Byrd's "Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood"

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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.
True question: Why do you consider yourself a complementarian?

It seems that the mental construct of these categories of complementarianism/egalitarianism is a new and modern labeling system created and accepted only in the last several decades.

What was your view called in the past?

If I called myself a "traditionalist", how would I be understood?

I'd like to scrap the labels of complementarianism/egalitarianism completely and go back to the past. But back then it was not labeled...it was just how almost all people lived (the assumed state).
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Senior
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.
Brother, please note, in my response to you, I said nothing about CBMW. I have already made it clear, I'm not a big fan (like so many things in "Big Eva"). I would not, for various reasons, be quick to throw around the moniker "complementarian" as descriptive of my own views. I am in agreement with much of it. But I'm more focused on what Aimee Byrd is putting forth as the new way forward.

Many who are urging a spirit of Christian charity and moderation toward Mrs. Byrd are unwilling to afford the same courtesy to the folks at CBMW. Regardless of what disagreements we may have with them, they are brothers and sisters in Christ that should be afforded an equal measure of the same grace. And that means fairly and accurately characterizing their own views.

You claim "Much of their argumentation was based for years in a heterodox doctrine of the Trinity." However the basis of their ministry is the Danvers Statement (1988). But it makes absolutely no reference to the aforementioned error. Some of their members do affirm ESS. Yet they maintain that ESS is not integral to their views of biblical manhood and womanhood. And I am compelled to agree.

I followed the debate on ESS. This lead me to deny the error of ESS as inconsistent with the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, that has not in any way changed my thinking on the biblical roles of men and women. And that, I believe, is because what compels me to deny ESS, compels me also to object to the erroneous anthropology of Aimee Byrd -- namely, the Word of God. Which is where I insist this discussion needs to be moored.

So brother, please don't think I've missed your point. I'm happy to agree with you that "Complimenarianism does not rise and fall with CBMW." But that was not and is not my point. CBMW and ESS are red herrings. They are being used to deflect attention away from the obvious problems in Mrs. Byrd's arguments. Further, I believe they are being used to silence those who disagree with them. That should not be allowed to happen.
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Is there any usage of this word "complementarian" in reference to gender relations before, say, the 1980's?
I have no idea. It's not really germane to my worldview. I reject some of hte more cultish applications of extreme patriarchalism. I don't consider myself a feminist. That's good enough for me at the moment.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I'm sure there is a narrative of how complementarian terms started being used. It's not really my forte. As long as we don't redefine the Trinity along subordinationist lines, and we don't enslave consciences by adding to God's word, and as long as we aren't feminists, I don't really have much to say beyond that.
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
Brother, forgive me, but this defense of Byrd amounts to little more than, "Some of her opponents are really, really bad." That may be true, but it's not an argument.
That's really what a lot of this boils down to. If you don't like Mrs. Byrd and Mrs. Miller's arguments, then you must embrace FV and ESS. If you aren't a fan of Wilson and the CBMW, then you must be a feminist.

A lot of the "debates" we have today, especially online, seem to be based as much on who is on which side and which side you like or hate the most rather than actually seeking to understand the underlying issues.
 
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
She always sounds very, very nice. I don’t picture her as some angry feminist with an axe to grind.
"One may smile, and smile, and be a villain."

(I'm not saying that she's a villain. But judging someone's views on their demeanor is another form of ad hominem argument. It is natural to do it, but that doesn't necessarily get to the bottom of things. And someone can themselves be sort of ok but can be instrumental in opening the door for real radicals to push through.)
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
But judging someone's views on their demeanor is another form of ad hominem argument. It is natural to do it, but that doesn't necessarily get to the bottom of things. And someone can themselves be sort of ok but can be instrumental in opening the door for real radicals to push through.)
There is probably some truth to that. I probably do the same thing. I've seen firsthand how creepy some of these issues can get in real life. I don't think I am overreacting, since the most feminist I am is I think it is okay for a woman to work. Other than that, I'm pretty orthodox.
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
A few thoughts. And I may be offering really ignorant views about one or more of these since I've never really read much specifically complementarian stuff.

