Review of RGM’s BA&S

Status
Not open for further replies.

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
What puzzles me enormously, and is perhaps a thread drift, is why, in my church past- which has been entirely male church leadership except for a PCA with humble, serving, feminine, deaconesses- I've gotten so much blatant and subtle negativity about wearing an inconspicuous headcovering that I don't push on anybody. I can't figure out why staunch Complementarians can be so against them.

When we were in SGM in the 90s one of the pastors told my best friend several years in, that when a woman wears a headcovering it is a spirit of legalism trying to make inroads into the church. She defended me, and another pastor there told me to my face that he knew I wasn't legalistic because in certain settings I wore jeans and sneakers. It was wierd. They were as gung ho Grudem-Piper- CBMW as any group can be.

But here we have a command given by Paul using the same Greek word in verse 2 and 23 for a practice delivered over/handed down, applied to both headcovering and communion, the former symbolizing a husband's authority over his wife, and all the CBMW exposure I ever had was not neutral about coverings, but against.

I tend to think that as long as you kick those verses out as for back then, and for that culture 2000 years ago but not for us, instead of admitting they are a sign to the angels, you will continue to get women kicking out other verses as also for back then in that culture. I think the two are tied together, and Complementarians trying to remove one and keep the rest is an exercise in futility. Any women with a few brain cells kicking together can make the connection that if 1 Corinthians in outward symbolism no longer applies, neither does the rest of that passage. Or other similar verses.
A very good observation. I think headcoverings were a casualty of the libertinism which came into the church as regards to attitudes regarding dress, personal conduct &c. As the church moved further and further from Scripture on these issues more and more was allowed and Scripture's pronouncements were reclassified as "cultural" and no longer binding. And of course the encroachments of feminism as well.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Uh oh now you’ve done it, the slander bloggers are gonna call you all sorts of names on Twitter now :p
On what basis? The alleged accuracy of the quote is debatable, see: http://www.weighted-glory.com/2016/06/did-luther-really-say-women-shouldnt-be-wise/

More to the point, what does dropping the quote in the thread say? Is it just a way of stirring the pot? Does it reflect the dropper's own view? Is the dropper mocking the view? There's no way to tell, really, unless the poster adds something.

And what does an past quip-artist's (alleged) published a-contextual opinion have to say by way of informing any present discussions? And since when does any current knee-jerk Twitterati spasm affect the PB? Our adult-level moderation tactics help dispel any rational basis for criticizing us.
 

EcclesiaDiscens.

Puritan Board Freshman
On what basis? The alleged accuracy of the quote is debatable, see: http://www.weighted-glory.com/2016/06/did-luther-really-say-women-shouldnt-be-wise/

More to the point, what does dropping the quote in the thread say? Is it just a way of stirring the pot? Does it reflect the dropper's own view? Is the dropper mocking the view? There's no way to tell, really, unless the poster adds something.

And what does an past quip-artist's (alleged) published a-contextual opinion have to say by way of informing any present discussions? And since when does any current knee-jerk Twitterati spasm affect the PB? Our adult-level moderation tactics help dispel any rational basis for criticizing us.
My post was a joke.

Based on the current “cancelling” trend in our society of taking statements and editing them, posting them out of context, etc.

If I had specified a specific blog and said Pulpit and Pen would that have made the joke funnier?
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Uh oh now you’ve done it, the slander bloggers are gonna call you all sorts of names on Twitter now :p
My Luther quote was not a joke. I believe Luther on this point.

Never has America had so many female professors, and so little women of quality. There has never been so many college-educated women, but college-educated women initiate about 90% of divorces. There has never been so many women against the evil Patriarchy, and yet so many children raised by daycares and single-parent homes and abortions. Women tend to vote more Socialistic and Liberal and promote open borders and bad policies. Letting them take over theology and pulpits is to abdicate the church into Social Wokeism and Theological Liberalism. Women, like some minorities, often stick together despite being wrong and form a tribe or cabal that is immune to reason. When their theology is shoddy they cry victimhood and claim to be oppressed. Therefore, for the good of the Church we should not listen to women theologians.
 
