Review of RGM’s BA&S

[NaphtaliPress]

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....

The creator of the doxing site is hiding behind anonymity while unveiling others'. I have actually seen this defended after it is noted that innocent folks were hoovered up in this doxing and are facing backlash already at their employment, with "oh, well, they shouldn't have belonged to such a horrible group.' This is mind numbing insanity.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

The creator of the doxing site is hiding behind anonymity while unveiling others'. I have actually seen this defended after it is noted that innocent folks were hoovered up in this doxing and are facing backlash already at their employment, with "oh, well, they shouldn't have belonged to such a horrible group.' This is mind numbing insanity.

Ironically it’s a violation of the same 9th Commandment principles they list as being violated on their website.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

As I wrote in a comment on a facebook post liking the OPC ministers' letter, "As reported innocents are already having jobs put in jeopardy as noted by T&T in their letter and in another appeal to the anonymous doxer. This is the nature of scandal; it spirals with all sorts of collateral damage both sides hunker down yet more, with more collateral until both sides are totally discredited. It does not matter if on the original issue there was a right or more right side. The ensuring war eclipses the original issue. Case study: the protester resolutioner division in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, to which this is nothing by comparison but can show the height to which these things can go. Folks need to study Durham on Scandal and similar works; folks act like the scriptures don't apply to social media behavior."

 

[A.Joseph]

At least I’m not going crazy after reading Todd’s FB post on the matter. He said regarding AB, and I’m paraphrasing, ‘ if your views change you should say so, if your friends ask for clarity you should give it.’ I thought she was being a little too vague, like she wanted to play both sides. But I also thought maybe I was misreading the situation, but I guess I wasn’t.

I didn’t want to screenshot a screenshot. Anyone have the link for his public statement on the matter?

 

[A.Joseph]

Got it! https://www.reformation21.org/blog/coarse-joking-doxing-and-forgiveness

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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)?

No. But I can help you with that.

credit (mostly) to the OED:

fair

1. Beautiful to the eye; of pleasing form or appearance; good-looking. Phrases, fair to see (arch.); fair and free (obs. or arch.). No longer in colloquial use; in literature very common, but slightly arch. or rhetorical.

a. of persons; chiefly with reference to the face; in mod. use, almost exclusively of women. Also of the body or its parts.

C. 1205 Lay. 3886 ― He wes wis he wes fæir.
A. 1300 Cursor M. 4223 (Cott.) ― Ioseph··was fre and feir.
C. 1385 Chaucer L.G.W. 613 ― Cleopatras, Sche was fayr as is the Rose in May.
A. 1400-50 Alexander 601 ― Þe fax on his faire hede was ferly to schawe.
1602 Shaks. Ham. ɪ. i. 47 ― That Faire and Warlike forme.
1697 Dryden Virg. Georg. iv. 760 ― His Head, from his fair Shoulders torn.
1832 Tennyson Sisters, ― The earl was fair to see.
1864 Tennyson Aylmer’s F. 681 ― Fair as the Angel that said ‘Hail!’​

b. Applied to women, as expressing the quality characteristic of their sex. So, the fair sex (= Fr. le beau sexe), a fair one. Also in comparative.

1800 Med. Jrnl. III. 442 ― These melancholy cases··spread a general alarm over a considerable district among the fair sex.
1819 Sir Walter Scott Ivanhoe, I. 246 ― interest taken by the fair sex in this bloody game.
1825 A. Cunningham ‘Wet Sheet & Flowing Sea’ 10 ― O for a soft and gentle wind! I heard a fair one cry.
1878 J. H. Beadle Western Wilds xxix. 451 ― The fairer section of our party are startled at the crowds of men in the streets.​

c. of abstractions personified.

1742 Pope Dunc. iv. 24 ― There, stript, fair Rhet’ric languish’d on the ground.​

d. used in courteous or respectful address. Obs. exc. arch.

1588 Shaks. L.L.L. ᴠ. ii. 310 ― Faire sir, God saue you.
1820 Scott Abbot xi, ― ‘So much for your lineage, fair sir,’ replied his companion.
1889 Mark Twain Connecticut Yankee 230 ― Even so, fair my lord.​

You're welcome.

 

[A.Joseph]

If you would like to close this thread. I have nothing else to add....

No. But I can help you with that.

credit (mostly) to the OED:

fair

1. Beautiful to the eye; of pleasing form or appearance; good-looking. Phrases, fair to see (arch.); fair and free (obs. or arch.). No longer in colloquial use; in literature very common, but slightly arch. or rhetorical.

a. of persons; chiefly with reference to the face; in mod. use, almost exclusively of women. Also of the body or its parts.

