wokeism and Theological Liberalism. Women, like some minorities, often stick together despite being wrong and form a tribe or cabal that is immune to reason. When their theology is shoddy they cry victimhood and claim to be oppressed. Therefore, for the good of the Church we should not listen to women theologians.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Pergamum

The Bible says that the realm of women is to be quiet, chaste keepers at home. If we pull them out of that focus and encourage them to write theology books, we are going against God's design for them. Unless the subject is one such as abuse, I don't buy anything written by a female.

Besides many of these women are not focused on telling other women how to be better wives and mothers...many of them are trying to correct us men-folks. That seems to be their focus....correcting the men. And because of that they are suspect and I don't want to give them a dime.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Pergamum said:


> My Luther quote was not a joke. I believe Luther on this point.
> 
> Never has America had so many female professors, and so little women of quality. There has never been so many college-educated women, but college-educated women initiate about 90% of divorces. There has never been so many women against the evil Patriarchy, and yet so many children raised by daycares and single-parent homes and abortions. Women tend to vote more Socialistic and Liberal and promote open borders and bad policies. Letting them take over theology and pulpits is to abdicate the church into Social Wokeism and Theological Liberalism. Women, like some minorities, often stick together despite being wrong and form a tribe or cabal that is immune to reason. When their theology is shoddy they cry victimhood and claim to be oppressed. Therefore, for the good of the Church we should not listen to women theologians.



I agree. I personally think that the Wokeism of Tisby, Eric Mason, Tripp, et al. has the same root as the Revoice stuff which has the same root as this push to give women authority in the church over men but just stop short of ordaining them. It’s the culture’s idols making their inroads into the church.

Patriarchy is inevitable, the only question is which patriarch you serve.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Pergamum said:


> My Luther quote was not a joke. I believe Luther on this point.
> 
> Never has America had so many female professors, and so little women of quality. There has never been so many college-educated women, but college-educated women initiate about 90% of divorces. There has never been so many women against the evil Patriarchy, and yet so many children raised by daycares and single-parent homes and abortions. Women tend to vote more Socialistic and Liberal and promote open borders and bad policies. Letting them take over theology and pulpits is to abdicate the church into Social Wokeism and Theological Liberalism. Women, like some minorities, often stick together despite being wrong and form a tribe or cabal that is immune to reason. When their theology is shoddy they cry victimhood and claim to be oppressed. Therefore, for the good of the Church we should not listen to women theologians.



Exactly right. The decline of our nations stems, I believe, to giving the women the vote. Yes there have been some good female politicians and women, in the past, tended to vote for the more conservative party. However the introduction of women into the political sphere has fundamentally transformed it. "Feelings" and "care" and "welfare" have become the guiding principles behind most of our legislation and social policies. Although I'm loathe to quote him because I believe he has utterly discredited himself, Jordan Peterson was right when he said that the woman, being the childbearer, priorities protection and nurture (because that is her role as regards her children). As women went into politics they brought this mentality with them. And so they have favoured policies which are about protecting people from being offended, from "harm", from their own bad choices. They have advocated open borders because it would be "harmful" and "mean" not to let these migrants in. They have advocated for censoring all "problematic" speech because such speech is "assault". And as women's influence on politics has increaded, the men have adapted to make themselves more appealing to women and their worldview. This has resulted in our male politicians, and men in general, becoming ever more feminine in their attitudes and worldview and increasingly sissified.

Ever since women were allowed to participate in politics, and especially since WW2, politics in the West has been guided, has been held captive, by the emotional fragility of women and women's innate desire to maintain peace (a quiet home) and prevent hurt even to the most irrational ends. Of course this has arisen because women decided not to have children. And without children to mother they have sought to mother the nation.


----------



## 149-deleted

Surely, @Pergamum and @alexandermsmith, that's a very wide net you've cast!