Last edited:

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
The Bible says that the realm of women is to be quiet, chaste keepers at home. If we pull them out of that focus and encourage them to write theology books, we are going against God's design for them. Unless the subject is one such as abuse, I don't buy anything written by a female.

Besides many of these women are not focused on telling other women how to be better wives and mothers...many of them are trying to correct us men-folks. That seems to be their focus....correcting the men. And because of that they are suspect and I don't want to give them a dime.
 

EcclesiaDiscens.

Puritan Board Freshman
My Luther quote was not a joke. I believe Luther on this point.

Never has America had so many female professors, and so little women of quality. There has never been so many college-educated women, but college-educated women initiate about 90% of divorces. There has never been so many women against the evil Patriarchy, and yet so many children raised by daycares and single-parent homes and abortions. Women tend to vote more Socialistic and Liberal and promote open borders and bad policies. Letting them take over theology and pulpits is to abdicate the church into Social Wokeism and Theological Liberalism. Women, like some minorities, often stick together despite being wrong and form a tribe or cabal that is immune to reason. When their theology is shoddy they cry victimhood and claim to be oppressed. Therefore, for the good of the Church we should not listen to women theologians.
I agree. I personally think that the Wokeism of Tisby, Eric Mason, Tripp, et al. has the same root as the Revoice stuff which has the same root as this push to give women authority in the church over men but just stop short of ordaining them. It’s the culture’s idols making their inroads into the church.

Patriarchy is inevitable, the only question is which patriarch you serve.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
My Luther quote was not a joke. I believe Luther on this point.

Never has America had so many female professors, and so little women of quality. There has never been so many college-educated women, but college-educated women initiate about 90% of divorces. There has never been so many women against the evil Patriarchy, and yet so many children raised by daycares and single-parent homes and abortions. Women tend to vote more Socialistic and Liberal and promote open borders and bad policies. Letting them take over theology and pulpits is to abdicate the church into Social Wokeism and Theological Liberalism. Women, like some minorities, often stick together despite being wrong and form a tribe or cabal that is immune to reason. When their theology is shoddy they cry victimhood and claim to be oppressed. Therefore, for the good of the Church we should not listen to women theologians.
Exactly right. The decline of our nations stems, I believe, to giving the women the vote. Yes there have been some good female politicians and women, in the past, tended to vote for the more conservative party. However the introduction of women into the political sphere has fundamentally transformed it. "Feelings" and "care" and "welfare" have become the guiding principles behind most of our legislation and social policies. Although I'm loathe to quote him because I believe he has utterly discredited himself, Jordan Peterson was right when he said that the woman, being the childbearer, priorities protection and nurture (because that is her role as regards her children). As women went into politics they brought this mentality with them. And so they have favoured policies which are about protecting people from being offended, from "harm", from their own bad choices. They have advocated open borders because it would be "harmful" and "mean" not to let these migrants in. They have advocated for censoring all "problematic" speech because such speech is "assault". And as women's influence on politics has increaded, the men have adapted to make themselves more appealing to women and their worldview. This has resulted in our male politicians, and men in general, becoming ever more feminine in their attitudes and worldview and increasingly sissified.

Ever since women were allowed to participate in politics, and especially since WW2, politics in the West has been guided, has been held captive, by the emotional fragility of women and women's innate desire to maintain peace (a quiet home) and prevent hurt even to the most irrational ends. Of course this has arisen because women decided not to have children. And without children to mother they have sought to mother the nation.
 

joep

Puritan Board Freshman
Surely, @Pergamum and @alexandermsmith, that's a very wide net you've cast!