1. Several years ago, after reading some material by a complementarian woman who has been involved with CBMW from the start, I was struck by the extent to which there was agreement with second wave feminism. I'd have to go back and try to find it again, but that was my takeaway, for what it's worth. My understanding is that the word "complementarian" was coined because there was no suitable substitute for patriarchy. And what they're selling (or at least some of them) isn't patriarchy. Some of the women may oppose the classic "have it all" feminist mentality in the sense that you must strive for that, but do they oppose the idea that a particular woman might want to have it all? To me, those who are into things like quiverfull, homeschooling, and family-integrated churches have gone beyond comp into patriarchy since those are all rather traditional things. Complementarianism is a late 20th Century thing that wants to keep women out of the pulpit on the basis of a few Bible verses but which doesn't want to appear to be too radical and out of step with society otherwise. (I suppose ESS is a way of trying to get beyond the proof texting.)

2. Is ESS really essential to CBMW's efforts? Hasn't that only come to the fore in recent years? Wasn't Ligon Duncan the head of CBMW about 10-15 years ago? Was it being pushed back then? (I'm assuming he's against it.)

3. I don't see how what the likes of Byrd (and maybe even Pruitt, although it has been a few years since I've followed them closely, and he has said he doesn't agree with her on everything, but I'm not sure if he's said where they actually disagree) aren't engaging in what amounts to biblicism with their stance against women in ministry. That despite the fact that they would probably decry biblicism elsewhere, especially when it is Baptists and dispensationalists harping on a few proof texts. Practically everything else has been conceded to the feminists. (He says he's against androgyny when it comes to clothing or "outward adornment." So I guess there's that. Although what he (and most of us) consider to be gender appropriate clothing is probably a broader thing than it was in the past.) Basically, what it seems to boil down to for "thin complementarians" is that gender roles or whatever you want to call it pertain to church and home and practically nowhere else. It seems that there is a refusal to argue from natural law or the natural order and that their case is based on maybe a couple of Bible verses that refer to things like "husband of one wife" along with their confession, maybe. Is Mrs. Byrd against "house husbands?" Is Rev. Pruitt?

I can tell you that most people look at women in boardrooms, in Governor's mansions (remember the enthusiasm for Palin?), and maybe even in the White House one day soon and they will think that the idea of a man ruling the household and the church is, at best, a holdover from a bygone age and one that needs to end. Are we to believe that a woman President is going to submit to her husband in the household? I suspect that in the end it will be patriarchy or "thick comp" on one side and various shades of egalitarianism on the other.

I have my doubts that "thin complementarianism" will exist in another generation. All of the "action" is with various charismatic and pentecostal churches these days. We're told that everybody else is plateaued or declining. And with few exceptions, charismatic and pentecostal churches are egal. (I'm not sure that it matters that at least some of them are for women preachers based on "prophetic" gifting that shouldn't be quenched rather than explicitly feminist views.) Will the Southern Baptists be far behind now that Beth Moore is openly cheerleading for women pastors? It seems to me that either there will be a split, or they will get "woke" on this issue. Those kinds of women's classes have probably served as a sort of safety valve that has kept women from demanding women pastors. For a lot of people, on a practical level, that kind of study is more important than public worship is. What would happen in many of the churches if the pastor were to come in and give lessons instead?

4. Remember when women in combat was an issue in the early 1990s? Are many people even bothered by that anymore? And a lot of girls "doing everything the boys can do" is pushed by the fathers.

5. If we're going to judge a book by its cover, I'd think that few people who are anywhere close to being confessionally Reformed (or even just conservative) are going to be cheered by some of the endorsements for "Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" that are prominently displayed on Amazon. McKnight and Beaty are feminists. I'm not sure about the other two, but the people she is trying to reach (presumably, people in NAPARC type churches and conservative evangelicals in general, such as Southern Baptists) may not get fired up about them either.

6. Would those who ignited the ESS controversy a few years ago had pursued the controversy to the extent that they did if they didn't also disagree with other things that CBMW teaches?

