Review of RGM’s BA&S

[Pilgrim]

MoS ?

Dead as we know it, anyway. If I'm not mistaken, the podcast existed before she joined it though, so I don't suppose they have to shut it down. They are doing "Best of" programs now. I'm not sure that they would do even that if they were going to shut it down.

EDIT:

A pastor posted this on Twitter, apparently after asking them for comment: " A statement will be coming shortly, but I remind you there are two sides of any story. And I am most pleased to let you know that Dr. Trueman (ordained in the OPC) and Rev. Pruitt (ordained in the PCA) feel at ease to continue Mortification of Spin.”

 

[A.Joseph]

They are creeping, though..... I know I’m using Byrd & Miller interchangeably. What think ye? Are they moving past concerns with Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to something else? I’m sensing some subtle, passive-aggressive bait and switch. And now she’s allowing the opc to be scapegoated? She says she’s still learning, but maybe she shouldn’t be writing these kinds of books while she’s still learning.

From her book, this is my understanding of what Miller affirms. I expect that some people who regard themselves as complementarians will also affirm these. But other people who claim the "complementarian" label will not see them as sufficient.




The bullets headed 'Complementarianism' - these are various teachings that Miller objects to. (Actually, afterthought, I can't remember if I've seen her say anything on divorce, I'll pass on that bullet point.) Maybe not everyone who regards themselves as "complementarian" takes a hard line on each of these, but these are the teaching of prominent complementarians. Whatever label you use, they are objectionable teachings. They owe more to secular culture/traditions than to the Bible, and they bring both men and women into legalistic bondage.

 

[Pilgrim]

They are creeping, though..... I know I’m using Byrd & Miller interchangeably. What think ye? Are they moving past concerns with BMAW to something else? I’m sensing some subtle, passive-aggressive bait and switch. And now she’s allowing the opc to be scapegoated? She says she’s still learning, but maybe she shouldn’t be writing these kinds of books while she’s still learning.

Everybody is still learning. Or at least, i would hope so. But there's learning, and there is the appearance of close association with those who you swear you disagree with, some of whom really can't be said to be conservative evangelicals on some issues besides comp vs egal.

Let's use a hypothetical on a different topic. Let's say someone wrote a book about the New Perspective on Paul and how some evangelicals and Reformed people misunderstood them or whatever. In this book, they quote a bunch of NPP sources to bolster their case and don't really explain where they differ from them. They get pushback and are removed from their position. They go onto a NPP blog and announce that they've been booted from their former ministry. Now what would we suspect? Would we be right to be alarmed?

 

[JOwen]

Sure. So it sounds like Trueman endorses Byrd for not adjusting the Bible to the 50s. So we're all good.

As a side note, I don't think I'd like to go to the gallows for the wording of a blurb.

Nor for commenting on it.

 

[A.Joseph]

Everybody is still learning. Or at least, i would hope so. But there's learning, and there is the appearance of close association with those who you swear you disagree with, some of whom really can't be said to be conservative evangelicals on some issues besides comp vs egal.

Let's use a hypothetical on a different topic. Let's say someone wrote a book about the New Perspective on Paul and how some evangelicals and Reformed people misunderstood them or whatever. In this book, they quote a bunch of NPP sources to bolster their case and don't really explain where they differ from them. They get pushback and are removed from their position. They go onto a NPP blog and announce that they've been booted from their former ministry. Now what would we suspect? Would we be right to be alarmed?

I suspect she’s egalitarian or something along those lines. My problem is the typical liberal trickery when one professes to be confessional then repeatedly undercuts it. It’s a tired game and I’m tired of seeing the defenders of orthodoxy getting scapegoated for it.

 

[Pilgrim]

I suspect she’s
egalitarian

I don't know whether she is or not in a technical sense, but I think it is fair to be concerned that things seem to be moving in that direction.

She or others can say that she's mainly concerned about broad evangelicalism and ESS and various Piper statements, etc. all they want. I'm sure they are, and they are right to be concerned about some of those things. But if she's looking for more female participation in worship, etc. then it would seem that the OPC isn't a great fit. Based on what I've seen, the typical OPC congregation is WAY more restrictive in that regard than most Southern Baptist churches, for example, probably even some of those that heavily identify with CBMW.

