Podcast Recommendations?
- Thread starter J.L. Allen
- Start date
- Status
100% with you. More on Aimee Byrd here:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/troub...culinity-very-good-lets-stop-caricaturing-it/
And her next book is billed as an attack on "Biblical manhood and womanhood." I see her as part of the Evangelical-Intersectionality Complex, along with Revoice (LGBTQ) and Thabiti/Jemar Tisby/Anthony Bradley types (everything is about certain racist sins done by white men, not our own sins). I think she's more dangerous since she's in the OPC and appears less fringe-ish.
Last edited:
Yep. I've also heard complementarianism described as the husband and wife being 99% identical, with God mysteriously giving the husband the tiebreaker vote if they ever disagree (which should be very rare). Oh and women can't be ordained, but can and should take every possible leadership and speaking opportunity not requiring ordination.
Joseph Knowles
Puritan Board Freshman
We don't have anything up on the website as of yet, but it will be at churchhistory.podbean.com. We're aiming to launch on April 23 and release an episode (30-45 minutes in length) every other week.
A common tactic by Byrd and other crypto-feminists online is to go back to Genesis and re-translate Eve being Adam's "helpmeet" as, rather, Eve being Adam's "Necessary ally" and not really a follower or helper at all in the traditional sense.
If you give a certain kind of woman a blog, she won't write to support traditional women in traditional womenly roles. She will rather write AGAINST men...to correct us. For example, Byrd started out writing about housewife theologians but now is writing against the Mike Pence/Billy Graham rule.
The only woman online personality I follow is "The Transformed Wife" who is being mocked mercilessly (by mostly women, and some weak men) because she stated that men prefer debt-free virgins without tattoes as wives. A satirical Facebook group by that same name was quickly formed to make fun of her. I show my son these behaviors online as a guide to inform him what sort of women to avoid.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
One complementarian recently tried to tell me that "it is not good for man to be alone" only applied to Adam and does not apply to us. Just another example of how bizarre the whole movement has become.
Do you have a link about this subject?
BottleOfTears
Puritan Board Freshman
This article on friendship (connected to Aimee's book).
And this one in reply to an article comparing her to Potiphar's wife.
Her book goes into more detail on this, so I'll get a quote from that for you. (Might have to start a new thread soon though)
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Thanks. I read the first article, which was bizarre. The Mike Pence/Billy Graham rule is just a common sense application of the seventh commandment.
BottleOfTears
Puritan Board Freshman
That's an interesting article. I think a lot of it is useful, but seeing as the author had not actually read Aimee's book at the time of writing, it seems like he has assumed that she is arguing that we should treat all our brothers and sisters in Christ *exactly* like our biological brothers and sisters. I don't think she is arguing that at all.
Secondly, I think it's strange how he just assumes the problem with the whole Bill Hybels situation is mere accusation caused by not following the Pence Rule. Now maybe it is just false accusations, but I think that's it's a wee bit simplistic to assume that's the only problem. The Pence Rule whatever it's usefulness, is certainly not a cure-all for sexual sin.
BottleOfTears
Puritan Board Freshman
I think there's a Mortification of Spin episode on it too, I would have some sympathy for some of her views on the Pence Rule, but Todd if I remember makes some decent points in favour of it.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
In her article on friendship she doesn't seem to grasp the rather important distinction between those who are our blood brothers and sisters and those are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Inevitably our relationship with those we grew up with in the same house, who have seen us at our best and worst and with whom we have an intimacy we don't have with anyone else is going to be different from the relationship we have with non-blood siblings. It's surely bizarre to expect a man to have the same sort of friendship with a woman who is not his sibling than he has with his sister?
She recognises the nature of the society we live in (very sexualised) but wants to operate as if we can just ignore that. There's a very good reason why in the past it would have been frowned upon (to say the least) for an unmarried man and woman to be spending intimate time with each other, in private: it has the appearance of ungodliness, which we are to avoid (1 Thess. 5:22). It could well have been quite innocent, but the appearance of wrongdoing was sufficient to forbid the action.
