Comprehensive Review of Aimee Byrd's Books

Status
Not open for further replies.

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I think this criticism of the Pearls is terribly unfair. They never advocated severe beating or killing a child or any such thing. I don't see where it is their fault that a child died whose parents went horribly overboard.

I'm sure they don't advocate killing a child. That sad consequence should be seen in their overall bad theology and general train wreck.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
I should note that I deleted my post not because I don't stand by it but by request of the person whose post I originally quoted, who wished their post to be deleted.

It should be noted that Mrs. Byrd was never charged with any offense, sin, or false teaching, let alone convicted of such, and that Mr. Spangler was tried and convicted by his Presbytery for his sin, at least in part for calling her a wolf. Such language should not be used about her and shouldn't be posted or tolerated on the Puritan Board.

It is the duty of watchmen to sound the alarm. The pope was never tried so I suppose we are sinning in calling him the Antichrist? Process is very important but it has often been the tool used by the compromisers and moderates to allow heresy in by the back door. Whilst they dither in process the wolves are left to devour the sheep. It is also ironic to be extolling due process in relation to Aimee Byrd who, when the process didn't go her way, attacked it as unjust and basically set up to protect the abusers and punish the victims. And then she stormed off to another denomination. That should tell you how much that side values the process.
 
Last edited:

Anthony W. Brown II

Puritan Board Freshman
It is the duty of watchmen to sound the alarm. The pope was never tried so I suppose we are sinning in calling him the Antichrist? Process is very important but it has often been the tool used by the compromisers and moderates to allow heresy in by the back door. Whilst they dither in process the wolves are left to devour the sheep. It is also ironic to be extolling due process in relation to Aimee Byrd who, when the process didn't go her way, attacked it as unjust and basically set up to protect the abusers and punish the victims. And then she stormed off to another denomination. That should tell you how much that side values the process.
I feel the same way. What are we thinking? Why spend the time reprimanding a brother for calling a wolf a wolf? Are we not shepherds? We should be on the lookout as watchmen ourselves!

It's like people are saying "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck...lets refrain from calling it a duck or else you will be held in contempt. It's not polite to assume they are a duck until the final day..." That dog won't hunt!

In this dangerous day we live in, we've got to be on watch and not leave the sheep to be devoured.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 

Zach

Puritan Board Junior
It is the duty of watchmen to sound the alarm. The pope was never tried so I suppose we are sinning in calling him the Antichrist? Process is very important but it has often been the tool used by the compromisers and moderates to allow heresy in by the back door. Whilst they dither in process the wolves are left to devour the sheep. It is also ironic to be extolling due process in relation to Aimee Byrd who, when the process didn't go her way, attacked it as unjust and basically set up to protect the abusers and punish the victims. And then she stormed off to another denomination. That should tell you how much that side values the process.
As I said earlier, surely the first duty of serious watchmen who believed our sister in Christ was in serious error would have been to file charges in the courts of the church. Instead, they cried wolf on the internet.

As our brother Rom has pointed out, all of what has subsequently played out is colored by that and the serious sins regarding what was said about Mrs. Byrd online.

Nobody, on either side, is saying that the process always arrives at the right conclusions, but I believe it is necessary out of respect to Mrs. Byrd to reiterate that she was never charged with, let alone convicted of, error or sin while Mr. Spangler was. To simply write her out of the Kingdom by way of personal judgment, especially without filing charges against her, was to deprive her of the rights to which she was entitled as a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I wish Mrs. Byrd remained in the OPC and was sad to see her leave.
 

Anthony W. Brown II

Puritan Board Freshman
As I said earlier, surely the first duty of serious watchmen who believed our sister in Christ was in serious error would have been to file charges in the courts of the church. Instead, they cried wolf on the internet.

As our brother Rom has pointed out, all of what has subsequently played out is colored by that and the serious sins regarding what was said about Mrs. Byrd online.

Nobody, on either side, is saying that the process always arrives at the right conclusions, but I believe it is necessary out of respect to Mrs. Byrd to reiterate that she was never charged with, let alone convicted of, error or sin while Mr. Spangler was. To simply write her out of the Kingdom by way of personal judgment, especially without filing charges against her, was to deprive her of the rights to which she was entitled as a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I wish Mrs. Byrd remained in the OPC and was sad to see her leave.
OK, thats fair. I will admit...I am on the outside looking in, being from a Baptist background and all.

