# Aimee Byrd's views on men and women



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

Recently in another thread, a discussion arose about Aimee Byrd, one of the co-hosts of the podcast Mortification of Spin, and her views on masculinity and the relationships between men and women.

Now this is of course a topic many of us have strong views on, and one in which we often sharply disagree with much of what Western culture in general is saying. Nevertheless, I think it would be valuable for us to come to a clear understanding of Aimee's views on this without misrepresenting them either positively or negatively.

I have read her book and I think many people here would find much of what she says both agreeable and useful, while challenging. That said, I expect that there are parts that people would want to push back on. Certainly, there are sections that I myself am unsure about. I also find the book itself presents a much more balanced, theologically grounded view that what one can expect from a short snappy internet article.

I have the book here so I can provide quotations if needed.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 27, 2019)

She denies that "helpmeet" or "A suitable helper" is the best translation of Genesis' phrase _ezer kenegdo._ She defines the role of Eve, rather, as a "necessary ally" in order to remove any mention of the wife's role as being helper to the husband. 

This is a move straight out of Rachel Held Evans' playbook. This interpretation is becoming very popular in our day. 

The phrase already allows us to see that there is nothing inferior about woman, for God is also used by the same word Ezer as an helper to Israel. But this is not enough for many bloggers today, who get triggered even by the mention of "helper." No wonder the word "husband" (meaning lord or master) is being disposed of in favor of phrases such as "partner."

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> She defines the role of Eve, rather, as a "necessary ally" in order to remove any mention of the wife's role as being helper to the husband.


I'm not sure that is really her intention at all. It seems to me that she is instead trying to keep the distinction between men and women clear, but also emphasise that women provide a *useful and necessary* role. Not just "oh, I guess you can help out a little".

I think the other thing is the whole "ally" idea. It shouldn't be a battle of the sexes, but men and women should be on the same side. Of course the fall messes this up, as usual.

Of course, what we should really be asking is not, "which translation gives me more ammunition in my war against feminism/the patriarchy" but, "which translation is more accurate".

Do you (or anyone) know of any resources that argue for one translation over the other on textual grounds, not just because we like one or the other?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 27, 2019)

I don't think it's wise to be looking around for our preferred translations of particular phrases, for whatever reason. We should be able to trust the translation of the Bible we use daily. The AV helpfully gives alternative translations of some words in the margin, but those alternatives were given by the godly men who translated the AV so it's part of the whole work. Not someone later on, with a different agenda, inserting them. It's also done on the basis that the translators used the word in the body of the text which they believed to best fit the context. 

It's interesting to note, however, that no English translation (that I can see on Biblehub anyway) translates it the way she would prefer. The closest is maybe "authority corresponding to him" which still has a suggestion of complementarianism (though the word "authority" is problematic). Does she give reasons, sources for her view on how it should be translated?


----------



## Bill Duncan (Feb 27, 2019)

Calvin translates kenegedo as "opposite to' or 'over against' and gives the meaning "She is a kind of counterpart". Jerome translates it, "Which may be like him". Patrick says, "In whose company he (Adam) shall take delight….being as much as answerable to him, every fitted for him, not only in likeness of body, but of mind, disposition, and affection, which laid the foundation of perpetual familiarity and friendship."


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I don't think it's wise to be looking around for our preferred translations of particular phrases, for whatever reason. We should be able to trust the translation of the Bible we use daily. The AV helpfully gives alternative translations of some words in the margin, but those alternatives were given by the godly men who translated the AV so it's part of the whole work. Not someone later on, with a different agenda, inserting them. It's also done on the basis that the translators used the word in the body of the text which they believed to best fit the context.
> 
> It's interesting to note, however, that no English translation (that I can see on Biblehub anyway) translates it the way she would prefer. The closest is maybe "authority corresponding to him" which still has a suggestion of complementarianism (though the word "authority" is problematic). Does she give reasons, sources for her view on how it should be translated?


I think that trusting our usual translations is a good rule of thumb.

I believe the source of translating _ezer _as "necessary ally" comes from something a man named John McKinley presented at ETS. Unfortunately, it cost money to download his talk.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 27, 2019)

BottleofTears: your last name wouldn't be Robertson, would it...?


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> BottleofTears: your last name wouldn't be Robertson, would it...?


No, I believe you are thinking of my minister.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> She denies that "helpmeet" or "A suitable helper" is the best translation of Genesis' phrase _ezer kenegdo._ She defines the role of Eve, rather, as a "necessary ally" in order to remove any mention of the wife's role as being helper to the husband.


Given that not everyone has read the materials in question, in threads like this one it would be prudent to provide links or some actual sourced quotations when making statements about what another person denies and/or affirms such that the reader is provided enough contextual information to enable determination of what is factual and what is presumed.


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Given that not everyone has read the materials in question, in threads like this one it would be prudent to provide links or some actual sourced quotations when making statements about what another person denies and/or affirms such that the reader is provided enough contextual information to enable determination of what is factual and what is presumed.


In terms of how Aimme uses the term "Ezer", this article she wrote about women's role in the church relies quite heavily on it so it seems like a good place to check.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> No, I believe you are thinking of my minister.



BTW, my minister knows your minister (I am not sure how, perhaps from missionary conferences). It is a small world.


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> BTW, my minister knows your minister (I am not sure how, perhaps from missionary conferences). It is a small world.


There's a lot of Northern Irish connections at my church in general, so I'm not surprised.


----------



## Spurgyon (Feb 27, 2019)

I put this link in the last thread, but this article is helpful.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/troub...culinity-very-good-lets-stop-caricaturing-it/

The author provides links for Byrd's quotes and views. It includes her sympathy for some of the American Psychological Association’s new guidelines and attack on "traditional masculinity," as well as her disdain for the idea of raising boys and girls very differently.

In isolation her views are problematic enough, but in the context of the new woke intersectionality (feminism, race-obsession, Revoice-style celebration of "gay celibacy"), they're worse. This is the last thing needed in our already confused, gender-bending yet hypersexualized culture.

She also praises Sam Powell, a pastor who's said that men have absolutely no right to ever tell women to dress more modestly. I visited his blog once or twice but couldn't stomach it for long. I think some of this is an overreaction to the "purity movement" of the 90s--which had some problems. But the baby doesn't need to be thrown out with the bathwater.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> In terms of how Aimme uses the term "Ezer", this article she wrote about women's role in the church relies quite heavily on it so it seems like a good place to check.


