D
Deleted member 11889
Guest
Where have you experienced it as out of bounds to call attention to it?But her works and words merit serious alarm. In some quarters calling attention to it is seen as out of bounds. Which baffles me.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where have you experienced it as out of bounds to call attention to it?But her works and words merit serious alarm. In some quarters calling attention to it is seen as out of bounds. Which baffles me.
Social media mostly. Facebook and the Twitter mob. Maybe the well is poisoned a bit by the Geneva Commons controversy, which I never was a part of. But I have seen even the most fair critiques of her work incur wrath.Where have you experienced it as out of bounds to call attention to it?
I read the article, read her blog post, and watched some videos of hers. I'm curious but I don't really have the time to devote to the topic to look deeply into it.Did you read all the material linked in the OP?
I've been doing a little bit of research, but I can't find out exactly what she specifically believes and practices that is against biblical Christianity. From what I have read, from her side and from her opponent's side, things are left to be pretty vague. Can anyone give some concrete specific examples of how she would counsel someone against the Bible?
This is precisely the point. Things are left vague on purpose when someone creeps towards the unorthodox. A plain example of what she has done is placing the thought that there was a female apostle (http://heritageopc.org/2021/10/26/recovering-2/) in her readers' minds. What does that do? It opens up the door to endorsing women ministers without having to explicitly endorse them. That should be enough - but there is enough material throughout her writings compiled on that site to sound the alarm. Her use of feminists and feminist imagery to make points should also be a warning to the church.
I'm undecided on the Junia claim. It is fairly standard in modern research and commentaries on that passage, even conservative commentaries. Moreover, one can affirm that Junia is an apostle while still rejecting female ministers, since we all admit that the apostolate has ceased.
As to using feminist and feminist imagery, I admit that can be problematic. On the other hand, anti-wokists are using atheists like James Lindsay to promote biblical doctrine. Eve worse, some patriarchalists promote the pedophile-enabling Pelagian "Transformed Wife."
Of course, that's technically the tu quo que fallacy, but it bears noting.
I do think it's possible to use non-Christian and questionable sources to support one's arguments. I just think it takes delicacy and skill to do it really well and effectively -- especially when writing for a popular audience.I'm undecided on the Junia claim. It is fairly standard in modern research and commentaries on that passage, even conservative commentaries. Moreover, one can affirm that Junia is an apostle while still rejecting female ministers, since we all admit that the apostolate has ceased.
As to using feminist and feminist imagery, I admit that can be problematic. On the other hand, anti-wokists are using atheists like James Lindsay to promote biblical doctrine. Eve worse, some patriarchalists promote the pedophile-enabling Pelagian "Transformed Wife."
Of course, that's technically the tu quo que fallacy, but it bears noting.
Yes. I was speaking narrowly to the issue of her being called a wolf and my earlier post was responding to the particular claim that it is laughable to assert that she is a victim of abusive behavior.I see. I must have missed the context of your statements due to gaps in the thread. You are speaking to the being called a wolf issue. Frankly I haven't followed that.
But her works and words merit serious alarm. In some quarters calling attention to it is seen as out of bounds. Which baffles me.
Would she say men and women are permitted to serve in the same capacities in the Church? If so, this is a clear violation of God's design and is concrete.You know me, brother, you know I have no love for the ESS, hyper-patriarchists, Doug Wilson, and that crowd. I am staunchly opposed to them all. I can be opposed to the hyper-patriarchy men and also towards egalitarians at the same time.
However, in Byrd's work targeted towards laypeople of both sexes, and towards elders - we must consider what the outcome of her material is when you view it as a whole. In my estimation, she certainly plants seeds of doubt (if not more than that) concerning male only leadership that are there to be watered. When coupled with the general thrust and evolution of her work, it tends towards an egalitarian view of men and women in the church (see who follows her on Twitter, she certainly does not seem to offend feminists and egalitarians, who are very supportive of her project - that should be a red flag in itself - if NT Wright ever supported a work of mine on justification, I would either have to believe he repented or I am in terrible error).
The Bible speaks of the subtilty of the serpent and to not be deceived by the deceitfulness of sin. These things are not so plain. Which is why whenever there is fog or confusion concerning a teacher (even putting aside the question if she should be teaching) - we must be on guard. Lest anyone misunderstand - I am not saying she is a serpent. Strange that I do not have to caveat my anti-Doug Wilson rhetoric in that way!
