Comprehensive Review of Aimee Byrd's Books

Status
Not open for further replies.

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
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.
I agree. I think we need to exercise better self control. There are good and proper ways to engage.
 

Irenaeus

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
As much as I hate to pull a thread farther off-topic, I am compelled to sound my strong agreement with this sentiment. I've found myself guilty of looking with more and more lightheartedness at the "Let's Go Brandon" matter, but my heart sank when I heard DeSantis allude to it in a public speech. What's happening to him is no different than what's happened to me - everyone around us does it, and without serious determination, I get swept up in the current.

@Contra_Mundum, thank you for your thoughts on the AB matter. I recently wrote a heartfelt appeal to an excommunicated family member - a final letter, since out of a heavy burden for this person's soul I had long since consigned the first and second admonitions of Titus 3 to the rear view mirror and needed to bring closure. This person could not carry on a conversation without pointing to the sins of another party as proof of his own innocence. I pleaded with him to consider that one person's sins do not exonerate another* and that it is possible for a dispute to have two guilty parties. Sadly, my entreaty fell on deaf ears and was greeted with scorn and derision.

I see the same thing happening here. No mention can be made of the sins committed in GC or by people associated with it without generating a retort that boils down to "yeah well AB did this". Whatever was misleading about the screenshots and whatever was wrong on AB's end fails to impact the sinfulness of the other party in any way. It's a shirking of responsibility to do that, and it sheds light on the situation in a way that does not help AB's detractors. There's no remorse and no humility, no evidence of sober reflection, only the bared fangs of vengefulness. As if someone's sins are less wrong because the other side also sinned - as if!

*What a ridiculous notion - by that logic Christ could have saved us by throwing rocks at children and stealing from widows.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
I notice P&R publishing has its share of female authors. I’m of the understanding that a female author has much to offer as far as the Christian experience. When it gets into the teaching realm (biblical exposition) is where it obviously gets dicey. Wolves are cool animals, but instead of all this wolf talk, maybe we should consider when an author’s manuscript should be accepted by a reputable albeit small and influential publisher..…
 
Last edited:

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
Moderation again.

This is not the place for settling scores. Focus on the reviews and related matters.

Please....
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
My question is sincere. I guess confusion ensues about who is qualified to be published and platformed and are there limits as far as subject/topic/content is concerned? I think Ms. Byrd should be left alone, prayed for, and spoken of with care and concern from here on out.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
I don’t believe women should feel excluded or
discouraged from expressions of faith and biblical discussions, so I’m not trying to lead or influence this discussion in that direction. I know there’s a balance, it just seems tricky to navigate.
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
I think Ms. Byrd should be left alone, prayed for, and spoken of with care and concern from here on out.
Just to clarify moderation guidance, Ms. Byrd is a public figure who has written many books. Review and criticism of those books is fair game. If one is out in the public square, he or she should not expect to be left alone.

Discussion of public book reviews, or your own personal review of her books, is fine. Let's not get sidetracked on the topic of church discipline/procedure/ and how things were handled related to those topics. Maybe another thread.

The "settling scores" warning is focused on publicly calling one or another out for things they did in the past, especially when most of us don't know about those dynamics.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
Just to clarify moderation guidance, Ms. Byrd is a public figure who has written many books. Review and criticism of those books is fair game. If one is out in the public square, he or she should not expect to be left alone.

Discussion of public book reviews, or your own personal review of her books, is fine. Let's not get sidetracked on the topic of church discipline/procedure/ and how things were handled related to those topics. Maybe another thread.