See also:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/listening-to-the-women#.XHazEYhKiMp

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/09/the-taming-of-the-beau

http://www.mortificationofspin.org/...s-headship-and-household-mission#.XHazWYhKiMp

By the way, the use of "ally" is not novel to McKinley. I recalled the same being applied by Eldredge in this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00527N04O/

Eve is given to Adam as his _ezer kenegdo_—or as many translations have it, his "help meet" or "helper." Doesn't sound like much, does it? It makes me think of Hamburger Helper. But Robert Alter says this is "a notoriously difficult word to translate." It means something far more powerful than just "helper"; it means "_lifesaver_." The phrase is only used elsewhere of God, when you need him to come through for you desperately. "There is no one like the God of Jeshurun, who rides on the heavens to help you" (Deut. 33:26). Eve is a life giver; *she is Adam's ally*. It is to _both_ of them that the charter for adventure is given. It will take both of them to sustain life. And they will both need to fight together.​Another take on _ezer kenegdo _by Kim: https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2015/is-suitable-helper-a-suitable-translation

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 27, 2019)

While Ezer denotes function and not position (for God is said to be helper to man), and while Eve is like a mirror-image counterpart to Adam, in Genesis 2 Adam names all the animals. Eve does not name the animals. And then Adam names Eve. That ought to infuriate some women. This is an act of authority showing his position of command. And with that all of Byrd's arguments collapse.

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.“

I believe the KJV gives us the best translation of these passages concerning Eve and there is no reason to try to upgrade the translation to make it more tolerable to the 21st Century Western palate concerning gender roles. But if we wanted a newer translation, it might be something like, "a counterpart to help him" or "a helper opposite to him" - but these sound too clumsy. The word "helpmeet" seems best to me.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

Spurgyon said:


> but in the context of the new woke intersectionality (feminism, race-obsession, Revoice-style celebration of "gay celibacy"), they're worse. This is the last thing needed in our already confused, gender-bending yet hypersexualized culture.
> 
> She also praises Sam Powell, a pastor who's said that men have absolutely no right to ever tell women to dress more modestly. I visited his blog once or twice but couldn't stomach it for long. I think a lot of this is an overreaction to the "purity culture" of the 90s--which itself was a bit of an overreaction.


I think much of the disagreement lies here. 

To Aimee and many woman who have grown up in this sort of "purity culture" which often promoted some strange ideas and caused them a lot of stress growing up, it is very important to them that this sort of teaching is not held up as *The Christian View *from which all deviation must be regarded as worldliness.

So their concern is primarily focused in a quite different direction to many here, who see any sort of talk about "new interpretation of verses", "rethinking masculinity" and most talk in general about oppression of woman, as stealing pages straight out of the "progressive"/"woke" crowds book. 

And I think you are right to be cautious, because "woke" arguments about race or gender roles as much as we may wish to ridicule them, are incredibly powerful in our current culture. However, I think we must also be careful to show that we are also against many of the same things that the "woke" crowd hate, (racism, abuse etc), but that we base that not on post-colonialism or cultural marxism, but on a solid Christian view of the value of humanity.

I doubt we will convince many on the extreme woke side (though God's grace may work wonders) but it is important for those wavering in the middle who have suffered much themselves often at the hands of Christians to show that we care for them and that it is possible be a strong Christian and to care about such things without buying into the philosophies of the world.

I think that is the value in much of what Sam Powell does. I really urge you to read through his blog a bit more. Not that you might agree to every line of his thought of course, but he offers something great to many people.

There are a lot of Christians who have been abused or mocked or suffered, or even just been fed "purity culture" nonsense until their ears bled. They want to believe, but they find it so hard when the church seems against them. The woke-progressive Christianity tempts them, but something doesn't seem right. But when they can find something like Sam's blog which understands their concerns and then offers them not affirmation of their sin but true forgiveness and comfort, that allows them, with a deeper understanding of the gospel to stay within the church.

I'm not saying we shouldn't critique Sam or Aimee or whoever's ideas when necessary, but it's good to remember what they are reacting against and for what reason. If all we do is blast people as "crazy evil feminists", why would they want to listen to us? And worse, we could do some real damage to those in the church who are hurting.

That said, harsh language is sometimes necessary, and I completely understand with all the Revoice nonsense that is being allowed to go on.
I'm certainly not saying we should or indeed can avoid offending someone at some point, but let us direct our harshness towards those who are abusing poor Christians who should be protecting them, or those who teach them lies about God's word and redefine the gospel to mean social action. 

And not towards those who have been abused or taught lies and those who are trying to honestly help them.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> I think much of the disagreement lies here.
> 
> To Aimee and many woman who have grown up in this sort of "purity culture" which often promoted some strange ideas and caused them a lot of stress growing up, it is very important to them that this sort of teaching is not held up as *The Christian View *from which all deviation must be regarded as worldliness.
> 
> ...



Can you define purity culture and what is wrong with it?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 27, 2019)

Spurgyon said:


> She also praises Sam Powell, a pastor who's said that men have absolutely no right to ever tell women to dress more modestly. I visited his blog once or twice but couldn't stomach it for long. I think some of this is an overreaction to the "purity movement" of the 90s--which had some problems. But the baby doesn't need to be thrown out with the bathwater.



Just read one of his posts "Modesty -yep, again!" Hello, yikes department?

In response to what David said in the podcast thread about how we blame women for them getting assaulted. Yes I agree that there is no justification for assault. However, when talking about sin we must also talk about temptation. How people dress - women *and* men - has an affect on others. We dress in certain ways to commmunicate certain things: professionalism, reverence and in the cases of many to arouse sexual desire. And this is especially the case for women: whole styles of dress have been designed for this particular purpose. And it's not necessarily short/minimal attire but attire which accentuates the body. So what I would say to this Sam Powell character and others like him is: you make this big point about the sinful lusts of the hearts of men, and how men need to deal with these sins and not blame women. And then you're going to parade temptation right in front of them? Eh, what?

Yes, we will all of us stand before God alone to give account of our actions: men for their abuse of women, women for their tempting of men. Adam was weak to give into the temptation of Eve, but Eve tempted Adam. Powell thinks the idea of the minister's wife talking to young women about their attire is ridiculous. Guess he hasn't read Titus 2.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## ZackF (Feb 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Can you define purity culture and what is wrong with it?


I’ll describe a bad purity culture. Promoting the force of law of fences around the law. Taking what may be prudent for some and ridiculong others who don’t go along. Second, third and fourth degree separations and bastardizations of the Weaker Brother arguement.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 27, 2019)

ZackF said:


> I’ll describe a bad purity culture. Promoting the force of law of fences around the law. Taking what may be prudent for some and ridiculong others who don’t go along. Second, third and fourth degree separations and bastardizations of the Weaker Brother arguement.