It's also bizarre that in the current climate she would double down on her criticism of the "Pence rule". http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/pickpocketing-purity#.XHZ3jIj7TGg
Is it guaranteed to 100% prevent all sexual immorality? Of course not. Is it going to prevent a lot of it? Without a doubt. And she makes the argument that this rule devalues the inherent dignity of those of the opposite sex by reducing them to mere sexual beings. Well actually, inherent sin does that. And inherent sin is very powerful and maybe we shouldn't make its job easier just to make some vague point or because we "should" be able to be friends with the opposite sex. We're fallen creatures.
A lot of the criticism of the "pence rule" and the morality it represents- not just from Byrd, but others- is that women will be penalised by this. They won't get access to the networking, the opportunities, the deal-making that is often carried out in informal situations. I.e. it stems from a grasping attitude on behalf of women: grasping to be part of the world of work, the world of men. That women have a right of access to men and their networks. Wrong.
Of course I'm not saying men and woman cannot be friends but nature itself shows us that it is highly unsual for a man's closest friend to be a woman and vice versa. It can happen, but it's the exception. The intermingling of the sexes in work and social settings as default is very new and I think we can say it's not working. Jordan Peterson (he has good points, he has bad points- I don't know what this forum's view of him is) actually made this point well when talking about the #metoo movement and the response of businesses whereby they are implementing ever more intrusive workplace regulations to comba apparent sexual harrassment. Where do we stop? Is make-up to be forbidden? Should we all be wearing the same clothes? I would say the great experiment of men and woman spending most of their time together is failing.
But anyway, maybe we should start a new thread if we're going to continue this discussion.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
I certainly got the impression from her article on friendship that she was saying we should treat our Christian brothers and sisters basically as our natural siblings. If that's not her argument she hasn't made herself clear at all.
BottleOfTears
Puritan Board Freshman
Just about to start one now
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
I saw a short post by Trueman on the "pence rule" where he asks: what about sodomy? Men spending time together with other men, in our current climate of pansexuality, as if the two prblems are the same. Seems like it was a deliberate deflection on Trueman's part.
BottleOfTears
Puritan Board Freshman
New thread on Aimee Byrd's views on men and women here.
J.L. Allen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thank you, Bottle o’ tears. Now we can spill our tears on such topics unencumbered.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
If you remember the time when the Mike Pence rule hit the headlines, this argument was the very one that Feminist harpies employed to demonstrate that the Vice-President was every bit as much a "misogynist" as the President. In my opinion, this attitude reflects the Cultural Marxist notion that men = bad oppressors, women = good/oppressed victims. Whatever a man does, it is always wrong. If he is a philanderer who has said crude and vulgar things, he is a woman hater (even if he later admits the error of his ways, he cannot be forgiven). If he wants to avoid both sexual immorality and all appearance of sexual immorality, he is also a woman hater. You just cannot win with these people.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The comparison is nonsense as it does not recognise the distinction between natural lust and unnatural lust. Anyone with any common sense knows that the former is much more real problem for most men than the latter.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Exactly. If Trueman were right and this was as much an issue for Christians, never mind the rest of society, then I think we would have a much bigger problem on our hands.
BottleOfTears
Puritan Board Freshman
I certainly don't have much sympathy for this sort of thinking. It can be quite ridiculous.
However, I also find many people take a far different, equally simplistic and incorrect view. Some of whom are Christians, but many are not. I think we make a grave error in assuming all non-Christians are diehard feminists and that is the only danger here. I find this is much more a problem in American circles by-and-large, where, shaped by US politics, everything is a binary of "the good side vs the bad" and it is very hard for people to admit that anyone opposite them has a point. (See Republicans on healthcare and Democrats on infanticide)
Basically, people end up shifting most blame onto the women. Now, no one either side would admit in the abstract that everything is one gender's fault, however they seem to manage to shift the conversation away from that quite quickly.
