Byrd's "Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Americans are funny, and Christian Americans are no exception:

Middle Eastern/Far Eastern gender norms/patriarchy = cultural traditions to respect/work around.

Deep South/Far Western (e.g. Idaho) gender norms/patriarchy = ignorance and bigotry to dismantle/destroy.

:D
 
My favorite passage on this subject, ever, was in a Larry Crabb book. Yes, the Crabb who was vigorously accused of psycho babble, which I always thought was unfair given that he seemed to expose our self centered sinfulness better than any of his critics. But I digress.

He laid it out very simply. We are self centered. We are all about ourselves instead of being about God and loving others.

He said that when a man truly pursues God and trying to love and serve well the people in his life, he will become what we think of as stereotypical masculinity. More protective, stronger, harder working to provide, etc. And when a woman stops focusing on herself and tries to love and serve the people around her, she will become what we think of as the feminine stereotype. More gentle, more kind, more motherly, more helpful. Both the man and the woman may do the same thing in the house, but the woman will be more "feminine" as she does it, and the man more "masculine", if the motives are godly motives.

I don't like to even waste my time on these debates any more. If a guy tries to push his view of men's roles because he is arrogant or insecure or selfish, at the end of the day he won't be masculine. And any woman who pushes herself will end up unfeminine. I've seen this over and over and over. It's worth I suppose the occasional discussion about women as lawyers or cops or that sort of thing, and its worth upholding the biblical teaching on men in leadership as a hill to die on. But at the end of the day it has to be about heart motives or you are just wasting your time.

I like Aimee, and I really really like Trueman her co worker, but I think I'll pass on the book only because it just isn't worth it to me. You can cut through the legalism of a group in CBMW like say SGM ( we were in them) trying to ram their view of the role of women down our throats very easily. Are they exuding a heart of serving, or a heart of control to keep people in line? People are not dumb, women can intuitively feel when the men in their lives care and when they don't. And men can tell when women really are devoted to serving or not. And no matter what you do, at the end of the day the woman will feel like he is either spineless or a tyrant if he is self centered at his core, and the man will think she is a you know what rhymes with witch if she is self focused. Motives in the long run have got to be the focus of all this.
 
My favorite passage on this subject, ever, was in a Larry Crabb book. Yes, the Crabb who was vigorously accused of psycho babble, which I always thought was unfair given that he seemed to expose our self centered sinfulness better than any of his critics. But I digress.

He laid it out very simply. We are self centered. We are all about ourselves instead of being about God and loving others.

He said that when a man truly pursues God and trying to love and serve well the people in his life, he will become what we think of as stereotypical masculinity. More protective, stronger, harder working to provide, etc. And when a woman stops focusing on herself and tries to love and serve the people around her, she will become what we think of as the feminine stereotype. More gentle, more kind, more motherly, more helpful. Both the man and the woman may do the same thing in the house, but the woman will be more "feminine" as she does it, and the man more "masculine", if the motives are godly motives.

I don't like to even waste my time on these debates any more. If a guy tries to push his view of men's roles because he is arrogant or insecure or selfish, at the end of the day he won't be masculine. And any woman who pushes herself will end up unfeminine. I've seen this over and over and over. It's worth I suppose the occasional discussion about women as lawyers or cops or that sort of thing, and its worth upholding the biblical teaching on men in leadership as a hill to die on. But at the end of the day it has to be about heart motives or you are just wasting your time.

I like Aimee, and I really really like Trueman her co worker, but I think I'll pass on the book only because it just isn't worth it to me. You can cut through the legalism of a group in CBMW like say SGM ( we were in them) trying to ram their view of the role of women down our throats very easily. Are they exuding a heart of serving, or a heart of control to keep people in line? People are not dumb, women can intuitively feel when the men in their lives care and when they don't. And men can tell when women really are devoted to serving or not. And no matter what you do, at the end of the day the woman will feel like he is either spineless or a tyrant if he is self centered at his core, and the man will think she is a you know what rhymes with witch if she is self focused. Motives in the long run have got to be the focus of all this.
I would honestly love to get Trueman and Pruitt's real take on the book. I feel like in the discussion with her on MOS, just like with the Rachel Miller interview, they pitched a lot of softballs.

Can't say I blame them. I'd do the same with friends. But a lot of the "It's not as controversial as people are making it out to be," and "Most of my disagreements are in the application," along with all the other "tempest in a teapot" type comments aren't exactly glowing endorsements either.
 
