It's not my wall but Gavin Beer's; his post about the Mark Jones review.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's not my wall but Gavin Beer's; his post about the Mark Jones review.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
you didn't bother to read the rest of the post did you? Guilt by association isn't an argument either.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.
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.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.
To be clear, I did read your entire post. But I do not see how my comments implied any "guilt by association."you didn't bother to read the rest of the post did you? Guilt by association isn't an argument either.
I would say this is an example of guilt by association.Perhaps I am insecure but, I hate seeing things talking about how men need to things that Mark Driscoll was spouting
Lol. Tied me into Byrd's views which you assume must be wrong headed at best. No interaction with my comments.I would say this is an example of guilt by association.
The shoe may just as well be put on the other foot...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 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?
There is a very clear pattern in these discussions.
The shoe may just as well be put on the other foot...
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.
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.
Four Clarifying (I Hope) Thoughts on the Complementarian Conversation
The most authentic and most attractive complementarianism will seek to promote all that is good and true and beautiful in God making us men and women.www.thegospelcoalition.org
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...."
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?Aimee's book was necessary because of the distortion brought out by an imbalanced focus on one area of our lives as Saints.
Her pastor fully supports her it seems:
Feminism in the Reformed Churches: 1. The Leaders
The Reformed churches have found themselves at war. The battle lines are drawn, and the conflict is underway. This article is the beginning of a series, in which I make a plea to godly readers, to …purelypresbyterian.com
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.
And again have you read her arguments or just had them mediated to you? She's not advocating androgyny.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?
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.
That's a fair question. And one that may just as well be asked of you.And again have you read her arguments or just had them mediated to you?
I haven't read her book but, I intend to.
I don't know the history of the site, but I think Paul wrote that.
That group, Geneva Commons, is a militant FV group. If you think Doug Wilson is arrogant, check that group out.
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?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.
I've read everything else she wrote and that Trueman wrote on the subject and do not find it objectionable; quite the opposite in fact.That's a fair question. And one that may just as well be asked of you.
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.