Mens' lust is possibly mildly condemned, but most emphasis is placed on how the woman acted, how she dressed. "This wouldn't have happened if you hadn't dressed like that" etc.
Think of how many people react to women being abused in a club. We agree with the feminists that the abuse is bad, but instead of talking about how evil it is and showing any kind of common ground, we just jump straight to "well if that girl hadn't been wearing that". I mean I strongly disagree with modern views on promiscuity and modesty, and I think the Christian view of relationships offers (or should) a much better protection of women than what she might find in a night club. However, if all we do when some says "This abuse is terrible", is "Well she basically had it coming", we are showing no love or sympathy, and offering no hope.
In the same vein, the problem with pastors who abuse is not simply that they messed up the Pence Rule, it's that they did something evil. And the evil is not being near a woman, the evil is abusing her.
Saying that doesn't make you a feminist anymore than saying we should care for the poor makes us all communists.
So can men who struggle with the temptation towards homosexuality have any friends? Or ever be alone with another human?
That seems to be the logical conclusion of the absolute view of the Pence Rule.
It seems to me that whether a man should be alone with a woman or give her a lift in his car depends massively on circumstance, and think we'll agree acting with wisdom is necessary. But making such blanket rules with zero exceptions seems to be completely simplistic and unrealistic solution.
Also we should probably take this discussion to the new thread here.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I agree to a point, though you are perhaps not conversant enough with the American political scene to understand why things are so polarised. Even though I have no problem with socialised medicine in the abstract, which would put me at odds with some Republicans, the Democrats are far worse and, from a Christian point of view, the platforms of the two parties are miles apart. While the GOP is far from perfect, I see the Democrats as morally equally to Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland.
Respectfully, I think that you are completely missing the point. The point is that a man being alone with a woman is much more likely to result in lustful desires and perhaps even lead to actual fornication because men and women are naturally attracted to the opposite sex. This observation is just common sense. Someone who is given to unnatural desires should avoid situations where he is likely to be tempted to act on such unnatural desires. An example would be spending time alone with another person who is likewise tempted to sodomy. The issue is not friendship, but being alone with someone in a situation that is, at best, likely to start rumours.
Of course it does, that is the nature of a general rule. If a woman was stranded at a roadside and needed a lift I would provide her with transport, but I would not needlessly multiply such situations and lead myself into temptations.
BottleOfTears
Puritan Board Freshman
I think that's all reasonable enough. I agree that as general rule it is often a very sensible option.
AnotherDaniel
Puritan Board Freshman
You can check out the podcast that I just started with a couple of my friends:
https://www.thesanctifiedmind.com/
It is a bit different, we review a different theology book each month, released on the 1st of every month. So far we have done:
What is Faith by J. Gresham Machen
The Lord of Glory by Chris Strevel (my pastors first book, must read!)
In Defense of Theology by Gordon Clark
Text and Time by Edward Hills (releasing tomorrow)
We have some really good books coming up (listed on our website) and we would really appreciate feedback (positive or negative). Not a highly polished podcast by any means!
https://www.thesanctifiedmind.com/
It is a bit different, we review a different theology book each month, released on the 1st of every month. So far we have done:
What is Faith by J. Gresham Machen
The Lord of Glory by Chris Strevel (my pastors first book, must read!)
In Defense of Theology by Gordon Clark
Text and Time by Edward Hills (releasing tomorrow)
We have some really good books coming up (listed on our website) and we would really appreciate feedback (positive or negative). Not a highly polished podcast by any means!
J.L. Allen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thank you so much! I’ll check this out tonight. I might be starting a podcast through Moody as an internship project. I’ll have to pick some folk’s minds like yours.
Johann Amadeus Schubert
Puritan Board Freshman
Hello,
I do not detect anything dangerous at all concerning Dr. Clary's comments.
Having sat under Rev. Dr. Clary's teaching every Lord's day, I can attest to his faithful exegesis of the text and wholeheartedly recommend his Reformed Forum podcast.
I also recommend Reformed Forum's Vos Group which is going through Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments with Drs. Bucey and Tipton.
- Status
