Brother, I'm not a lurker there. A vast number of men and women there are faithful brothers and sisters who are not lurkers. You have broad-brushed defamed them. Don't deflect the issue to silly nonsense about Scott Clark.. Just repent, apologize, and move on.
Byrd's "Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood"
- Thread starter mvdm
- Start date
- Status
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Well, I've read quite a bit of her blog in recent years and things she's contributed in other places. I've listened to her talks and watched/read a handful of interviews. I have also read the articles of those who both affirm and disagree with the positions she's taken. So, my observations are my own based on an intelligent assessment of the things she has written as well as the explanations of them she has given. It is not necessary to conlcude that those who disagree with us, do so from ignorance.
Last edited:
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
Good to know. So forgive me if I haven't seen any interaction...
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I appreciate your apology. Of course I forgive you.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Speaking of Aimee's blog... Something I've noticed about Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller is their defensiveness. They wrote books which were overtly polemical and then acted surprised that anyone would have the gall to disagree with them. If anyone says, blogs, or tweets a word against them, they have to respond with a tediously long blog post rebutting every one of their opponents assertions. I haven't encountered this in many other writers.
One other thing one can't help but notice is their self-promotion. Whenever they post anything online, they have an image of their book as the cover. Just go to Ref21 right now and count the number of times you see the cover of Aimee's book. It's a bit off-putting.
One other thing one can't help but notice is their self-promotion. Whenever they post anything online, they have an image of their book as the cover. Just go to Ref21 right now and count the number of times you see the cover of Aimee's book. It's a bit off-putting.
Andrew35
Puritan Board Junior
That awkward moment in your MOS interview (Rachel Miller) when Carl Trueman jokingly refers to you as a "good Hegelian" for your lynchpin argument on the pendular motion of history....
Last edited:
BottleOfTears
Puritan Board Freshman
Are they overly defensive? I think what they are surprised about is not that people disagree with them, but rather the things some people say about them, for instance the accusation that Aimee only kicked off the ESS debate in order to sneak in feminism or some such thing into the church.
Frankly, I think the overly defensive ones are those who hear about a book being published by Aimee that they suspect they may disagree with and then jump in making noise about ulterior motives.
This often happens before books of hers have even been published, and even after by people who have never read a single page.
On the subject of responses, I usually only see them respond to say, a short article or review, with a short article of their own. That's seems to be a reasonable response.
I mean there's no number of theologians and authors online who write articles responding to articles responding to articles. Essays in theology journals are a whole other story. Try looking up what Calvin taught on union with Christ and how that relates to justification/sanctification(for instance) and you'll see what I mean.
And those would be the more reserved examples.
Not to mention people who spend all day arguing on Twitter. Aimee doesn't even tweet that much. I'm presuming you don't use Twitter, because there are much worse examples.
Moreover, if you want "defensive" there are definitely other places to look.
I really cannot see how they are an exceptional case.
Regarding their books, that seems to be rather subjective. Most Christian websites have books written by people there. I mean go to Ligonier, Grace to You, Desiring God, or TGC and count the number of books that appear. And honestly, if you are talking about a book it makes sense to have the cover as the image for the article, it's why pretty much all reviews do that.
EDIT: After having been to Ref21 (on mobile) I have seen three images of the the book cover. One from the MoS episode on the book, and two as the images for two articles, both of which were responding to reviews of the book, one of which was mostly about the book cover itself and the "yellow wallpaper" metaphor. All seem rather reasonable to me.
Honestly, it just seems like you're just looking for things to criticize. This is the reason why Aimee and Rachel get "defensive", far more time is spent on speculation about feminist conspiracies and strange criticisms like these than on their actual arguments.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
No. The most I'll do is modify my original statement to "the ethos of the group is militantly FV and the ethos attacks godly ministers like Scott Clark."
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I'll make one other concession: Geneva Commons isn't "FV" in the sense of the pure 2002-2003 conferences. The spirit of Lusk and Jordan has more or less passed from the scene. I think Neonomians or what DG Hart calls "The Obedience Boys" is a better moniker for GC.
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
There's no way for them to engage correctly. If they don't respond they are too weak and shouldn't have written their books if they weren't willing to defend them. If they respond in part their response is emotional and doesn't address the substance of the critique sufficiently. Now, apparently, a response in detail is considered overly defensive.
I mean I guess it is consistent for a certain brand of complementarian. For them the writing and defense of books is public which is the sphere of men.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
That's cheap.
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
If women can't ever rule in state, there goes Good Queen Bess. It is arguable that England was at its manliest under Queen Elizabeth.
Can women go to college, if so, study the sciences or a profession? I've heard of the view that says, why should they? They're to stay at home, etc.
My grandmother was a brilliant lady and got a degree in chemistry, but the year or so before she married (1905) instead of working at a pharmacy which my great grandfather would not allow (scandalous for a lady!), he had her give piano lessons for far less money. She married my grandfather who was heading to internship and became a TB doctor and never worked but raised four daughters including my mother.
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
To be clear, I don't agree with Pastor Spangler's view (my wife is a physician). I was simply demonstrating that my comment was not a cheap shot. For some, the public sphere belongs to men which raises the question if they can write books. Or if they can, on what topics can she write? Can men read them?
This is the context I see Aimee Byrd working in. It is illustrated by Pastor Spangler article, but also with things like John Piper's questions and answers. It's a frankly bizarre policing of the relations between men and women. "Rabbi, may a woman give directions to a man?"
