Reformed Circling?

[A.Joseph]

Indeed, I was trying to triangulate what would be the best response!

Equilateral or isosceles?

 

[A.Joseph]

I'm all for reading and utilizing Catholic and secular sources, but there's a fine line between a Biblically sound utilization of such materials, and the wholesale absorption of non-Biblical doctrines as part of one's quest for self-generated healing. .....reaching and grasping for anything that fits... preconceived agenda.

How I wish that people would look inward when it comes to identifying sin and outward (to Christ and to the manifestations of the work of the Spirit) when it comes to identifying righteousness. That kind of Biblical double standard would save everyone a whole lot of grief. Instead we have people looking outwardly for sin and inwardly for righteousness.

^^^ If I could put a circle around these keen insights I would. But, alas! I am reduced to block quotes.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

The apparent escalation of mental health problems today is not because problems are finally being addressed (whereas before they were ignored) but because we, as people and as a society, are weaker and less able to cope with the realities of life. This is a result of decades of a victim-mentality, coupled with an extreme narcissism and sense of entitlement, being inculcated in our young. And, of course, the over-prescription of drugs which are now seen as a cure for all ailments. This all makes for very fertile ground for what we are seeing today: the mass delusion of transgenderism, the hysteria over covid, the anti-racism agenda, the virulence displayed on social media, the inability to cope with things when they don't go our way &c.

One would think that because of the sexual liberations the culture has been pushing from every possible outlet over recent years, that children would be happier people. Sadly the agenda has backfired so terribly. Kids seem more broken than ever.

"The rate of suicide for those ages 10 to 24 increased nearly 60% between 2007 and 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."

 

[ZackF]

One would think that because of the sexual liberations the culture has been pushing from every possible outlet over recent years, that children would be happier people. Sadly the agenda has backfired so terribly. Kids seem more broken than ever.

"The rate of suicide for those ages 10 to 24 increased nearly 60% between 2007 and 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."

Social media.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I came back to this thread because Byrd tweeted the PB was being mean to her, and I found three pages of geometrical puns since I last login in. Well done friends.

 

[danekristjan]

I came back to this thread because Byrd tweeted the PB was being mean to her, and I found three pages of geometrical puns since I last login in. Well done friends.

Ah, I see, critique of any manner is now "abuse". Arius would love to live in our day. Whenever your heterodoxy is critiqued or pushed back against, just cry, "abuse!", "racism!", "homophobia!", or "sexism!" and hordes of insecure evangelical and reformed men will circle around you to secure your voice rather than recommend you be taught the first principles of the faith again.

 

[Andrew35]

I came back to this thread because Byrd tweeted the PB was being mean to her, and I found three pages of geometrical puns since I last login in. Well done friends.

I take responsibility for the discussion.

But not for the puns. I refuse to be responsible for those.

Seriously, though. She is thin-skinned for someone with a growing body of public work, isn't she?

Some of the comments on here were harsh, sure. Many were far more moderate. Some were insightful.

And then there were the puns....

 

[wcf_linux]

I take responsibility for the discussion.

But not for the puns. I refuse to be responsible for those.

Seriously, though. She is thin-skinned for someone with a growing body of public work, isn't she?

Some of the comments on here were harsh, sure. Many were far more moderate. Some were insightful.

And then there were the puns....

Maybe it's the puns that really caused her the most pain.

It would certainly be understandable.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Why should the PB "draw fire," be it from AB's antagonists or from AB? Is it our fight?

I don't think so, and making any comments (ignoring the puns) that focus in the least on personality rather than on substance seems like exactly the thing that validates a kind of personality-driven reaction (which is pretty much all twitter is good for).

In my opinion, every comment that reduces earlier personal attacks on AB to mere "slights," and denigrates her reactions as "thin-skinned" proves the point that few responses to her work have been free from personality-driven bias. That's a shame.

If AB feels compelled to include a degree of self defense in just about every response to criticism, it might be because so many of the critics can't judge her work purely on its merit, but feel compelled themselves to add fuel to the ad hominem blaze.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

As one of the more sharply critical voices, I will say that it's perfectly reasonable for Aimee to be upset. This is a public forum and we've taken direct aim at her on a broad front.

Do I agree with her assessment of this thread? Nope! Do I think the replies to her tweet contain at least as much bile as the harshest thing written here? See for yourselves. Does she ignore the considerable nuance and variety of opinion in this thread? Yes.

But let's nonetheless play fair. We can criticize her publicly and she can get upset publicly... no need to pile on her simply for being upset.