7. I've never been a John Piper fan. And I think he's gotten it really wrong with some pronouncements and opinions through the years. But I can appreciate him wrestling with the issues and taking some heat rather than just pointing at a handful of Bible verses as justification for keeping women out of the pulpit and living like a feminist otherwise.
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Would those who ignited the ESS controversy a few years ago had pursued the controversy to the extent that they did if they didn't also disagree with other things that CBMW teaches?
Some would. I was largely indifferent to the CBMW debate either way. I just recognized red flags in the Trinity. And then guys like Michel Barnes and Lewis Ayres, the two leading Augustine scholars in the world, weighed in, and they probably had never heard of the term "complementarian."

But yeah, CBMW really shot themselves in the foot on that one. It allowed people who might have sketchy ethics in some places to really pommel them on this point and be correct.

And last I looked, leaders like Wilson and the Baylys had affirmed ESS.
 

BottleOfTears

Puritan Board Freshman
Complementarianism is a late 20th Century thing that wants to keep women out of the pulpit on the basis of a few Bible verses but which doesn't want to appear to be too radical and out of step with society otherwise.
The thing is though, a lot of this "home schooling" "traditional" "quiverful" stuff is incredibly American. Like you might think that is just the default position and its pretty much feminism from there on out, but like to even the most conservative Christians over here, homeschooling etc just doesn't have the same appeal. There's places on the Islands in Scotland where they literally chain up the swings on the Lord's Day and I don't think they care much for homeschooling.

Are you sure that it isn't the "trad patriarchy" people who just want to be as radical and out of step with society as possible, with the assumption that makes them more holy/biblical? To me it seems far more that for the sake of an idealised American Dream, a set of mere cultural traditions has been exalted to an extra-biblical standard. I suppose the appeal comes from how anti-feminist it all appears.

It leads me to think that much of this is driven much more by Americans general dislike of government (state schools = bad) and a very binary view of politics (anything that seems opposed to feminism = good) that leaves little room for nuance or dialogue.
Basically, what it seems to boil down to for "thin complementarians" is that gender roles or whatever you want to call it pertain to church and home and practically nowhere else. It seems that there is a refusal to argue from natural law or the natural order and that their case is based on maybe a couple of Bible verses that refer to things like "husband of one wife" along with their confession, maybe.
Todd Pruitt says that:
From both Scripture and nature we know that there are categories of behavior and outward adornment which are more fitting for males, and others which are more fitting for females.
I'm also not really sure a lot what Aimee says here, works if you assume androgyny. Also in her response to a review of her book here, she says:
I do not think men and women only relate to one another differently in the home and in the church. I write extensively about how the two sexes relate as brothers and sisters in all of life.

• I am not reluctant to define manhood and womanhood. Men generate differently and their bodies correspond to this, every cell in their DNA is male, they are fathers, sons, uncles, nephews and brothers. Women, as well, generate differently with corresponding bodies in which every cell in them are female, and we are mothers, daughters, aunts, nieces, and sisters.

• I’m not reluctant to specify differences beyond biological ones. I just am reluctant to reduce our differences to stereotypes and bad gender tropes.

• I’m not reluctant to treat manhood and womanhood as significant for Christian discipleship. I teach quite differently in the book, that the reason we need strong investment and encouragement for both laymen and laywomen to be discipled well is because our respective sexes provide a dynamic, synergetic reciprocity as tradents to the faith.
The problem is not a "refusal to argue from natural law", or a wholesale rejection of differences between men and woman as you claim, the issue is Aimee disagrees with a lot of the things that have been said in the past and that are still said today under the pretenses of natural law. Now, if you want to disagree there, that's fine. Please actually try to argue against what is actually being said though. Have you even read anything on the subject by the persons in question?

I have my doubts that "thin complementarianism" will exist in another generation.
I'm sure it will. There are plenty "skinnier" people over this side of the pond, and I'm sure we'll do just fine.
Also, I would like to add that maybe, just maybe there exist positions between "there is no difference between men and woman and how they fit in society" and "woman cannot hold any significant position of authority".
 