@alexandermsmith You say that the _introduction_ of women into the political sphere has transformed it. At least for the UK, I wonder what slice of history you are actually talking about? Should we go far back enough we find that the whole revolt of Boudica's was in part because the Romans did not acknowledge the female heirs of Prasutagus, whereas the locals did. When this was Brittanica and ruled by the Roman princeps, then any history will tell you of the intrigue and powers behind the throne of Caesar, powers wielded by both men and women. Should we move further on and come to Lady Godiva, we find that contrary to the legend of her trying to help the poor over-taxed people of Coventry, she owned those lands and was one of the women mentioned in the Doomsday books. Not only that, but her memory and influence were powerful enough to induce the monastery she had provided patronage to to concoct the whole legend for their own future's sake. I won't talk of Victoria, who left her stamp on many nations of the empire, or of the two queens Elizabeth, the former of whom has given her name to a whole era of history. I won't talk of the numerous noblewomen who helped and aided poor and suffering and fledgling Protestant churches such as the Countess of Huntingdon or the Duchess of Ferrara. The reason for the change and decline is rooted in the introduction of anti-Christian philosophies and the attempted destruction of the foundations of Western civilisation which lie in important concepts such as objective truth and universal moral laws: a poison that has been drunk to the dregs by both men and women in power. It may be that the current dynamics of government generally attract a certain type of woman or a certain type of man: I know that I should be gravely embarrassed if anyone thought that the type of men we have in government was representative of men in general: charity and experience lead me to believe the same is true of women. What we see after the Second World War is only the ripening fruit of seeds that were planted during the Enlightenment, and if some authors are right, even before during the Renaissance.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## 149-deleted

@Pergamum It is also true, according to the Pew Research Center (2015), that "college-educated women are more likely to have long-lasting marriages".


> Researchers at the National Center for Health Statistics estimate that 78% of college-educated women who married for the first time between 2006 and 2010 could expect their marriages to last at least 20 years. But among women who have a high school education or less, the share is only 40%.


As for abortion, both men and women in the U.S. express almost the same levels of approval for it: 61% and 60% respectively (Pew, 2019). If you think this age puts all others to shame, think again. History is a buffet of wickedness. Cf. the conditions in England before the evangelical revivals of Whitefield and Wesley:


> Morally, the country was becoming increasingly decadent. Drunkenness was rampant; gambling was so extensive that one historian described England as "one vast casino." Newborns were exposed in the streets; 97% of the infant poor in the workhouses died as children. Bear baiting and cock fighting were accepted sports, and tickets were sold to public executions as to a theater. The slave trade brought material gain to many while further degrading their souls. Bishop Berkeley wrote that morality and religion in Britain had collapsed "to a degree that was never known in any Christian country." (Christianity.com, 2010)


The arguments you make are just as easy to wield against the common people: "Never has England had so many common-born men well educated, and so few men of quality." They are also easy to wield against Blacks and Hispanics, since while there is nearly equal approval of capitalism among Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, there is a more positive view of socialism among the latter two (Pew, 2019): I'm not remotely saying you would deny them the vote or discriminate! -- I am only saying that the reasons you would not should, I think, apply equally to women.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

joep said:


> Surely, @Pergamum and @alexandermsmith, that's a very wide net you've cast!
> 
> @alexandermsmith You say that the _introduction_ of women into the political sphere has transformed it. At least for the UK, I wonder what slice of history you are actually talking about? Should we go far back enough we find that the whole revolt of Boudica's was in part because the Romans did not acknowledge the female heirs of Prasutagus, whereas the locals did. When this was Brittanica and ruled by the Roman princeps, then any history will tell you of the intrigue and powers behind the throne of Caesar, powers wielded by both men and women. Should we move further on and come to Lady Godiva, we find that contrary to the legend of her trying to help the poor over-taxed people of Coventry, she owned those lands and was one of the women mentioned in the Doomsday books. Not only that, but her memory and influence were powerful enough to induce the monastery she had provided patronage to to concoct the whole legend for their own future's sake. I won't talk of Victoria, who left her stamp on many nations of the empire, or of the two queens Elizabeth, the former of whom has given her name to a whole era of history. I won't talk of the numerous noblewomen who helped and aided poor and suffering and fledgling Protestant churches such as the Countess of Huntingdon or the Duchess of Ferrara. The reason for the change and decline is rooted in the introduction of anti-Christian philosophies and the attempted destruction of the foundations of Western civilisation which lie in important concepts such as objective truth and universal moral laws: a poison that has been drunk to the dregs by both men and women in power. It may be that the current dynamics of government generally attract a certain type of woman or a certain type of man: I know that I should be gravely embarrassed if anyone thought that the type of men we have in government was representative of men in general: charity and experience lead me to believe the same is true of women. What we see after the Second World War is only the ripening fruit of seeds that were planted during the Enlightenment, and if some authors are right, even before during the Renaissance.



I'm referring, as I said, in my post, to the extension of the franchise to women. Obviously women had been involved in politics before then- most notiveably as Queens, but in other ways too. However by granting them the right to vote their influence became extensive of a quite different nature.