C. 1205 Lay. 3886 ― He wes wis he wes fæir.
A. 1300 Cursor M. 4223 (Cott.) ― Ioseph··was fre and feir.
C. 1385 Chaucer L.G.W. 613 ― Cleopatras, Sche was fayr as is the Rose in May.
A. 1400-50 Alexander 601 ― Þe fax on his faire hede was ferly to schawe.
1602 Shaks. Ham. ɪ. i. 47 ― That Faire and Warlike forme.
1697 Dryden Virg. Georg. iv. 760 ― His Head, from his fair Shoulders torn.
1832 Tennyson Sisters, ― The earl was fair to see.
1864 Tennyson Aylmer’s F. 681 ― Fair as the Angel that said ‘Hail!’​

b. Applied to women, as expressing the quality characteristic of their sex. So, the fair sex (= Fr. le beau sexe), a fair one. Also in comparative.

1800 Med. Jrnl. III. 442 ― These melancholy cases··spread a general alarm over a considerable district among the fair sex.
1819 Sir Walter Scott Ivanhoe, I. 246 ― interest taken by the fair sex in this bloody game.
1825 A. Cunningham ‘Wet Sheet & Flowing Sea’ 10 ― O for a soft and gentle wind! I heard a fair one cry.
1878 J. H. Beadle Western Wilds xxix. 451 ― The fairer section of our party are startled at the crowds of men in the streets.​

c. of abstractions personified.

1742 Pope Dunc. iv. 24 ― There, stript, fair Rhet’ric languish’d on the ground.​

d. used in courteous or respectful address. Obs. exc. arch.

1588 Shaks. L.L.L. ᴠ. ii. 310 ― Faire sir, God saue you.
1820 Scott Abbot xi, ― ‘So much for your lineage, fair sir,’ replied his companion.
1889 Mark Twain Connecticut Yankee 230 ― Even so, fair my lord.​

You're welcome.

 

[Grant]

This is nightmarish, very discouraging on all accounts. I pray that ministers will be granted wisdom and discernment in navigating this. We all need to slow down as this seems to now be snowballing at an alarming rate. If you would not speak in such a way to a person’s face, then reframe from posting online, texting, or emailing the same nonsense.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I think what needs to happen and fast is a disavowal of the doxing from Mrs. Bird if she has not done so already.
I see no reason to close this thread.

This is nightmarish, very discouraging on all accounts. I pray that ministers will be granted wisdom and discernment in navigating this. We all need to slow down as this seems to now be snowballing at an alarming rate. If you would not speak in such a way to a person’s face, then reframe from posting online, texting, or emailing the same nonsense.

If you would like to close this thread. I have nothing else to add....

 

[Grant]

I think what needs to happen and fast is a disavowal of the doxing from Mrs. Bird if she has not done so already.
I see no reason to close this thread.

I hope so. A thread split might be better considering the original can subject.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

True; folks can get back to the original topic and moderators can ponder if we need to split things.

I hope so. A thread split might be better considering the original can subject.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

I think what needs to happen and fast is a disavowal of the doxing from Mrs. Bird if she has not done so already.
I see no reason to close this thread.

Unfortunately it seems that both sides have started an arms race in which no side wants to be the first to blink.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'm hearing but have not confirmed that the anonymous blogger has taken the membership lists down from the doxing site.

 

[A.Joseph]

True; folks can get back to the original topic and moderators can ponder if we need to split things.

Feel free to keep it going as is. It’s all relative.

 

[alexandermsmith]

No. But I can help you with that.

credit (mostly) to the OED:

fair​

1. Beautiful to the eye; of pleasing form or appearance; good-looking. Phrases, fair to see (arch.); fair and free (obs. or arch.). No longer in colloquial use; in literature very common, but slightly arch. or rhetorical.​

​

a. of persons; chiefly with reference to the face; in mod. use, almost exclusively of women. Also of the body or its parts.​

C. 1205 Lay. 3886 ― He wes wis he wes fæir.​

A. 1300 Cursor M. 4223 (Cott.) ― Ioseph··was fre and feir.​

C. 1385 Chaucer L.G.W. 613 ― Cleopatras, Sche was fayr as is the Rose in May.​

A. 1400-50 Alexander 601 ― Þe fax on his faire hede was ferly to schawe.​

1602 Shaks. Ham. ɪ. i. 47 ― That Faire and Warlike forme.​

1697 Dryden Virg. Georg. iv. 760 ― His Head, from his fair Shoulders torn.​

1832 Tennyson Sisters, ― The earl was fair to see.​

1864 Tennyson Aylmer’s F. 681 ― Fair as the Angel that said ‘Hail!’​

​

b. Applied to women, as expressing the quality characteristic of their sex. So, the fair sex (= Fr. le beau sexe), a fair one. Also in comparative.​