 

[Andrew35]

Why should the PB "draw fire," be it from AB's antagonists or from AB? Is it our fight?

I don't think so, and making any comments (ignoring the puns) that focus in the least on personality rather than on substance seems like exactly the thing that validates a kind of personality-driven reaction (which is pretty much all twitter is good for).

In my opinion, every comment that reduces earlier personal attacks on AB to mere "slights," and denigrates her reactions as "thin-skinned" proves the point that few responses to her work have been free from personality-driven bias. That's a shame.

If AB feels compelled to include a degree of self defense in just about every response to criticism, it might be because so many of the critics can't judge her work purely on its merit, but feel compelled themselves to add fuel to the ad hominem blaze.

Apologies for where I got sucked into this.

Sometimes I just need to keep my mouth shut until I've thought things through a bit further.

 

[arapahoepark]

I came back to this thread because Byrd tweeted the PB was being mean to her, and I found three pages of geometrical puns since I last login in. Well done friends.

Wow. No kidding.

 

[retroGRAD3]

If you read the twitter response, she basically did the exact thing that this thread criticized her for, literally the exact thing. Then, the rest of the people that came out of the wood work just all took shots at PB through ad hominem and didn't actually interact with the content at all.

 

[Andrew35]

If you read the twitter response, she basically did the exact thing that this thread criticized her for, literally the exact thing. Then, the rest of the people that came out of the wood work just all took shots at PB through ad hominem and didn't actually interact with the content at all.

I was a bit annoyed by the assumption there that nobody here -- or most, at least -- haven't read her work.

Many of us have read her books, listened to her on MOS, and follow her blog. I have, and appreciate(d) much of her work.

That's why I've been so disappointed with the direction her new stuff seems to be going. And why I'm interested in what she's up to at all.

 

[arapahoepark]

So we going to get doxxed?

 

[Taylor]

Since Puritan Board has been accused of wrongdoing by the indirect subject of this thread (this thread is really about "circling," not Mrs. Byrd), is there anything in this thread that is un-Christian, or could be classified as "ripping a sister apart"? Mrs. Byrd did not provide a single example of what she is so concerned about. And I am virtually certain that most of the commenters on her tweet didn't look up this thread to see what was actually said, but rather just took her analysis of it at face value. Sure, there have been some frank and direct criticisms of Mrs. Byrd's writing and ideas in this thread, but frankness and criticism are not sins.

In any case, I'm not interested in a platform war, and I'm sure the moderators are even more disinterested, so I'm not going to "reply" to Mrs. Byrd here. But upon scanning through this thread again, I don't think I've found any sinful speech. Perhaps I am missing something?

 

[alexandermsmith]

I came back to this thread because Byrd tweeted the PB was being mean to her, and I found three pages of geometrical puns since I last login in. Well done friends.

Aimee Bryd cries out in pain as she strikes us.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Why should the PB "draw fire," be it from AB's antagonists or from AB? Is it our fight?

I don't think so, and making any comments (ignoring the puns) that focus in the least on personality rather than on substance seems like exactly the thing that validates a kind of personality-driven reaction (which is pretty much all twitter is good for).

In my opinion, every comment that reduces earlier personal attacks on AB to mere "slights," and denigrates her reactions as "thin-skinned" proves the point that few responses to her work have been free from personality-driven bias. That's a shame.

If AB feels compelled to include a degree of self defense in just about every response to criticism, it might be because so many of the critics can't judge her work purely on its merit, but feel compelled themselves to add fuel to the ad hominem blaze.

Part of the criticism of Aimee Byrd is necessarily personal: as a woman she is going beyond the bounds set by Christ of what is appropriate for women in the church. And further to that she has made herself the subject of much of her work and her online commentary.

 

[A.Joseph]

Part of the criticism of Aimee Byrd is necessarily personal: as a woman she is going beyond the bounds set by Christ of what is appropriate for women in the church. And further to that she has made herself the subject of much of her work and her online commentary.

That is a fair criticism. But that needs to be properly parsed or it can easily turn to resentment for various sides of the discussion/debate.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Folks, we're four pages deep and time to either get back to the OP or call it done. If there is interest still in discussing the views in the book, drop personalities, and discuss the views. As to this new controversy, this is a public thread. Don't be surprised if you express an opinion, someone somewhere is going to be in the "someone said something wrong on the internet" mode and respond. Now add that the thread is about them, and they have their own platform and regulars. Even less surprising. We can't help if folks are unfairly critical of the board rather than discuss ideas and views, which is what this thread should be doing in an edifying and helpful way. If you engage anyone there or elsewhere, don't bring that here. Please follow Taylor's example.