 

[bookish_Basset]

The bullets headed 'Complementarianism' - these are various teachings that Miller objects to. (Actually, afterthought, I can't remember if I've seen her say anything on divorce, I'll pass on that bullet point.) Maybe not everyone who regards themselves as "complementarian" takes a hard line on each of these, but these are the teaching of prominent complementarians. Whatever label you use, they are objectionable teachings. They owe more to secular culture/traditions than to the Bible, and they bring both men and women into legalistic bondage.

Nothing to add to the Byrd/MoS bit, but a sincere question about Miller's distinctions--
Is her interpretation that it's a cultural myth to see men as naturally being leaders/providers within marriage? Or that it's a cultural myth that they're supposed to be that way *in general*? I've understood the former to be biblical in light of Ephesians 5:29 (Christ feeding and caring for the church--though both my husband and I grew up in homes where our mothers were primary breadwinners due to particular circumstances, so I'm well aware of exceptions).

I guess another way of stating my confusion is this. How does it make sense to say that I'm not "created" for submission if I'm also called to submit within marriage? Is it more that I'm created with the capacity to submit, but that it only "activates" appropriately within the context of marriage? That's a bad way of phrasing it, but I keep getting tripped up on this point when I'm otherwise inclined to agree with the distinctions she draws.

 

[CathH]

Everybody is still learning. Or at least, i would hope so. But there's learning, and there is the appearance of close association with those who you swear you disagree with, some of whom really can't be said to be conservative evangelicals on some issues besides comp vs egal.

Let's use a hypothetical on a different topic. Let's say someone wrote a book about the New Perspective on Paul and how some evangelicals and Reformed people misunderstood them or whatever. In this book, they quote a bunch of NPP sources to bolster their case and don't really explain where they differ from them. They get pushback and are removed from their position. They go onto a NPP blog and announce that they've been booted from their former ministry. Now what would we suspect? Would we be right to be alarmed?

I see this concern, but I don't think the hypothetical is analogous. The NPP is an attack on the actual gospel. Questions of salvation are at stake - justification is the article by which the church stands or falls.

By all means, be super sensitive about 'creeping' and 'subtle' and 'sensing' 'liberal trickery' when it comes to the doctrines of grace.

But debates about gender are (or should be) so, so far below justification in our ranking of priorities. A better hypothetical would be, I don't know, the civil magistrate, or eschatology - or something that isn't even in the Confession - where there is so much confusion and so many grey areas that even when one of us is convinced of one position, we're still happy to acknowledge those who hold the other position as brothers and sisters instead of sinister threats to our entire way of life and western civilisation.

It's a sure sign of skewed priorities when an issue so transient and local and culture-bound as gender becomes equated with the actual doctrines of grace. I know it really seems hugely, vitally, intensely important, to North Americans in the 21st century, to pin down the precise rules for manliness and femininity that will earn us God's favour, but I have to break it to you that most of the rest of the Christian church across time and place would beg to differ there.

 

[CathH]

Nothing to add to the Byrd/MoS bit, but a sincere question about Miller's distinctions--
Is her interpretation that it's a cultural myth to see men as naturally being leaders/providers within marriage? Or that it's a cultural myth that they're supposed to be that way *in general*? I've understood the former to be biblical in light of Ephesians 5:29 (Christ feeding and caring for the church--though both my husband and I grew up in homes where our mothers were primary breadwinners due to particular circumstances, so I'm well aware of exceptions).

I guess another way of stating my confusion is this. How does it make sense to say that I'm not "created" for submission if I'm also called to submit within marriage? Is it more that I'm created with the capacity to submit, but that it only "activates" appropriately within the context of marriage? That's a bad way of phrasing it, but I keep getting tripped up on this point when I'm otherwise inclined to agree with the distinctions she draws.

I think the problem is with the formula, "created to X."

According to the Catechism, we were created to glorify God and enjoy him for ever. I think a lot of complementarians will yes-of-course acknowledge this, but quickly shove it to the background in order to get on to the *really* important bit, that MEN are created for Chief End A For Authority while WOMEN are created for the Chief End of Submitting. But diminishing and distorting our chief end like this demeans us (and dishonours God).

Obviously, as we go around as the Lord's redeemed people now striving to fulfil our actual chief end, that's going to involve providing (in some situations) and submitting (in some situations) and leading (in some situations) and responding (in some situations).