----------



## alexandermsmith

joep said:


> @Pergamum It is also true, according to the Pew Research Center (2015), that "college-educated women are more likely to have long-lasting marriages".
> 
> As for abortion, both men and women in the U.S. express almost the same levels of approval for it: 61% and 60% respectively (Pew, 2019). If you think this age puts all others to shame, think again. History is a buffet of wickedness. Cf. the conditions in England before the evangelical revivals of Whitefield and Wesley:
> 
> The arguments you make are just as easy to wield against the common people: "Never has England had so many common-born men well educated, and so few men of quality." They are also easy to wield against Blacks and Hispanics, since while there is nearly equal approval of capitalism among Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, there is a more positive view of socialism among the latter two (Pew, 2019): I'm not remotely saying you would deny them the vote or discriminate! -- I am only saying that the reasons you would not should, I think, apply equally to women.



I wouldn't disagree. Popular democracy has caused a lot of harm to our societies. Though what you say assumes that the common man and the common woman are synonymous here. I would disagree. I'm not a popular democracy absolutist. But our societies as they were governed exclusively by men (through the franchise and elected representatives) was of a quite different, and superior, nature than it is as governed by men and women.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

On a similar note, Doug Wilson wrote a novel about having sex with robots. Yes, that sentence is real.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> YIKES.... p.s. why is that snarky divorced girl always in the middle of all of these controversies?



Wilson's fan base, I guess.


----------



## Pergamum

joep said:


> @Pergamum It is also true, according to the Pew Research Center (2015), that "college-educated women are more likely to have long-lasting marriages".
> 
> As for abortion, both men and women in the U.S. express almost the same levels of approval for it: 61% and 60% respectively (Pew, 2019). If you think this age puts all others to shame, think again. History is a buffet of wickedness. Cf. the conditions in England before the evangelical revivals of Whitefield and Wesley:
> 
> The arguments you make are just as easy to wield against the common people: "Never has England had so many common-born men well educated, and so few men of quality." They are also easy to wield against Blacks and Hispanics, since while there is nearly equal approval of capitalism among Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, there is a more positive view of socialism among the latter two (Pew, 2019): I'm not remotely saying you would deny them the vote or discriminate! -- I am only saying that the reasons you would not should, I think, apply equally to women.


College educated women initiate divorce 9 times more often than college educated men.


"According to a study published in the American Law and Economics Review, women are responsible for filing approximately 70% of divorce cases in the United States.

Statistics are hard to come by for other countries, but it’s safe to guess that the average rate would be somewhere between 60-80%.

70% sounds like a big number for American couples, but it actually gets worse for men who marry college-educated women.

According to the study, evidence is given that* among college-educated couples, the percentage of divorces initiated by women is approximately 90%*.¹"

Are College-Educated Women Bad Wife Material?

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Andrew35

BayouHuguenot said:


> On a similar note, Doug Wilson wrote a novel about having sex with robots. Yes, that sentence is real.
> View attachment 7194


Ah, good old Woug Dilson (don't lie and tell me you've never said his name that way in your head).

Surely there are better things to read. Like, umm, almost anything?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## pmachapman

alexandermsmith said:


> Ever since women were allowed to participate in politics, and especially since WW2, politics in the West has been guided, has been held captive, by the emotional fragility of women and women's innate desire to maintain peace (a quiet home) and prevent hurt even to the most irrational ends. Of course this has arisen because women decided not to have children. And without children to mother they have sought to mother the nation.



I'm not sure that it is necessarily since women were granted franchise (although I realise you are from the UK where women were granted the vote much later than NZ). From what I remember of a social history paper at university, women's voting patterns tended to match the voting patterns of their husbands in the decade or so after 1893.

And yet... during WW1, there was a great fear that prohibition would be voted in nationally in New Zealand, so soldiers on the Western Front were canvassed for their presumably anti-prohibition votes to counteract the assumed predominantly female prohibition votes. The prohibition movement was spearheaded by first wave feminists (married, Christian, family-oriented), and supported by the Labour Party (at least until Ernest Davis bought them off). Eventually these two movements were (and are) indistinguishable.

I originally wanted to rebut you, and yet your argument now intrigues me...hmmmm...perhaps if the soldiers were at home they would have "told the wife who to vote for", or discussed it further and worked out the details together. But, the breakdown of the relationship via war made this impossible.

The breakdown of the family has exacerbated the differences between the sexes, and perhaps that is the key factor of what we see today, rather than female franchise per se?

I'm going to have to do some more reading...


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

BayouHuguenot said:


> Wilson's fan base, I guess.