1800 Med. Jrnl. III. 442 ― These melancholy cases··spread a general alarm over a considerable district among the fair sex.​

1819 Sir Walter Scott Ivanhoe, I. 246 ― interest taken by the fair sex in this bloody game.​

1825 A. Cunningham ‘Wet Sheet & Flowing Sea’ 10 ― O for a soft and gentle wind! I heard a fair one cry.​

1878 J. H. Beadle Western Wilds xxix. 451 ― The fairer section of our party are startled at the crowds of men in the streets.​

​

c. of abstractions personified.​

1742 Pope Dunc. iv. 24 ― There, stript, fair Rhet’ric languish’d on the ground.​

​

d. used in courteous or respectful address. Obs. exc. arch.​

1588 Shaks. L.L.L. ᴠ. ii. 310 ― Faire sir, God saue you.​

1820 Scott Abbot xi, ― ‘So much for your lineage, fair sir,’ replied his companion.​

1889 Mark Twain Connecticut Yankee 230 ― Even so, fair my lord.​

You're welcome.

What's all that got to do with the Bible? One would think someone who repeatedly criticises "cultural" norms being elevated to Biblical teaching in this issue would refrain from using a secular phrase to make his point. The Holy Spirit describes women as the weaker vessel. There is a reason for that. It is clear the Bible teaches that the woman's inferiority (to use the language of the Catechism) and subordination to man is ontological.

 

[alexandermsmith]

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....

Doxxing is the making public any personal information which was intended to be kept private. If one joined a private group where the privacy was made clear and an obligation to maintain the privacy of the group required from the participants to expose that information is doxxing and therefore immoral. It may have been foolish to assume that this information or these statements would never be made public (liberals are not known for their integrity or their ethics) but that's another matter.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Ok, this endorsement perplexes me. I’m not looking to open up criticism toward Carl Trueman. From what I know and have heard from him, I always believe him to be very solid and sound on matters of doctrine, theology and church history. I thought he maintained his objectivity without compromise in his recent exchanges with Aimee Byrd, which is why I find his endorsement of Miller’s book a bit surprising and kinda disappointing.


Endorsements
“There is a very real danger in our current cultural moment that the polarization that characterizes the political landscape might well come to exert an unfortunate influence on both the rhetoric and the content of discussions among Christians on a number of controversial topics. The temptation to respond to one extreme error by adopting its mirror image is strong but rarely, if ever, correct. And there are few topics in the public square that are more divisive than the relationship between the sexes. It is therefore a pleasure to commend this book by Rachel Miller, which eschews the cheap extremism and bombastic rhetoric that characterize conservative Christian responses to feminism and plots not a middle way but a biblical way through the subjects of authority, submission, masculinity, and the like. She is not interested in making the Bible fit 1950s ideals of what men and women should be; rather, she wants to help the reader to think about what the Bible actually means in the present. This is a refreshingly sane read.”

—Carl Trueman, Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Grove City College

At least I’m not going crazy after reading Todd’s FB post on the matter. He said regarding AB, and I’m paraphrasing, ‘ if your views change you should say so, if your friends ask for clarity you should give it.’ I thought she was being a little too vague, like she wanted to play both sides. But I also thought maybe I was misreading the situation, but I guess I wasn’t.

I didn’t want to screenshot a screenshot. Anyone have the link for his public statement on the matter?

Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt have to take a lot of responsibility for what is happening now. They elevated Aimee Byrd by putting her on their podcast and giving her cover with their (undeserved in my opion) Reformed credentials. Even after receiving a lot of legitimate criticism they defended her and ridiculed her critics. It was only now, when the criticism had reached critical mass, that they took action (probably told to). Todd Pruitt has deleted his twitter because the same mob which he helped create turned on him. Where is Carl Trueman?

 

[Elizabeth]

Mentally translate the first sentence in each numbered paragraph into italics or quote marks. That's the myth or cultural stereotype she's challenging. The rest of each paragraph argues from the Bible to rebut each myth.

Did just as you asked, and found her myths to be, well, mythical. Typical feminine logic/reasoning there. I can say that, as a woman.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

What's all that got to do with the Bible? One would think someone who repeatedly criticises "cultural" norms being elevated to Biblical teaching in this issue would refrain from using a secular phrase to make his point. The Holy Spirit describes women as the weaker vessel. There is a reason for that. It is clear the Bible teaches that the woman's inferiority (to use the language of the Catechism) and subordination to man is ontological.

