Family

A Prayer For A Husband And Wife By William Gouge / May 17, 2020 by Cristián Rogers

Presented here is a slight modernization of a prayer from Gouge’s “Domesticall Duties”, intended for use as a model by husbands and wives together. Enjoy! #OriginalPurityCulture — Cristián Rogers

Source: http://www.digitalpuritan.net/Digital%20Puritan%20Resources/Gouge%2C%20William/%5BWG%5D%20Patterns%20of%20Prayers%20for%20the%20Several%20Members%20of%20a%20Family.pdf

A Prayer for Husbands and Wives, in regard of their mutual and joint duties whereunto they are both bound.

O MOST mighty and merciful Lord God, who by thy wise, ordering Providence has made us two one flesh, and joined us together by the nearest and firmest bond of all, which is Marriage, so knit our hearts together, we humbly beseech thee, as matrimonial unity may ever be kept inviolable betwixt us : and a thought of desertion never enter into either of souls. Let thy fear so possess our hearts, as we keep our bodies the temples of the Holy Ghost, in all purity and chastity : and be so watchful over the powers of our soul, and parts of our bodies, over company, over our diet and apparel, and over everything we take in hand, as we be no way drawn to commit the filthy and capital sin of Adultery : but rather yielding due benevolence one to another, we may mutually delight one in another.

For this end, as our persons are knit together by the indissoluble bond of Marriage, so link our hearts together by the inviolable bond of mutual matrimonial love : even such love as may make us keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace : that there be no jealousies, offenses, and no contentions betwixt us. Make us also, we pray three, mutually provident one to another : wherein that we may do one another the more good, make us ever willing to dwell together : and when there is just cause of absence for a time, let us take all occasions to testifying our present mindfulness of one another, and longing desire one after another. And, good Father, so [grant] us the spirit of supplication, as we always without ceasing may call upon thee the fountain of all blessing, and in our prayers be mutually mindful one of one another : and take all occasion of praying jointly together.

And now being here both together before thee, we earnestly beseech thee to make us, whom thou hast made one flesh, to be one spirit, joint members of the mystical body of Christ : so to sanctify our fellowship, that we may truly rejoice one in another, and bless thee from our hearts one for another : let our bed ever remain a bed undefiled : bless us with children, and bless us in them : bless us with a competent estate, and with all needful gifts and graces : keep us from wishing any hurt one to another, and from imprecating any ill one to another. Give us we beseech thee, not only a mind to wish well one another, but also willingness and ability to do good one for another, and that in our souls, bodies, estate, and good name. In our souls, by edifying one another : that we who on Earth are so [closely] united, may not after this life be separated as far as Heaven is from Hell. For this end give us wisdom to prevent sin one in another, by removing all stumbling blocks, and occasion of sin : and also to redress sin by all the good courses we can think of. Give us ability, we pray thee, to help forward the growth of grace in one another, by manifest approbation thereof : yea, also by mutual conference, good example, and holy exercises of piety both public and private. Make us further careful over one another’s bodies, to nourish and cherish them health and in sickness : not grudging at the cost that is laid out, or at the pains that is taken thereabout.

Let also the Christian credit and good name of one another be mutually precious to us so as we speak of one another such things tend thereunto, and stop all evil reports and disprove, as much as with us lieth, all slanders : and if by either of us is just cause of an evil name be given, give us grace to meekly and wisely to make it known one to another, that afterwards the like may be avoided : yea that by our [manner of living] we may gain such a good name as may clean put out the fire of of the former ill name : and let us be so affected with the verities wherewith it pleases thee to endue either of us, and with the sweet savor which thence ariseth, as we may show thereby that we are affected with the good name of one another as our own. Keep us therefore from the vices which may make us discredit one another : as [spreading] abroad one another infirmities, opening our ear to every rash report, turning all things to the worst, envying and gainsaying good reports one another. And as in thy wisdom thou has made us a help each to other, even in regard of outward estate, give us wisdom, O Lord, to extend our mutual provident care there unto, that in our several places, we may as two hands of the same body, jointly endeavor to persevere and increase the same : that as by too much covetousness we seek not to scrape all to ourselves, so neither by prodigality we waste the estate, nor by idleness neglect the same.