That is all very vague. Can you give me examples of purity culture? My only knowledge of it is the weird purity rings that maybe were not very effective. And not letting kids "date" but chaperoning them (which seems like good sense). 

Concerning the weird purity rings, I never liked the idea, but I just read a news story about a female pastor who melted them down to form a statue of female genitalia. So, if the nutcases hate them so much, there might be something good about these rings, after all.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Just read one of his posts "Modesty -yep, again!" Hello, yikes department?
> 
> In response to what David said in the podcast thread about how we blame women for them getting assaulted. Yes I agree that there is no justification for assault. However, when talking about sin we must also talk about temptation. How people dress - women *and* men - has an affect on others. We dress in certain ways to commmunicate certain things: professionalism, reverence and in the cases of many to arouse sexual desire. And this is especially the case for women: whole styles of dress have been designed for this particular purpose. And it's not necessarily short/minimal attire but attire which accentuates the body. So what I would say to this Sam Powell character and others like him is: you make this big point about the sinful lusts of the hearts of men, and how men need to deal with these sins and not blame women. And then you're going to parade temptation right in front of them? Eh, what?
> 
> Yes, we will all of us stand before God alone to give account of our actions: men for their abuse of women, women for their tempting of men. Adam was weak to give into the temptation of Eve, but Eve tempted Adam. Powell thinks the idea of the minister's wife talking to young women about their attire is ridiculous. Guess he hasn't read Titus 2.


Oh I definitely agree with what you are saying about modesty, my problem, and I believe Sam Powell's, is when it gets used as mere deflection. Christians of course want to be different from the world, so much is made of the value of modesty. 

However, we must be careful to keep *both sides *accountable for their sins, we are good at that on the modesty side, but if you read what Sam is saying and what many people who comment on his blog have experienced is that modesty gets most of the focus (at least when it's taught to them), so it turns from "dress modestly as a child of God and don't cause your brothers to stumble" into "well of course boys are going to act that way, so you need to dress modest".

Now it's quite close, but basically we need to keep *men accountable for lusting*, and *women accountable for potentially causing temptation*. What many women have experienced is that they feel like they get the blame for both sins. They get so much pressure for how they dress, and then on top of that they get massive responsibility for the sins of others to the extent that things outwith their control become their fault.

Of course the world's "solution" is to nearly eradicate modesty altogether, which is nonsense.

*Now I think we agree on keeping both sides responsible*, so I think the problem is that it's easy to misunderstand what Sam is doing. He isn't working for the feminists, trying to undermine modesty, he's trying to protect it by putting it in it's proper place. When all the focus goes on modesty, all the blame goes on women. He's trying to tell them that men bear some responsibility too. I really don't think he is against modesty, he's worried about all the guilt being laid on the woman. He makes a big deal about men's lust, because all these woman have heard is "it's your fault, not his".

Even if it is taught correctly to both genders, sometimes women hear very little about men's responsibilities, and so feel unnecessary guilt. Sam is trying to make clear that while they have responsibility to act modestly, and they have responsibility towards their brothers, not everything is their responsibility.

It's obvious that the world's solution to this is wrong. But that doesn't make everything that churches have taught concerning it right.

It sounds weird from our angle, because as men we don't have the same pressure that women do about how we dress. And of course we are rightly concerned about the lack of modesty in our age. We just need to be clear that both modesty and fighting against lust are necessary. I think we agree on that at least.


----------



## Spurgyon (Feb 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> That is all very vague. Can you give me examples of purity culture? My only knowledge of it is the weird purity rings that maybe were not very effective. And not letting kids "date" but chaperoning them (which seems like good sense).
> 
> Concerning the weird purity rings, I never liked the idea, but I just read a news story about a female pastor who melted them down to form a statue of female genitalia. So, if the nutcases hate them so much, there might be something good about these rings, after all.



Yeah, I read about that female "pastor" as well. I think purity rings, purity balls, the "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" (favoring father-approved courtship over dating) are examples. Some of it became legalistic and unhelpful, but it wasn't all bad. It was a reaction to high levels of sexual promiscuity among Christian teens and the way the church adopted the world's dating model (lots of short-term relationships with painful break-ups and little parental involvement).

The movement was contained mostly to small, conservative churches and barely touched megachurches and the broad Evangelical world. With one church after another going down with the SJW agenda, I see this as a very minor issue and mostly a distraction. Again, it was mostly a 1990s/early 2000s phenomenon that affects very few people today.

And I continue to challenge Byrd's approval (in many ways) of the wordly APA/Gillette narrative that traditional masculinity = toxic masculinity. These folks seem to hate men being strong and masculine...until a crisis occurs like the Houston flood a few years ago. Then everyone welcomes strong, bearded guys who voted for Trump showing up in boats and trucks to rescue people.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Feb 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> That is all very vague. Can you give me examples of purity culture? My only knowledge of it is the weird purity rings that maybe were not very effective. And not letting kids "date" but chaperoning them (which seems like good sense).
> 
> Concerning the weird purity rings, I never liked the idea, but I just read a news story about a female pastor who melted them down to form a statue of female genitalia. So, if the nutcases hate them so much, there might be something good about these rings, after all.


I will later. Gotta get to work.


----------



## Spurgyon (Feb 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> so I think the problem is that it's easy to misunderstand what Sam is doing. He isn't working for the feminists, trying to undermine modesty, he's trying to protect it by putting it in it's proper place. .



We'll have to agree to disagree here. Sam has point blank said that men should shut up about how women dress. And I've seen Christian female bloggers celebrate the fact that they can run around in skin-tight yoga pants and bikinis...because it's men's fault if they lust. Plus we have real issues to fight, like poverty and racism.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 27, 2019)

Spurgyon said:


> Yeah, I read about that female "pastor" as well. I think purity rings, purity balls, the "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" (favoring father-approved courtship over dating) are examples. Some of it became legalistic and unhelpful, but it wasn't all bad. It was a reaction to high levels of sexual promiscuity among Christian teens and the way the church adopted the world's dating model (lots of short-term relationships with painful break-ups and little parental involvement).
> 
> The movement was contained mostly to small, conservative churches and barely touched megachurches and barely touched the broad Evangelical world. With one church after another going down to the SJW agenda, I see little reason for a massive war against against a mostly 1990s phenomenon that affects very few people today.
> 
> And I continue to challenge Byrd's approval (in many ways) of the wordly APA/Gillette narrative that traditional masculinity = toxic masculinity. These folks seem to hate men being strong and masculine...until a crisis occurs like the Houston flood a few years ago. Then everyone welcomes strong, bearded guys who voted for Trump showing up in boats and trucks to rescue people.