So what you are saying is that we should be laboring to help pull her out of the fire instead of casting her out? And there is a process to help restore her and a process to excommunicate perhaps? Is there a resource I can review to help me understand the way the OPC would handle this? I am truly interested and genuinely would like to know. Blessings from St. Louis, MO.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 

SeanPatrickCornell

Puritan Board Sophomore
OK, thats fair. I will admit...I am on the outside looking in, being from a Baptist background and all.

So what you are saying is that we should be laboring to help pull her out of the fire instead of casting her out? And there is a process to help restore her and a process to excommunicate perhaps? Is there a resource I can review to help me understand the way the OPC would handle this? I am truly interested and genuinely would like to know. Blessings from St. Louis, MO.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Try this. I think the relevant section is "The Book of Discipline" pages 91 through 119.

 

Zach

Puritan Board Junior
OK, thats fair. I will admit...I am on the outside looking in, being from a Baptist background and all.

So what you are saying is that we should be laboring to help pull her out of the fire instead of casting her out? And there is a process to help restore her and a process to excommunicate perhaps? Is there a resource I can review to help me understand the way the OPC would handle this? I am truly interested and genuinely would like to know. Blessings from St. Louis, MO.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
Well, I also said earlier that while I disagree with a number of Mrs. Byrd's conclusions I also don't think that there is serious error that would warrant discipline. I think that she affirms the authority of Scripture and is on record saying that ordination to the office of Pastor and Elder is restricted to men. To reiterate what I said earlier, I understand why some have concerns with some of her interpretations and the way she was interpreting the Scriptures but I personally do not share their concerns.

That being said, those who disagree with me and think that there was serious enough error to warrant discipline should have handled it according to the process in our Book of Discipline. Sean beat me to it, but here's a link specifically to the Book of Discipline. Mrs. Byrd had rights according to our book that were disrespected by those claiming she was a wolf.
 

Anthony W. Brown II

Puritan Board Freshman
Well, I also said earlier that while I disagree with a number of Mrs. Byrd's conclusions I also don't think that there is serious error that would warrant discipline. I think that she affirms the authority of Scripture and is on record saying that ordination to the office of Pastor and Elder is restricted to men. To reiterate what I said earlier, I understand why some have concerns with some of her interpretations and the way she was interpreting the Scriptures but I personally do not share their concerns.

That being said, those who disagree with me and think that there was serious enough error to warrant discipline should have handled it according to the process in our Book of Discipline. Sean beat me to it, but here's a link specifically to the Book of Discipline. Mrs. Byrd had rights according to our book that were disrespected by those claiming she was a wolf.
In all respect, let me ask you this: do you believe feminism is a threat to the church today?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 

Zach

Puritan Board Junior
In all respect, let me ask you this: do you believe feminism is a threat to the church today?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
Certain strands of feminism and feminist thought are absolutely a threat to the church and undermine the clear teaching of the Scriptures and the Reformed Confessions. But I also don't think Mrs. Byrd is that kind of a feminist (if that label can be fairly applied to her at all) even if she does cite certain feminist observations as helpful. I think I said earlier in the thread that while I disagree with a number of her conclusions, I also think she raises a number of valid points and criticisms.
 

Anthony W. Brown II

Puritan Board Freshman
Certain strands of feminism and feminist thought are absolutely a threat to the church and undermine the clear teaching of the Scriptures and the Reformed Confessions. But I also don't think Mrs. Byrd is that kind of a feminist (if that label can be fairly applied to her at all) even if she does cite certain feminist observations as helpful. I think I said earlier in the thread that while I disagree with a number of her conclusions, I also think she raises a number of valid points and criticisms.
Here's the thing. What she is doing is similar to the issue that is happening in the SBC. It is being ravaged by false teaching regarding egalitarianism, feminism, intersectionality, and so-called "social justice". They are even promoting CRT as being a "helpful tool" and having "valid points" as well. When does it stop? When do we cut off ties with the teaching and defend against it? The SBC played with fire and are now stuck on life support because of it.