And as thou hast made us joint parents of the same children, and joint governors of the same household, so (Lord), make us in our distinct places alike careful for the good education of our children and government of family, and of our servants therein : that being by thy ordinance under the same yoke, we may both draw the same way, and not thwart the other, nor put off all the care from one to another, and refuse to add our best help : much less hinder one another in the joint duties which belong to us both. Yea, Lord, we beseech thee to make us of one heart and mind, in affording hospitality according to our ability unto such Christians as come to our house, whether kindred or others (without grudging one against another therein) and in relieving the Poor also, lest we should by unmercifulness cause many curses to rest upon our house. These and all other bounded duties, either mutually one to another, or jointly others in our house, or out of it, enable us, O God of Power, conscionably to perform. Let not our sins cause thy wrath to fall upon us, but pardon them all, we most humbly beseech thee, whether they have been committed by either of us against the other, or against any other person, or any other way against thy sacred Majesty and holy Law, and that for Jesus Christ his sake, in and by whom, through the assistance of thy Holy Spirit, we desire that thy name may be glorified by us and others in our several places now and forever more.

AMEN.

Has God Really Said? Resisting the #ReformedDowngrade / May 5, 2020 by Shane D. Anderson

In the long run, the church of our Lord Jesus Christ always wins. It rises up by the Spirit into life, trampling serpents, breaking down idols, filling the earth with generations of faithfulness, and praising the Triune God from shore to shore. But anyone who has lived the Christian life and is familiar with biblical and church history knows that this upward trajectory of victory is marred by many sad declines, beguilings of the devil, and little idols that gain temporary residence in heart, home, church, society. These downgrades from our upward calling in Christ are caused by a lack of faith, for without it, no one can please the Lord.

The occasion of one such downgrade in the church, where unbelief slid the church into temporary ruin, started when a brilliant, learned, appealing, and highly-effective leader ruined everything by asking a question, “starting a conversation” with the wife of the priest-king of a holy and tranquil realm. Having studied the cultural baggage she had inherited (rife with authoritative rules that forced the queen into involuntary submission and kept her in ignorance) he stirred up this queen’s desire for more from this life than mere fruitful multiplication by asking “Has God really said?”

And by the end of that conversation, the world was plunged into our present state of sin and misery.

I am going to say something you may not yet believe: we are currently heading into a great crisis in the conservative Reformed churches, we have begun a precipitous slide into sin and misery. It has not reached its conclusion, like it already has in the PCUSA, the United Methodists, and the old Reformed Church in America. It has not progressed into complete institutional compromise with liberalism like in the CRC. But all the beginnings of our repeating the feminist-liberal decline are there: women theologians advocating for “more women’s voices”, seminiaries enrolling women in MDiv programs, churches hiring more and more not-officially-ordained-yet women “ministers” of this and that, denominations calling for hiring parity between men and women, creative theologians tinkering with the plain teachings of scripture through the use of sophisticated argumentation, more and more women writers in the place of ordained men in our denominational magazines, etc., etc., etc.

I don’t write this post to convince you that the decline is happening. (Though it is. Just ask those who lived through the fall of the CRCNA how this works.) But I am writing to alert you to a type of thinking that is itself a downgrade and apart from repentance will always lead to a further downgrade: a lack of faith in God’s Word.

There is a footing we can have, a stance, a gait as we approach Scripture that will always stumble and fall: unbelief. It comes to the Bible on the defense. It comes to the Bible “concerned,” with personal problems and feelings it wants addressed adequately and comfortably. It avoids parts of the Bible that would correct the person. Or it comes to passages it describes as difficult, complex, and easy to misunderstand not first asking with humility to learn and be changed—it marches up to them with sandpaper in hand, ready to smooth down all the pointy parts. “Let’s have a conversation… let’s discuss the complex issues… let’s explore the rich tapestry of meaning and context and all the other rich things we can explore… you know, ‘Has God really said?’”

And at the end of the “discussions”... the “conversations”... the “explorations”... the “rich tapestries of meaning”.... we are left with something quite different than the authoritative, sufficient Word of God where yes is yes, and no is no. Once you begin to admit that this approach is itself a sinful capitulation to self-worship, you are well on your way to understanding why feminist exegesis is itself, apart from its ungodly conclusions and practices, its own sort of ungodly downgrade.

Let women clothe themselves with modesty such as is fitting for godly women… “Has God really said? Who determines what is modest or fitting to godly womanhood? Is there even such a thing as godly womanhood?”

Women may not teach or have authority over men but are to learn in silence with subjection…. “Has God really said? How will men represent women’s unique perspective? How will the rights of women be preserved without women having power in church structures?”