And I know CBMW types don't like to hear this, but until they formally condemn and disavow all forms of ESS, I don't truck with them.
And there you have it—the neo-feminist billy club. Diasagreement with Byrd and her ilk = ESS. Apply with firm and repeated force directly to the forehead of all who disagree with you.
 
Last edited:
I have been sympathetic with Mrs. And Byrd's ideas for some time; I haven't read her book but, I intend to. Once the ESS heresy was brought to light, other things soon followed. Piper's views more than really rubbed me the wrong way. Everything was interpreted in terms of a power struggle and was extrapolated to every sphere of life.
Similarly, I have been disgusted by many things I have come across as well advocating some sort of manhood that has more in common with worldly notions of being a 'bad boy ' than the fruit of the Spirit. In many circles, it seems that manhood and womanhood tend to be 'higher life' Christianity. The fruit of the Spirit? That's basic and a bit effeminate, but, lets learn how to be a real man!
More research on my part, left me wondering, how are men and women different? One commentator said that people are living in same sex marriages. His rationale? The husband and wife both have jobs. Others have said similar things. Again, the ideas of subordination (which are always in the context of marriage or the church) are extrapolated to all spheres of life so that way you can tell who is a man or woman easier. "Oh, shes a manager? How masculine!" Sounds weird when you say it out loud.
Many complementarians in general, but especially CBMW, seem to believe that if one doesn't inhabit a role, then that person's gender, sex, gender expression switches. This is the logic of transgenderism. I doubt they have thought it through. What strange bed fellows! Wouldn't surprise me if many converts to LGBT crap, used this argumentation to swim across that river.
Why not say men and women are different by virtue of biology? Its affects many things (hormones, phenotypes, etc) and you can tell who is who usually without trying to pigeon hole the two sexes. I understand the social contagion of transgenderism and that needs to be fought though, I believe largely through grounding it in biology, not stereotypes of what men and women supposedly are or used to be.
Brother, forgive me, but this defense of Byrd amounts to little more than, "Some of her opponents are really, really bad." That may be true, but it's not an argument.
 
And there you have it—the neo-feminist billy club. Apply with firm and repeated force directly to the forehead of all who disagree with you.
Brother, forgive me as well but, I have seen very 'peculiar' notions peddled here and elsewhere that seem Biblically arbitrary. I do believe that it is very much more mainstream than I ever thought and it needs to be defended against. Perhaps I am insecure but, I hate seeing things talking about how men need to things that Mark Driscoll was spouting that is not only against my temperament but, completely anti Biblical. Undeniably, as a man I was made for a lot of things but, a lot comes across as very simplistic and ashistorical.
I don't think being a soft complementarian is a Trojan Horse.
 
I would say this is an example of guilt by association.
Lol. Tied me into Byrd's views which you assume must be wrong headed at best. No interaction with my comments.
They say the same things; might as well deal with them in the same spot.

So where do you disagree and why? Have you read Byrd, Green? Perhaps some egalitarians and not just Piper's or Grudem's interpretations?
 
Lol. Tied me into Byrd's views which you assume must be wrong headed at best. No interaction with my comments.
They say the same things; might as well deal with them in the same spot.

So where do you disagree and why? Have you read Byrd, Green? Perhaps some egalitarians and not just Piper's or Grudem's interpretations?
The shoe may just as well be put on the other foot...

Lol. Tied me into Piper's views which you assume must be wrong headed at best. No interaction with my comments.
They say the same things; might as well deal with them in the same spot.

So where do you disagree and why? Have you read Piper and Grudem? Perhaps some complemetarians and not just Byrd's and Miller's interpretations?


Let me be clear, I would not describe myself as a complentarian. I am not a fan of CBMW or Piper or Grudem (I don't believe I have a single book by either one of them in my rather large library). But when these conversations come up, and I (or others) say anything critical of Byrd or Miller, we are immediately lumped in with their ilk. It's a cheap tactic.
 
Last edited:
There is a very clear pattern in these discussions.

The shoe may just as well be put on the other foot...

Perhaps. I thought I have generally described the views I have run across and showed the ramifications.


Let me be clear, I would not describe myself as a complentarian. I am not a fan of CBMW or Piper or Grudem (I don't believe I have a single book by either one of them in my rather large library). But when these conversations come up, and I (or others) say anything critical of Byrd or Miller, we are immediately lumped in with their ilk. It's a cheap tactic.