All I'm saying is when we are very clearly wounded, when do we stop the bleeding? If the bride of Christ is attacked, when do we take up arms and defend her? I personally believe it should be stamped out before it is too late. No doubt about it.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Here's the thing. What she is doing is similar to the issue that is happening in the SBC. It is being ravaged by false teaching regarding egalitarianism, feminism, intersectionality, and so-called "social justice". They are even promoting CRT as being a "helpful tool" and having "valid points" as well. When does it stop? When do we cut off ties with the teaching and defend against it? The SBC played with fire and are now stuck on life support because of it.

All I'm saying is when we are very clearly wounded, when do we stop the bleeding? If the bride of Christ is attacked, when do we take up arms and defend her? I personally believe it should be stamped out before it is too late. No doubt about it.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
I'd call that false equivalence. There are problems in the SBC that certain folks with an agenda are exploiting, there's no doubt about it. However, that doesn't mean that the problems are being dealt with appropriately by others.

Problems that look very similar are cropping up (coming into view) in other denominations as well, OPC included. The question for us is whether we're going to faithfully address them, carefully deal with them according to a biblical mind; or if we're going to take the tried-and-true route of papering over an issue expecting it to die away for lack of interest.

The devil is making hay while the sun shines in churches all over the land. If "feminists" (and that term is being applied rather broadly today) are the ones sounding an alarm, it doesn't do the church any favors when those who hear it merely "consider the source" and move on blithely trying to take the bell out.
 

mvdm

Puritan Board Junior
surely the first duty of serious watchmen who believed our sister in Christ was in serious error would have been to file charges in the courts of the church. Instead, they cried wolf on the internet.
This standard apparently did not apply to the signatories of the "Open Letter" published on Byrd's website who condemned Genevan Commons members based on a sketchy doctored doxxing site.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
This standard apparently did not apply to the signatories of the "Open Letter" published on Byrd's website who condemned Genevan Commons members based on a sketchy doctored doxxing site.
Perhaps @Zach and @Contra_Mundum could explain why they signed that letter. They do give some reasons in the letter itself - but maybe further clarification would be helpful especially given the way that the names/identities of those in the group were exposed.
 

Zach

Puritan Board Junior
This standard apparently did not apply to the signatories of the "Open Letter" published on Byrd's website who condemned Genevan Commons members based on a sketchy doctored doxxing site.
To quote the open letter, which as Rom points out I gladly signed:
Neither does this letter constitute formal charges against those who have committed these sins. Rather, we hope that this letter will encourage those who have committed these sins to repent publicly and to seek reconciliation promptly with those whom they have wronged. A fraternal appeal must precede any judicial charges, with honest hope and sincere prayer that it will be heeded. We therefore appeal to these brothers, by the mercies of Christ, by his blood shed both for them, for us, and for those whom they have maligned, to listen, heed, and repent.
The letter does not call these men wolves, write them off as enemies of the gospel, or deprive them of their rights in the courts of the church. Rather, it was a call to our brothers to consider their words and/or involvement in a group where such serious sins occurred and to repent and remove themselves from the Geneva Commons group.
 

mvdm

Puritan Board Junior
where such serious sins occurred and to repent and remove themselves from the Geneva Commons group.
Public accusation of serious sin and a call to repent-- things you said should be brought to the church courts first. Not a single thing on that doxx site was brought via charges.
 

Anthony W. Brown II

Puritan Board Freshman
To quote the open letter, which as Rom points out I gladly signed:

The letter does not call these men wolves, write them off as enemies of the gospel, or deprive them of their rights in the courts of the church. Rather, it was a call to our brothers to consider their words and/or involvement in a group where such serious sins occurred and to repent and remove themselves from the Geneva Commons group.
In like manner, has anyone called Aimee Byrd to consider her words and/or involvement in a group where such serious sins occurred (like publicly using coarse language like "white men" that the CRT and social justice pushers use) and to repent and remove themselves from the sphere of modern day feminism? This entire ordeal she is involved in with her reeks of insincerity and bitterness... Have we not any discernment to spot it by now?

I mean this in all respect BTW. It's challenging to appear sincere and kind on a black screen with letters. Bear with me!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 

Irenaeus

Puritan Board Freshman
I wish I could find the link, but I recently read an article whose main point was that we are, as a society, rejecting process in favor of all-out efforts to achieve a desired outcome. I see this very much in evidence here where people have been eager to see AB judged in the court of public opinion based on a judgment of her that, to listen to some of us, surely must be evident to any half-wit.