The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is of the church…. “Has God really said? Can’t we move beyond authority and submission? Why is there so much fixation on headship?”

Man was not made for woman, but woman for man… “Has God really said? I’m an ezer warrior, a coequal life partner!”

Imitate Sarah who obeyed her husband and called him Lord… “Has God really said? I shouldn’t be forced to obey! Oppression!!”

The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God… “REEEEEEE! HAS GOD REALLY SAID! PATRIARCHY!”

This is actually what is currently happening in the Reformed world, and it is the downgrade that begins all downgrades: “Has God really said?”

One final word: don’t just reject this false, rebellious way when you see it in others—reject it in yourself. Do you desire to approach God’s Word with faith rather than irreverent questioning but you find yourself poked and prodded by what it says in painful ways with sensitive topics? The way forward is to recognize that the problem is always in us, not God. You and I oversleep an alarm, lose our keys, fumble at relationships, have greatly erred and, yes, in thought, word, and deed sinned in many ways. Our comfort or discomfort with God’s commands says a lot about us but nothing about the goodness of those commands. He is all wise in what He has said and how He has said it. In our rebellion, ignorance, corruption we need the mighty working of his blessed Spirit to bring us to humility before him. So, we must come to Him as a beggar in prayer through Jesus Christ who receives repentant sinners: He has given you these difficult places in His Word for your salvation. As Spurgeon once said, these hard places are for setting up an altar to worship your God! Bow under His commands, commit your way to believe and obey his Word no matter the consequences. Trust Him for the forgiveness and help you will need, and you will see that His every word proves true and in keeping His commands our foot will never slip.

It’s not my fault Aimee Byrd wants to be taken seriously and other responses to those calculating ways to silence the very few of us willing to criticize the new feminism being promoted in NAPARC… / April 21, 2020 by Shane D. Anderson

A public statement first posted in our discussion group: Genevan Commons.

An important announcement related to the spais, permission granted to share elsewhere:

As we all know, and have always known, the things said here in Genevan Commons are monitored by Aimee Byrd, Rachel Green Miller, people connected to R. Scott Clark’s twitter gang/sect/group, and others who believe we ought not be allowed a private discussion group in which their public “ministries” are critiqued. A number of us have been subject to false accusations, and it’s been said over and over on twitter that there are screenshots that prove me and others here: “nasty” “vile” “jerk” “slanderers” “dirty-mind” etc.

Against this backdrop, Mrs. Byrd has been laboring in her own session and in the OPC to develop some way to bring charges against me and others for opposing her. To do this, they have assembled (dissembled?) snippets of this and that for years. And now, she has accomplished the removal of one of her own elders without proper discipline procedures for not adequately supporting her.

On Good Friday, members of Mrs. Byrd’s church began receiving a mailed document in which the session presented its written case against Genevan Commons to its congregation as part of its work to divest the elder who displeased Mrs. Byrd by his membership in Genevan Commons. I was unaware of any of this when it was happening, but now that they have made their intentions public, I would like to ask you all to please pray for our brother and his family and his church. He has filed a complaint against this action and more complaints are likely.

As part of the accusations, all their factual errors and embarrassing details of Mrs. Byrd’s influence over them notwithstanding, they have announced that they are in fact pursuing ecclesiastical actions against me and others in Genevan Commons. They have been being advised on these matters by OPC insiders who serve on denominational committees. Mrs. Byrd, Todd Pruitt, and others have publicly called for discipline against us.

Despite Pruitt, Byrd, Green Miller and others accusing me publicly and privately, for years, of slander, perversion, being a jerk, having a dirty mind, saying horrible things, etc, their evidence of this is nothing. You know, as they are fond of noting about Mrs. Byrd, I also am “a member in good standing.” I hold to the Westminster Standards of the OPC without exception. And I am actually an elder in Christ’s church. None of this sort of thing matters in a victim culture: as long as Byrd and Green Miller can present themselves as aggrieved minorities, victims of an oppressive system, they are allowed to say anything they want about anyone they want, demonizing all opposition. They have in fact been rewarded for it.