As of last year that was a clear no. I've not seen her say that.Would she say men and women are permitted to serve in the same capacities in the Church? If so, this is a clear violation of God's design and is concrete.
Rom, I know you aren't an ESS guy and we are on the same page. I've read maybe 40 pages of her Biblical Womanhood book. I generally don't read non-theological Christian lit, whether by men or women. My interest was that ministers in a denomination shouldn't use the kind of language that was used on Geneva Commons.
I wonder if her use of "feminist" literature is a reaction against certain Aristotelian interpretations of anthropology, where women were seen as defective men. I know Christian Patriarchalists don't officially believe that, but I suspect they kind of want to.
The Transformed Wife gives better marriage advice than 90% of Reformed pastors. She just needs to stay in her lane (which she mostly does) and speak only on marriage and the family. You are down on "partriarchalists" but their version of patriarchy is an over-reaction against feminism. Both are detestable. The OT was patriarchal, if you have a quarrel with patriarchy per se, go talk to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.I'm undecided on the Junia claim. It is fairly standard in modern research and commentaries on that passage, even conservative commentaries. Moreover, one can affirm that Junia is an apostle while still rejecting female ministers, since we all admit that the apostolate has ceased.
As to using feminist and feminist imagery, I admit that can be problematic. On the other hand, anti-wokists are using atheists like James Lindsay to promote biblical doctrine. Eve worse, some patriarchalists promote the pedophile-enabling Pelagian "Transformed Wife."
Of course, that's technically the tu quo que fallacy, but it bears noting.
The Transformed Wife gives better marriage advice than 90% of Reformed pastors. She just needs to stay in her lane (which she mostly does) and speak only on marriage and the family. You are down on "partriarchalists" but their version of patriarchy is an over-reaction against feminism. Both are detestable. The OT was patriarchal, if you have a quarrel with patriarchy per se, go talk to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Ouch. Fair point. Another reminder that nobody is infallible.I have a quarrel with people who enable pedophiles.
View attachment 8620
I don't eat rolls. Modern bread is poison.I wonder if chicken sandwiches to @Pergamum are like spinach to Popeye. He must have eaten some, because he is on a roll.
Ouch. Fair point. Another reminder that nobody is infallible.
In like manner, I support many of the women calling out abuse, even when I would never trust these women with any other theological issue.
Lots of people support the Pearls. And Doug Wilson with his advocacy for a pedophile. But again, she is mostly good on marriage and the family. For that matter Owen Strachen says many good things as well, just don't trust him on the Trinity. Nobody is infallible. But I find her views refreshing on marriage.She is also a Pelagian, as she denies a sin nature. It's on her blog somewhere. She also promotes the Pearls, whose methodology has actually killed kids. She is a nut. I put her and Doug Wilson in the same category for largely the same reasons (bad theology, promoting pedophiles, etc)
Pearls? Can someone fill me in?Lots of people support the Pearls. And Doug Wilson with his advocacy for a pedophile. But again, she is mostly good on marriage and the family. For that matter Owen Strachen says many good things as well, just don't trust him on the Trinity. Nobody is infallible. But I find her views refreshing on marriage.
Pearls? Can someone fill me in?
Pearls? Can someone fill me in?
Jacob has good advice about the Pearls. In their book they advocate spanking babies and doing rigid sleep schedules and ignoring cries at night. Maybe start a new thread about their dangers...they are substantial.Can someone detail exactly what is objectionable? I don't view spanking as objectionable, nor do I take issue with, say, using a degree of hunger to guide children toward eating what's put in front of them (i.e., if they don't eat it they have to wait until the next meal). Does the book advocate for starving or freezing a child into submission as the Wiki article implies, or were the nutjobs using the book as cover for their child abuse? Both sources cited appear to have a negative view of Biblical discipline which they conflate with its abuses. I'd like to know what the book itself says.
Can someone detail exactly what is objectionable? I don't view spanking as objectionable, nor do I take issue with, say, using a degree of hunger to guide children toward eating what's put in front of them (i.e., if they don't eat it they have to wait until the next meal). Does the book advocate for starving or freezing a child into submission as the Wiki article implies, or were the nutjobs using the book as cover for their child abuse? Both sources cited appear to have a negative view of Biblical discipline which they conflate with its abuses. I'd like to know what the book itself says.