It's a tragedy of the digital age that the speed of information far surpasses the speed of sound reasoning and reflection. The pace of judgment in this society works to Satan's great advantage as he draws us away from operating in the way God designed us to work. These things take time to ponder and ought to be thought through carefully, not by twitter mobs or whatever the Reformed equivalent is. Those of us who have made up our minds about AB ought, perhaps, to ponder our position in the debate, and perhaps some of the opinions could be seasoned with a little bit of "it seems to me" and "can you help me understand why you think that". To those urging the immediate condemnation of AB here and now let's remember that God designed a church polity that works by due (and often slow) process, not by mob rule, and let's not forget that the Holy Spirit is at work in the background and that he protects his church in ways that we can't.

For the record, I still largely stand by criticisms of AB voiced in earlier threads (though with the benefit of some helpful perspective from private conversation with @Contra_Mundum to give me some pause on the matter)... I do think she is in error and drifting into strange waters. But I'm rather equally repulsed by some of the conduct directed at her, especially coming from ministers of the Word. Is one more of a threat to Christ's church than the other?
 

Anthony W. Brown II

Puritan Board Freshman
I wish I could find the link, but I recently read an article whose main point was that we are, as a society, rejecting process in favor of all-out efforts to achieve a desired outcome. I see this very much in evidence here where people have been eager to see AB judged in the court of public opinion based on a judgment of her that, to listen to some of us, surely must be evident to any half-wit.

It's a tragedy of the digital age that the speed of information far surpasses the speed of sound reasoning and reflection. The pace of judgment in this society works to Satan's great advantage as he draws us away from operating in the way God designed us to work. These things take time to ponder and ought to be thought through carefully, not by twitter mobs or whatever the Reformed equivalent is. Those of us who have made up our minds about AB ought, perhaps, to ponder our position in the debate, and perhaps some of the opinions could be seasoned with a little bit of "it seems to me" and "can you help me understand why you think that". To those urging the immediate condemnation of AB here and now let's remember that God designed a church polity that works by due (and often slow) process, not by mob rule, and let's not forget that the Holy Spirit is at work in the background and that he protects his church in ways that we can't.

For the record, I still largely stand by criticisms of AB voiced in earlier threads (though with the benefit of some helpful perspective from private conversation with @Contra_Mundum to give me some pause on the matter)... I do think she is in error and drifting into strange waters. But I'm rather equally repulsed by some of the conduct directed at her, especially coming from ministers of the Word. Is one more of a threat to Christ's church than the other?
Fair enough and well said. I will be honest and say I don't have an iota of faith in men to handle this appropriately. I'm a bit shaken and it shows in my speech (or typing for that matter). This, my friend, is sin on my part. I may be lacking in prayer and need to hit the prayer closet on this issue ASAP.

I have seen what this same subject matter has done to entire denominations, and I am terrified. I'm not a part of the OPC, but I have immense respect for them. May the Lord be with them.

As we know, theological liberalism is always standing at the door waiting to devour us. May the Lord be with us in battle. As for the processes established to fend off this error in the OPC, I hope and pray for it's success.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Jn.3:20, "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."​
Eph.5:13, "But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light."​
Rev.3:17-20 " Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me."​

The "knock on the door" is mercy. It is Christ's alert to those within, that the Master is coming in. If he comes in without that door being opened to him, he is not going to sit down and dine; but he will first bring the lumber.

The open letter was a call to repentance, it was a call to those in the church whose position is such that there is absolutely no excuse to offer: they didn't know better. The standard is as high as it gets for ordained churchmen. Frankly, I have great respect for the pastor and session of the church the Byrds were so recently members of, and their work of shepherding during this fraught season for their sheep. And it's good to remember: those in the pew are the sheep, not the sheepdogs.

There are "respectable organs" like Big City Newspaper, and National Television Company, that make editorial decisions all the time for publishing material the producers of which do not appreciate it. And there are lesser outlets lacking "respect" that scoop them, sometimes. If you cancelled your subscription or deleted a channel from your TV service, because of the Pentagon Papers, the Snowden revelations, or any one of the dozens of major exposés that have brought matters to light that were once hidden; I guess outrage at yet another ripping-down the curtain is consistent, at least.

Whatever the merits of AB's product, it wasn't done in a corner. The blog-review of AB's books that started this thread would still stand forth as public, measured, and reasoned criticism of public work; both products would stand or fall by each's own quality, by perceived fidelity to a church's authoritative text (the Bible) and its constitution (Confession).