The "settling scores" warning is focused on publicly calling one or another out for things they did in the past, especially when most of us don't know about those dynamics.
I was just reacting to the wolf talk. I too try to guard myself against the more personal turns these discussions can seem to take (or at least the impression of personalizing our critiques), thanks for clarifying. I hope I’m learning these distinctions more clearly.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
Interesting:

“Her Editor

Why Can’t We Be Friends? proved to be Mrs. Byrd’s final work with P&R. Her new editor at Zondervan Academic is Katya Covrett (Recovering, 11). In a May 18, 2020 interview with The Christian Post about Recovering, Mrs. Byrd said:
But as a woman writing about these things I found a roadblock — this whole woman thing. Me being a woman talking about it and also discipling women alongside of men and the differences in separation that are so saturated now in our church culture. In talking with my editor, we decided that the roadblocks need to be addressed directly, and I kind of have that more direct voice in my writing anyway. So she encouraged me to do that. The book is sort of presented as an alternative to all the resources we have marketed to us in this evangelical so-called ‘biblical womanhood’ culture.
She clearly connected the input of her editor with the thrust of her book, i.e., addressing roadblocks (she reiterates her editor’s influence on the title here at 33:45-34:35). This is understandable in principle, but it begs the question, what are the convictions that Mrs. Covrett holds that would lead her to encourage Mrs. Byrd in this direction?

When asked in an August 13, 2020 interview“about how publishing in biblical studies can and/or should change in the next ten years,” Mrs. Covrett responded,

I hope and pray that publishing in biblical studies will become more diverse. Historically, the discipline has been dominated by white men (please understand that I have nothing against white men; many of my best friends among authors are white guys), but this must change…Zondervan Academic has made this commitment and, as our friendly competitors do so as well, we will begin to see the tide change for the better (emphasis original).
This is entirely consistent with what Mrs. Covrett wrote five years earlier in 2015:
Try as we might, the ‘lack of balance’ in the academy continues to constrain us. Everything I’ve said here about women can also be said about ethnic minorities and global voices, which have been other significant areas of publishing for Zondervan Academic. Whether we like it or not, the White Male Club that is the Christian academia—no offense, guys—is the context in which we acquire and publish. The uphill battle continues. And so we continue to seek balance and diversity—not out of a sense of political correctness, but because as members of the body of Christ we all complement one another. When we do not have the voices and perspectives of women, ethnic minorities, and scholars from the Majority World, we all suffer—men, women, biblical scholars and theologians, students, and the church as a whole.
 
Last edited:

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
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.

What problems are you referring to? It seems to me it is the crypto-feminists who are the problem. But if you are referring to the many allegations of "abuse" then these people (such as Byrd) who have been pushing this narrative cannot be trusted in this area either. Byrd cannot be trusted because the claims she has made of being abused do not amount to abuse, they amount to criticism which she doesn't like. Byrd's claim of victimhood trivialises true abuse. As to the alleged widespread abuse we are hearing about well this is very suspicious. It is always suspicious when there is a deluge of claims of abuse suddenly out of nowhere. It is usually because there is an environment which is conducive for unsubstantiated accusations. We are living in a time when women are allowed to make all sorts of accusations against men- sometimes relating to events which happened many, many years ago- and we are told it is our duty to believe them. Are we seriously meant to believe the OPC, the PCA, the SBC is overflowing with sexual and domestic abuse? Nonsense. And if that were the case then maybe those ministers in the OPC who found time to write an open letter to a few gentlemen in a private Facebook group could have found time to do something about the alleged abuse which is apparently all around them?

Is it a surprise that these allegations coincide with the rise of CRT and social justice in the churches? With the rise of egalitarianism in the churches? No of course its not. Its part of the program.

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.

By calling for someone to repent you impute sin to them. The authors of the letter by doing so had already passed judgment on these gentlemen, with no formal charges, no trial, no due process. So it is disingenuous to say that the open letter was operating in a different way than any allegations against Byrd. Mr. Spangler saw a problem and he warned his flock against it. The authors of the letter saw a problem (in their opinion) and warned publicly against it. Of course the difference is that Mr. Spangler was referring to public statements, articles and published books by Byrd whereas the authors of the letter were responding to private conversations which had been leaked and the gentlemen's identities doxxed. Anyone who was interested in pursuing Christian justice and propriety should have condemned the leaking and doxxing and those who facilitated these (such as Byrd) should have been rebuked in no uncertain terms. The authors of the letter, if they wished to rebuke or counsel their brethren, could have contacted them privately. They should not have responded to the immoral action of leaking these comments and doxxing these gentlemen. To do so- and to allow their letter to be published on the website of one of the persons responsible for this immoral and potentially harmful action- was a dereliction of duty and made them complicit in the act. Further accusations of misogyny were also levelled at the gentlemen on the website. No evidence was provided. Byrd et. al. cry misogyny against even the most basic Christian beliefs about the roles of men and women in society so a non-specific charge of misogyny in the context of Byrd is meaningless and even serves to further her own agenda.
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."...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.