You wrote:

"I see little reason for a massive war against against a mostly 1990s phenomenon that affects very few people today."

I do.

It furthers their narrative. It is a convenient punching bag. 

It gives them reason not to see the purity movement as a good, but flawed, effort at protecting our kids, but they can now twist it as another sin of patriarchy. I mean, how dare we parents have any say in who their children and teens see and play around with of the opposite sex!

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 27, 2019)

Spurgyon said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree here. Sam has point blank said that men should shut up about how women dress.


I agree 100%. If you approve bikinis then why not approve of your wife or daughters going out in public in their undergarments. We need more preaching on modesty in dress for women AND men not less.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Can you define purity culture and what is wrong with it?


I think purity culture usually refers to a group of ideas and rules that conservative Christians (well in America anyway) came up with to provide an alternative to the secular dating culture. It covers a lot of things so I'll try to give a general overview of what most people mean then some specific examples.

Most of the initial impulses were good, but often the movement often relied on inventing rules or strange ideas like purity rings, which caused some problems. Now a lot of these rules were potentially wise or commendable, but many were just made up but taught as very absolute. It also tended in a very legalistic direction and focused a lot on guilt as the main motivation.

To give an example, many churches were concerned that their young woman and girls should act chastely. No problems there. However, this was taught in an unhelpful way. To quote Aimee Byrd:


> Christians are taught that if they can just maintain a pure (read "virgin") status in their singlehood, they will be rewarded greatly with a fulfilling marriage. It's a great exchange: your purity for blessed communion with your soul mate. Then all your longings will be satisfied. Then you will be complete. But this is a cruel teaching. Singles are left feeling like they are not whole or are able to be fulfilled in the Christian life- like they are stuck in relational stagnation. Not only that, their interactions with the other sex are suspect. Intense weight is laid on what should be considered a casual activity. Something as basic as having coffee with someone carries the pressure of ascertaining whether they are marriage material- as if marriage is the only product of relational growth. A stimulating converstaion with another person's spouse is deemed inappropriate. Many singles feel that they are without a place in the church. They want to be known, to have intimate interaction, and to belong somewhere. They want to know that they are protected and valued, that someone's got their back. Sometimes the church tries to accommodate them by providing a singles ministry. But they often function as a sanctified meat market- a place to shop for a husband or wife. All the while, the young woman wear their purity rings- like a seal of quality for any consumers who want a guaranteed product.
> 
> -_Why can't we be friends?: Avoidance is not purity- pg 68_


Basically, purity became thought of as merely a way to earn a good marriage, which became the ultimate goal of any young Christian. Purity is not a way to follow God and obey His laws so much as it was just a hoop to jump through to merit something. Which left single people feeling very left out, and, along with other rules, created a lot of pressure and guilt for people in those churches.

So less "you should act the way God wants you to because He is your father"
and more "nobody will want to marry you if you are dirty".

The focus is all on human-human relations and involved a lot of guilt. So people really react against it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 27, 2019)

A lot of the things being discussed here- purity culture, dress- are symptoms of the church's move away from Biblical teaching on the distinctions which should be maintained between the sexes, on holiness, on sancitification. The purity culture was itself, ironically, obsessed with sex. It seemed to view the Christian life as a great battle specifically between sexual promiscuity and sexual abstinence, emphaising sex way beyond its proper proportion. Which only results in sexualising the culture of the church from the other direction. And, if reports on the sexual behaviour of "evangelical" teens were to be believed, certainly didnt result in keeping young people pure.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Spurgyon (Feb 27, 2019)

Another challenge for Byrdians: where does the Bible encourage men to seek out strong, one-on-one relationships with women besides your wife? 1 Tim. 5:2 instructs men to "treat younger women as sisters, in all purity." (Ugh! Purity culture strikes again!) But why should we seek friendships outside of time we spend together in church and family settings?

If a pretty 25-year old nurse starts coming to church, there's no reason for me to have a coffee with her or go for a walk together in the park. In fact, knowing my sinful heart, that's a terrible idea. I can invite her, along with some other singles, to have lunch with my family after church. That's what the Bible encourages--hospitality, not individual relationships requiring time alone with the opposite sex. Then again, people like Sam Alberry (same-sex attracted celibate) say we "worship" the nuclear family too much, so maybe this is an intersectionality war.

I've also seen people come up with exceptions to the Pence rule. For example, giving a woman a ride if her car breaks down. Or it's moving day for a single woman and you're the only guy who help her move heavy furniture. But these are rare events that should be handled case by case. That's a far cry from intentionally seeking one-on-one time with a woman who's not your wife.

I think Byrd underestimates both the sex drive of men and emotional attachments of women. As someone else has said, she " has appealed to our glorified state in the New Heavens and New Earth as the pattern for earthly friendships between sexes now."
http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/06/r...the-culture-is-eating-evangelicals-for-lunch/

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 27, 2019)

Spurgyon said:


> Another challenge for Byrdians: where does the Bible encourage men to seek out strong, one-on-one relationships with women besides your wife?



Anyone with any gumption knows that such things are a recipe for forming emotional attachments. For a married man to seek out such situations is pure madness.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> A lot of the things being discussed here- purity culture, dress- are symptoms of the church's move away from Biblical teaching on the distinctions which should be maintained between the sexes, on holiness, on sancitification. The purity culture was itself, ironically, obsessed with sex. It seemed to view the Christian life as a great battle specifically between sexual promiscuity and sexual abstinence, emphaising sex way beyond its proper proportion. Which only results in sexualising the culture of the church from the other direction. And, if reports on the sexual behaviour of "evangelical" teens were to be believed, certainly didnt result in keeping young people pure.


I think this is a very good point. 

It's actually quite similar to some of the arguments Aimee makes in her book. She is concerned that we often make sexual relationships the ultimate form of relationship and therefore downplay friendship. And so the only meaningful friendship men and women can have is sexual.

Therefore a lot of the book is concerned with building a case for the positive ways in which Christian men and women's platonic friendships can and should benefit them.

Of course there is a need for wisdom, and practical application is where it gets controversial, but I think it's easy to miss the more interesting points she makes. 

I don't think that relationships with the opposite sex can certainly function the same way, or that wisdom is not necessary, but I think we should be able to critique some negative aspects of purity culture (focus on sex, legalism) while taking some of the positive parts. 

I think Aimee is trying to build a Christian view of male/female relationships without making everything about sex which she thinks both the world and purity culture do. 