Wouldn’t an understanding that removes such an ontological understanding also negate any idea of sins particular to men and sins particular to women?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt have to take a lot of responsibility for what is happening now. They elevated Aimee Byrd by putting her on their podcast and giving her cover with their (undeserved in my opion) Reformed credentials. Even after receiving a lot of legitimate criticism they defended her and ridiculed her critics. It was only now, when the criticism had reached critical mass, that they took action (probably told to). Todd Pruitt has deleted his twitter because the same mob which he helped create turned on him. Where is Carl Trueman?

Brother Alexander, best to avoid stating motives regarding those things we don’t know for sure (for instance those two men taking action because “probably told to”, and speculation on what motivated Todd Pruitt’s Twitter deletion.) Praying for straight-forward and above-board talk from all those on the side of truth.

 

[BottleOfTears]

Doxxing is the making public any personal information which was intended to be kept private. If one joined a private group where the privacy was made clear and an obligation to maintain the privacy of the group required from the participants to expose that information is doxxing and therefore immoral. It may have been foolish to assume that this information or these statements would never be made public (liberals are not known for their integrity or their ethics) but that's another matter.

I'm not sure I understand this reasoning. Doxxing comes from areas of the internet where everyone interacts via anonymous accounts. To dox someone would be to link their anon account with personal identifying information such as their home address or facebook page. Yes, Facebook page. It makes next to zero sense to talk about doxxing in terms of a website like Facebook, where no one is anonymous and people have private information like their jobs and hometown freely avaliable.

The problem with the website was that it listed all members of the group indiscriminantly, tying them all in to the sins of some of the more active members. That is the main issue here. If anything comes close to doxxing, it's this, though finding out who is in a Facebook group isn't exactly incredibly private info either. That said, the fact and the manner in which it was presented was indeed slanderous to many innocent individuals.

However, it is nonsensical to say that just because one is in a private conversation or group means that one cannot ever reveal details of these conversations. I would argue on the contrary that if you are member of a "private" conversation in which sinful behaviour or slander was being encouraged and dissenting voices were disregarded or silenced, that you are morally obligated to reveal some part of that conversation, especially if it has potential to cause harm to others. Sharing screenshots of a pastor using their personal Facebook account to slander a sister in Christ is not doxxing. Saying "no matter what you hear in this group its a sin to tell anyone else about it" sounds far more like bullying than anything else.

And please, please stop using polemical terms like "liberal" to refer to anyone you disagree with, it's incredibly unhelpful at best.

Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt have to take a lot of responsibility for what is happening now. They elevated Aimee Byrd by putting her on their podcast and giving her cover with their (undeserved in my opion) Reformed credentials. Even after receiving a lot of legitimate criticism they defended her and ridiculed her critics. It was only now, when the criticism had reached critical mass, that they took action (probably told to). Todd Pruitt has deleted his twitter because the same mob which he helped create turned on him. Where is Carl Trueman?

Are you saying Carl and Todd are not Reformed? In what way are their "credentials" undeserved? And has anyone who jumped in instantly to say things before everything has been revealed come out looking well in this scenario? I think Carl and Todd's hesistance to say anything is rather reasonable, seeing as they will be flayed alive by which ever "side" they do not take in this debate. It is not as though it is only the "liberals" who have a mob is it?

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.

My problem is when people who are orthodox in most areas are accused of being complete "liberals" who have a secret plan to undermine the church. People get accused of this for things like talking about abuse or racism in the church and all sorts of things. It is a mistake to divide everything into "US vs THEM". The screenshot you posted is a good example. One could use the fact that apparently Aimee supports women reading scripture in the service as evidence that she is a secret feminist. The hypocrisy of this position lies in the fact that is never applied evenly across the board. I doubt anyone here would call any elders in a church that practices this "undercover feminists" or "liberals".

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.....

Who is "the other side" here? This is exactly the sort of language that causes these issues in the first place. Anyone who has concerns about the views of men and women (or a miriad of other issues) espoused by someone on "our side" gets immediately exiled to "their side". It is like saying that all complementarians are secretly misogynists because some turn up on twitter. Or that they are all secretly trying to bring abuse into the church and it is all just a big slippery slope. Would you listen to anyone who said that?

I find it shocking that people think the sole reason all these critics of complementarianism are turning up is that Aimee or someone has snuck in the "feminist poison" into the church. Often what happens is that genuine sin occurs, whether it is abuse or something else, and it gets covered up or excused. Anyone who questions this gets told they are a "liberal", "marxist" or "feminist" and are not welcome. It is less that they slide slowly down a slippery slope, but more that they get pushed.