If you’re talking about Summer then let’s practice the same charity that would be demanded if someone was talking about RGM. Her divorce was eminently biblical as her husband (from all trustworthy accounts) committed adultery and was a drug abuser and the interventions of the church and family failed.

Also, using the same standard that has been passed around by certain folks, shouldn’t we have to read Wilson’s book before we can critique it?


----------



## Andrew35

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> If you’re talking about Summer then let’s practice the same charity that would be demanded if someone was talking about RGM. Her divorce was eminently biblical as her husband (from all trustworthy accounts) committed adultery and was a drug abuser and the interventions of the church and family failed.
> 
> Also, using the same standard that has been passed around by certain folks, shouldn’t we have to read Wilson’s book before we can critique it?


Well, assuming "sex with robots" was an accurate descriptor, I'm not up for reading it, thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> If you’re talking about Summer then let’s practice the same charity that would be demanded if someone was talking about RGM. Her divorce was eminently biblical as her husband (from all trustworthy accounts) committed adultery and was a drug abuser and the interventions of the church and family failed.
> 
> Also, using the same standard that has been passed around by certain folks, shouldn’t we have to read Wilson’s book before we can critique it?



I didn't say a single thing about her divorce (I know nothing about her). I just mentioned "Wilson's fan base," which is true. I'm not part of the Protestant Reformed denomination. I have no problem with biblical divorce. I applaud women, especially those in a certain micro-denomination, to avail themselves of ways to protect themselves from deviants.

As to Wilson's sex novel, I didn't make a value judgment beyond saying the idea of a pastor writing a sex novel about robots just feels icky.


----------



## RamistThomist

And not every book needs to be read before it is judged. I don't plan on reading 50 Shades any time soon.


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Andrew35 said:


> Well, assuming "sex with robots" was an accurate descriptor, I'm not up for reading it, thank you.



From all accounts it’s a futuristic dystopian take on something like burning “adult” magazines I.e a guy destroying a sex robot.




BayouHuguenot said:


> I didn't say a single thing about her divorce (I know nothing about her). I just mentioned "Wilson's fan base," which is true. I'm not part of the Protestant Reformed denomination. I have know problem with biblical divorce. I applaud women, especially those in a certain micro-denomination, to avail themselves of ways to protect themselves from deviants.
> 
> As to Wilson's sex novel, I didn't make a value judgment beyond saying the idea of a pastor writing a sex novel about robots just feels icky.



Summer isn’t in the CREC. 

Also, as stated above, from all accounts the book is apprently a dystopian novel about a man destroying a sex robot. Would we feel icky about a book where a man destroys “adult” magazines? Until the book is out and reviewed by folks I trust, I’m withholding judgment. 

I’m not particularly fond of Wilson but I feel like I’m taking crazy pills since I’ve had to defend the guy from gossip laundered through social media.

If we’re going to accuse people of grievous sins I.e writing a pornographic book, then we should probably read the book before pronouncing disgust at someone. Even someone we don’t particularly care for.

Much like folks saying that before anyone can critique the authors of functionally egalitarian books, they have to read their books first.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> ould we feel icky about a book where a man destroys “adult” magazines?



If that's all it is, then it is less icky. Wilson's track record, and his history of calling women the C-word, suggests otherwise.


EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> I’m not particularly fond of Wilson but I feel like I’m taking crazy pills since I’ve had to defend the guy from gossip laundered through social media.



Social media is one thing. I have documented evidence and court records from the mid-2000s.


EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> If we’re going to accuse people of grievous sins I.e writing a pornographic book, then we should probably read the book before pronouncing disgust at someone. Even someone we don’t particularly care for.



I actually didn't say he sinned. Just icky, which is par for the course for him. If Carl Trueman wrote a book like this, I probably would withhold judgment, because Carl doesn't have a history where scandal is involved.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

BayouHuguenot said:


> If that's all it is, then it is less icky. Wilson's track record, and his history of calling women the C-word, suggests otherwise.



Even people we dislike and find icky deserve the judgment of charity. Regardless of if they called Nadia Bolz-Weber the C-word.



BayouHuguenot said:


> Social media is one thing. I have documented evidence and court records from the mid-2000s.



Great, we’re still talking about people gossiping about his book calling it “misogynist” and equating it to p0rnography. If destroying sexually perverse material like a sex robot is misogynistic, then count me in. That includes DW’s book if it turns out to actually be 50-Shades level icky.

Moscow Man Bad is a serious problem on the Internet lately. We need to distinguish between his serious and actual failures, and ginned up social media gossip because he touched a sacred cow or merely “racked the shotgun” to use an advertising term.



