Comprehensive Review of Aimee Byrd's Books

Status
Not open for further replies.

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
Where have you experienced it as out of bounds to call attention to it?
Social media mostly. Facebook and the Twitter mob. Maybe the well is poisoned a bit by the Geneva Commons controversy, which I never was a part of. But I have seen even the most fair critiques of her work incur wrath.
 

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Senior
I've been doing a little bit of research, but I can't find out exactly what she specifically believes and practices that is against biblical Christianity. From what I have read, from her side and from her opponent's side, things are left to be pretty vague. Can anyone give some concrete specific examples of how she would counsel someone against the Bible?
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
I've been doing a little bit of research, but I can't find out exactly what she specifically believes and practices that is against biblical Christianity. From what I have read, from her side and from her opponent's side, things are left to be pretty vague. Can anyone give some concrete specific examples of how she would counsel someone against the Bible?

This is precisely the point. Things are left vague on purpose when someone creeps towards the unorthodox. A plain example of what she has done is placing the thought that there was a female apostle (http://heritageopc.org/2021/10/26/recovering-2/) in her readers' minds. What does that do? It opens up the door to endorsing women ministers without having to explicitly endorse them. That should be enough - but there is enough material throughout her writings compiled on that site to sound the alarm. Her use of feminists and feminist imagery to make points should also be a warning to the church.
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
This is precisely the point. Things are left vague on purpose when someone creeps towards the unorthodox. A plain example of what she has done is placing the thought that there was a female apostle (http://heritageopc.org/2021/10/26/recovering-2/) in her readers' minds. What does that do? It opens up the door to endorsing women ministers without having to explicitly endorse them. That should be enough - but there is enough material throughout her writings compiled on that site to sound the alarm. Her use of feminists and feminist imagery to make points should also be a warning to the church.

I'm undecided on the Junia claim. It is fairly standard in modern research and commentaries on that passage, even conservative commentaries. Moreover, one can affirm that Junia is an apostle while still rejecting female ministers, since we all admit that the apostolate has ceased.

As to using feminist and feminist imagery, I admit that can be problematic. On the other hand, anti-wokists are using atheists like James Lindsay to promote biblical doctrine. Eve worse, some patriarchalists promote the pedophile-enabling Pelagian "Transformed Wife."

Of course, that's technically the tu quo que fallacy, but it bears noting.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
I'm undecided on the Junia claim. It is fairly standard in modern research and commentaries on that passage, even conservative commentaries. Moreover, one can affirm that Junia is an apostle while still rejecting female ministers, since we all admit that the apostolate has ceased.

As to using feminist and feminist imagery, I admit that can be problematic. On the other hand, anti-wokists are using atheists like James Lindsay to promote biblical doctrine. Eve worse, some patriarchalists promote the pedophile-enabling Pelagian "Transformed Wife."

Of course, that's technically the tu quo que fallacy, but it bears noting.

You know me, brother, you know I have no love for the ESS, hyper-patriarchists, Doug Wilson, and that crowd. I am staunchly opposed to them all. I can be opposed to the hyper-patriarchy men and also towards egalitarians at the same time.

However, in Byrd's work targeted towards laypeople of both sexes, and towards elders - we must consider what the outcome of her material is when you view it as a whole. In my estimation, she certainly plants seeds of doubt (if not more than that) concerning male only leadership that are there to be watered. When coupled with the general thrust and evolution of her work, it tends towards an egalitarian view of men and women in the church (see who follows her on Twitter, she certainly does not seem to offend feminists and egalitarians, who are very supportive of her project - that should be a red flag in itself - if NT Wright ever supported a work of mine on justification, I would either have to believe he repented or I am in terrible error).

The Bible speaks of the subtilty of the serpent and to not be deceived by the deceitfulness of sin. These things are not so plain. Which is why whenever there is fog or confusion concerning a teacher (even putting aside the question if she should be teaching) - we must be on guard. Lest anyone misunderstand - I am not saying she is a serpent. Strange that I do not have to caveat my anti-Doug Wilson rhetoric in that way!
 

bookish_Basset

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm undecided on the Junia claim. It is fairly standard in modern research and commentaries on that passage, even conservative commentaries. Moreover, one can affirm that Junia is an apostle while still rejecting female ministers, since we all admit that the apostolate has ceased.

As to using feminist and feminist imagery, I admit that can be problematic. On the other hand, anti-wokists are using atheists like James Lindsay to promote biblical doctrine. Eve worse, some patriarchalists promote the pedophile-enabling Pelagian "Transformed Wife."

Of course, that's technically the tu quo que fallacy, but it bears noting.
I do think it's possible to use non-Christian and questionable sources to support one's arguments. I just think it takes delicacy and skill to do it really well and effectively -- especially when writing for a popular audience.

I was a bit dismayed when I read about some of the sources being drawn upon in her more recent books. I went to college and even took biblical studies courses in a feminist/progressive environment, so it's possible that it's a bigger red flag for me than it needs to be. Maybe she incorporates and critiques that material very deftly. Having been down the feminist path myself, I just know how disorienting it can be for a reader to encounter that material while lacking a strong foundation for engaging with it (which was certainly my situation, and it led nowhere good).
 