Then they hear the egalitarians actually calling this stuff out, but they are stuck between wanting to remain orthodox in theology and wanting to avoid these other errors. So it is actually a relief for many to hear people like the Denhollanders and Aimee pointing out some of these problems but wanting to stay confessional. But often all they are presented with a false dichotomy. Sometimes these "defenders of orthodoxy" create more feminists or liberals than the people they are attacking do. Geneva Commons is a thousand times better at arguing for egalitarianism that Aimee Byrd will ever be.

Another problem is assuming that only non-Christian point of view is a feminist one. But there are many out there who also hate feminism, but have their own group of problems. When we become reductionistic and think that feminism is the only error, it is very easy to ally ourselves with other groups because they are "on our side". I have seen orthodox Christians accuse other Christians of being "feminists" because of certain phrases they use, while in the same breath using phrases and "statistics" from groups like the "Pick-Up Artists" and "Red-Pillers".

I'm not saying we cannot disagree, but drawing arbritrary lines in the sand and talking about "the other side" is not the way to go. Nor is deciding that every person who makes the slightest of errors really a complete liberal who really denies the faith deep down and is only in the church to destroy it.

 

[A.Joseph]

I'm not sure I understand this reasoning. Doxxing comes from areas of the internet where everyone interacts via anonymous accounts. To dox someone would be to link their anon account with personal identifying information such as their home address or facebook page. Yes, Facebook page. It makes next to zero sense to talk about doxxing in terms of a website like Facebook, where no one is anonymous and people have private information like their jobs and hometown freely avaliable.

The problem with the website was that it listed all members of the group indiscriminantly, tying them all in to the sins of some of the more active members. That is the main issue here. If anything comes close to doxxing, it's this, though finding out who is in a Facebook group isn't exactly incredibly private info either. That said, the fact and the manner in which it was presented was indeed slanderous to many innocent individuals.

However, it is nonsensical to say that just because one is in a private conversation or group means that one cannot ever reveal details of these conversations. I would argue on the contrary that if you are member of a "private" conversation in which sinful behaviour or slander was being encouraged and dissenting voices were disregarded or silenced, that you are morally obligated to reveal some part of that conversation, especially if it has potential to cause harm to others. Sharing screenshots of a pastor using their personal Facebook account to slander a sister in Christ is not doxxing. Saying "no matter what you hear in this group its a sin to tell anyone else about it" sounds far more like bullying than anything else.

And please, please stop using polemical terms like "liberal" to refer to anyone you disagree with, it's incredibly unhelpful at best.


Are you saying Carl and Todd are not Reformed? In what way are their "credentials" undeserved? And has anyone who jumped in instantly to say things before everything has been revealed come out looking well in this scenario? I think Carl and Todd's hesistance to say anything is rather reasonable, seeing as they will be flayed alive by which ever "side" they do not take in this debate. It is not as though it is only the "liberals" who have a mob is it?


My problem is when people who are orthodox in most areas are accused of being complete "liberals" who have a secret plan to undermine the church. People get accused of this for things like talking about abuse or racism in the church and all sorts of things. It is a mistake to divide everything into "US vs THEM". The screenshot you posted is a good example. One could use the fact that apparently Aimee supports women reading scripture in the service as evidence that she is a secret feminist. The hypocrisy of this position lies in the fact that is never applied evenly across the board. I doubt anyone here would call any elders in a church that practices this "undercover feminists" or "liberals".

Who is "the other side" here? This is exactly the sort of language that causes these issues in the first place. Anyone who has concerns about the views of men and women (or a miriad of other issues) espoused by someone on "our side" gets immediately exiled to "their side". It is like saying that all complementarians are secretly misogynists because some turn up on twitter. Or that they are all secretly trying to bring abuse into the church and it is all just a big slippery slope. Would you listen to anyone who said that?

I find it shocking that people think the sole reason all these critics of complementarianism are turning up is that Aimee or someone has snuck in the "feminist poison" into the church. Often what happens is that genuine sin occurs, whether it is abuse or something else, and it gets covered up or excused. Anyone who questions this gets told they are a "liberal", "marxist" or "feminist" and are not welcome. It is less that they slide slowly down a slippery slope, but more that they get pushed.