Yes the Lord sees and hears all and all will come to light at the day of judgment. But until then many things remain hidden. And I find it very troubling that the notion that it is appropriate for members of sessions and presbyteries to pry into the most private of activities even to private conversations in one's own home is being promoted on a Reformed forum (as it was in the letter). The session is not the KGB. If someone has an accusation of sinful behaviour let him make it and let charges be filed and due process followed. But gossip, rumour and devious behaviour should not be encouraged or rewarded and they certainly should not be used as the basis for making public accusations of sin against one's brethren.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Anyone who was interested in pursuing Christian justice and propriety should have condemned the leaking and doxxing and those who facilitated these (such as Byrd) should have been rebuked in no uncertain terms.

Byrd didn't facilitate the leaking and doxing. It was done without her knowledge.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
Byrd didn't facilitate the leaking and doxing. It was done without her knowledge.

First, a disclaimer: I have no desire to be part of Genevan Commons, and never was a part of it. So, these remarks are more general and the general tendency our society has now in "fighting fire with fire".

So, a few things about doxing in general and morally. It is telling that even pagans understand it is wrong. Second, selective leaking (Proverbs 18:17) is no basis on which to chastise an entire body of men, release their names, and ecclesiastical membership! Third, it is very easy to manipulate digital media. I am not saying it was, but we must always be cautious around leaks of digital media.

To be party to doxing does not exonerate someone, it actually inflames the problem. It is clear that the leaking of this material would let loose social agitators (the Twitter mob) upon these men. The open letter should have urged the pulling down of this material. Those who leaked the information did enough work to trace the ecclesiastical bodies the men belong to - so it would have been best to send it to their Presbyteries / Sessions and let them deal with it rather than let loose the fury of the mob. Doxing has real consequences in the real world. A person's livelihood can be in jeopardy as well as their family.

Lastly - I would exhort all of us to not be ignorant. There is no such thing as privacy on social media. There is no such thing as a "private" group. All correspondence on a device connected to the internet should be treated as public. If you want to have a private conversation do not do it on Facebook. Even if people do not screenshot information - data leaks and dumps through hackers happen all the time. Look at how RC Sproul Jr. was exposed - through hacking. I suppose the root exhortation is this - do not do in secret what you would not do in the light.

Walk in holiness before the face of God and you will never have to fear what comes into the light.​
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
First, a disclaimer: I have no desire to be part of Genevan Commons, and never was a part of it. So, these remarks are more general and the general tendency our society has now in "fighting fire with fire".

So, a few things about doxing in general and morally. It is telling that even pagans understand it is wrong. Second, selective leaking (Proverbs 18:17) is no basis on which to chastise an entire body of men, release their names, and ecclesiastical membership! Third, it is very easy to manipulate digital media. I am not saying it was, but we must always be cautious around leaks of digital media.

To be party to doxing does not exonerate someone, it actually inflames the problem. It is clear that the leaking of this material would let loose social agitators (the Twitter mob) upon these men. The open letter should have urged the pulling down of this material. Those who leaked the information did enough work to trace the ecclesiastical bodies the men belong to - so it would have been best to send it to their Presbyteries / Sessions and let them deal with it rather than let loose the fury of the mob. Doxing has real consequences in the real world. A person's livelihood can be in jeopardy as well as their family.