Andrew35

Puritan Board Freshman
The thing is though, a lot of this "home schooling" "traditional" "quiverful" stuff is incredibly American. Like you might think that is just the default position and its pretty much feminism from there on out, but like to even the most conservative Christians over here, homeschooling etc just doesn't have the same appeal. There's places on the Islands in Scotland where they literally chain up the swings on the Lord's Day and I don't think they care much for homeschooling.

Are you sure that it isn't the "trad patriarchy" people who just want to be as radical and out of step with society as possible, with the assumption that makes them more holy/biblical? To me it seems far more that for the sake of an idealised American Dream, a set of mere cultural traditions has been exalted to an extra-biblical standard. I suppose the appeal comes from how anti-feminist it all appears.

It leads me to think that much of this is driven much more by Americans general dislike of government (state schools = bad) and a very binary view of politics (anything that seems opposed to feminism = good) that leaves little room for nuance or dialogue.

Todd Pruitt says that:

I'm also not really sure a lot what Aimee says here, works if you assume androgyny. Also in her response to a review of her book here, she says:

The problem is not a "refusal to argue from natural law", or a wholesale rejection of differences between men and woman as you claim, the issue is Aimee disagrees with a lot of the things that have been said in the past and that are still said today under the pretenses of natural law. Now, if you want to disagree there, that's fine. Please actually try to argue against what is actually being said though. Have you even read anything on the subject by the persons in question?


I'm sure it will. There are plenty "skinnier" people over this side of the pond, and I'm sure we'll do just fine.
Also, I would like to add that maybe, just maybe there exist positions between "there is no difference between men and woman and how they fit in society" and "woman cannot hold any significant position of authority".
Bottle, while there are certainly some homeschoolers motivated by a 'state = bad' mindset--and those may have overrepresentation in conservative Christian circles--many of us just think that 'state schools = less good.'

Once you grant social engineering, credentialing, and at least some signaling (a la Brian Caplan), not a huge amount of architecture remains for quality education. It always amuses me how much "student-centered" progressive reforms start to bear some resemblance to homeschooling. And it's simply fact that homeschoolers have significantly better outcomes than their public counterparts. How much of that is demographically related is uncertain, but it's certainly interesting.

Maybe this is an area where are UK cousins could learn something from the American experience? After all state education is still something of a modern experiment, in the history of pedagogy.
 
Last edited:

BottleOfTears

Puritan Board Freshman
Bottle, while there are certainly some homeschoolers motivated by a 'state = bad' mindset--and those may have overrepresentation in conservative Christian circles--many of us just think that 'state schools = less good.'

Once you grant social engineering, credentialing, and at least some signaling (a la Brian Caplan), not a huge amount of architecture remains for quality education. It always amuses me how much "student-centered" progressive reforms start to bear some resemblance to homeschooling. And it's simply fact that homeschoolers have significantly better outcomes than their public counterparts. How much of that is demographically related is uncertain, but it's certainly interesting.

Maybe this is an area where are UK cousins could learn something from the American experience? After all state education is still something of a modern experiment, in the history of pedagogy.
That's irrelevant though. That's an argument mostly based on how good the education is, or at best the prudential value of having more control over what your children are taught.
My problem is not with people home schooling, it is that it is part of, shall we say, an aesthetic that is seen as the "Biblical" way to organise a family, and how a man or woman should act.

It's not just homeschooling. Purity rings, the obsession with guns, views on politics, hatred of plastic forks...

It is not that all of these things are bad, in and of themselves, I just find it strange when certain things peculiar to American Christian culture are so ardently defended, if not outright touted as The Way To Do Things. Any criticism is seen by some as capitulation to feminism or somesuch. It is incredibly strange for me, a non-American for whom this culture is in many ways foreign, to be informed of my deviation in these areas. Maybe Americans are right about politics. Or guns. I just don't see how everything has to sorted into "Godly Actions for the Christian Man to Undertake for the Glory of Our Lord" or "Blasphemous Acts for the Accursed Pagans and Feminists who Strive to Undermine Our Christian Nation".
 