@alexandermsmith You say that the introduction of women into the political sphere has transformed it. At least for the UK, I wonder what slice of history you are actually talking about? Should we go far back enough we find that the whole revolt of Boudica's was in part because the Romans did not acknowledge the female heirs of Prasutagus, whereas the locals did. When this was Brittanica and ruled by the Roman princeps, then any history will tell you of the intrigue and powers behind the throne of Caesar, powers wielded by both men and women. Should we move further on and come to Lady Godiva, we find that contrary to the legend of her trying to help the poor over-taxed people of Coventry, she owned those lands and was one of the women mentioned in the Doomsday books. Not only that, but her memory and influence were powerful enough to induce the monastery she had provided patronage to to concoct the whole legend for their own future's sake. I won't talk of Victoria, who left her stamp on many nations of the empire, or of the two queens Elizabeth, the former of whom has given her name to a whole era of history. I won't talk of the numerous noblewomen who helped and aided poor and suffering and fledgling Protestant churches such as the Countess of Huntingdon or the Duchess of Ferrara. The reason for the change and decline is rooted in the introduction of anti-Christian philosophies and the attempted destruction of the foundations of Western civilisation which lie in important concepts such as objective truth and universal moral laws: a poison that has been drunk to the dregs by both men and women in power. It may be that the current dynamics of government generally attract a certain type of woman or a certain type of man: I know that I should be gravely embarrassed if anyone thought that the type of men we have in government was representative of men in general: charity and experience lead me to believe the same is true of women. What we see after the Second World War is only the ripening fruit of seeds that were planted during the Enlightenment, and if some authors are right, even before during the Renaissance.
 

joep

Puritan Board Freshman
@Pergamum It is also true, according to the Pew Research Center (2015), that "college-educated women are more likely to have long-lasting marriages".
Researchers at the National Center for Health Statistics estimate that 78% of college-educated women who married for the first time between 2006 and 2010 could expect their marriages to last at least 20 years. But among women who have a high school education or less, the share is only 40%.
As for abortion, both men and women in the U.S. express almost the same levels of approval for it: 61% and 60% respectively (Pew, 2019). If you think this age puts all others to shame, think again. History is a buffet of wickedness. Cf. the conditions in England before the evangelical revivals of Whitefield and Wesley:
Morally, the country was becoming increasingly decadent. Drunkenness was rampant; gambling was so extensive that one historian described England as "one vast casino." Newborns were exposed in the streets; 97% of the infant poor in the workhouses died as children. Bear baiting and cock fighting were accepted sports, and tickets were sold to public executions as to a theater. The slave trade brought material gain to many while further degrading their souls. Bishop Berkeley wrote that morality and religion in Britain had collapsed "to a degree that was never known in any Christian country." (Christianity.com, 2010)
The arguments you make are just as easy to wield against the common people: "Never has England had so many common-born men well educated, and so few men of quality." They are also easy to wield against Blacks and Hispanics, since while there is nearly equal approval of capitalism among Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, there is a more positive view of socialism among the latter two (Pew, 2019): I'm not remotely saying you would deny them the vote or discriminate! -- I am only saying that the reasons you would not should, I think, apply equally to women.
 
Last edited:

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
Surely, @Pergamum and @alexandermsmith, that's a very wide net you've cast!

@alexandermsmith You say that the introduction of women into the political sphere has transformed it. At least for the UK, I wonder what slice of history you are actually talking about? Should we go far back enough we find that the whole revolt of Boudica's was in part because the Romans did not acknowledge the female heirs of Prasutagus, whereas the locals did. When this was Brittanica and ruled by the Roman princeps, then any history will tell you of the intrigue and powers behind the throne of Caesar, powers wielded by both men and women. Should we move further on and come to Lady Godiva, we find that contrary to the legend of her trying to help the poor over-taxed people of Coventry, she owned those lands and was one of the women mentioned in the Doomsday books. Not only that, but her memory and influence were powerful enough to induce the monastery she had provided patronage to to concoct the whole legend for their own future's sake. I won't talk of Victoria, who left her stamp on many nations of the empire, or of the two queens Elizabeth, the former of whom has given her name to a whole era of history. I won't talk of the numerous noblewomen who helped and aided poor and suffering and fledgling Protestant churches such as the Countess of Huntingdon or the Duchess of Ferrara. The reason for the change and decline is rooted in the introduction of anti-Christian philosophies and the attempted destruction of the foundations of Western civilisation which lie in important concepts such as objective truth and universal moral laws: a poison that has been drunk to the dregs by both men and women in power. It may be that the current dynamics of government generally attract a certain type of woman or a certain type of man: I know that I should be gravely embarrassed if anyone thought that the type of men we have in government was representative of men in general: charity and experience lead me to believe the same is true of women. What we see after the Second World War is only the ripening fruit of seeds that were planted during the Enlightenment, and if some authors are right, even before during the Renaissance.
I'm referring, as I said, in my post, to the extension of the franchise to women. Obviously women had been involved in politics before then- most notiveably as Queens, but in other ways too. However by granting them the right to vote their influence became extensive of a quite different nature.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
@Pergamum It is also true, according to the Pew Research Center (2015), that "college-educated women are more likely to have long-lasting marriages".