Zach

Puritan Board Junior
I see. I must have missed the context of your statements due to gaps in the thread. You are speaking to the being called a wolf issue. Frankly I haven't followed that.

But her works and words merit serious alarm. In some quarters calling attention to it is seen as out of bounds. Which baffles me.
Yes. I was speaking narrowly to the issue of her being called a wolf and my earlier post was responding to the particular claim that it is laughable to assert that she is a victim of abusive behavior.

As for her work and words, I largely agree with what Jacob said. One of the reasons I haven't read her books is that when I read her shorter writing and listen to her on the subjects I find plenty that I disagree with even though I also think she raises other very valid points and criticisms. But, and this really should go without saying, I do think that one can be wrong without being a wolf! I'm personally not particularly alarmed by the areas where I happen to have disagreement with her nor do I necessarily think that she is embracing entire systems of unbelieving feminist thought or interpretations when making a point with some of their observations.

I understand why some others do have concerns about her work. But my primary concern is that people engage with her work in a substantive way and make judgments about her work and not her personally and that they also engage with her respectfully as our sister in Christ deserves.
 

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Senior
You know me, brother, you know I have no love for the ESS, hyper-patriarchists, Doug Wilson, and that crowd. I am staunchly opposed to them all. I can be opposed to the hyper-patriarchy men and also towards egalitarians at the same time.

However, in Byrd's work targeted towards laypeople of both sexes, and towards elders - we must consider what the outcome of her material is when you view it as a whole. In my estimation, she certainly plants seeds of doubt (if not more than that) concerning male only leadership that are there to be watered. When coupled with the general thrust and evolution of her work, it tends towards an egalitarian view of men and women in the church (see who follows her on Twitter, she certainly does not seem to offend feminists and egalitarians, who are very supportive of her project - that should be a red flag in itself - if NT Wright ever supported a work of mine on justification, I would either have to believe he repented or I am in terrible error).

The Bible speaks of the subtilty of the serpent and to not be deceived by the deceitfulness of sin. These things are not so plain. Which is why whenever there is fog or confusion concerning a teacher (even putting aside the question if she should be teaching) - we must be on guard. Lest anyone misunderstand - I am not saying she is a serpent. Strange that I do not have to caveat my anti-Doug Wilson rhetoric in that way!
Would she say men and women are permitted to serve in the same capacities in the Church? If so, this is a clear violation of God's design and is concrete.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Rom, I know you aren't an ESS guy and we are on the same page. I've read maybe 40 pages of her Biblical Womanhood book. I generally don't read non-theological Christian lit, whether by men or women. My interest was that ministers in a denomination shouldn't use the kind of language that was used on Geneva Commons.

I wonder if her use of "feminist" literature is a reaction against certain Aristotelian interpretations of anthropology, where women were seen as defective men. I know Christian Patriarchalists don't officially believe that, but I suspect they kind of want to.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
Rom, I know you aren't an ESS guy and we are on the same page. I've read maybe 40 pages of her Biblical Womanhood book. I generally don't read non-theological Christian lit, whether by men or women. My interest was that ministers in a denomination shouldn't use the kind of language that was used on Geneva Commons.

I wonder if her use of "feminist" literature is a reaction against certain Aristotelian interpretations of anthropology, where women were seen as defective men. I know Christian Patriarchalists don't officially believe that, but I suspect they kind of want to.

Yes, I wonder if there are many issues intertwined here. That intemperate language directed towards her at Geneva Commons and cruel things were said also muddies these waters, I think. That we can no longer "distinguish" between those issues and the issues concerning her teaching (seen clearly on this thread) is certainly unhelpful both to her and to the church.

I also have grave problems with the "b-r-o culture" we are finding more and more in the Reformed churches: just as obnoxious and as deadly as feminism. So, as always, I am happy to take fire from all sides.

EDIT: I had to add hyphens to b-r-o otherwise the software here seems to autoconvert it to brother.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I'm undecided on the Junia claim. It is fairly standard in modern research and commentaries on that passage, even conservative commentaries. Moreover, one can affirm that Junia is an apostle while still rejecting female ministers, since we all admit that the apostolate has ceased.

As to using feminist and feminist imagery, I admit that can be problematic. On the other hand, anti-wokists are using atheists like James Lindsay to promote biblical doctrine. Eve worse, some patriarchalists promote the pedophile-enabling Pelagian "Transformed Wife."

Of course, that's technically the tu quo que fallacy, but it bears noting.
The Transformed Wife gives better marriage advice than 90% of Reformed pastors. She just needs to stay in her lane (which she mostly does) and speak only on marriage and the family. You are down on "partriarchalists" but their version of patriarchy is an over-reaction against feminism. Both are detestable. The OT was patriarchal, if you have a quarrel with patriarchy per se, go talk to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I think the West is suffering a see-saw of reaction and over-reaction:

Feminism has won, even in the church for the most part. In the Old Days even movie heroes were very manly. Not more muscular but more rugged and manly. Now things are feminized. So many men in the church over-react the other way like Driscoll and Douglas Wilson and the Vision Forum guy, and become a caricature of manliness. Burning grass in a field with gasoline and smoking a cigar is their cringy over-reaction...but just makes me laugh...it almost looks like a parody of masculinity. From one extreme to another. I had one pastor just tell me that he is an "Alpha Male" but I had to reply to him, "I hate to break it to you, dude, but if you have to say you are alpha male...then you really aren't an alpha male..."