It's one thing to have people outside of your communion do what is in their power to confront you, or make commentary about you as proxy for addressing your work and making specific and general charges against it for its alleged harm. It is another thing for parties who bear a formal association to you, and are covenanted over you in the ministry of Christ's church, to use you as a whipping boy (note the once-Standard English use of the generic masculine). Attacks on sheep were made, not on sheep's work; and made by those covenanted to shepherd.

I just saw a news report about chants of "LetsGoBrandon" echoing in the confines of a megachurch in the American South. If I may be blunt, that sort of ugliness deserves to be publicized, and it should scandalize the whole church. If the chanters had been just a little more brazen, a little more honest, and a little less ashamed of themselves, they would have just gone ahead and chanted the Real Phrase. At least the mask would slip a little further.

Why is it embarrassing--at least to anyone with a sense of propriety, decorum, reverence, and a biblical mind for worship? Because, even if it isn't "my" congregation, it is shameful behavior, a shameful chant, a borrowing of the world's manners and deep vulgarity for expressing revulsion, disgust, and contempt for the sworn chief executive of the land and all that surrounds him: coming from a place and a people who profess to exemplify the attitude of the King of Kings.

Here is the clear command of Scripture: " ...let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no... idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." Those people are putting idolatry on display in a meeting that is advertised (in some sense) as an official gathering of the saints of the kingdom in the presence of their God. They are flaunting their 3rd Commandment violation in the holy assembly. Either their leaders can't control such behavior, or call it out; or else they were participating or even leading it.

Those leaders know better, or they should. They are held to a higher standard. We should know about this, in spite of the fact it took place "indoors, among friends." We should repudiate it, and further reduce any connections we have with those unrepentant. We could call them to repentance, especially the leaders. But should we refer to them as a "brood of vipers?" More pointedly, should we gather here on the PB, in one of the private fora, and make jokes on the "rubes, fools, and tools" of that assembly?

Would that be edifying? Certainly not to them (being excluded), and certainly not to any of our number. It would be self-congratulatory and stinking with pride. I put my name on that Open Letter precisely because it was a public notice. That website? The genie is out of the bottle, the stink is out of the skunk. At this point, cursing the media outlet, telling people "Don't look at it!" all the while waving blankets around frantically trying to dispel the sulfuric odor would serve no one. It isn't like the stench wasn't there when it was confined to the gasbag of GC. Guys were in there playing with matches.

We don't pretend that evils come to light aren't there, and aren't evils, because exposure was made by someone other than the perpetrators, or other than some badged or uniformed official, or by media other than the "sanctioned" press. Courts that pass "official verdict" on bad behavior are duty bound to hold prosecutors and their sworn investigators, and as far as possible their witnesses, to unimpeachable conduct. Or else the evidence gets tossed, the investigation is nullified (fruit of the poison tree), and the witnesses rendered unreliable.

Assuming for a moment that AB was guilty-as-charged (if not proven), those who would be her stoners fall under Jesus' silent rebuke. There was a charge that came of all this business, and a conviction from the charge, as well as a sustained complaint stemming from the conduct of the trial. It appears to some observers that the GA's directions for granting relief were barely fulfilled, "healing the wound of my people lightly."
 

Andrew35

Puritan Board Sophomore

I just saw a news report about chants of "LetsGoBrandon" echoing in the confines of a megachurch in the American South. If I may be blunt, that sort of ugliness deserves to be publicized, and it should scandalize the whole church. If the chanters had been just a little more brazen, a little more honest, and a little less ashamed of themselves, they would have just gone ahead and chanted the Real Phrase. At least the mask would slip a little further.

Why is it embarrassing--at least to anyone with a sense of propriety, decorum, reverence, and a biblical mind for worship? Because, even if it isn't "my" congregation, it is shameful behavior, a shameful chant, a borrowing of the world's manners and deep vulgarity for expressing revulsion, disgust, and contempt for the sworn chief executive of the land and all that surrounds him: coming from a place and a people who profess to exemplify the attitude of the King of Kings.