This is the context I see Aimee Byrd working in. It is illustrated by Pastor Spangler article, but also with things like John Piper's questions and answers. It's a frankly bizarre policing of the relations between men and women. "Rabbi, may a woman give directions to a man?"
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I understand. Thank you for the clarification. I wouldn't disagree with the quote you provided. Though I don't know the gentleman who said it. It is too brief a quotation to know how he would say that is fleshed out practically, and there, I may disagree with some of his conclusions. But I think you are assuming too much if you believe such a view excludes the possibility of a woman writing a book review or books in general. One of my favorite writers is Anne Dutton. I have a seven volume set of her works sitting on the shelf in here in my study.
The problem, as I see it, is that statements like this are interpreted as hard and fast rules never admitting of any exception. They ought rather be understood as general principles that may have any number of legitimate exceptions in ordinary life.
Last edited:
"There is a distinction to be made between error and heresy. And between minor error and serious or even gross error. But to collapse all distinctions and to hasten to label folks like Aimee Byrd godless Jezebels strikes me as seriously failing to distinguish between things that differ. And while – again – I support every good minister’s right to critique and even challenge Mrs. Byrd, we need to steer clear of the cliff. There is also a process for transitioning an offender outwith the Visible Church, where one not only may but must be named “a heathen man and a publican.”
Let us applaud all righteous zeal. Feminism is a cancer. Let us not be time-serving yes men. But let us also let not our “good be evil spoken of” (Rom. 14:16)."
Good article from Michael Ives (Presbyterian Reformed Church). https://westportexperiment.com/2020/05/14/on-naming-names-in-controversy/
I saw this comment by Bryan Peters (PRC, Columbus) who posted the article linked in the prior post, and also Todd Pruitt's response to it.
"No, it [Bryd's book] is not out and out feminism, with full scale advocacy for women's ordination, etc. But I and many other confessional ministers are concerned that Byrd has built the proposals which she does make on a foundation of thoroughly egalitarian arguments and scholarship."
"For what it's worth: I think that's a fair judgment. I understand why you hold that concern." quoted with permission.
Facebook
www.facebook.com
"No, it [Bryd's book] is not out and out feminism, with full scale advocacy for women's ordination, etc. But I and many other confessional ministers are concerned that Byrd has built the proposals which she does make on a foundation of thoroughly egalitarian arguments and scholarship."
"For what it's worth: I think that's a fair judgment. I understand why you hold that concern." quoted with permission.
www.facebook.com
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I saw this comment by Bryan Peters (PRC, Columbus) who posted the article linked in the prior post, and also Todd Pruitt's response to it.
"No, it [Bryd's book] is not out and out feminism, with full scale advocacy for women's ordination, etc. But I and many other confessional ministers are concerned that Byrd has built the proposals which she does make on a foundation of thoroughly egalitarian arguments and scholarship."
"For what it's worth: I think that's a fair judgment. I understand why you hold that concern."
View attachment 6951
I can go with that as an initial judgment.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
@SeanPatrickCornell The creator of the site is Seni, it's run by Seni and Paul. Seni took the post down because his pastor and I encouraged him to take it down given that 1) he's a candidate for ministry and this is something ministers should be addressing very directly; 2) it's not 'in the lane' of PP so go back to quoting dead men in an organized fashion to make a good post applied to today's church; and 3) the author was going to - in upcoming articles - draw support from Doug Wilson which his site didn't want to touch with a 10 ft pole.
Last edited:
I only knew the half of it when I said this was a wise decision.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
I saw this comment by Bryan Peters (PRC, Columbus) who posted the article linked in the prior post, and also Todd Pruitt's response to it.
"No, it [Bryd's book] is not out and out feminism, with full scale advocacy for women's ordination, etc. But I and many other confessional ministers are concerned that Byrd has built the proposals which she does make on a foundation of thoroughly egalitarian arguments and scholarship."
"For what it's worth: I think that's a fair judgment. I understand why you hold that concern."
Not meaning to be persnickity, but given the tensions on this subject, I think it is good to consider that the Pub has a rule against sharing screenshots from the group.
If that's the rule, I'll remove it and leave the bear quotation and check with Brian.
Both Bryan and Todd were fine with this; I could not find a rule at the reformed pub facebook group against screenshots but since both give permission I see no issue with it if it is listed somewhere else than the main rules.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
I don't understand your reference to "your site", which I have bolded in your quote.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Sorry, that's confusing. I'm referring to Seni's site (PurelyPresbyterian).
I think you missed my point. The issue is not a debate over what Scriptures teach but a theological poverty in much of 20th Century theology that gave rise to the deformations in CBMW theology. Much of their argumentation was based for years in a heterodox doctrine of the Trinity promoted by Grudem. As the Trinity is *very* Scriptural, and Grudem denied fundamental tenets of this doctrine, it is germane to the polemic against the abuses his teaching engendered. I linked to Mark Jones' article precisely because I agreed with much of what he wrote as he made sound Scriptural and GNC arguments to critique some of Aimee's approach while also agreeing with her that CBMW has much that needs to be criticized. Complimenarianism does not rise and fall with CBMW.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
That's the heart of it for me. I consider myself a complementarian, though there are those on Twitter and Facebook who would probably see me as a feminist. Let's just completely jettison CBMW and see what kind of complementarianism emerges.
Andrew35
Puritan Board Junior
Feminists are one thing, but I have a deep aversion to people who constantly switch avatars. It's horribly disorienting.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Feminists are one thing, but I have a deep aversion to people who constantly switch avatars. It's horribly disorienting.
That's not the worst of it. I used to switch screen names all the time.
- Status
Similar threads
