Review of RGM’s BA&S

[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]

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]

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.

 

[CathH]

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.

 

[CathH]

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?

 

[CathH]

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?

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"?

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.

 

[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.

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.

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]

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.

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.”

 

[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.’

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.

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]

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]

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?

 

[A.Joseph]

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]

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.

 

[CathH]

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]

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.

 

[arapahoepark]

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.

 

[A.Joseph]

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]

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,

 

[CathH]

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.

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.

 

[CathH]

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.

 

[A.Joseph]

MoS ?

 

[Andrew35]

MoS ?
View attachment 7052

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

 

[A.Joseph]

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

You’re right.

 

[CathH]

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