Here is the clear command of Scripture: " ...let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no... idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." Those people are putting idolatry on display in a meeting that is advertised (in some sense) as an official gathering of the saints of the kingdom in the presence of their God. They are flaunting their 3rd Commandment violation in the holy assembly. Either their leaders can't control such behavior, or call it out; or else they were participating or even leading it.
Just for the record, I haven't done a deep dive into the information yet, but it does seem the situation wasn't quite as horrible as it sounded at first (at least to me). https://www.relevantmagazine.com/cu...-lets-go-brandon-chant-at-cornerstone-church/

Namely, it seems the event was overtly political ("Reawaken America"), not connected to the church, and the pastor has also apologized and said it shouldn't have happened and won't happen again. ( “'It was not appropriate to allow this event at our church,' [Matthew Haggee] wrote in a message posted to the church website. 'The Church is not associated with this organization and does not endorse their views.'”)

I don't say this to lessen any sense of disgust or to defend the church or the pastor, but because some investigation revealed the situation does appear to be a little different from what I previously understood (i.e., people chanting this in a worship service or an approved church gathering). For which I am grateful.

Maybe someone here has done more reading on this and can give a fuller picture.
 

Zach

Puritan Board Junior
Public accusation of serious sin and a call to repent-- things you said should be brought to the church courts first. Not a single thing on that doxx site was brought via charges.
Bruce responded much more thoughtfully and thoroughly than I am capable of in his reply. I'll only add two things by way of direct engagement.

First, the kind of conduct going on in Geneva Commons wasn't serious engagement with Mrs. Byrd's work along with substantiated allegations of sin or error with a call to repent. They simply decided to serve as judge, jury, and excommunicator! It also wasn't, as Bruce so importantly pointed out, public engagement with Mrs. Byrd's public teaching for the good of the church at all. It was a private group!

One also does not have to agree with exactly how the sin was exposed to call those who sinned to repent of their sins. That being said, it still is not the same situation you describe. Mrs. Byrd's teaching was public all along. The opportunity to respond publicly through the right channels was available to those in the group. While the person who exposed Geneva Commons could have simply responded by filing private charges, I don't think they were out of line for exposing what was going on in the darkness and drawing the attention of unaware church officers to what was going on and just how many officers, including many who would sit in judgment of cases concerning conduct of those in Geneva Commons, were engaged in this kind of behavior or were members of the group. Saying that what was going on in Geneva Commons and what was exposed on the website revealing the screenshots is an apples to oranges comparison. One was sin, the other was calling attention to that sin.
 

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Senior
Why don't denominations just put their stances on these issues in the bylaws or statement of faith, and if anyone seeks to change them, they have to leave the denomination? It seems weird that people would want to remain in a denomination to stir up controversy, and that there aren't measures to stop that from happening. They should just leave and go do their own thing and keep peace.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Just for the record, I haven't done a deep dive into the information yet, but it does seem the situation wasn't quite as horrible as it sounded at first (at least to me). https://www.relevantmagazine.com/cu...-lets-go-brandon-chant-at-cornerstone-church/

Namely, it seems the event was overtly political ("Reawaken America"), not connected to the church, and the pastor has also apologized and said it shouldn't have happened and won't happen again. ( “'It was not appropriate to allow this event at our church,' [Matthew Haggee] wrote in a message posted to the church website. 'The Church is not associated with this organization and does not endorse their views.'”)

I don't say this to lessen any sense of disgust or to defend the church or the pastor, but because some investigation revealed the situation does appear to be a little different from what I previously understood (i.e., people chanting this in a worship service or an approved church gathering). For which I am grateful.

Maybe someone here has done more reading on this and can give a fuller picture.
OK, so the reports are still coming in... inasmuch as it be demonstrated this was not a "church-function," I guess I have to walk back any obviously directed criticism (I avoided naming names, so let's just go with a "if the shoe fits..." criticisim).

I am on the record as opposing--whether to the left or the right--all confusion of the church's aim and secular political goals. The fact a church's building is used for such things means that when the situation spins out of control, it is the church that gets the egg on its face. Distance itself all it likes, the fact is the church turned its auditorium into a "venue," and those attending may or may not reflect the "values" of the church.
 

Anthony W. Brown II

Puritan Board Freshman
Why don't denominations just put their stances on these issues in the bylaws or statement of faith, and if anyone seeks to change them, they have to leave the denomination? It seems weird that people would want to remain in a denomination to stir up controversy, and that there aren't measures to stop that from happening. They should just leave and go do their own thing and keep peace.
Agreed.