Now she may be incorrect or unwise in some of her ideas or advice, but I think what she is trying to do is commendable, and I don't think it can just be reduced to her being a undercover feminist.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

Spurgyon said:


> If a pretty 25-year old nurse starts coming to church, there's no reason for me to have a coffee with her or go for a walk together in the park. In fact, knowing my sinful heart, that's a terrible idea.





Spurgyon said:


> I've also seen people come up with exceptions to the Pence rule. For example, giving a woman a ride if her car breaks down. Or it's moving day for a single woman and you're the only guy who help her move heavy furniture. But these are rare events that should be handled case by case. That's a far cry from intentionally seeking one-on-one time with a woman who's not your wife.


I really don't see Aimee advocating this at all. It seems to me that she does understand that such inappropriate situations exist. Just because she says that men and women can be friends doesn't mean we should assume she is advocating feeding our sinful desires. I could understand a bit of push back on somethings she says, but I keep hearing examples like this as though they are the main point of the book or something.

Is there no ground between "Men and women can't be friends" and "intentionally culivate situations where you are likely to be tempted"?



Spurgyon said:


> As someone else has said, she " has appealed to our glorified state in the New Heavens and New Earth as the pattern for earthly friendships between sexes now."


The reason Aimee appeals to this is because if we reduce male/female relations to simply sexual ones, and there is no marriage in the new heavens and the new earth, then there seems to be a vacuum in male/female realationships left there. 

Therefore there must be some form of platonic relationship of value here on earth.

Not that it will be the same as in the new creation of course, but she argues that there must be some continuity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Spurgyon (Feb 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> I really don't see Aimee advocating this at all. It seems to me that she does understand that such inappropriate situations exist. Just because she says that men and women can be friends doesn't mean we should assume she is advocating feeding our sinful desires. I could understand a bit of push back on somethings she says, but I keep hearing examples like this as though they are the main point of the book or something.
> 
> Is there no ground between "Men and women can't be friends" and "intentionally culivate situations where you are likely to be tempted"?
> 
> ...



No offense, but all I see from Byrd and her apologists are mental gymnastics for a non-issue in the church. "Not enough strong, one-on-one non-spousal relationships between men and women" doesn't even make my Top 500 Problems in the Modern Church list. If you're going to write a 250-page book, there are far more relevant and pressing topics. And again, where's the Biblical basis for it? Saying there's no marriage in the new heavens and earth doesn't necessitate that we build strong, sibling-like relationships with the opposite sex now. That doesn't follow from the premise at all.

We're simply told to treat younger women with absolute purity--the way we do our sisters. That doesn't mean our relationships with other women should be as close or intimate as they may be with our literal sisters.

As for this " I don't think it can just be reduced to her being a undercover feminist," I can't read her heart or motives. However, I notice she leans to the feminist/progressive side on virtually ever gender issue, whether it's supporting the APA's drivel, wearing bikinis, attacking men who write helpful articles on raising boys, etc. She always throws in a few careful caveats to remain orthodox, but she has a clear bias.

Reactions: Like 7 | Funny 1


----------



## Susan777 (Feb 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> I think this is a very good point.
> 
> It's actually quite similar to some of the arguments Aimee makes in her book. She is concerned that we often make sexual relationships the ultimate form of relationship and therefore downplay friendship. And so the only meaningful friendship men and women can have is sexual.
> 
> ...


So she thinks that people who have objections to her pitch for platonic friendships between married men and women do so because it’s all about sex? What she is promoting is NOT commendable. I think her understanding of the sin nature in all of us is woefully inadequate. A wiser older woman needs to take her aside and talk to her about a number of things, actually. And I agree, she’s not an “undercover” feminist.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ZackF (Feb 27, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> So she thinks that people who have objections to her pitch for platonic friendships between married men and women do so because it’s all about sex? What she is promoting is NOT commendable. I think her understanding of the sin nature in all of us is woefully inadequate. A wiser older woman needs to take her aside and talk to her about a number of things, actually. And I agree, she’s not an “undercover” feminist.


She’s middle aged herself and I just don’t get her concern though. Unless you are mechanically avoiding women at church you’re going to make friends with them. Is there any man on this list that avoids mixed company?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 27, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> So she thinks that people who have objections to her pitch for platonic friendships between married men and women do so because it’s all about sex? What she is promoting is NOT commendable. I think her understanding of the sin nature in all of us is woefully inadequate. A wiser older woman needs to take her aside and talk to her about a number of things, actually. And I agree, she’s not an “undercover” feminist.



You wrote:
"A wiser older woman needs to take her aside and talk to her about a number of things..."

Yes, agree. But then this gets into the broader problem of podcasts and blogging. The wiser older women are too busy with their homes and taking care tending to their families than to be employed correcting men 40-60 hours a week on the internet. The whole nature of blogging and podcasts subverts authority and causes those who are most tech-savvy to be pushed to the forefront, while those tech-illiterate older folks who are actually the most wise remain unheard.


----------



## ZackF (Feb 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> That is all very vague. Can you give me examples of purity culture? My only knowledge of it is the weird purity rings that maybe were not very effective. And not letting kids "date" but chaperoning them (which seems like good sense).



Okay. My attempt with being less vague.  Since this thread is suppose to be about Mrs Byrd I hope it isn't unwelcome. I've never knew any women personally with purity rings but have never disparaged them. My problem with them would be someone being judged and berated for NOT wearing one.

In that vein 20 years ago there was a purity culture that tried with some success to push back against the culture's crumbling sexual morality. Again, nothing wrong with that as far as it goes. I was Roman Catholic in those days but there was co-belligerence on these matters and I think this existed in the broader evangelical world. Some of the things, good and bad, that I noticed.