As for abortion, both men and women in the U.S. express almost the same levels of approval for it: 61% and 60% respectively (Pew, 2019). If you think this age puts all others to shame, think again. History is a buffet of wickedness. Cf. the conditions in England before the evangelical revivals of Whitefield and Wesley:

The arguments you make are just as easy to wield against the common people: "Never has England had so many common-born men well educated, and so few men of quality." They are also easy to wield against Blacks and Hispanics, since while there is nearly equal approval of capitalism among Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, there is a more positive view of socialism among the latter two (Pew, 2019): I'm not remotely saying you would deny them the vote or discriminate! -- I am only saying that the reasons you would not should, I think, apply equally to women.
I wouldn't disagree. Popular democracy has caused a lot of harm to our societies. Though what you say assumes that the common man and the common woman are synonymous here. I would disagree. I'm not a popular democracy absolutist. But our societies as they were governed exclusively by men (through the franchise and elected representatives) was of a quite different, and superior, nature than it is as governed by men and women.
 
Last edited:

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
@Pergamum It is also true, according to the Pew Research Center (2015), that "college-educated women are more likely to have long-lasting marriages".

As for abortion, both men and women in the U.S. express almost the same levels of approval for it: 61% and 60% respectively (Pew, 2019). If you think this age puts all others to shame, think again. History is a buffet of wickedness. Cf. the conditions in England before the evangelical revivals of Whitefield and Wesley:

The arguments you make are just as easy to wield against the common people: "Never has England had so many common-born men well educated, and so few men of quality." They are also easy to wield against Blacks and Hispanics, since while there is nearly equal approval of capitalism among Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, there is a more positive view of socialism among the latter two (Pew, 2019): I'm not remotely saying you would deny them the vote or discriminate! -- I am only saying that the reasons you would not should, I think, apply equally to women.
College educated women initiate divorce 9 times more often than college educated men.


"According to a study published in the American Law and Economics Review, women are responsible for filing approximately 70% of divorce cases in the United States.

Statistics are hard to come by for other countries, but it’s safe to guess that the average rate would be somewhere between 60-80%.

70% sounds like a big number for American couples, but it actually gets worse for men who marry college-educated women.

According to the study, evidence is given that among college-educated couples, the percentage of divorces initiated by women is approximately 90%.¹"

Are College-Educated Women Bad Wife Material?
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
Ever since women were allowed to participate in politics, and especially since WW2, politics in the West has been guided, has been held captive, by the emotional fragility of women and women's innate desire to maintain peace (a quiet home) and prevent hurt even to the most irrational ends. Of course this has arisen because women decided not to have children. And without children to mother they have sought to mother the nation.
I'm not sure that it is necessarily since women were granted franchise (although I realise you are from the UK where women were granted the vote much later than NZ). From what I remember of a social history paper at university, women's voting patterns tended to match the voting patterns of their husbands in the decade or so after 1893.

And yet... during WW1, there was a great fear that prohibition would be voted in nationally in New Zealand, so soldiers on the Western Front were canvassed for their presumably anti-prohibition votes to counteract the assumed predominantly female prohibition votes. The prohibition movement was spearheaded by first wave feminists (married, Christian, family-oriented), and supported by the Labour Party (at least until Ernest Davis bought them off). Eventually these two movements were (and are) indistinguishable.