Like I said earlier, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck...lets hold a comittee meeting to determine if it is appropriate to identify this unknown being as something close to a duck without passing judgment". This is what it looks like to us looking on the outside in. It boggles my mind.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
lets hold a comittee meeting to determine if it is appropriate to identify this unknown being as something close to a duck without passing judgment". This is what it looks like to us looking on the outside in. It boggles my mind.
I’m an outsider, too. But I appreciate sobriety in evaluating such things. I’m reminded of an actual statement made during the Abu Graib fiasco: “why should they get due process when we know they’re guilty?”
 

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Sophomore
First, the kind of conduct going on in Geneva Commons wasn't serious engagement with Mrs. Byrd's work along with substantiated allegations of sin or error with a call to repent. They simply decided to serve as judge, jury, and excommunicator! It also wasn't, as Bruce so importantly pointed out, public engagement with Mrs. Byrd's public teaching for the good of the church at all. It was a private group!
Not true. Spangler wrote five public articles criticizing Byrd, the admins of the group kept a public page promoting their viewpoints and criticizing feminism, and all of the prominent members of the group were and are public with our views. In fact, I'm publicly engaging here, and publicly calling Byrd a wolf. I also sense that the irony escapes you that you accuse the GC group of excommunicating Byrd (which we deny; what does it even mean for private individuals to excommunicate someone? You don't talk at the potluck? If that's the case, Anderson and Castle reached out to Byrd to settle their disputes privately and she refused. So did she excommunicate them?), but she excommunicated herself from the OPC by leaving. Even if the charge were true that they "excommunicated her", they apparently didn't have a different assessment of where her heart was at than she came to manifest within a short time.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
As a former, recovering keyboard warrior with keys of steel, I appreciate Pastor Bruce’s sobriety and wisdom. I think if we cut through the thrill of the culture war and the politics, we can take a more thoughtful, sober and charitable approach toward addressing theological drift on every side. Ms. Byrd was a member of the OPC who was loved and embraced. That’s our starting point from the inside….
 

Zach

Puritan Board Junior
Not true. Spangler wrote five public articles criticizing Byrd, the admins of the group kept a public page promoting their viewpoints and criticizing feminism, and all of the prominent members of the group were and are public with our views. In fact, I'm publicly engaging here, and publicly calling Byrd a wolf. I also sense that the irony escapes you that you accuse the GC group of excommunicating Byrd (which we deny; what does it even mean for private individuals to excommunicate someone? You don't talk at the potluck? If that's the case, Anderson and Castle reached out to Byrd to settle their disputes privately and she refused. So did she excommunicate them?), but she excommunicated herself from the OPC by leaving. Even if the charge were true that they "excommunicated her", they apparently didn't have a different assessment of where her heart was at than she came to manifest within a short time.
The articles written by Mr. Spangler were public, that's true, but it is my understanding that the content of the articles, far from being a respectful engagement with Mrs. Byrd's views, were attacks on her that formed the very basis of the charges of sin for which he tried and convicted by his Presbytery, specifically his attacks that Mrs Byrd was a wolf. This is now the second time you have called Mrs. Byrd a wolf in this thread, a sin for which Mr. Spangler was convicted and admonished by his Presbytery. As I said earlier in the thread, such language should not be tolerated on the Puritan Board.
 

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Sophomore
The articles written by Mr. Spangler were public, that's true, but it is my understanding that the content of the articles, far from being a respectful engagement with Mrs. Byrd's views, were attacks on her that formed the very basis of the charges of sin for which he tried and convicted by his Presbytery, specifically his attacks that Mrs Byrd was a wolf. This is now the second time you have called Mrs. Byrd a wolf in this thread, a sin for which Mr. Spangler was convicted and admonished by his Presbytery. As I said earlier in the thread, such language should not be tolerated on the Puritan Board.
What do you mean "it is my understanding"? You already said in this thread you haven't heard Byrd's books, have you not read Spangler's articles either? Are you entirely working off of hearsay when you implying I'm sinning by calling Byrd a wolf, and when you criticize us? Here is a list of reviews of Byrd's books, many from folks in GC. Is it really true that none are thoughtful? Don't you have at least a little shame in signing a letter accusing us of nastiness without taking the time to understand our point of view?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top