In any case, I'm not interested in a platform war, and I'm sure the moderators are even more disinterested, so I'm not going to "reply" to Mrs. Byrd here. But upon scanning through this thread again, I don't think I've found any sinful speech. Perhaps I am missing something?

This is the most time I've spent in this thread. All I can say is that no one has reported anything as sinful or breaking board rules or Christian decorum.

 

[A.Joseph]

I agree. We really need to circle back.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I did a little bit of research on this topic. If I understand it correctly, it's not something I would practice, and I have always tried to be the transparent, open, interpersonal type person.

I love the people that make up the Church. But here's the truth which hurts me to say, and I wish were different, but in my years of being a Christian I have really come to see: many people are broken people, and if they are gotten too close to, they will break others. I've seen many "Christian" people who deep down don't really strive to be holy or loving, because they are concerned with the things of the flesh and the world. Such people I can't trust with the most sensitive and deep parts of myself, because in their evil they will end up hurting me through the experience. Lot's of people have caused pain in my life, sadly, when they had a good opportunity to bring happiness.

There are few people who I truly trust and can come to for healing. God primarily, my wife secondly, and then a few men I can confide in. This isn't shallow stuff, and I don't think just anyone is worthy of me exposing the deepest parts of my life to.

I know this is all very vague, but I have plenty of real life experiences in my mind.

 

[A.Joseph]

I did a little bit of research on this topic. If I understand it correctly, it's not something I would practice, and I have always tried to be the transparent, open, interpersonal type person.

I love the people that make up the Church. But here's the truth which hurts me to say, and I wish were different, but in my years of being a Christian I have really come to see: many people are broken people, and if they are gotten too close to, they will break others. I've seen many "Christian" people who deep down don't really strive to be holy or loving, because they are concerned with the things of the flesh and the world. Such people I can't trust with the most sensitive and deep parts of myself, because in their evil they will end up hurting me through the experience. Lot's of people have caused pain in my life, sadly, when they had a good opportunity to bring happiness.

There are few people who I truly trust and can come to for healing. God primarily, my wife secondly, and then a few men I can confide in. This isn't shallow stuff, and I don't think just anyone is worthy of me exposing the deepest parts of my life to.

I know this is all very vague, but I have plenty of real life experiences in my mind.

Remember, we are not Christians cause we are good. We are Christians cause we know(sometimes) we are wretched. What good is a faith and even a church in which we are fixed on each other. We are broken and loved. But we aren’t always so lovable and sometimes we can get a little downright toxic. That’s when I try to flea from others/and even myself to Christ. It’s a win-win. But we should strive to do better in relationships and interactions and not write others off. Especially in real life, as opposed to online.

 

[Andrew35]

I did a little bit of research on this topic. If I understand it correctly, it's not something I would practice, and I have always tried to be the transparent, open, interpersonal type person.

I love the people that make up the Church. But here's the truth which hurts me to say, and I wish were different, but in my years of being a Christian I have really come to see: many people are broken people, and if they are gotten too close to, they will break others. I've seen many "Christian" people who deep down don't really strive to be holy or loving, because they are concerned with the things of the flesh and the world. Such people I can't trust with the most sensitive and deep parts of myself, because in their evil they will end up hurting me through the experience. Lot's of people have caused pain in my life, sadly, when they had a good opportunity to bring happiness.

There are few people who I truly trust and can come to for healing. God primarily, my wife secondly, and then a few men I can confide in. This isn't shallow stuff, and I don't think just anyone is worthy of me exposing the deepest parts of my life to.

I know this is all very vague, but I have plenty of real life experiences in my mind.

Thank you, Ryan. I appreciated this.

This is exactly where I am with the whole business itself, and really what I wanted to open up for reflection (not the Byrd bits that we quickly segued into): Is the level of intimacy implied by the inciting post really necessary and/or desirable for authentic Christian fellowship?

I would actually like to have this conversation with Byrd and some of the others who share her POV on this matter. I would like to hear their responses to some of our objections here.

 

[VictorBravo]

Moderation. I deleted a post--it was well meaning, but it brought discussion from a different platform. We want to avoid cross-platform back and forth.

From what I can tell, the discussion necessarily must stay on the topic as Andrew described above in post 114. There is no book so far for us to read and critique, so keep the topic to the general idea expressed by Andrew:

Is the level of intimacy implied by the inciting post really necessary and/or desirable for authentic Christian fellowship?