Anyway, Re. Sheffield.
I apologize for pouncing on you now and in the past. I do notice a trend in these threads where no one (not talking of you) is the wiser; no one is persuaded, and motives are impunged. One likes the status quo (or the status quo of the Medieval era, depending on the blogger) the others have critiques, personal or otherwise.

I am glad to know you that you aren't a fan of CBMW. Seems we spoke past each other.
 
Last edited:
And there you have it—the neo-feminist billy club. Diasagreement with Byrd and her ilk = ESS. Apply with firm and repeated force directly to the forehead of all who disagree with you.

I don't agree with Byrd on everything. I know not all CBMW types hold to semi-Arianism, but their organization specifically allows for it. That should never happen.
 

This article is very timely because I've been musing about this controversy and something struck me about the whole CBMW movement.
Some of you are not going to like this but I sort of settled on the fact that something like Aimee's book was necessary because of the distortion brought out by an imbalanced focus on one area of our lives as Saints. The most proximate thing I could compare it to is Revoice and the Side B movement.

I told you guys you wouldn't like the comparison but hear me out.

I think the Side B deformity arises precisely out of people moving something that is part of the Christian life to the central pillar and then adjusting their theology of sanctification around it. When you have people like Wes Hill or Nate Colllins writing almost exclusively about SSA (and a whole lot of people) then you inevitably are going to start running down rabbit trails. C.S. Lewis' offhand remark about homosexuals having a genius for friendship metastasizes into gayness being a 1st order creation issue. Hold a conference for people struggling with SSA and you've got a fill a docket so you approve a seminar on "gay treasure".

It reminds me of the pastor's wife who complained to me about a seminar at a GA a few years ago for LGT ministry. She went to get some insight on how to minister to "people like that" and came away disappointed because they "...just talked about union with Christ." I asked her: "Well, what did you actually expect?"

It reminds me of Calvin's caution about theological speculation and how it is better to limp along slowly with the Scriptures rather than plunge headlong into theological speculation.

That's what is wrong with both Revoice and (in part) CBMW.

It is not inconsequential that much of CBMW speculation is built upon a foundation that is heterodox (ESS). It's hard to "unbake" all the fecal matter in the many cakes that have been cooked that otherwise had some true things to say but were permeated with basic theological error.
Then there's the need to answer the question every day: "So, we're the CBMW...what are we going to write about today to justify the idea that we have this whole movement?" How many times can you actually deal with the relevant Biblical passages. Being male or female is not something that is always "top of mind" . We live with it and assume it but we're not really focused upon it and it's unhealthy to place that as the central pillar of our thought.

Finally, one of the features of Kevin's article that movements have in common with many of us elders is an under-appreciation for natural law. We simply can't live out our lives as men and women by merely exegeting a few Biblical passages and using them as a manual for manhood or woman hood. We can't turn the Proverbs into apodictic law. We need a robust natural law that is under girded by our understanding of special Revelation. From a few things I've read, I think the over-reaction to "women aren't good at that..." is to fall into the trap that DeYoung describes where male and female are ultimately rather androgynous. We KNOW there is a difference between men and women. We don't have to come up with stereotypes to draw hard lines but we also need to need to be able to wisely answer the question: "Daddy, what does it mean to be a man...."
 
Not so much on topic but just generally I've been reflecting on this quote by Augustine:

'Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are.'

One might think of Hope as necessarily feminine because of being the metaphorical 'mother'; but if we're dividing up traits into hard lines, I think many would put Anger and Courage as masculine qualities. Augustine called them daughters. That's a bit awing and wonderful.

& something also beautiful though a little more complicating, from Chrysostom:
'For since they had a truceless war with the Jews, He continually repeated the, “Peace be unto you,” giving them, to counterbalance the war, the consolation. And so this was the first word that He spake to them after the Resurrection, (wherefore also Paul continually saith, “Grace be unto you and peace,”) and to women He giveth good tidings of joy, because that sex was in sorrow, and had received this as the first curse. Therefore He giveth good tidings suitable respectively, to men, peace, because of their war; joy to women, because of their sorrow.…'

Childbearing is a dignity we have, unique to us, and one of the reasons historically that women have not been liable for the draft as soldiers. I don't think all traditional wisdom can be thrown out without denigrating what we should honor in one another.
 