But it's the situations that shape what we do, not our gender. It's not that all activities of submitting have to be done by women, while all activities of leading have to be done by men. Some providing roles have to be done by women (eg if they're the breadwinner) and some submitting roles have to be done by men (eg in the workplace). (PS when I say roles, I really do mean roles - in the sense of functions, things that you do and stop doing according to the situation. Not "roles" as some complementarians use the term, ie to mean essential features which are inflexibly fixed and define who you are as a person.)

So submitting even within marriage is not something you're created to do, but it's something that is included in some situations in life including marriage. Children have to submit to their parents, but we don't say that children were created to submit.

And I'll just add that submission is just one part of marriage/life. One big contribution that Miller has made to the discussion in BA&S is to point out that if you *reduce* marriage/life to authority/submission, you're missing out on the other facets of a healthy (scriptural) relationship - appreciation of our unity (as God's image-bearers, fallen in Adam, redeemed in Christ), our interdependence (how we need each other) and service (to each other, for God).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Nothing to add to the Byrd/MoS bit, but a sincere question about Miller's distinctions--
Is her interpretation that it's a cultural myth to see men as naturally being leaders/providers within marriage? Or that it's a cultural myth that they're supposed to be that way *in general*? I've understood the former to be biblical in light of Ephesians 5:29 (Christ feeding and caring for the church--though both my husband and I grew up in homes where our mothers were primary breadwinners due to particular circumstances, so I'm well aware of exceptions).

I guess another way of stating my confusion is this. How does it make sense to say that I'm not "created" for submission if I'm also called to submit within marriage? Is it more that I'm created with the capacity to submit, but that it only "activates" appropriately within the context of marriage? That's a bad way of phrasing it, but I keep getting tripped up on this point when I'm otherwise inclined to agree with the distinctions she draws.

I think there are a number of people who argue thus:

To start with the authority of Scripture:

1) The Bible calls for a number of things, including husband as head of wife, a wife's recognition of that and apt (not servile or unreserved) obedience.​

Bare appeals to divine authority (God's ipse dixit) make people uncomfortable, so Nature is interposed and natural advantages are turned into norms, leading to:

2) Nature ordains that female should be subservient to male, as a kind of rule.​

Conclusion, ergo:

3) In speaking of marriage and family relations, the Bible is actually making a fabric of reality argument, which then is further read-into all manner of social relations and institutions.​

Is this really the creation-support appealed to in Scripture, buttressing the commands? There are numerous reasons to doubt this. Nature can provide plenty of useful guidance for human conduct, but it cannot teach morality. I question the 2nd premise.

Humans show very little dependency on instinct, but rather more on the education of experience, and the usefulness of habit and social norming, all which employ the potential of the mind/brain with which they are endowed. Furthermore, into the human condition is thrust the reality of divine authority from the outside, fully independent of nature.

This means that for mankind, authority or "leadership" is never something that is purely organic in its exhibit. There may be connections made with natural hierarchy, as it bubbles up from below; but in God's universe, authority begins Top-down. It is given a human register as an establishment, and not as of a King-of-the-hill product, or artifact of evolutionary development.

To address your question precisely, "Is her interpretation that it's a cultural myth to see men as naturally being leaders/providers within marriage?," I don't think so. Context matters. Men must make the choice in marriage to act as the head their vocation appoints them to be; and likewise women must make their choice as well to fill the role in marriage which biblical authority appoints for them.

This is a MORAL commitment, and not something essentially instinctive, nor even a habit of life or an imposed social construct. In some societies, the present conditions may be more or less compared to a biblical, ethical norm, thus masking the moral-choice aspect that belongs to the Christian husband or wife. Even the non-Christians conform to a comfortable and culturally stable pattern.

What happens when a culture goes through a revolution? Christianity itself was a catalyst (along with other factors) in a centuries-long revolution back in the days of the Roman Empire. We'd argue (along with Augustin) the Christians not only took over the re-engineering of an ancient, slave-ridden, misogynist and brutal culture; but they also helped slow Rome's decadent slide into ruin, so that its fall (hard as it was) was softer than it would have been.

The culture around Christians in the globally-dominant West has been going through a massive social reconstruction, beginning in earnest not later than about 100yrs ago. So that, today we live in a condition where our Christian-moral choices are more obvious, more stark. Social-engineers have been deliberately adjusting the social-norms, so as to produce a new "morality": those aspects of life around members of a society which (for whatever reason) a majority or a critical mass of activist or elite components regard as givens, as that which brooks no toleration of deviance. Or else, you get the "immoral" label.