 

[bookish_Basset]

Thank you, Ryan. I appreciated this.

This is exactly where I am with the whole business itself, and really what I wanted to open up for reflection (not the Byrd bits that we quickly segued into): Is the level of intimacy implied by the inciting post really necessary and/or desirable for authentic Christian fellowship?

I would actually like to have this conversation with Byrd and some of the others who share her POV on this matter. I would like to hear their responses to some of our objections here.

I would be really interested in hearing more thoughts on this.

I've been blessed with a few very warm and edifying Christian friendships over the years. But I've come to recognize those as rare and not something one can go looking for, exactly. At least for me, they've been gracious surprises.

Groups, on the other hand, have always been awkward for me. Our previous churches placed a lot of emphasis on small groups; the church we joined as newlyweds, in fact, stressed small groups as the place where "real" fellowship was expected to take place. I always found this confusing. That's not to say there weren't real blessings in these groups sometimes, but I didn't feel comfortable opening up and even dreaded being put on the spot. For a long time I assumed this was a problem with me -- that I was somehow resisting Christian fellowship -- but more recently I've wondered if there were assumptions being made about what constitutes fellowship, and if my discomfort was largely a personality thing.

 

[Ben Zartman]

I would be really interested in hearing more thoughts on this.

I've been blessed with a few very warm and edifying Christian friendships over the years. But I've come to recognize those as rare and not something one can go looking for, exactly. At least for me, they've been gracious surprises.

Groups, on the other hand, have always been awkward for me. Our previous churches placed a lot of emphasis on small groups; the church we joined as newlyweds, in fact, stressed small groups as the place where "real" fellowship was expected to take place. I always found this confusing. That's not to say there weren't real blessings in these groups sometimes, but I didn't feel comfortable opening up and even dreaded being put on the spot. For a long time I assumed this was a problem with me -- that I was somehow resisting Christian fellowship -- but more recently I've wondered if there were assumptions being made about what constitutes fellowship, and if my discomfort was largely a personality thing.

I believe there is authentic Christian fellowship when we sing together on the Lord's Day, and attend to the preaching and praying, and observe the Lord's Supper. That fellowship is far better to me than the awkward mealtime between services designed for people to speak to each other but which really ends up in stilted conversations about uninteresting things. I like all my fellow churchmembers a lot better when we're all speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs than when we're trying to converse with nothing in common but our shared confession, about which there is not much to discuss.

 

[wcf_linux]

I would be really interested in hearing more thoughts on this.

I've been blessed with a few very warm and edifying Christian friendships over the years. But I've come to recognize those as rare and not something one can go looking for, exactly. At least for me, they've been gracious surprises.

Groups, on the other hand, have always been awkward for me. Our previous churches placed a lot of emphasis on small groups; the church we joined as newlyweds, in fact, stressed small groups as the place where "real" fellowship was expected to take place. I always found this confusing. That's not to say there weren't real blessings in these groups sometimes, but I didn't feel comfortable opening up and even dreaded being put on the spot. For a long time I assumed this was a problem with me -- that I was somehow resisting Christian fellowship -- but more recently I've wondered if there were assumptions being made about what constitutes fellowship, and if my discomfort was largely a personality thing.

First, I'll acknowledge what we've mainly been in the same small groups for the past decade plus a few. Even when there are friends in the group, or new friends made, it's just not a great context for "real" fellowship or "pastoral" care. For one, it's not the supernatural fellowship of gathered worship, word, and sacrament. There are special graces and special promises attached to those ordinary means. I don't see that there are any divine promises attached to such non-church gatherings.

For another, it is too often getting care by the spiritually unqualified and unselected and not by faithful, ordinary shepherds and overseers. Even if there is an elder present, you're at the mercy of whatever your peers happened to pick up somewhere. Sometimes that goes well. Sometimes people go to weird places. Sometimes there is built-in oversharing. That's not the makings of a safe space, much less for an unusually edifying or healing kind of fellowship and care.

 

[alexandermsmith]

It is a beautiful thing when the Lord's people can gather together in their homes and talk one with another about Christ. The Lord absolutely uses such fellowship as a means of blessing His people. But these small groups are artificial scenarios where there is "guided conversation" and often people end up feeling awkward. Or you have certain people holding court talking about things which aren't very spiritual at all (as most books written for such groups cater to the flesh and not the spirit). There is also the issue of believers and non-believers being in the same company and that can be a hindrance to spiritual conversation. This approach to fellowship is the result of the church substituting the philosophy of secular therapy with true Christian, spiritual conversation.