Despite personal, multiple requests for evidence of the things they have accused me of, they would never provide it to me so I could respond or others could examine the claimed evidence. They have not allowed me the decency of explaining, defending, or repenting of things I’ve supposedly said. They instead have continued these public and private attacks on me while formulating an ecclesiastical attack plan in the background, monitoring my posts and comments, threatening me that they are doing such, publicly hoping I will fall into disrepute, and coordinating with various people throughout the OPC. The only things I’ve ever been provided are “concerns” that I said her agenda is evil, ungodly, feminstic, etc. Yes, I have. And, yes, I will. If I will be brought up on charges for that, so be it. #ReformedDowngrade anyone? #RememberTheCRCNA anyone?

It has not been enough for Mrs. Byrd to publicly attack CBMW, John Piper, John Macarthur, Doug Wilson, and many others with her public “ministry” of criticizing the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not enough that no one in the history of our Bible-believing Reformed churches ever advocated for her teachings without leaving for churches consumed by rank liberalism. It is not enough that she is supported by the biggest institutions and names in the Reformed world. She apparently will not allow people to oppose her. And men are lining up to support her.

It only takes a casual acquaintance with her writing to understand why men do this: her agenda is deeply rooted in feeling offended at how men treat her.

She admits over and over in writing and interview that her impetus for writing has often been situations in which she feels offended as a woman, slighted, or personally neglected. When I think about that, I’m sorry that she has felt that way, as those sorts of feelings are uncomfortable and unpleasant and when they arise from some real situation and are fueled by self-pity often lead to false judgements and sinful actions. And I am even more sorry that her husband, elders, the ministers and elders who lead the publishers who publish her and the ones who lead ACE, Trueman, Pruitt, and others have not realized that rather than helping her, they have extended her ego into the arena of public conflict. And I am even more sorry for the churches of our Lord Jesus who must now be disturbed further by her feelings and teachings. (For some critiques, see below.)

She has promoted herself as a public critic of mainstream conservative Christian teachings and practices, she has frequently mocked her critics on MOS and Twitter, she has at times attacked the most steadfast ministers of our current age, and she has openly said she is presenting a new way of thinking through gender issues, one that has benefited greatly from egalitarian exegesis. It is because of that, and her unwillingness to change course, that I became a public critic of her work and those who promote it.

I will confess that I, at times, lack a temperance in speech.

I have not ever claimed to be the best spokesman against this feminist cause—there are others who are clearer, less offensive, less uncouth. I completely understand that I do not appeal to people who don’t understand the issues yet, prefer genteel teas together, or have yet to become as zealous as they ought to have been in the first place to defend our churches. I don’t need nor am I requesting public affirmation of everything I have ever said. Those qualifications notwithstanding, in relation to her errors and its consequences in our lives my speech is not intemperate. I believe it is commensurate with the sadness it will bring to our congregations and the dishonor it brings on God’s Word. Yet those contemplating how they may silence me are particularly offended at certain things—things that I believe I ought to say more plainly and repeatedly as to encourage others to say the same, but with their own voices and styles.

Let me once again publicly state for the record:

1. I think her agenda, as expressed in her books and on social media, is actually stupid—not her, not her emotions or feelings, not anything like that. Her agenda is stupid. A bad, dumb plan. It lacks a reasonable natural and biblical foundation, a faithful method of theological reasoning, and a wise and wholesome practical end. How could I possibly justify calling it stupid? Well, I’ll say it a different way: I think it is actually really stupid to encourage men and women who aren’t married to each other to have “intimate spiritual friendships” and spend time alone together. Foolish. Really dumb. Lots of other hurt-words. How can I say this more winsomely—it’s crazy! Cookoo! Really, really stupid to go on long walks with your intimate spiritual friend of the opposite sex while your spouse is at home. Really stupid to be alone with her in a car driving her to her hotel late at night. Really stupid. Stupid in real life, not in the world of Twitter grievances, used to manipulate masses—stupid in the real world where sexual sin destroys lives and draws the soul from God.

2. I think her teaching is ungodly: it does not arise from unreserved faith in God’s Word, but from dissatisfaction with her experiences. It relies on exegesis that does not start with the principle “thus says the Lord” but with “has God really said?” So, yes, I’ve used the word ungodly to describe her teaching. I really do think all of the slippery egalitarian exegetes sound ungodly, just like the devil: instead of reading a verse and thinking “how can I fully and completely believe and obey this?” They say “how can I shave down all the edges, pull all the teeth, and transform a passage that says ‘be silent’ to mean ‘we need more women’s voices?’” That’s ungodly, and I think it’s only right to call it such.