--Fundraisers would be held for months to pay for certain celebrity chastity speakers. Why? Do you have to raise money to pay someone to tell you to wait for marriage?
--Virginity and chastity would often be conflated. The former elevated above the latter causing despair among those who had missed keeping the former. Being a technical virgin and consuming p0rn won't get a girl pregnant but it isn't chaste either.
--Josh Harris was indeed on to something. He was endorsed and promoted by plenty of respected evangelicals from Elisabeth Elliot to James Dobson. Give the young JH a break. I found the book inspiring. The fact that some people want to blame their relationship failures on him is ridiculous. Harris's recent middle aged rethinking of the products of his young adulthood aside, latter day critics of his need to replace his ideas with something other than a swift pendulum swing back to the world's meat market methods.
--I was on the diocese's youth/young adult board in the late 1990s and I remember going to 'chastity conferences' where I'd see kids promoting purity speak to their parents with such vileness that I couldn't believe so few of us could see the contradiction. I looked at a priest after we both overheard such an incident and he just nodded and said, 'yep'.
--The other commandments also got short shrift.
--Parents then and now downplay the importance of chastity because of their own failures. This is silly and destructive. Thankfully most parents who turn to godliness don't take these reservations about promoting chastity to their logical conclusion in other areas. For example; let's say you boosted a car and beat up a kid within an inch of his life as a 17 year old and then turned to Christ in juvenile hall. Twenty years later you had a teenager of your own. You wouldn't fail to discourage the same behavior in your son. For some reason there is hesitancy in sexual matters out of fear of hypocrisy.
--Finally, the worst of purity culture can promote a disdain for unbelievers and judgment of those outside the church.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 28, 2019)

ZackF said:


> Okay. My attempt with being less vague.  Since this thread is suppose to be about Mrs Byrd I hope it isn't unwelcome. I've never knew any women personally with purity rings but have never disparaged them. My problem with them would be someone being judged and berated for NOT wearing one.
> 
> In that vein 20 years ago there was a purity culture that tried with some success to push back against the culture's crumbling sexual morality. Again, nothing wrong with that as far as it goes. I was Roman Catholic in those days but there was co-belligerence on these matters and I think this existed in the broader evangelical world. Some of the things, good and bad, that I noticed.
> 
> ...


Thanks.


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 28, 2019)

Spurgyon said:


> No offense, but all I see from Byrd and her apologists are mental gymnastics for a non-issue in the church. "Not enough strong, one-on-one non-spousal relationships between men and women" doesn't even make my Top 500 Problems in the Modern Church list. If you're going to write a 250-page book, there are far more relevant and pressing topics. And again, where's the Biblical basis for it?





Susan777 said:


> So she thinks that people who have objections to her pitch for platonic friendships between married men and women do so because it’s all about sex? What she is promoting is NOT commendable.


I think firstly what's important to remember is the title of her book. It's called _Why can't we be friends?: Avoidance is not purity _It's not _We absolutely need to be friends!: Why the church needs more one-on-one relationships_. Aimee isn't arguing we need more relationships like this, and certainly not ones in which no wisdom is exercised.

What is more important to her is how we view friendship between the sexes and therefore how we view men and women altogether. Take the Pence Rule as an example. A useful, practical bit of wisdom, especially for someone in Mike Pence's position. But remember what was said earlier in the thread about purity culture. It had a very weak view of sanctification and holiness, and mostly relied on piling on man-made rules. Rules are great, but if our only way of fighting sexual sin is just avoiding the other sex it communicates something very negative.

She is not saying avoidance is not needed. She's saying that if the only thing we think when we think of the other sex is "avoid them so I don't sin" we can have a distorted view of our brothers and sisters. If we view each other as sexual beings with no self-control, every little interaction becomes a potential temptation with sexual undertones and something forbidden. Which can in turn actually entice lust, as the failure of much of purity culture shows.



> While it may seem safe to impose rules that separate us from ordinary encounters with the other sex, this isn't the virtue of purity. It is the oversexualizing of others. Rejecting impurity or sexual transgression should never lead to rejecting the value of another person. The virtue of purity rightly orients sensuality before God and others. It perceives and responds to the holistic value in human beings.
> 
> Our call to Christian love and fellowship as brothers and sisters doesn't call us to "the false modesty of the prude" but to a "humble sincerity". Of course we promote one another's holiness, take sin seriously, and realize that we can easily fall into it. We don't think of a bunch of reasons to be alone with the other sex, we don't naively assume that everyone is safe, and we don't overestimate our own virtue. But, rather than creating extrabiblical rules, we are to do the hard work of rightly orientating our affections and exercising wisdom and discernment with others. We live before God in every situation. And in this manner, we will be able to perform ordinary acts of kindness and business without scandal. _-Why can't we be friends?: Avoidance is not purity- pg76_



When Aimee joined Mortification of Spin, she says: 



> some listeners soon warned of the dangers of having a woman interacting with two respectable men. Some of the "warnings" were terribly demeaning: I was an affair waiting to happen, a possible career ender, perhaps Satan's strategy to bring down another pastor and church. Even if I was a positive addition to the podcast, it wasn't worth the risk._-Why can't we be friends?: Avoidance is not purity- pg7_



Surely we can say that is ridiculous without throwing wisdom out the window?



Spurgyon said:


> I notice she leans to the feminist/progressive side on virtually ever gender issue


Honestly, apart from not being very keen on the Pence Rule (and for different reasons mind you) I'm not really seeing how anything she is saying here lines up with feminism at all. 

"Jesus Christ is our great treasure. We don't need a movement with pledge cards, customized Bibles, and silver rings."

You can just hear the feminists screaming that from the rooftops can't you?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 28, 2019)

Re: naming, I think it's beautiful that God speaks things into being, and Adam, his image-bearer, speaks in recognition and reception of those things. In recognition and reception of 'woman' (taken from man) he speaks in poetry. It is only after God speaks the promise of a deliverer that Adam names the woman 'Eve' -- in recognition of who she is through God's promise, in her relation to the Messiah. Eve's identity is expressed by Adam not in relation to himself but in relation to Jesus. I think this is an important point because otherwise the act of naming Eve seems to make Adam out to be a sort of manipulator of an identity which terminates on him. Women do often function with some idea that they need a stamp of authentication from a mere man, and with shame not to be approved by men, and try to reshape a God-given individuality for masculine approval. But fundamentally our identity is about our relationship to the second Adam, something the first Adam perceived and 'named' about his own wife.

I appreciate the more balanced points made by men in these discussions about women (imagine my surprise to find some snarky and emotional ones  ). It's one of the ironies to be aware of when there are loud voices on all sides, that women who have been trained to silence when other people are speaking loudly feel it mostly futile to try to qualify or engage.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 28, 2019)

Regarding naming we have another passage that illustrates how naming is related to authority. In Genesis 35:18 we read, “And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.” That final confirmation of the name was up to the husband.


----------



## Bill Duncan (Feb 28, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Regarding naming we have another passage that illustrates how naming is related to authority. In Genesis 35:18 we read, “And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.” That final confirmation of the name was up to the husband.


Even more than authority it is judgment. Jacob had the responsibility to make judgment upon right and wrong. The buck stopped with him. He determined that Rachel had been excessive in projecting her sorrow onto her son with the name. Ultimate judgment was mandated of Adam at the probation tree, where he failed his wife. Pretty heavy stuff for me. 

I think this relates to Byrd's proposal in that the married man who has a personal relationship with a woman must simply judge rightly.