Lastly - I would exhort all of us to not be ignorant. There is no such thing as privacy on social media. There is no such thing as a "private" group. All correspondence on a device connected to the internet should be treated as public. If you want to have a private conversation do not do it on Facebook. Even if people do not screenshot information - data leaks and dumps through hackers happen all the time. Look at how RC Sproul Jr. was exposed - through hacking. I suppose the root exhortation is this - do not do in secret what you would not do in the light.

Walk in holiness before the face of God and you will never have to fear what comes into the light.​

I generally agree. Doxxing is a leftist tactic and should usually be avoided.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
She promoted the doxxing site on her twitter and her blog.

I understand that. My reading of your previous comment was that you said she was part of the actual doxxing. I agree doxxing is bad, but I can only cry so hard for Geneva Commons. Some of the moderators are sociopaths and I got the left foot of Christian fellowship when I attacked Doug Wilson.
 

Irenaeus

Puritan Board Freshman
I see the same thing happening here. No mention can be made of the sins committed in GC or by people associated with it without generating a retort that boils down to "yeah well AB did this".

What problems are you referring to? It seems to me it is the crypto-feminists who are the problem. But if you are referring to the many allegations of "abuse" then these people (such as Byrd) who have been pushing this narrative cannot be trusted in this area either.
I find this juxtaposition of quotes interesting and worth reflecting on.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
I find this juxtaposition of quotes interesting and worth reflecting on.

The two statements you've quoted are in reference to two different things. Yours is about the Genevan Commons issue and mine is about the issue of alleged abuse in various denominations. I was responding to Contra Mundum's point that there are alarms being raised by feminists which should be heeded but are being ignored because of who is raising them. Now he didn't say what issues he was referring to but I assumed he was referring to the abuse allegations which have been a prominent part of Byrd's recent writing. Now maybe he wasn't referring to that issue but either way the point I was making in the statement of mine you quoted is that we have to be very sceptical about such allegations from a person like Byrd because of her clear agenda, her own claims of victimhood which are nonsense and the wider phenomenon we are seeing of weaponising victimhood and demanding allegations be believed without any shred of evidence being provided.

As to the Facebook group I may not agree with every comment which was made. That is beside the point. The comments should never have been leaked and they should never, subsequently, have been used to harass and persecute the gentlemen involved. And elders and ministers in the church certainly shouldn't have used them as the basis for passing judgment and demanding public apologies.
 

Irenaeus

Puritan Board Freshman
The two statements you've quoted are in reference to two different things. Yours is about the Genevan Commons issue and mine is about the issue of alleged abuse in various denominations. I was responding to Contra Mundum's point that there are alarms being raised by feminists which should be heeded but are being ignored because of who is raising them. Now he didn't say what issues he was referring to but I assumed he was referring to the abuse allegations which have been a prominent part of Byrd's recent writing. Now maybe he wasn't referring to that issue but either way the point I was making in the statement of mine you quoted is that we have to be very sceptical about such allegations from a person like Byrd because of her clear agenda, her own claims of victimhood which are nonsense and the wider phenomenon we are seeing of weaponising victimhood and demanding allegations be believed without any shred of evidence being provided.

As to the Facebook group I may not agree with every comment which was made. That is beside the point. The comments should never have been leaked and they should never, subsequently, have been used to harass and persecute the gentlemen involved. And elders and ministers in the church certainly shouldn't have used them as the basis for passing judgment and demanding public apologies.
Why not? Private deeds are sometimes brought into the light. It happens. Where do you stand on the leak of National Partnership emails (if folks over there are following that issue at all)?

There is no defense of sin based on its intended privacy. If I speak to my wife abusively and she "breaks confidentiality" do I get off the hook because my comments should never have been leaked or used to harass and persecute me?
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
Why not? Private deeds are sometimes brought into the light. It happens. Where do you stand on the leak of National Partnership emails (if folks over there are following that issue at all)?

There is no defense of sin based on its intended privacy. If I speak to my wife abusively and she "breaks confidentiality" do I get off the hook because my comments should never have been leaked or used to harass and persecute me?