Then they hear the egalitarians actually calling this stuff out, but they are stuck between wanting to remain orthodox in theology and wanting to avoid these other errors. So it is actually a relief for many to hear people like the Denhollanders and Aimee pointing out some of these problems but wanting to stay confessional. But often all they are presented with a false dichotomy. Sometimes these "defenders of orthodoxy" create more feminists or liberals than the people they are attacking do. Geneva Commons is a thousand times better at arguing for egalitarianism that Aimee Byrd will ever be.

Another problem is assuming that only non-Christian point of view is a feminist one. But there are many out there who also hate feminism, but have their own group of problems. When we become reductionistic and think that feminism is the only error, it is very easy to ally ourselves with other groups because they are "on our side". I have seen orthodox Christians accuse other Christians of being "feminists" because of certain phrases they use, while in the same breath using phrases and "statistics" from groups like the "Pick-Up Artists" and "Red-Pillers".

I'm not saying we cannot disagree, but drawing arbritrary lines in the sand and talking about "the other side" is not the way to go. Nor is deciding that every person who makes the slightest of errors really a complete liberal who really denies the faith deep down and is only in the church to destroy it.

I understand the points you are making. I would just say that my 'side' is the opc side. I dont consider myself egalitarian or complementatian due to all the things those terms represent. I reject those boxes. However, Amiee is shaky about women in leadership in the church and other related biblical teachings and all the supporters coming out of the woodwork are pro-women in church leadership. You may or may not have a problem with that, but leaving that door open can be problematic. This is why a lack of upfront clarity breeds this type of controversy, for better or for worse. I dont believe Amiee is a feminist but she is presenting herself as an authority - is it wrong to seek clarification regarding exactly were she stands? Many of her supporters are very vocal about where they stand and that is when it becomes a side, just like the wilsonites are a side. The OPC, to my knowledge, stands firm against both fronts. Give me an example of somebody in the opc writing a book promoting hard-complentarianism and Im sure the OPC will stand firm against.

 

[A.Joseph]

As for abuse and racism, if and where it exists it should be discussed by people in authority. It should be quantified in a specific, case-by-case and if it is found to be a denominational problem it should be dealt with and condemned. It should be called out from the pulpit, but I would be turned off by an activist sermon on the evils of abortion from the pulpit or even God's design for marriage. If these things are not understood to the point that you need a 7-part series, then maybe the whole foundation is off and you need to start with Reformed 101 and total depravity of man, Justification and life in Christ.

 

[BottleOfTears]

I understand the points you are making. I would just say that my 'side' is the opc side. I dont consider myself egalitarian or complementatian due to all the things those terms represent. I reject those boxes. However, Amiee is shaky about women in leadership in the church and other related biblical teachings and all the supporters coming out of the woodwork are pro-women in church leadership. You may or may not have a problem with that, but leaving that door open can be problematic. This is why a lack of upfront clarity breeds this type of controversy, for better or for worse. I dont believe Amiee is a feminist but she is presenting herself as an authority - is it wrong to seek clarification regarding exactly were she stands? Many of her supporters are very vocal about where they stand and that is when it becomes a side, just like the wilsonites are a side. The OPC, to my knowledge, stands firm against both fronts. Give me an example of somebody in the opc writing a book promoting hard-complentarianism and Im sure the OPC will stand firm against.

Aimee would say the same thing about being confessional and on the OPC side, which you took exception to when she said it. And are all the people who are supporting her "pro-women in church leadership"? That just isn't true at all. Is everyone who objects to Aimee misogynistic just because some in GC are? Collapsing everyone's views together based on their reaction to one topic is just pointless. There are almost certainly those who were in GC at one point who hold the exact same views on men and women as the elders who wrote the OPC letter against it, but it would be silly to say one "side" is a bunch of misogynistic bullies and the other a bunch of liberal feminist infiltrators.

You say you don't believe Aimee is feminist and say you seek clarification, but would you actually listen to her if she did? She has repeated time and time again that she believes only men should be ordained and yet you said this:

I suspect she’s egalitarian or something along those lines.

I have no issue with you saying you are on the OPC side, but why do you deny that Aimee can say that and accuse her of "liberal trickery" when she does?

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

Here’s the thing though: Complementarianism itself was a surrender to feminism/egalitarianism.

We have folks in the NAPARC denoms calling themselves ”Complementarian” but they deny Natural Law and say that women can be soldiers and cops but for some reason they can’t be pastors. That’s a hole big enough to drive a tank through. Especially when Paul grounds his arguments in Natural Law.


Egalitarians or people with ostensibly good motives exploit that loophole and from there it’s a game of inches aka the CRC all over again. If women can be soldiers and do anything a man does why can’t they read scripture from the pulpit during worship? It’s not *really* church leadership. If they can read scripture during worship why can’t they lead Bible studies? Yea hath God said that women shall not sit on denominational committees and exercise authority over ordained men?

