Status
Not open for further replies.

BottleOfTears

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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."
 

BottleOfTears

Puritan Board Freshman
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?
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 
Last edited:

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Spurgyon

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 
Last edited:

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
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
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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.
 

BottleOfTears

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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.

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

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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.
 

BottleOfTears

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 
Last edited:

ZackF

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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!
 

Smeagol

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

BottleOfTears

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

Spurgyon

Puritan Board Freshman
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/
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top