If you don't believe that Christianity must, inevitably given enough time and favorable circumstances, bring the world around it into a very SPECIFIC cultural expression, this view lets Christianity flourish in a wide variety of cultures. Let them be what they will, we will live as Christians in obedience to God in our families and in our church culture.

The church is not in the business of social-engineering the surrounding culture. If something is meant to change around us, then it will change; and only King Jesus is in any position to "guide" that development. But it is a very Presbyterian attitude to assert that the one place where cultural expression is most defined by the Bible is the church, the kingdom of God where it manifests in the world. Obviously, family structure (families being basic building-blocks) is also important to the church; but I think biblical guidelines for the family are inherently (not infinitely) elastic, allowing for considerable creativity in expression. That is not the case with the church, for which expression is prescribed, and creativity is limited.

"How does it make sense to say that I'm not "created" for submission if I'm also called to submit within marriage?" The same way that it makes sense to say of male persons that they were not created to be slaves, even though they are called "bondservants of God," 1Pet.2:16. Context is key. Instead of applying "womanly submission" everywhere, and always; instead of reasoning backwards from the call to be submissive to (one's own) husband in marriage to arrive there from a supposed argument that moves from the greater to the less;...

stick to accepting God's directions as that which is handed-down (from on high) for a particular context. Don't look for some "universal" ideal, which God uses to mediate his authoritative dictates; which then is turned into a natural "norm" of equivalent force to a moral command; so that submission is turned into an ontological priority; so that the ideal is regarded as "bubbling up" from beneath.

Interestingly, Eve made a similar shift in the garden, when she softened the divine threat into his "concern" for the man and his wife, when she described the prohibition, "...lest ye die," for fear that ye will perish (oh, how sad!). Top down, vs. bottom up. Embarrassed by the stark authoritarian quality of God's decree vs. mediating his judgment through the "impersonal" dire consequence.

 

[A.Joseph]

Do you guys believe men and women are wired differently?Is this merely a biological thing or is there more that comes with it? Why did God do this? I’m not a Wilsonite, so please keep that in mind. Where’s the line between argument and rational Godly distinction? That’s all I’m really looking for. It’s a hill to die on to some degree if Godly distinctions matters. This is a God issue, not a conservative issue. I’ve already said that Jesus was not overly or overtly stereotypical “masculine” (although 100% Man) as a chief attribute but his apostles were all male. Is that a binding representation of Godly ordinance? He had a high view of women but there was distinction.

I agree that this is most prominently a Church issue (I view it as such) and not even a Christian-culture issue. The OPC does not role that way, at least in my neck of the woods. We are not a type of local theonomy or Bible Belt. In some ways all we have is the Church. I’m not sure what Ms. Byrd’s lens is. Is she part of the speakers circuit / celebrity Christian culture or is that what she may be aiming for? Maybe the OPC Church would seem stifling to her? She has 10.6k followers. I dont think she necessarily cares but shes built a pretty good following and has some influence. I just think the egalitarian view while noble in some areas, definitely allows for female pastors and female religious authorities.

 

[bookish_Basset]

I think the problem is with the formula, "created to X."

According to the Catechism, we were created to glorify God and enjoy him for ever. I think a lot of complementarians will yes-of-course acknowledge this, but quickly shove it to the background in order to get on to the *really* important bit, that MEN are created for Chief End A For Authority while WOMEN are created for the Chief End of Submitting. But diminishing and distorting our chief end like this demeans us (and dishonours God).

Obviously, as we go around as the Lord's redeemed people now striving to fulfil our actual chief end, that's going to involve providing (in some situations) and submitting (in some situations) and leading (in some situations) and responding (in some situations).

But it's the situations that shape what we do, not our gender. It's not that all activities of submitting have to be done by women, while all activities of leading have to be done by men. Some providing roles have to be done by women (eg if they're the breadwinner) and some submitting roles have to be done by men (eg in the workplace). (PS when I say roles, I really do mean roles - in the sense of functions, things that you do and stop doing according to the situation. Not "roles" as some complementarians use the term, ie to mean essential features which are inflexibly fixed and define who you are as a person.)

So submitting even within marriage is not something you're created to do, but it's something that is included in some situations in life including marriage. Children have to submit to their parents, but we don't say that children were created to submit.

And I'll just add that submission is just one part of marriage/life. One big contribution that Miller has made to the discussion in BA&S is to point out that if you *reduce* marriage/life to authority/submission, you're missing out on the other facets of a healthy (scriptural) relationship - appreciation of our unity (as God's image-bearers, fallen in Adam, redeemed in Christ), our interdependence (how we need each other) and service (to each other, for God).