BayouHuguenot said:


> I actually didn't say he sinned. Just icky, which is par for the course for him. If Carl Trueman wrote a book like this, I probably would withhold judgment, because Carl doesn't have a history where scandal is involved.



Writing a pornographic book wouldn’t be sin?
Even someone that has scandal in their history deserves the judgment of charity. Especially in an era of social media gossip. I’m kind of done defending DW today. Could we move back to Pergie’s discussion of Luther again?


----------



## A.Joseph

I think these culture wars make people behave a little crazy. (I’m not saying there are no absolute truths beneath it all). The lesson learned for me is to hold my tongue and stay out of it. Some people can maintain their maturity and patience and not resort to satirical rhetoric. My sometimes tendency is to get cynical and sarcastic. It’s hard to maintain Christian character when you're engaging in discussions that trigger your old nature. I’m seeking maturity and for the sake of such am bowing out of these types of discussions.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Moscow Man Bad is a serious problem on the Internet lately. We need to distinguish between his serious and actual failure



That's been done probably hundreds of times, starting with ecclesiastical rebukes and refutations. 


EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Even people we dislike and find icky deserve the judgment of charity.



Sure, but that doesn't mean their books deserve to be read. I won't offer a refutation of his book, not having read it. But since the title of the book fits with all of the sex scandals from his church, I have a good idea of what to expect.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith

pmachapman said:


> I'm not sure that it is necessarily since women were granted franchise (although I realise you are from the UK where women were granted the vote much later than NZ). From what I remember of a social history paper at university, women's voting patterns tended to match the voting patterns of their husbands in the decade or so after 1893.
> 
> And yet... during WW1, there was a great fear that prohibition would be voted in nationally in New Zealand, so soldiers on the Western Front were canvassed for their presumably anti-prohibition votes to counteract the assumed predominantly female prohibition votes. The prohibition movement was spearheaded by first wave feminists (married, Christian, family-oriented), and supported by the Labour Party (at least until Ernest Davis bought them off). Eventually these two movements were (and are) indistinguishable.
> 
> I originally wanted to rebut you, and yet your argument now intrigues me...hmmmm...perhaps if the soldiers were at home they would have "told the wife who to vote for", or discussed it further and worked out the details together. But, the breakdown of the relationship via war made this impossible.
> 
> The breakdown of the family has exacerbated the differences between the sexes, and perhaps that is the key factor of what we see today, rather than female franchise per se?
> 
> I'm going to have to do some more reading...



The trends you identify are true. When women were first given the franchise in the UK, they voted Conservative by a majority (and for a while more women voted Conservative than men). And the Prohibition movement had a lot of women leaders. As women became more independent, however, these trends changed. I never said the franchise was the _only_ factor. But once women had been infected by leftism then their vote became very powerful in pushing the leftist, degenerate agenda. Our societies survived quite a while with men (though in limited numbers) voting and much, much longer with men ruling our societies. Whereas they didnt survive even 50 years with women being enfranchised. Go figure.


----------



## pmachapman

alexandermsmith said:


> The trends you identify are true. When women were first given the franchise in the UK, they voted Conservative by a majority (and for a while more women voted Conservative than men). And the Prohibition movement had a lot of women leaders. As women became more independent, however, these trends changed. I never said the franchise was the _only_ factor. But once women had been infected by leftism then their vote became very powerful in pushing the leftist, degenerate agenda. Our societies survived quite a while with men (though in limited numbers) voting and much, much longer with men ruling our societies. Whereas they didnt survive even 50 years with women being enfranchised. Go figure.


I think I more or less agree with you. I have often wondered whether the only real solution is a limited franchise, where you earn it via military service or some other such service. You would at least have a chance to strengthen the character of the voter before they exercise that responsibility. I get the feeling though that many Western Democracies have devolved into a form of mob rule (partcularly the partisan kind found in the Eastern Roman Empire). Perhaps this is the way of all carnal governance?


----------



## alexandermsmith

Certainly any society and government that does not have the Law of God as its rule will come undone eventually. Another thing to note about the franchise, and movements like Prohibition, is that these were progressive movements. Prohibition was as much about personal improvement, healthy living and protecting wives and children from husbands who spent all the housekeeping money on drink as it was about promoting Biblical morality. I think Prohibition was an excellent cause but it wasn't an exclusively Christian one. That progressive spirit would go on to fuel many other movements which are quite antithetical to Christian morality.


----------