The nature of the leak is the issue. If elders and ministers had an issue with what was said they should have engaged with the gentlemen privately rather than issuing a public letter which declared the men guilty of sin and in need of repentance. By doing so they gave their implicit consent to the doxxing.

Sometimes private documents are leaked, from the government for example, and it can be a good thing what they contain was brought to light. But that doesn't change the fact that someone broke the law and in most cases should be punished for it. There's a reason whistle-blowers often need immunity from prosecution. However what happened with Genevan Commons is different on two counts: 1) the "crimes" which were exposed were trivial and 2) as Christians we shouldn't be engaging in acts such as doxxing which can cause very real harm to the individuals doxxed. Furthermore, having remained silent whilst Byrd peddled her dangerous teaching it was rather hypocritical to be so upset about some off-colour comments made in a private group. That only reinforces the impression that the whole thing was just a means of covering for Byrd and trying to silence her opponents.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
Aren’t pastors and elders held to a higher standard? Should they be? I agree with the general concerns of the GC but their tone and temperament and even some of the content was very unbecoming. The world is watching and we are not distinguishing ourselves, not just theologically.

Beth Moore is a soft, easy target…. But why throw darts her way? Isnt time better well spent.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
I think with Ms. Byrd, we had to measure the threat level.
Was she authoritative? No.
Was she drifting? Yes. For the world to see and reasonably discern. Was she beyond reeling back in? Probably…. and that would naturally play out.

Yet the knuckleheads at GC made her a martyr. Which was both sad and pathetic. They behaved sad and pathetically in my opinion. I’m glad they were exposed and I’m glad they aren’t my pastor.

That’s politics and culture war. They are not fighting on behalf of God. They have their chests puffed up for their own celebrity, I reckon….

I know they got caught up in the herd. Is that an excuse?
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
Aren’t pastors and elders held to a higher standard? Should they be? I agree with the general concerns of the GC but their tone and temperament and even some of the content was very unbecoming. The world is watching and we are not distinguishing ourselves, not just theologically.

Beth Moore is a soft, easy target…. But why throw darts her way? Isnt time better well spent.

Indeed they should be and in a different context there would be a different discussion. But the context of the leak was one in which there was a woman, who was given prominence in the church at wide by a respected conservative evangelical organisation, promulgating error. And if anyone spoke out against her they were harangued and criticised and harassed. If Byrd wishes to appropriate to herself the position of a teacher within the church then she must be held to the same standard as any other teacher. In that context a guy saying Byrd should make him a sandwich is not comparable to the dangerous stuff Byrd was saying.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
I think with Ms. Byrd, we had to measure the threat level.
Was she authoritative? No.
Was she drifting? Yes. For the world to see and reasonably discern. Was she beyond reeling back in? Probably…. and that would naturally play out.

Yet the knuckleheads at GC made her a martyr. Which was both sad and pathetic. They behaved sad and pathetically in my opinion. I’m glad they were exposed and I’m glad they aren’t my pastor.

That’s politics and culture war. They are not fighting on behalf of God. They have their chests puffed up for their own celebrity, I reckon….

I know they got caught up in the herd. Is that an excuse?

I don't know what you mean by "authoritative". As a woman does she have the authority to teach in the church and to publish books and writings on theology? No of course not. But that doesn't stop her. She most certainly has a authority which is measured in her acolytes and her prominence. Her books are published and read and she is invited to speak at conferences and churches and invited on podcasts. People, wrongly, listen to her and follow her. This is why false teachers must be stopped because however wrong they may be their teachings spread and corrupt.

You say "the world" could see her drift. Oh really? How long did it take for her to finally be removed from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals? She still has her followers and defenders even in conservative churches. Even here on this forum. Unfortunately she is not so easily dismissed.

What is pathetic is to see elders and ministers grovelling at the feet of that woman, fawning over her, going out of their way to criticise her opponents but never criticising her. What is pathetic is that as each one of her books strays farther and farther from orthodoxy many refuse to confront the truth but instead cry foul against anyone who raises the alarm.
 