I originally wanted to rebut you, and yet your argument now intrigues me...hmmmm...perhaps if the soldiers were at home they would have "told the wife who to vote for", or discussed it further and worked out the details together. But, the breakdown of the relationship via war made this impossible.

The breakdown of the family has exacerbated the differences between the sexes, and perhaps that is the key factor of what we see today, rather than female franchise per se?

I'm going to have to do some more reading...
 

EcclesiaDiscens.

Puritan Board Freshman
Wilson's fan base, I guess.
If you’re talking about Summer then let’s practice the same charity that would be demanded if someone was talking about RGM. Her divorce was eminently biblical as her husband (from all trustworthy accounts) committed adultery and was a drug abuser and the interventions of the church and family failed.

Also, using the same standard that has been passed around by certain folks, shouldn’t we have to read Wilson’s book before we can critique it?
 

Andrew35

Puritan Board Freshman
If you’re talking about Summer then let’s practice the same charity that would be demanded if someone was talking about RGM. Her divorce was eminently biblical as her husband (from all trustworthy accounts) committed adultery and was a drug abuser and the interventions of the church and family failed.

Also, using the same standard that has been passed around by certain folks, shouldn’t we have to read Wilson’s book before we can critique it?
Well, assuming "sex with robots" was an accurate descriptor, I'm not up for reading it, thank you.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
If you’re talking about Summer then let’s practice the same charity that would be demanded if someone was talking about RGM. Her divorce was eminently biblical as her husband (from all trustworthy accounts) committed adultery and was a drug abuser and the interventions of the church and family failed.

Also, using the same standard that has been passed around by certain folks, shouldn’t we have to read Wilson’s book before we can critique it?
I didn't say a single thing about her divorce (I know nothing about her). I just mentioned "Wilson's fan base," which is true. I'm not part of the Protestant Reformed denomination. I have no problem with biblical divorce. I applaud women, especially those in a certain micro-denomination, to avail themselves of ways to protect themselves from deviants.

As to Wilson's sex novel, I didn't make a value judgment beyond saying the idea of a pastor writing a sex novel about robots just feels icky.
 
Last edited:

EcclesiaDiscens.

Puritan Board Freshman
Well, assuming "sex with robots" was an accurate descriptor, I'm not up for reading it, thank you.
From all accounts it’s a futuristic dystopian take on something like burning “adult” magazines I.e a guy destroying a sex robot.


I didn't say a single thing about her divorce (I know nothing about her). I just mentioned "Wilson's fan base," which is true. I'm not part of the Protestant Reformed denomination. I have know problem with biblical divorce. I applaud women, especially those in a certain micro-denomination, to avail themselves of ways to protect themselves from deviants.

As to Wilson's sex novel, I didn't make a value judgment beyond saying the idea of a pastor writing a sex novel about robots just feels icky.
Summer isn’t in the CREC.

Also, as stated above, from all accounts the book is apprently a dystopian novel about a man destroying a sex robot. Would we feel icky about a book where a man destroys “adult” magazines? Until the book is out and reviewed by folks I trust, I’m withholding judgment.

I’m not particularly fond of Wilson but I feel like I’m taking crazy pills since I’ve had to defend the guy from gossip laundered through social media.

If we’re going to accuse people of grievous sins I.e writing a pornographic book, then we should probably read the book before pronouncing disgust at someone. Even someone we don’t particularly care for.

Much like folks saying that before anyone can critique the authors of functionally egalitarian books, they have to read their books first.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
ould we feel icky about a book where a man destroys “adult” magazines?
If that's all it is, then it is less icky. Wilson's track record, and his history of calling women the C-word, suggests otherwise.
I’m not particularly fond of Wilson but I feel like I’m taking crazy pills since I’ve had to defend the guy from gossip laundered through social media.
Social media is one thing. I have documented evidence and court records from the mid-2000s.
If we’re going to accuse people of grievous sins I.e writing a pornographic book, then we should probably read the book before pronouncing disgust at someone. Even someone we don’t particularly care for.
I actually didn't say he sinned. Just icky, which is par for the course for him. If Carl Trueman wrote a book like this, I probably would withhold judgment, because Carl doesn't have a history where scandal is involved.
 