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 28, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Regarding naming we have another passage that illustrates how naming is related to authority. In Genesis 35:18 we read, “And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.” That final confirmation of the name was up to the husband.



There wasn't a whole lot Rachel could have done at that point, though.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 28, 2019)

Pergs, I was thinking of how women share this image-bearing aspect of 'naming' in the Bible (ie, Genesis 29, 30). Please know I don't dispute that 'Adam was first formed, then Eve', etc. But I am not sure -- I just genuinely don't know -- if 'naming' pertains to a distinctly or predominantly masculine authority. And there are reasons to be wary about overstating that case.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 28, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> I think Aimee is trying to build a Christian view of male/female relationships without making everything about sex which she thinks both the world and purity culture do.
> 
> Now she may be incorrect or unwise in some of her ideas or advice, but I think what she is trying to do is commendable, and I don't think it can just be reduced to her being a undercover feminist.



I'm certainly not saying men and women cannot have platonic friendships. But just thinking about it from my own experience: I have never had a female friend, in any area of my life, who was my closest friend. Almost all of my female friends were as part of a larger group of friends, both male and female. That seems to me to be the default setting for a male/female friendship. My issue with Byrd here is that she seems to ignore this and advocate that not only is it perfectly natural for men and woman to have close, intimate friendships but that Christian (men) are almost obligated to pursue such friendships to manifest the spiritual bond between brothers and sisters in Christ and if they don't they are devaluing and sexualising Christian women. 

I would also say that my concerns over her feminist agenda are not primarily based on her views on this particular topic, but from what she says more generally.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 28, 2019)

A couple more thoughts:

1) Again, with the "Pence rule": clearly this does not prevent Vice-President, earlier Governor, Pence from interacting with women on a daily basis. The White House clearly is not a male-only zone. Furthermore, even if one could argue that superficially Byrd's criticisms of this rule might be fair, the very fact she made these criticisms is suspcious to me. At a time when our public morality is so wicked, and there are so many scandals in the secular and even Christian world, is the biggest issue to be *criticising* the "Pence rule"? People like Byrd might argue they are trying to maintain "balance" but we are so deep in the mire with public morality that these attempts at "balance" only serve to undermine any attempt to reform our moral conduct. Pence should have been applauded throughtout the Christian world for his stance. Instead we had this controlled opposition coming out and trying to undermine him. We need to ask why. We need to ask what their motivations are.

2) Clearly Byrd is not a feminist in the mould of those wretched creatures out in their pink hats, celebrating infanticide and the like. When I say she has a feminist agenda I mean she has adopted the basic tenets of feminism- its worldview, its language- and is adapting them to an orthdox, evangelical Christian context. There is overt, radical progressivism such as we see from some on the issue of race and there is a more subtle form of progressivism. It's the latter I see in Byrd and others like her. As Christopher said: it's a constant mental gymnastics with every issue to promote an insidious progressive ideology. Even on the Kavanaugh episode- surely one of the most obvious and appalling episodes of persecution and character assassination- she had to hedge and qualify. And what seemed to upset her the most was Esolen's (very accurate) assessment of the situation. Why didn't she write an article decrying the false accusations, the despicable conduct of the Democrats, the obvious and absurd lies of "Dr." Ford, the baying mobs who tried to storm the Supreme Court, the brainwashed protestors in the capitol building, the msm's spreading of lies and easily disprovable rumours? Why did she write an article that went out of its way to warn against the "objectionable" attitudes of some men when the whole fiasco was as clear an illustration as we could get of how it is *men *who are being demonised, subverted and bullied by our institutions and culture? Again, motivations.

And I just want to say that it's not that I consider Byrd to be the worst offender. I only brought up my concerns about her in the context of a discussion on podcasts and because her addition to MoS made it far less enjoyable for me. I don't read a lot of Christian blogs so I'm not aware of who else is out there- male and female- of a similar view as her. If I knew others to criticise I would, so she will just have to serve as a represenative.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Susan777 (Feb 28, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I'm certainly not saying men and women cannot have platonic friendships. But just thinking about it from my own experience: I have never had a female friend, in any area of my life, who was my closest friend. Almost all of my female friends were as part of a larger group of friends, both male and female. That seems to me to be the default setting for a male/female friendship. My issue with Byrd here is that she seems to ignore this and advocate that not only is it perfectly natural for men and woman to have close, intimate friendships but that Christian (men) are almost obligated to pursue such friendships to manifest the spiritual bond between brothers and sisters in Christ and if they don't they are devaluing and sexualising Christian women.
> 
> I would also say that my concerns over her feminist agenda are not primarily based on her views on this particular topic, but from what she says more generally.


Agree.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 28, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> 1) Again, with the "Pence rule": clearly this does not prevent Vice-President, earlier Governor, Pence from interacting with women on a daily basis. The White House clearly is not a male-only zone. Furthermore, even if one could argue that superficially Byrd's criticisms of this rule might be fair, the very fact she made these criticisms is suspcious to me. At a time when our public morality is so wicked, and there are so many scandals in the secular and even Christian world, is the biggest issue to be *criticising* the "Pence rule"? People like Byrd might argue they are trying to maintain "balance" but we are so deep in the mire with public morality that these attempts at "balance" only serve to undermine any attempt to reform our moral conduct. Pence should have been applauded throughtout the Christian world for his stance. Instead we had this controlled opposition coming out and trying to undermine him. We need to ask why. We need to ask what their motivations are.



I was thinking much the same thing in-between previously commenting on this thread and now. Moreover, is it really in keeping with the fifth commandment to publicly criticise the Vice-President of the United States for taking practical measures both to be faithful to his wife and to protect the dignity of his office? I think not. 



alexandermsmith said:


> 2) Clearly Byrd is not a feminist in the mould of those wretched creatures out in their pink hats, celebrating infanticide and the like. When I say she has a feminist agenda I mean she has adopted the basic tenets of feminism- its worldview, its language- and is adapting them to an orthdox, evangelical Christian context. There is overt, radical progressivism such as we see from some on the issue of race and there is a more subtle form of progressivism. It's the latter I see in Byrd and others like her. As Christopher said: it's a constant mental gymnastics with every issue to promote an insidious progressive ideology. Even on the Kavanaugh episode- surely one of the most obvious and appalling episodes of persecution and character assassination- she had to hedge and qualify. And what seemed to upset her the most was Esolen's (very accurate) assessment of the situation. Why didn't she write an article decrying the false accusations, the despicable conduct of the Democrats, the obvious and absurd lies of "Dr." Ford, the baying mobs who tried to storm the Supreme Court, the brainwashed protestors in the capitol building, the msm's spreading of lies and easily disprovable rumours? Why did she write an article that went out of its way to warn against the "objectionable" attitudes of some men when the whole fiasco was as clear an illustration as we could get of how it is *men *who are being demonised, subverted and bullied by our institutions and culture? Again, motivations.