I think you expressed yourself well here and your points are valid for sure. My only observation is I recall a First Things article that noted the category of ‘heterosexual’ as developed centuries ago to solidify a label for proper sexual norm. These type of categorizations probably gave more legitimacy to a sexual identity as a defining feature making an illegitimate issue, at least from a biblical standard and acknowledgement, into the main thrust (along with abortion) of a culture war. I think I’m inline with your way of thinking, but I think that was a bit of a starting point of the problem.

I think now Byrd is actually overcorrecting in her response in advocating for women to teach men, etc.


This article is very timely because I've been musing about this controversy and something struck me about the whole CBMW movement.
Some of you are not going to like this but I sort of settled on the fact that something like Aimee's book was necessary because of the distortion brought out by an imbalanced focus on one area of our lives as Saints. The most proximate thing I could compare it to is Revoice and the Side B movement.

I told you guys you wouldn't like the comparison but hear me out.

I think the Side B deformity arises precisely out of people moving something that is part of the Christian life to the central pillar and then adjusting their theology of sanctification around it. When you have people like Wes Hill or Nate Colllins writing almost exclusively about SSA (and a whole lot of people) then you inevitably are going to start running down rabbit trails. C.S. Lewis' offhand remark about homosexuals having a genius for friendship metastasizes into gayness being a 1st order creation issue. Hold a conference for people struggling with SSA and you've got a fill a docket so you approve a seminar on "gay treasure".

It reminds me of the pastor's wife who complained to me about a seminar at a GA a few years ago for LGT ministry. She went to get some insight on how to minister to "people like that" and came away disappointed because they "...just talked about union with Christ." I asked her: "Well, what did you actually expect?"

It reminds me of Calvin's caution about theological speculation and how it is better to limp along slowly with the Scriptures rather than plunge headlong into theological speculation.

That's what is wrong with both Revoice and (in part) CBMW.

It is not inconsequential that much of CBMW speculation is built upon a foundation that is heterodox (ESS). It's hard to "unbake" all the fecal matter in the many cakes that have been cooked that otherwise had some true things to say but were permeated with basic theological error.
Then there's the need to answer the question every day: "So, we're the CBMW...what are we going to write about today to justify the idea that we have this whole movement?" How many times can you actually deal with the relevant Biblical passages. Being male or female is not something that is always "top of mind" . We live with it and assume it but we're not really focused upon it and it's unhealthy to place that as the central pillar of our thought.

Finally, one of the features of Kevin's article that movements have in common with many of us elders is an under-appreciation for natural law. We simply can't live out our lives as men and women by merely exegeting a few Biblical passages and using them as a manual for manhood or woman hood. We can't turn the Proverbs into apodictic law. We need a robust natural law that is under girded by our understanding of special Revelation. From a few things I've read, I think the over-reaction to "women aren't good at that..." is to fall into the trap that DeYoung describes where male and female are ultimately rather androgynous. We KNOW there is a difference between men and women. We don't have to come up with stereotypes to draw hard lines but we also need to need to be able to wisely answer the question: "Daddy, what does it mean to be a man...."
 
Last edited:
Aimee's book was necessary because of the distortion brought out by an imbalanced focus on one area of our lives as Saints.
If there really was a distortion because of imbalance in the thinking on this issue, a different and opposite distortion cannot be seen as the answer. And I'm afraid that is all Aimee Byrd is offering. But my enemy's enemy is not my fiend. What's needed is a careful study of Scripture's teaching on the matter. That's where the discussion needs to be moored. What saith the Scripture?
 
After some disagreement among the several contributing writers, the founder of purelypresbyterian has had the posts there by Michael Spangler removed. He's catching all sorts of flack for this but I think it was a principled and gutsy decision given what predictably would and has happened with the reaction. This has come to involve all the worst elements of social media (the laughing react serving as the catcall, derisive words, etc.) and should, whether or not it does, develop into judicial cases to resolve matters. Here is the reasoning and a link (I don't think the reason is posted to the site; this is to the FB page):
"He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears." (Prov. 26.17)​
The feminism articles have been deleted. These articles pertain to an ongoing conflict that Purely Presbyterian had no business getting involved with, and their content is outside the scope of our intent. They also did not match up with what is stated on our About page:​
“Things are handled rather by way of Positive Assertion than of Polemicall Dissertation, (which too commonly degenerates into verball strifes, 1 Tim. 6.3,4. 2 Tim. 2.23. and vain-jaingling, 1 Tim. 1.6.) and where any dissenting opinions or objections are refelled [refuted], we hope it is with that sobriety, meeknesse and moderation of spirit, that any unprejudiced judgment may perceive, we had rather gain than grieve those that dissent from us, we indeavor rather to heale up than to teare open the rent, and that we contend more for truth than victory.” (Preface to Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici)​
This decision was made by Seni Adeyemi, who originally made the website, although other contributors disagreed with the decision.​
My sincere apologies for poorly handling this situation.​