EcclesiaDiscens.

Puritan Board Freshman
If that's all it is, then it is less icky. Wilson's track record, and his history of calling women the C-word, suggests otherwise.
Even people we dislike and find icky deserve the judgment of charity. Regardless of if they called Nadia Bolz-Weber the C-word.

Social media is one thing. I have documented evidence and court records from the mid-2000s.
Great, we’re still talking about people gossiping about his book calling it “misogynist” and equating it to p0rnography. If destroying sexually perverse material like a sex robot is misogynistic, then count me in. That includes DW’s book if it turns out to actually be 50-Shades level icky.

Moscow Man Bad is a serious problem on the Internet lately. We need to distinguish between his serious and actual failures, and ginned up social media gossip because he touched a sacred cow or merely “racked the shotgun” to use an advertising term.

I actually didn't say he sinned. Just icky, which is par for the course for him. If Carl Trueman wrote a book like this, I probably would withhold judgment, because Carl doesn't have a history where scandal is involved.
Writing a pornographic book wouldn’t be sin?
Even someone that has scandal in their history deserves the judgment of charity. Especially in an era of social media gossip. I’m kind of done defending DW today. Could we move back to Pergie’s discussion of Luther again?
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Sophomore
I think these culture wars make people behave a little crazy. (I’m not saying there are no absolute truths beneath it all). The lesson learned for me is to hold my tongue and stay out of it. Some people can maintain their maturity and patience and not resort to satirical rhetoric. My sometimes tendency is to get cynical and sarcastic. It’s hard to maintain Christian character when you're engaging in discussions that trigger your old nature. I’m seeking maturity and for the sake of such am bowing out of these types of discussions.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Moscow Man Bad is a serious problem on the Internet lately. We need to distinguish between his serious and actual failure
That's been done probably hundreds of times, starting with ecclesiastical rebukes and refutations.
Even people we dislike and find icky deserve the judgment of charity.
Sure, but that doesn't mean their books deserve to be read. I won't offer a refutation of his book, not having read it. But since the title of the book fits with all of the sex scandals from his church, I have a good idea of what to expect.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
I'm not sure that it is necessarily since women were granted franchise (although I realise you are from the UK where women were granted the vote much later than NZ). From what I remember of a social history paper at university, women's voting patterns tended to match the voting patterns of their husbands in the decade or so after 1893.

And yet... during WW1, there was a great fear that prohibition would be voted in nationally in New Zealand, so soldiers on the Western Front were canvassed for their presumably anti-prohibition votes to counteract the assumed predominantly female prohibition votes. The prohibition movement was spearheaded by first wave feminists (married, Christian, family-oriented), and supported by the Labour Party (at least until Ernest Davis bought them off). Eventually these two movements were (and are) indistinguishable.

I originally wanted to rebut you, and yet your argument now intrigues me...hmmmm...perhaps if the soldiers were at home they would have "told the wife who to vote for", or discussed it further and worked out the details together. But, the breakdown of the relationship via war made this impossible.

The breakdown of the family has exacerbated the differences between the sexes, and perhaps that is the key factor of what we see today, rather than female franchise per se?

I'm going to have to do some more reading...
The trends you identify are true. When women were first given the franchise in the UK, they voted Conservative by a majority (and for a while more women voted Conservative than men). And the Prohibition movement had a lot of women leaders. As women became more independent, however, these trends changed. I never said the franchise was the only factor. But once women had been infected by leftism then their vote became very powerful in pushing the leftist, degenerate agenda. Our societies survived quite a while with men (though in limited numbers) voting and much, much longer with men ruling our societies. Whereas they didnt survive even 50 years with women being enfranchised. Go figure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top