I agree that "created to X" is a big part of the problem. The example of children also helps clarify things. I think I'm better understanding the distinction that's being made between functions and essential features. And I definitely agree that submission is just one aspect of marriage and that it's reductive to make it the center.

All this would probably be easier to understand if feminism hadn't been such a big influence in my formative years. After coming out of that, taking a more "essential" view of gender felt like finally coming into alignment with the way I was really made to be. It's possible it just fed into additional confusion, though. Thinking in terms of functions/roles feels deflating somehow, but if pressed I don't know that I could clearly articulate how it really changes anything about my marriage or other relationships. I agree that keeping our real "chief end" in view helps put things into perspective.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Do you guys believe men and women are wired differently?Is this merely a biological thing or is there more that comes with it? Why did God do this? I’m not a Wilsonite, so please keep that in mind. Do you understand how this can get confusing. Where’s the line between argument and rational Godly distinction? That’s all I’m really looking for. It’s a hill to die on to some degree if Godly distinctions matters. This is a God issue, not a conservative issue. I’ve already said that Jesus was not masculine as a chief attribute but his apostles were all male. Is that a somewhat binding representation of Godly ordinance. He had a high view of women but there was distinction.

Men and women occupy two different bell-curves of trait-combinations. There is enough commonality within each sex so it might be possible to describe certain traits or qualities as predominantly one or the other; but it is manifest that these are generalities. And that if it is fair to say that "such and such" is typically masculine or feminine, it is just as unfair to label a man as "fey" if he wasn't born with a bass voice; or a woman as "butch" if she has extra facial hair.

Some couples may seem like strange pairings to us, but there is bound to be some mutual help there, each one having a strength for the other's weakness. The world is full of little cruelties against those whose uniqueness is only appreciated by the spouse who understands, who alone gives the balm of unconditional acceptance, saying "You are more than man (or woman) enough for me."

There are certain women who are simply better than certain men at some tasks that call for bodily strength. They may be outliers, but they aren't for that reason less men or less women. I would not want firefighter standards to be lowered so that the same number of women as men could fill the job. I don't believe in double standards either, in the interest of pursuing parity. Men and women with comparable experience and skill should be paid the same, and (in spite of misleading statistics) this is normal in today's workaday world. That said, I believe it would be better for my ideal society if families could get by easier today on one salary (like they used to), if men earned the bread and women "kept" the home, Tit.2:5.

Women were built for childbirth and nurture (though some women are not able to fulfill or easily to fulfill such function); and I strongly believe they also are generally the more temperamentally suited to ongoing "motherly" tasks. Men do not have the same potential coded in their XY chromosomes. They have other drives and ends, generally speaking. Biology is a big part of how people come into the world; but also social formation has impact on how males and females express the material they were born with. Sin and righteousness do too.

Jesus chose twelve men as his prime ministers. And so far as we can tell, his choice was not impacted by whether he was free to choose a woman. He chose not to, and thus established continuity with the religious ministry of the previous age. His apostles maintained the pattern in their church planting, and the qualities for church officers (when they are spelled out in the NT) are plainly designated for men specifically.

Jesus was a man, he was not androgynous. In appointing men to represent him, and not choosing women for the same task, the Christian faith is guarded from becoming monistic (in this vein). Christianity continues to be a religion of distinctions, affirming in something as simple as the composition of its ministry the fact that differences matter. In traditional churches, even men and women in the pews are distinguished, as women bear on their heads some "sign of authority," 1Cor.11:10. Even if we fail to fully articulate why it is so, that we state and stand on the distinction is enough.

Men and women both are the image of God. They both stand individually as sinners and as redeemed before God. But men are not women, nor women men. Jesus was a man, and so men are suited to be his ordained ministers, in a way that women are not. This fact changes no one's worth. It is a matter of the church's submission to God's will.

 

[bookish_Basset]

I think there are a number of people who argue thus:

To start with the authority of Scripture:​

1) The Bible calls for a number of things, including husband as head of wife, a wife's recognition of that and apt (not servile or unreserved) obedience.​

Bare appeals to divine authority (God's ipse dixit) make people uncomfortable, so Nature is interposed and natural advantages are turned into norms, leading to:​

2) Nature ordains that female should be subservient to male, as a kind of rule.​

Conclusion, ergo:​

3) In speaking of marriage and family relations, the Bible is actually making a fabric of reality argument, which then is further read-into all manner of social relations and institutions.​

Is this really the creation-support appealed to in Scripture, buttressing the commands? There are numerous reasons to doubt this. Nature can provide plenty of useful guidance for human conduct, but it cannot teach morality. I question the 2nd premise.