I agree that Aimee might not be an egalitarian but her and RGM’s work here gives ammo to those moving the church towards Modernism and the culture. Just like you said, pro-women in church leadership folks are coming out of the woodwork to support her.

Would we be acting the same if Federal Visionists were coming out of the woodwork to support a mans work?

Antinomians?

Lets take it back further, a lot of men came out to support Truth’s Table from Todd Pruitt and others warnings in a situation similar to this. How did that go? At least one of those hosts is now a Pastrix in a liberal church and Truth’s Table is pumping out approval of CRT and BLM.

NAPARC as a whole needs to go back ad Fontes to the Divines and Calvin on this issue before we start making pronouncements.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

What's all that got to do with the Bible? One would think someone who repeatedly criticises "cultural" norms being elevated to Biblical teaching in this issue would refrain from using a secular phrase to make his point. The Holy Spirit describes women as the weaker vessel. There is a reason for that. It is clear the Bible teaches that the woman's inferiority (to use the language of the Catechism) and subordination to man is ontological.

Hilarious. Let me try...

​

That word you used, "ontological"--it isn't in the Bible. Don't you mean the "glory of man" (1 Cor.11:7)?​

How ridiculous it is to police the terms other choose for communication.

Besides, my use of "fair" is arguably synonymous with the expression of Gen.29:17, "Rachel was beautiful of form and appearance."
Thus, biblical.

But furthermore, you have perverted the Catechism's meaning by the term, "inferior." When the woman is referenced, in the WLC Q&A 123-130, it is repeatedly in that parallel with the man--as parents, father and mother--who are styled "superiors." Secondly, all other implications drawn from the prooftexts either affirm mutual parental superiority, or else define the superior-inferior relation as that which is handed down from on high, "received from God," A.129; which is to say that it is authority that comes to expression "top down," and not "bottom/up" or ontological.

So far from the wife's submission being a matter of her being (or "ontology"), it is a matter of offices.

But there is still one more rather astounding fact about the prooftexts for WLC Q&A 123-130: there is not one reference to Eph.5:22, 24; Col.3:18; 1Pet.3:1 (or 1Tim.2:11-13 or 1Cor.14:34) in that entire stretch pertaining to superiors and inferiors. Evidently the divines (I ref'd the original WCF) not once appealed to such texts to establish relative ontological stations of men vs. women. Of course they didn't, because these passages are not predicated upon the idea, nor do they predicate such.

 

[Grant]

Hilarious. Let me try...

​

That word you used, "ontological"--it isn't in the Bible. Don't you mean the "glory of man" (1 Cor.11:7)?​

How ridiculous it is to police the terms other choose for communication.

Besides, my use of "fair" is just synonymous with the expression of Gen.29:17, "Rachel was beautiful of form and appearance."
Thus, biblical.

But furthermore, you have perverted the Catechism's meaning by the term, "inferior." When the woman is referenced, in the WLC Q&A 123-130, it is repeatedly in that parallel with the man--as parents, father and mother--who are styled "superiors." Secondly, all other implications drawn from the prooftexts either affirm mutual parental superiority, or else define the superior-inferior relation as that which is handed down from on high, "received from God," A.129; which is to say that it is authority that comes to expression "top down," and not "bottom/up" or ontological.

So far from the wife's submission being a matter of her being (or "ontology"), it is a matter of offices.

But there is still one more rather astounding fact about the prooftexts for WLC Q&A 123-130: there is not one reference to Eph.5:22, 24; Col.3:18; 1Pet.3:1 (or 1Tim.2:11-13 or 1Cor.14:34) in that entire stretch pertaining to superiors and inferiors. Evidently the divines (I ref'd the original WCF) not once appealed to such texts to establish relative ontological stations of men vs. women. Of course they didn't, because these passages are not predicated upon the idea, nor do they predicate such.

Pastor Bruce,

Would you say that within a marriage union, there exist a superior / inferior relationship?

I am thankful for your post but I want to make sure I follow. I can cleary see this superior / inferior in relation to Elder / Laymen, cop / civilian, and parent / child.

Are you saying this does not exist between husband / wife regarding authority?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Would you say that within a marriage union, there exist a superior / inferior relationship?

Sure there is, because it's in the Bible, Eph.5:23 (text referenced in WLC Q&As 60 & 66, which have to do with salvation and union with Christ).

I can cleary see this superior / inferior in relation to Elder / Laymen, cop / civilian, and parent / child.
Are you saying this does not exist between husband / wife?