I believe that TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) manifests itself among the Bourgeoise Reformed by their not wanting to speak out against the gross injustice to which conservatives have been subjected to since 2016. I have noticed that they are often very quick to jump on policies with which they disagree (I saw numerous BRs denounce the Travel Ban, which was just a common sense security measure), but they say very little or nothing in praise of things, such as pro-life measures, which they should support. The craving for academic and social respectability probably means that they do not want to be lumped in with "The Basket of Deplorables." Hence, they remain silent when they should speak out, and speak when they should remain silent.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Spurgyon (Feb 28, 2019)

a mere housewife said:


> I appreciate the more balanced points made by men in these discussions about women (imagine my surprise to find some snarky and emotional ones  ). It's one of the ironies to be aware of when there are loud voices on all sides, that women who have been trained to silence when other people are speaking loudly feel it mostly futile to try to qualify or engage.



I'm not sure what snarky and emotional responses you're talking about. The only thing I can think of are lines like:

"If all we do is blast people as 'crazy evil feminists'"

"You can just hear the feminists screaming that from the rooftops can't you?"

No one said Byrd is part of an organized feminist conspiracy or she's on the same level as Nadia Bolz-Weber. Those are straw men (straw women?). However, as has been stated several times, she leans left on practically every male/female issue with a few caveats here and there. If she's "triggered" by a Desiring God article encouraging men to fulfill their Biblical roles in an age of gender confusion, does she really need to write a 1,600 word screed denouncing it? That's one of many examples.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 28, 2019)

With respect to naming conventions, Scripture is far more diverse than monolithic. We frequently see fathers naming their children, and even renaming one in the case of Benjamin (which is a way of restoring both Rachel and the son from sorrow/tragedy). Some aspect of authority seems present in this. However, it would be easy to overread the significance of this fact, as the father's simple place as head of the family is just as frequently put for what is actually a more mutual commitment.

We see times when it appears to be a mutual decision, as in the cases of Esau and Jacob, and Perez and Zerah (and arguably Jesus, for he is named by the angel and God, and both Mary and Joseph agree). Some translations make the naming generic, "He was called...," while others use "they called him...." This we might call _parental authority,_ or nearly effaces the question of _authority _altogether, just expressing that the person had the name from everyone.

The following are explicitly named by the wife: Cain, Seth, Moab, Ben-Ammi, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulon, Dinah, Joseph, Onan, Shelah, Moses, Peresh. Clearly, there is an "authority" matter asserted in the cases of those four sons born to concubines. Many of these names are quite prominent, among the most prominent in Scripture. We may agree that the fathers in these cases clearly did not _object, _or didn't object enough to assert any changes; which left the authority delegated to the mother (or the wife).

I would say that the diversity of these biblical expressions does not allow us to draw strong conclusions about a father's "rights" or normative assertions of his leading authority. Naming a child would appear to be quite the naturally "mutual" decision, given the mutual contribution to the making and care of the child.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 28, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> With respect to naming conventions, Scripture is far more diverse than monolithic. We frequently see fathers naming their children, and even renaming one in the case of Benjamin (which is a way of restoring both Rachel and the son from sorrow/tragedy). Some aspect of authority seems present in this. However, it would be easy to overread the significance of this fact, as the father's simple place as head of the family is just as frequently put for what is actually a more mutual commitment.
> 
> We see times when it appears to be a mutual decision, as in the cases of Esau and Jacob, and Perez and Zerah (and arguably Jesus, for he is named by the angel and God, and both Mary and Joseph agree). Some translations make the naming generic, "He was called...," while others use "they called him...." This we might call _parental authority,_ or nearly effaces the question of _authority _altogether, just expressing that the person had the name from everyone.
> 
> ...


I have no problem with that, but the passage I gave shows who the final authority is. 

I also delegate many task into the hands of my wife. She makes domestic decisions and I go with it. 

But it is not as if we both have 1 vote and if we disagree then we are deadlocked. Or, if the husband doesn't go with the wife's choice he is somehow a bad husband or a dictator because woman bloggers would have us believe that to lead means to serve and therefore we should give into our wives whenever they have a strong opinion. 

Benjamin's father was not somehow a boorish tyrant because he would have his son named Benjamin against the wishes of his depressed wife. But when I read women bloggers, I get the impression that anytime a man makes a unilateral decision such as this, then he sins.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Spurgyon (Feb 28, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I have no problem with that, but the passage I gave shows who the final authority is.
> 
> I also delegate many task into the hands of my wife. She makes domestic decisions and I go with it.
> 
> ...



Aside from naming conventions, look at how God communicated with the OT patriarchs and pretty much all other married couples. He communicated with the husband about their mission: where to go, what to do, how to do deal with inhabitants of lands they settle in or travel through. With wives His communication was about their children--often these were women who were apparently barren. He did tell Hagar about Ishmaels's future but she had no husband with her. This is off the top of my head so there could be exceptions. But by and large, husbands and wives weren't treated as almost equivalent in every regard. They each had very different but important roles.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 28, 2019)

a mere housewife said:


> I appreciate the more balanced points made by men in these discussions about women (imagine my surprise to find some snarky and emotional ones  ). It's one of the ironies to be aware of when there are loud voices on all sides, that women who have been trained to silence when other people are speaking loudly feel it mostly futile to try to qualify or engage.


*Moderator Note*:
A very good point is raised here. I am uncomfortable with a thread about another person, especially a believer, that contains not a few personalizations versus actual substantive argumentation that takes pains to dissect the views of another per reasoned discourse.

I have previously cautioned that opinions need to be substantiated by linked content enabling the context to be reviewed. Said opinions need to make substantive arguments based upon dissection of the actual content of another, not simply assertions. This is not a blog site. It is a long discussion site. Accordingly, opinions are to be made not by merely linking to content with broadly stated implications, e.g., "go read it for yourself," "as you will see,", etc. No one is a mind reader able to tease out the opinion of another. If you have an observation or a complaint, back it up with explicit evidence in support of your assertions.

Now if anyone is inclined to dispute the above, they are free to do so via private means or via the Report function. If the thread is to remain open, there must be no more public posts directly or obliquely questioning, reasoning, etc., an explicit moderation post (like this one).
*End Moderator Note*

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 1, 2019)

This thread is now closed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