Andrew35

Puritan Board Freshman
That's irrelevant though. That's an argument mostly based on how good the education is, or at best the prudential value of having more control over what your children are taught.
My problem is not with people home schooling, it is that it is part of, shall we say, an aesthetic that is seen as the "Biblical" way to organise a family, and how a man or woman should act.

It's not just homeschooling. Purity rings, the obsession with guns, views on politics, hatred of plastic forks...

It is not that all of these things are bad, in and of themselves, I just find it strange when certain things peculiar to American Christian culture are so ardently defended, if not outright touted as The Way To Do Things. Any criticism is seen by some as capitulation to feminism or somesuch. It is incredibly strange for me, a non-American for whom this culture is in many ways foreign, to be informed of my deviation in these areas. Maybe Americans are right about politics. Or guns. I just don't see how everything has to sorted into "Godly Actions for the Christian Man to Undertake for the Glory of Our Lord" or "Blasphemous Acts for the Accursed Pagans and Feminists who Strive to Undermine Our Christian Nation".
Oh, I agree. I wasn't arguing with you. Just wanted to make a point about homeschooling. It looked like a bit of a broad brush.

As to the rest, I haven't been part of the discourse for many years, having lived out of the States, for the most part, since 2006. So my take on all this is similar to my take on Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller: so much of this conversation feels largely irrelevant to my situation, since I'm not really hearing the ones that they are responding too. Like what you've mentioned above: I'm perhaps vaguely aware of those things, but, except for politics, have never actually met anyone who fits into those categories--even my friends back in the States.

So I mostly just ignore it, putting in my POV when I feel the need and when I don't understand something.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Could you point them out? Is there no place for being concerned about the source of a person's teaching?
Simply because there are fallacies doesn't mean that I am not concerned otherwise. It is because I am concerned that I point out the sloppy thinking.

We'll point out a few:

He accuses Byrd of primarily staying with egalitarian authors (as though that were bad; it might be but that's irrelevant). He then contrasts bad egalitarianism with robust complementarianism. And three of the authors he cites as egalitarians, Giles, Bauckham, and Witherington, are complete giants in their field. World authorities, even. Compare Bauckham's scholarship with Ware's and you will see what I mean.

The last sentence in Naselli's first paragraph cited is also problematic. Byrd might share egalitarian philosophical commitments, but it doesn't follow that she does because she is reading Bauckham. That's just....bad.
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
Simply because there are fallacies doesn't mean that I am not concerned otherwise. It is because I am concerned that I point out the sloppy thinking.

We'll point out a few:

He accuses Byrd of primarily staying with egalitarian authors (as though that were bad; it might be but that's irrelevant). He then contrasts bad egalitarianism with robust complementarianism. And three of the authors he cites as egalitarians, Giles, Bauckham, and Witherington, are complete giants in their field. World authorities, even. Compare Bauckham's scholarship with Ware's and you will see what I mean.

The last sentence in Naselli's first paragraph cited is also problematic. Byrd might share egalitarian philosophical commitments, but it doesn't follow that she does because she is reading Bauckham. That's just....bad.
In other words, after all that learnin, you think that, here at least, Naselli still argues like the fundy that he used to be?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
In other words, after all that learnin, you think that, here at least, Naselli still argues like the indy fundy that he used to be?
To be fair, no. Larnin' does make a difference.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Sophomore
I’m seeing a strong foundation for a good review. You should have at it...
A few thoughts. And I may be offering really ignorant views about one or more of these since I've never really read much specifically complementarian stuff.

1. Several years ago, after reading some material by a complementarian woman who has been involved with CBMW from the start, I was struck by the extent to which there was agreement with second wave feminism. I'd have to go back and try to find it again, but that was my takeaway, for what it's worth. My understanding is that the word "complementarian" was coined because there was no suitable substitute for patriarchy. And what they're selling (or at least some of them) isn't patriarchy. Some of the women may oppose the classic "have it all" feminist mentality in the sense that you must strive for that, but do they oppose the idea that a particular woman might want to have it all? To me, those who are into things like quiverfull, homeschooling, and family-integrated churches have gone beyond comp into patriarchy since those are all rather traditional things. Complementarianism is a late 20th Century thing that wants to keep women out of the pulpit on the basis of a few Bible verses but which doesn't want to appear to be too radical and out of step with society otherwise. (I suppose ESS is a way of trying to get beyond the proof texting.)