Women in the church often see this parody of masculinity and then react against it. But they do so using feminist language and categories and thus the cycle is perpetuated further.

In the jungle were I worked I was called a "Women's Rights Activist" a couple times. Women are basically property and if a wife is beaten then maybe it is her fault, and we struggled to get little girls into school. Anyone who knows me should snort and laugh hysterically at me being called a Women's Rights Activist, but I then am called "misogynist" in the West. So it is a lot about perspective. The West is unmoored from historical norms and tries to re-invent everything.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
And what is hilarious is when some of these little theology nerds straight from seminary hold "Manhood Studies" in churches in their little bow ties and uncalloused hands and no life accomplishments except bookstudy in seminary. They need to, instead, invite an old guy in his work boots and rough hands who stayed married to the same woman 30 years to teach these things. Otherwise, these guys are like fish trying to study about flying. No wonder women in church are disillusioned over their potential mate-choices and don't want to submit (that dreaded s word).
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
The Transformed Wife gives better marriage advice than 90% of Reformed pastors. She just needs to stay in her lane (which she mostly does) and speak only on marriage and the family. You are down on "partriarchalists" but their version of patriarchy is an over-reaction against feminism. Both are detestable. The OT was patriarchal, if you have a quarrel with patriarchy per se, go talk to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I have a quarrel with people who enable pedophiles.
1637353529343.png
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Ouch. Fair point. Another reminder that nobody is infallible.

In like manner, I support many of the women calling out abuse, even when I would never trust these women with any other theological issue.

She is also a Pelagian, as she denies a sin nature. It's on her blog somewhere. She also promotes the Pearls, whose methodology has actually killed kids. She is a nut. I put her and Doug Wilson in the same category for largely the same reasons (bad theology, promoting pedophiles, etc)
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
She is also a Pelagian, as she denies a sin nature. It's on her blog somewhere. She also promotes the Pearls, whose methodology has actually killed kids. She is a nut. I put her and Doug Wilson in the same category for largely the same reasons (bad theology, promoting pedophiles, etc)
Lots of people support the Pearls. And Doug Wilson with his advocacy for a pedophile. But again, she is mostly good on marriage and the family. For that matter Owen Strachen says many good things as well, just don't trust him on the Trinity. Nobody is infallible. But I find her views refreshing on marriage.
 

Irenaeus

Puritan Board Freshman
Lots of people support the Pearls. And Doug Wilson with his advocacy for a pedophile. But again, she is mostly good on marriage and the family. For that matter Owen Strachen says many good things as well, just don't trust him on the Trinity. Nobody is infallible. But I find her views refreshing on marriage.
Pearls? Can someone fill me in?
 

Irenaeus

Puritan Board Freshman
Can someone detail exactly what is objectionable? I don't view spanking as objectionable, nor do I take issue with, say, using a degree of hunger to guide children toward eating what's put in front of them (i.e., if they don't eat it they have to wait until the next meal). Does the book advocate for starving or freezing a child into submission as the Wiki article implies, or were the nutjobs using the book as cover for their child abuse? Both sources cited appear to have a negative view of Biblical discipline which they conflate with its abuses. I'd like to know what the book itself says.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Can someone detail exactly what is objectionable? I don't view spanking as objectionable, nor do I take issue with, say, using a degree of hunger to guide children toward eating what's put in front of them (i.e., if they don't eat it they have to wait until the next meal). Does the book advocate for starving or freezing a child into submission as the Wiki article implies, or were the nutjobs using the book as cover for their child abuse? Both sources cited appear to have a negative view of Biblical discipline which they conflate with its abuses. I'd like to know what the book itself says.
Jacob has good advice about the Pearls. In their book they advocate spanking babies and doing rigid sleep schedules and ignoring cries at night. Maybe start a new thread about their dangers...they are substantial.
 

Andrew35

Puritan Board Sophomore
The sheer amount of unrelated stuff that comes up when Aimee Byrd is being discussed is amazing. It's like she's become a proxy for all our intra-Reformed wars.
 

Miss Marple

Puritan Board Junior
I think this criticism of the Pearls is terribly unfair. They never advocated severe beating or killing a child or any such thing. I don't see where it is their fault that a child died whose parents went horribly overboard.
Can someone detail exactly what is objectionable? I don't view spanking as objectionable, nor do I take issue with, say, using a degree of hunger to guide children toward eating what's put in front of them (i.e., if they don't eat it they have to wait until the next meal). Does the book advocate for starving or freezing a child into submission as the Wiki article implies, or were the nutjobs using the book as cover for their child abuse? Both sources cited appear to have a negative view of Biblical discipline which they conflate with its abuses. I'd like to know what the book itself says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top