Irenaeus

Puritan Board Freshman
The nature of the leak is the issue. If elders and ministers had an issue with what was said they should have engaged with the gentlemen privately rather than issuing a public letter which declared the men guilty of sin and in need of repentance. By doing so they gave their implicit consent to the doxxing.

Sometimes private documents are leaked, from the government for example, and it can be a good thing what they contain was brought to light. But that doesn't change the fact that someone broke the law and in most cases should be punished for it. There's a reason whistle-blowers often need immunity from prosecution. However what happened with Genevan Commons is different on two counts: 1) the "crimes" which were exposed were trivial and 2) as Christians we shouldn't be engaging in acts such as doxxing which can cause very real harm to the individuals doxxed. Furthermore, having remained silent whilst Byrd peddled her dangerous teaching it was rather hypocritical to be so upset about some off-colour comments made in a private group. That only reinforces the impression that the whole thing was just a means of covering for Byrd and trying to silence her opponents.
What you've said presumes your assessment of the situation as incontrovertible fact. Some people - including a number of ordained ministers - disagree that the "crimes" were trivial. No one's enforcing agreement with that assessment but it is worth observing. Your judgment about the hypocrisy of the letter also presumes your assessment of the situation because the governing body that reviewed these things thought that AB was not deserving of censure while some of the ministers who condemned her were deserving of rebuke.
 

Irenaeus

Puritan Board Freshman
What is pathetic is to see elders and ministers grovelling at the feet of that woman, fawning over her, going out of their way to criticise her opponents but never criticising her. What is pathetic is that as each one of her books strays farther and farther from orthodoxy many refuse to confront the truth but instead cry foul against anyone who raises the alarm.
"That woman" - are we talking about Jezebel or some notorious woman of ill repute? I thought - silly me - that we were talking about someone who until recently was a sister believer in an OPC church - someone who merited shepherding and loving counsel; but I wouldn't know that from the tone of some of these posts.

Do you think that Aimee Byrd is unregenerate? That her profession of faith is a false one? If so, then I can understand the level of vitriol. If on the other hand she's a wayward sister, then I personally think it's a bit much to speak so unlovingly.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
I don't know what you mean by "authoritative". As a woman does she have the authority to teach in the church and to publish books and writings on theology? No of course not. But that doesn't stop her. She most certainly has a authority which is measured in her acolytes and her prominence. Her books are published and read and she is invited to speak at conferences and churches and invited on podcasts. People, wrongly, listen to her and follow her. This is why false teachers must be stopped because however wrong they may be their teachings spread and corrupt.

You say "the world" could see her drift. Oh really? How long did it take for her to finally be removed from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals? She still has her followers and defenders even in conservative churches. Even here on this forum. Unfortunately she is not so easily dismissed.

What is pathetic is to see elders and ministers grovelling at the feet of that woman, fawning over her, going out of their way to criticise her opponents but never criticising her. What is pathetic is that as each one of her books strays farther and farther from orthodoxy many refuse to confront the truth but instead cry foul against anyone who raises the alarm.
But who does more damage to the OPC? I wish GC didn't become the story. I would hope ACE would have a little less clumsily pursued the course they had without all the fanfare and controversy that surrounded this whole ordeal. I would like to think Machen would be above all the politicization of our faith and I think that's the territory in which this battle is being fought. Just my opinion. We don't win a culture war. God ultimately wins. We know this.

I do think the good that can come from this is that matters of qualified teachers should be given closer consideration. Maybe Carl Trueman was flirting with too many secular sources that made him a little soft on these matters and maybe he will need to be a bit more discerning. I do appreciate their (Carl & Todd) charitable tone and spirit and when push comes to show they appear to get on track. I think they need to think these matters through a little more before they platform somebody as far as the repercussions without isolating themselves from the greater community. I think we should still engage the culture without compromising sound biblical principles. Maybe they are a bit too laxed however.....
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Locked for review due to a report. All the US Mods and Admins are busy getting ready for Thanksgiving tomorrow; don't expect any resolution any time soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top