2. Is ESS really essential to CBMW's efforts? Hasn't that only come to the fore in recent years? Wasn't Ligon Duncan the head of CBMW about 10-15 years ago? Was it being pushed back then? (I'm assuming he's against it.)

3. I don't see how what the likes of Byrd (and maybe even Pruitt, although it has been a few years since I've followed them closely, and he has said he doesn't agree with her on everything, but I'm not sure if he's said where they actually disagree) aren't engaging in what amounts to biblicism with their stance against women in ministry. That despite the fact that they would probably decry biblicism elsewhere, especially when it is Baptists and dispensationalists harping on a few proof texts. Practically everything else has been conceded to the feminists. (He says he's against androgyny when it comes to clothing or "outward adornment." So I guess there's that. Although what he (and most of us) consider to be gender appropriate clothing is probably a broader thing than it was in the past.) Basically, what it seems to boil down to for "thin complementarians" is that gender roles or whatever you want to call it pertain to church and home and practically nowhere else. It seems that there is a refusal to argue from natural law or the natural order and that their case is based on maybe a couple of Bible verses that refer to things like "husband of one wife" along with their confession, maybe. Is Mrs. Byrd against "house husbands?" Is Rev. Pruitt?

I can tell you that most people look at women in boardrooms, in Governor's mansions (remember the enthusiasm for Palin?), and maybe even in the White House one day soon and they will think that the idea of a man ruling the household and the church is, at best, a holdover from a bygone age and one that needs to end. Are we to believe that a woman President is going to submit to her husband in the household? I suspect that in the end it will be patriarchy or "thick comp" on one side and various shades of egalitarianism on the other.

I have my doubts that "thin complementarianism" will exist in another generation. All of the "action" is with various charismatic and pentecostal churches these days. We're told that everybody else is plateaued or declining. And with few exceptions, charismatic and pentecostal churches are egal. (I'm not sure that it matters that at least some of them are for women preachers based on "prophetic" gifting that shouldn't be quenched rather than explicitly feminist views.) Will the Southern Baptists be far behind now that Beth Moore is openly cheerleading for women pastors? It seems to me that either there will be a split, or they will get "woke" on this issue. Those kinds of women's classes have probably served as a sort of safety valve that has kept women from demanding women pastors. For a lot of people, on a practical level, that kind of study is more important than public worship is. What would happen in many of the churches if the pastor were to come in and give lessons instead?

4. Remember when women in combat was an issue in the early 1990s? Are many people even bothered by that anymore? And a lot of girls "doing everything the boys can do" is pushed by the fathers.

5. If we're going to judge a book by its cover, I'd think that few people who are anywhere close to being confessionally Reformed (or even just conservative) are going to be cheered by some of the endorsements for "Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" that are prominently displayed on Amazon. McKnight and Beaty are feminists. I'm not sure about the other two, but the people she is trying to reach (presumably, people in NAPARC type churches and conservative evangelicals in general, such as Southern Baptists) may not get fired up about them either.

6. Would those who ignited the ESS controversy a few years ago had pursued the controversy to the extent that they did if they didn't also disagree with other things that CBMW teaches?

7. I've never been a John Piper fan. And I think he's gotten it really wrong with some pronouncements and opinions through the years. But I can appreciate him wrestling with the issues and taking some heat rather than just pointing at a handful of Bible verses as justification for keeping women out of the pulpit and living like a feminist otherwise.
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
To be fair, no. Larnin' does make a difference.
I was referring to arguments about certain names. She quotes people who are questionable at best, so she must be questionable too. That was basically the point I was making about the endorsements earlier. Some people won't give it a hearing if the wrong people like it. If Beaty and McKnight like the book, then it must be wrong. Unless some folks from our tribe also like it, we've got to dismiss it. This goes the other way too, especially with survivor blogger types.
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
I’m seeing a strong foundation for a good review. You should have at it...
Well, that would require actually reading the book, or at least it should. But I'm sure I wouldn't be the first person to pen a review of a book without reading it. I'm thinking it should probably be read in conjunction with her "Why Can't We Be Friends?" as well.