Once again, but in the negative: no, I say no such thing; but the matter is not predicated on being but on office. The prooftext 1Pet.3:6 is offered in A.127, "The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in ... word," the Scriptural example being Sarah to Abraham.

 

[Grant]

Sure there is, because it's in the Bible, Eph.5:23 (text referenced in WLC Q&As 60 & 66, which have to do with salvation and union with Christ).


Once again, but in the negative: no, I say no such thing; but the matter is not predicated on being but on office. The prooftexts 1Pet.3:6 is offered in A.127, "The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in ... word," and the example is Sarah to Abraham.

Thanks very helpful. So basically the superior / inferior relationship exist because of the essence of the office God has assigned to each (specifically within a marriage)?

Therefore you would say it is erroneous to say a women is an inferior to a man because of her being? In other words a women of no familial or civil relationship to me, beyond neighbor, is not my inferior? And also this helps us understand how my mother is actually my superior..... correct?

 

[BottleOfTears]

Here’s the thing though: Complementarianism itself was a surrender to feminism/egalitarianism.

We have folks in the NAPARC denoms calling themselves ”Complementarian” but they deny Natural Law and say that women can be soldiers and cops but for some reason they can’t be pastors. That’s a hole big enough to drive a tank through. Especially when Paul grounds his arguments in Natural Law.


Egalitarians or people with ostensibly good motives exploit that loophole and from there it’s a game of inches aka the CRC all over again. If women can be soldiers and do anything a man does why can’t they read scripture from the pulpit during worship? It’s not *really* church leadership. If they can read scripture during worship why can’t they lead Bible studies? Yea hath God said that women shall not sit on denominational committees and exercise authority over ordained men?

I agree that Aimee might not be an egalitarian but her and RGM’s work here gives ammo to those moving the church towards Modernism and the culture. Just like you said, pro-women in church leadership folks are coming out of the woodwork to support her.

Would we be acting the same if Federal Visionists were coming out of the woodwork to support a mans work?

Antinomians?

Lets take it back further, a lot of men came out to support Truth’s Table from Todd Pruitt and others warnings in a situation similar to this. How did that go? At least one of those hosts is now a Pastrix in a liberal church and Truth’s Table is pumping out approval of CRT and BLM.

NAPARC as a whole needs to go back ad Fontes to the Divines and Calvin on this issue before we start making pronouncements.

I think there are multiple points here that are not as black and white as you draw them out to be. Firstly, the idea of Natural Law and women not being able to hold certain jobs. I think it is pretty clear there is a massive difference between a woman police officer and a woman pastor. Or a female politician and a female elder. I'm not sure the hole is necessarily all that big. Not that there isn't an argument to made there, but I'm mostly just hearing "this is a concession to feminism so it must be wrong". If a woman in your church/denomination was a politician, would you place them under church discipline? Is a church that does not do that denying natural law? Are they moving inevitably towards denying the Deity of Christ? In my own church there are times when women read scripture from the pulpit. You might object to that, but will you say the elders in my church are on a slippery slope to liberalism?

Even in this thread there is a discussion about whether woman are "ontologically inferior" to men. I'm not sure disagreeing with that stance is a slippery slope to feminism either. One could even argue that saying that men are ontologically superior to women because of their difference in authority is a tank-sized hole which could lead to saying that a minister of the word is ontologically superior to a lay-person because of his authority, and therefore it leaves a door open to Catholicism or something.

I find nailing down the precise co-ordinates of all these slippery slopes to be a rather slippery affair in itself. It seems like they can be weaponised against anyone one wishes to discredit, but not against others. Pulpit and Pen once wrote an article saying my minister was a "papist wolf in sheeps clothing" because he repeatedly quoted Ratzinger in a book. A lot of the rhetoric I hear around these things is rather similar. You do/say one thing that sounds "feminist" or whatever and all of a sudden you are an undercover agent who at any moment could just suddenly betray orthodoxy completely. And in almost all situations there are multiple examples of others doing, allowing, or saying similar things but not receiving the same treatment.

I'm not sure why you are warning against others making pronouncements, when you are making plenty of your own about people in NAPARC. I think if you need to say that the significant portion of people in NAPARC who call themselves complementarians are actually just conceeding ground to egalitarians and are on one big slippery slope in order to say that RGM or Aimee are out of line with the confessions, you might need to make a bit more of an argument. It sounds like you are saying they are in line with NAPARC, but most of NAPARC is out of line.

That doesn't mean you are wrong of course, but it seems like a pretty serious charge to me.