Her pastor fully supports her it seems:

Apparently this has unfolded with a controversy at the OPC church the author is a member of; she complained to her session about a ruling elder who was a member of the FB group in question that Mark Jones had been a member of, which makes him persona non grata to reply to his review (though he left the group in 2018 I think I read), for not telling her all the bad things folks in the group were saying about here (to put it simply). The session came to question the RE's competence for office and something transpired against which the elder has filed a formal complaint against the session. The session put out a letter to their congregation containing an accounting of the controversy but in the process has shared screen shots of other's online comments without their permission or respect for their privacy; and that letter is now apparently free floating since I was given a link to it. This mess is just going to keep getting messier.
 
If there really was a distortion because of imbalance in the thinking on this issue, a different and opposite distortion cannot be seen as the answer. And I'm afraid that is all Aimee Byrd is offering. But my enemy's enemy is not my fiend. What's needed is a careful study of Scripture's teaching on the matter. That's where the discussion needs to be moored. What saith the Scripture?
And again have you read her arguments or just had them mediated to you? She's not advocating androgyny.
 
This decision was made by Seni Adeyemi, who originally made the website, although other contributors disagreed with the decision.

Huh. I always thought PP was Paul Barth's, and Seni was just a contributor.
 
I am a member of Genevan Commons, a group that has over 500 members, consisting of many ministers, elders, and women in good standing from the URC, OPC, RPCNA, and PCA, none of which have I ever seen promoting FV errors. Painting the whole group as "arrogant" and as "militant FV" is simply rank slander.

That group, Geneva Commons, is a militant FV group. If you think Doug Wilson is arrogant, check that group out.
 
Americans are funny, and Christian Americans are no exception:

Middle Eastern/Far Eastern gender norms/patriarchy = cultural traditions to respect/work around.

Deep South/Far Western (e.g. Idaho) gender norms/patriarchy = ignorance and bigotry to dismantle/destroy.

:D
This is an overgeneralisation but there is some truth in it. Still, the problem is that the Middle East, the Far East, Europe, and America all have different ideas of gender norms, and very different ideas about the way the rest of society should be run. Often the trad gender roles are just a piece of the puzzle, is it really that easy to just take one piece and reject the rest?

I think that there are shared norms, and that these are in some sense grounded in gender without being arbitrary. That said, a lot of the discussions around owning guns, for example, are so foreign to someone not from the US, I think Carl Trueman was right to point out the American style of the whole thing. I find US Christians have a much greater problem with this whole thing than people here in the UK.

One thing you must remember though, is that this overthrowing of cultural norms comes from the Enlightenment originally, and much of what you Americans hold dear and count as manly comes straight from this source. The extolling of "freedom" in owning guns and using them to protect your family, and the idea that any man can rise up in the ranks by his own strength, comes from the same place. Those kind of "obvious" things aren't so obvious to the rest of us. Even the obsession with eating steak and such is rather strange to me.

Indeed, the idea that women should stay home and the men go out and work is much easier to argue as a near-absolute standard if you think that any man can try hard enough and earn a lucrative job so that only they need to work.

Basically, my point is, it's clear even from the Very American perspective that not everything "traditional" from pre-modern times is great. I think this kind of arguing is too simplistic. I can guarantee you would find things that these other countries assume are natural to be rather strange.
 
I am a member of Genevan Commons, a group that has over 500 members, consisting of many ministers, elders, and women in good standing from the URC, OPC, RPCNA, and PCA, none of which have I ever seen promoting FV errors. Painting the whole group as "arrogant" and as "militant FV" is simply rank slander.

Oh I am sure the lurkers probably aren't. But before I got kicked off for criticizing Wilson, I saw routine dismissing of those who have concerns over FV false teaching, not to mention slander and invective against guys like Scott Clark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top