Humans show very little dependency on instinct, but rather more on the education of experience, and the usefulness of habit and social norming, all which employ the potential of the mind/brain with which they are endowed. Furthermore, into the human condition is thrust the reality of divine authority from the outside, fully independent of nature.

This means that for mankind, authority or "leadership" is never something that is purely organic in its exhibit. There may be connections made with natural hierarchy, as it bubbles up from below; but in God's universe, authority begins Top-down. It is given a human register as an establishment, and not as of a King-of-the-hill product, or artifact of evolutionary development.

To address your question precisely, "Is her interpretation that it's a cultural myth to see men as naturally being leaders/providers within marriage?," I don't think so. Context matters. Men must make the choice in marriage to act as the head their vocation appoints them to be; and likewise women must make their choice as well to fill the role in marriage which biblical authority appoints for them.

This is a MORAL commitment, and not something essentially instinctive, nor even a habit of life or an imposed social construct. In some societies, the present conditions may be more or less compared to a biblical, ethical norm, thus masking the moral-choice aspect that belongs to the Christian husband or wife. Even the non-Christians conform to a comfortable and culturally stable pattern.

What happens when a culture goes through a revolution? Christianity itself was a catalyst (along with other factors) in a centuries-long revolution back in the days of the Roman Empire. We'd argue (along with Augustin) the Christians not only took over the re-engineering of an ancient, slave-ridden, misogynist and brutal culture; but they also helped slow Rome's decadent slide into ruin, so that its fall (hard as it was) was softer than it would have been.

The culture around Christians in the globally-dominant West has been going through a massive social reconstruction, beginning in earnest not later than about 100yrs ago. So that, today we live in a condition where our Christian-moral choices are more obvious, more stark. Social-engineers have been deliberately adjusting the social-norms, so as to produce a new "morality": those aspects of life around members of a society which (for whatever reason) a majority or a critical mass of activist or elite components regard as givens, as that which brooks no toleration of deviance. Or else, you get the "immoral" label.

If you don't believe that Christianity must, inevitably given enough time and favorable circumstances, bring the world around it into a very SPECIFIC cultural expression, this view lets Christianity flourish in a wide variety of cultures. Let them be what they will, we will live as Christians in obedience to God in our families and in our church culture.

The church is not in the business of social-engineering the surrounding culture. If something is meant to change around us, then it will change; and only King Jesus is in any position to "guide" that development. But it is a very Presbyterian attitude to assert that the one place where cultural expression is most defined by the Bible is the church, the kingdom of God where it manifests in the world. Obviously, family structure (families being basic building-blocks) is also important to the church; but I think biblical guidelines for the family are inherently (not infinitely) elastic, allowing for considerable creativity in expression. That is not the case with the church, for which expression is prescribed, and creativity is limited.

"How does it make sense to say that I'm not "created" for submission if I'm also called to submit within marriage?" The same way that it makes sense to say of male persons that they were not created to be slaves, even though they are called "bondservants of God," 1Pet.2:16. Context is key. Instead of applying "womanly submission" everywhere, and always; instead of reasoning backwards from the call to be submissive to (one's own) husband in marriage to arrive there from a supposed argument that moves from the greater to the less;...

stick to accepting God's directions as that which is handed-down (from on high) for a particular context. Don't look for some "universal" ideal, which God uses to mediate his authoritative dictates; which then is turned into a natural "norm" of equivalent force to a moral command; so that submission is turned into an ontological priority; so that the ideal is regarded as "bubbling up" from beneath.

Interestingly, Eve made a similar shift in the garden, when she softened the divine threat into his "concern" for the man and his wife, when she described the prohibition, "...lest ye die," for fear that ye will perish (oh, how sad!). Top down, vs. bottom up. Embarrassed by the stark authoritarian quality of God's decree vs. mediating his judgment through the "impersonal" dire consequence.

Rev. Buchanan,
This is very helpful, thank you. I will be thinking about it more.