Around 10 years ago, my now moribund blog got some notice because I had gotten involved in a few controversies. (While the posts got greater exposure than I expected, I was denounced or dismissed by most Calvinistic people in the SBC, even by some names that might surprise some, but me and the others on my "side" were vindicated just a few years later after the "right" people started saying the same things that we were saying.) If I had been so inclined, I could have continued that, but to a certain extent it could have involved dealing in rumor and innuendo. For example, in a later controversy, there was a case where someone wouldn't provide information to me, even though it could have been done in a way where he could have remained anonymous. So it would have just been a rant. (We don't know anyone who does that, do we?) Plus, I take way too long to write things.
 
Last edited:

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I was referring to arguments about certain names. She quotes people who are questionable at best, so she must be questionable too. That was basically the point I was making about the endorsements earlier. Some people won't give it a hearing if the wrong people like it. If Beaty and McKnight like the book, then it must be wrong. Unless some folks from our tribe also like it, we've got to dismiss it. This goes the other way too, especially with survivor blogger types.
This is sad but true; I've seen bad reactions/immediate bias to or refusal to buy a book I published because one of the commendations is by someone who was persona non grata because on the wrong side of a controversy unrelated to the book.
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
To be fair, no. Larnin' does make a difference.
Some fundys do have larnin', even from places like TEDS, as he does. But he is not a fundy anymore, at least not in terms of separation, etc.

I'd rather read a fundy like Kevin Bauder over most Southern Baptists, and maybe over a good many evangelical Presbyterians these days. But admittedly, he is a rarity.
 

Afterthought

Puritan Board Senior
Simply because there are fallacies doesn't mean that I am not concerned otherwise. It is because I am concerned that I point out the sloppy thinking.
How would you properly show that a person's sources are influencing their thought? Aimee very often takes the egalitarian reading over the complementarian reading. While it is strictly a logical fallacy to argue about the sources that a person cites, is it not also true that people are organic and tend to promote and absorb the things they have read, which can lead to promoting a system of thought to one's readers that is contrary to even what one holds? If it is possible to (perhaps unintentionally) sow the seeds of egalitarian thought for others to consistently develop, how would one improve Naselli's argument to show this?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
How would you properly show that a person's sources are influencing their thought?
I don't know. That's not my argument, so it is not my burden to prove.
While it is strictly a logical fallacy to argue about the sources that a person cites, is it not also true that people are organic and tend to promote and absorb the things they have read, which can lead to promoting a system of thought to one's readers that is contrary to even what one holds?
Maybe. It's not a very strong line of argumentation, and if you were to use it, you would have to rigorously analyze all the sources and show influence and borrowing.
If it is possible to (perhaps unintentionally) sow the seeds of egalitarian thought for others to consistently develop, how would one improve Naselli's argument to show this?
I'm seeing a lot of "possibles" and "unintentionally" here. That's my point. It's a weak line of argumentation.
 

BottleOfTears

Puritan Board Freshman
Oh, I agree. I wasn't arguing with you. Just wanted to make a point about homeschooling. It looked like a bit of a broad brush.

As to the rest, I haven't been part of the discourse for many years, having lived out of the States, for the most part, since 2006. So my take on all this is similar to my take on Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller: so much of this conversation feels largely irrelevant to my situation, since I'm not really hearing the ones that they are responding too. Like what you've mentioned above: I'm perhaps vaguely aware of those things, but, except for politics, have never actually met anyone who fits into those categories--even my friends back in the States.

So I mostly just ignore it, putting in my POV when I feel the need and when I don't understand something.
Oh no that's fair, I see what you mean now.
 

mvdm

Puritan Board Junior
A book review explaining Byrd's hermeneutic and call to action by OPC minister Rev. Bennie Castle:

 
Top