I think I've been assuming the "fabric of creation" argument had to hold true somehow, but I think I see what you're saying about top-down vs. bottom-up. And the moral choice element is helpful as well, and even rings true to my own experience, since there's actually not much about marriage that has been "naturally instinctive" to me whatsoever, as I think about it.

I suppose also I need to quell my analytical "but why?" about these things and accept that the commands are for my good, even if I can't box them up in a way that "makes sense" and feels comfortable to me.

 

[Pilgrim]

I see this concern, but I don't think the hypothetical is analogous. The NPP is an attack on the actual gospel. Questions of salvation are at stake - justification is the article by which the church stands or falls.

I wasn't comparing the two as if they are equally serious with regard to the faith. I didn't have much time and was simply grasping for an example of a teaching that has been controversial in recent years. All analogies break down at some point. And the issue in question is indeed a confessional one if she wants women to read Scripture in stated worship, for example. So in that sense (if that is indeed something she has said, as reported earlier) it is a confessional issue whereas amil vs postmil is not.

 

[A.Joseph]

I just want to add, I think we need to guard against personal attacks, especially when they enter the realm of mockery, sexism, etc...
I’m off facebook, twitter and the like, partly for these reasons. I’m hoping we can be purged of this debate in the OPC and the outside influences that distract us and take us off course. This has become a bad look. Maybe MoS should be put to rest and all Wilsonite thought and practice (if it does linger) be once and for all purged from our ranks.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

I just want to add, I think we need to guard against personal attacks, especially when they enter the realm of mockery, sexism, etc...
I’m off facebook, twitter and the like, partly for these reasons. I’m hoping we can be purged of this debate in the OPC and the outside influences that distract us and take us off course. This has become a bad look. Maybe MoS should be put to rest and all Wilsonite thought and practice (if it does linger) be once and for all purged from our ranks.

I muted a lot of my Facebook pages/groups/people midway through this COVID stuff and I have to say it’s been rather restful.

I agree to a point however. Gouge and other Divines in their writings would for sure be called sexist and at some points mocking in our current culture. However they are not wrong.

Also remember there are those calling the Divines thoughts in these matters “non-confessional” with statements like “we don’t confess Calvin/Beza/Gillespie/ etc.” and attempting to redefine the confessional and biblical standard while disregarding Natural Law. Then they equivocate the thoughts of the Divines and other confessional and faithful men with Wilson and others.

We need a process of building up the truth in this area before we start defining things out.

 

[Andrew35]

I just want to add, I think we need to guard against personal attacks, especially when they enter the realm of mockery, sexism, etc...
I’m off facebook, twitter and the like, partly for these reasons. I’m hoping we can be purged of this debate in the OPC and the outside influences that distract us and take us off course. This has become a bad look. Maybe MoS should be put to rest and all Wilsonite thought and practice (if it does linger) be once and for all purged from our ranks.

I left Facebook, Twitter, et alia years ago. Only thing left is a LinkedIn account. Even that's started to get depressing. I'm becoming partly convinced of the argument that social media is basically a "human-nature hack" that shortcuts rationality and brings out the worst in us.

 

[Taylor]

I left Facebook, Twitter, et alia years ago. Only thing left is a LinkedIn account. Even that's started to get depressing. I'm becoming partly convinced of the argument that social media is basically a "human-nature hack" that shortcuts rationality and brings out the worst in us.

It truly is the worst evil of the internet.

 

[A.Joseph]

It's a sure sign of skewed priorities when an issue so transient and local and culture-bound as gender becomes equated with the actual doctrines of grace. I know it really seems hugely, vitally, intensely important, to North Americans in the 21st century, to pin down the precise rules for manliness and femininity that will earn us God's favour, but I have to break it to you that most of the rest of the Christian church across time and place would beg to differ there.

I think I know what you are getting at, but can you clarify a bit? How is gender any of those things?

 

[alexandermsmith]

So why would these women want to remain in the OPC? I never understood why people who break from their denomination in doctrine and practice, or at least seem to want to push the envelope in that direction, don’t seek a religious home elsewhere? There are plenty of churches more accommodating to this line of thinking as highlighted in the prior quoted portion.

Quite simply because they wish to alter their denominations brining them in line with modern, liberal thought.

What kind of woman is welcome in the OPC, would you say? It's just possible that "these women" want to remain in the OPC because it is the church home that best fits their theology as expressed in the Westminster Confession, so I'm just wondering what additional qualifications are necessary for a woman before they're expected to seek a religious home elsewhere.

What makes people think that BA&S is a theology book, incidentally? Have you read it?

I have read some of the book. It is certainly theological. Women shouldn't be writing theological books anyway and ones such as this are contrary to Biblical teaching.

I held off saying anything when there was a bit of condescension (in my opinion) shown to the fairer sex.

Don't you mean the "weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7)?

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

Quite simply because they wish to alter their denominations brining them in line with modern, liberal thought.



I have read some of the book. It is certainly theological. Women shouldn't be writing theological books anyway and ones such as this are contrary to Biblical teaching.



Don't you mean the "weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7)?

I believe you’re right on the money here. It’s instructive to go look at the comments regarding Rev. DeYoung’s most recent TGC article on having children and catechizing them in the faith etc.

Even the “moderate” voices opposing Rev. DeYoung’s article (laying out pretty vanilla and ancient orthodox belief) have swallowed feminist and worldly presuppositions.

Coupled with the wave of Christian celebrities apostatizing or liberalizing the course is pretty clear.

 

[Grant]

I believe you’re right on the money here. It’s instructive to go look at the comments regarding Rev. DeYoung’s most recent TGC article on having children and catechizing them in the faith etc.

Even the “moderate” voices opposing Rev. DeYoung’s article (laying out pretty vanilla and ancient orthodox belief) have swallowed feminist and worldly presuppositions.

Coupled with the wave of Christian celebrities apostatizing or liberalizing the course is pretty clear.

Link to the comments? I found the article, it was a good read.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

Link to the comments? I found the article, it was a good read.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1273338376524095491

Beware, the comments are toxic

 

[A.Joseph]

The concern is evident when we clearly see the position of some of Amiee’s supporters. I think these discussions can turn ugly and get off track really quick. Denominational declines and slippery slopes are often synonymous. It doesn’t excuse bad behavior and overcorrection can be just as damaging. The lesson learned is not every voice is authoritative and deserves to be treated as such. We remove that aspect, the room for frustration and slander is also diminished.

I made the point a few days ago that Jesus chose 12 MEN. Somebody else made this point below. The other side views that as a temporal accommodation for the sake of the gospel. That’s a pretty wide divide right there.....

 

[A.Joseph]

I believe this was needed as well. Hopefully, repentance and reset is in order and we can move on... An Open Letter from Concerned Ministers and Elders in the OPC
https://aimeebyrd.com/2020/06/22/an...ers-in-the-opc/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[NaphtaliPress]

It may be the timing and order of the reading since I read the Trueman/Truitt letter that hit my news feed first, but this letter does not seem nearly as guarded and concerned as it should be about the doxing issue, which likely will eclipse and be the largest part of this mess of a scandal. As mentioned in this letter, and already mentioned above, folks are looking at losing jobs in guilt by association. https://julesdiner.org/2020/06/22/an-open-letter-to-the-contributors-creators-of-the-gcscreenshots/

I believe this was needed as well. Hopefully, repentance and reset is in order and we can move on... An Open Letter from Concerned Ministers and Elders in the OPC
https://aimeebyrd.com/2020/06/22/an...ers-in-the-opc/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[A.Joseph]

It may be the timing and order of the reading since I read the Trueman/Truitt letter that hit my news feed first, but this letter does not seem nearly as guarded and concerned as it should be about the doxing issue, which likely will eclipse and be the largest part of this mess of a scandal. As mentioned in this letter, and already mentioned above, folks are looking at losing jobs in guilt by association. https://julesdiner.org/2020/06/22/an-open-letter-to-the-contributors-creators-of-the-gcscreenshots/

Hmmm. Is this an instance of doxing since it was a private group? I think repentance and public confession is in order and then all parties can start to heal. I’m not sure it’s going to go down that way, however. Do we know who posted the screen shots? What a mess....

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

Hmmm. Is this an instance of doxing since it was a private group? I think repentance and public confession is in order and then all parties can start to heal. I’m not sure it’s going to go down that way however.

I’d say so. This is like selectively screenshotting conversations in the Reformed Pub or in Theology Gals of which both are private groups which have membership in which unkind words can fly about all manner of people and positions.

 

[arapahoepark]

Hmmm. Is this an instance of doxing since it was a private group? I think repentance and public confession is in order and then all parties can start to heal. I’m not sure it’s going to go down that way however. Do we know who posted the screen shots? What a mess....

Yes. Both sides are acting like safe space millennials; tarring and feathering anybody who disagrees in the slighest.