3. I think her aims and methods are very similar to what we see among secular feminists and other Marxist-like aggrievement approaches. She has played the victim in her books, blogs, and social media interactions. She believes it to be real and actual suffering for people to say the things I’ve just said. This is a victim-culture technique, where the feelings of the aggrieved are used as justification for canceling the critics. #RememberTheCRCNA

4. I think her demand that no one have private groups in which they can talk about her public books and public teaching and public ecclesiastical support is ridiculous. Many people who are supporters of Aimee Byrd are members of private discussion groups. I am happy to be held accountable for what I say here in Genevan Commons or in other even less public settings. Surely, one should first ask if it is appropriate to share what I’ve said, if in private, giving me an opportunity to also engage, but however that goes, I am accountable and am fine being accountable. The idea that I’ve tried to create a place where we are unaccountable is foolish. Genevan Commons is a large transdenominational discussion group with many divergent opinions. We’ve sought to keep it an old, settled, happy Reformed group. In life many discussions are considered appropriately private, and yet the Christian ought to know he can be brought to account both by church discipline now and on the day of judgment before Christ. I have no problem with that, and they should stop pretending that I have some secret, hidden agenda or actions.

5. I think the idea that one cannot warn against public sin and error done by a member of an OPC church would disallow all Christian conversation about our church. No church is perfect, and we ought to be able to publicly discuss publicly promoted sins and errors, especially those sold for $$$, and being marketed by the largest and most well funded and protected parachurch ministries.

6. Commoners should all be aware that Aimee Byrd and those connected to her monitor people (particularly ministers) online to make sure that they don’t like the wrong tweets, use laugh emojis inappropriately, etc. Then they “advise” sessions and parachurch leaders to mark and oppose these opponents. This is a familiar and repeated reality. The National Partnership has done it for years in the PCA. Reformed parachurch organizations do it all the time. Numerous scandals prove it. It is a feature of the current Reformed world—the people on the inside use private means to control the public narrative.

You and I, if we don’t kiss the right rings, are not free to talk.

But the Word of God is not chained,

Shane

====================

A link to the document from Mrs. Byrd’s session: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U6BKavPEgdED53eQuDK2YFTO8ltxi290

A link to critiques of Mrs. Byrd’s writings: http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2019/8/15/Aimee_Byrd_Critiques

Example Is More Effectual Than Precept: The Reformed Catholic Family, J. Merle D’Aubigne (free ebook) / October 1, 2019 by Shane D. Anderson

This is a powerful excerpt from a short book, “Family Worship” by the Swiss minister and historian, J. Merle D’Aubigne (1794–1872). This book is available at the link below for free from our friends at Chapel Library. The book explores the proper motives for family worship and provides sound guidance for the venerable practice:

Parents! If your children do not meet with a spirit of piety in your houses; if, on the contrary, your pride consists in surrounding them with external gifts, introducing them into worldly society, indulging all their whims, letting them follow their own course, you will see them grow vain, proud, idle, disobedient, impudent, and extravagant!
They will treat you with contempt; and the more your hearts are wrapped up in them, the less they will think of you. This is seen but too often to be the case. But ask yourselves if you are not responsible for their bad habits and practices; and your conscience will reply that you are; that you are now eating the bread of bitterness that you have prepared for yourself. May you learn thereby how great has been your sin against God in neglecting the means which were in your power for influencing their hearts. And may others take warning from your misfortune, and bring up their children in the Lord!
Nothing is more effectual in doing this than an example of domestic piety. Public worship is often too vague and general for children, and does not sufficiently interest them. As to the worship of the closet, they do not yet understand it. A lesson learned by rote, if unaccompanied by anything else, may lead them to look upon religion as a study like those of foreign languages or history. Here, as everywhere, and more than elsewhere, example is more effectual than precept.
They are not merely to be taught out of some elementary book that they must love God, but you must show them God is loved. If they observe that no worship is paid to that God of Whom they hear, the very best instruction will prove useless. But by means of family worship, these young plants will grow “like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither” (Psa 1:3). Your children may leave the parental roof, but they will remember in foreign lands the prayers of the parental roof, and those prayers will protect them.

Free ebook “Family Worship” from Chapel Library:

Free ebook link

The Reformed Catholic Family: Timeless Wisdom From A Westminster Divine / August 17, 2019 by Guest User

An Introduction To The Series on Building a Godly Home by William Gouge

By now I ought not to be surprised that an old Reformed churchman is a fountain of godly piety, encouragement, and conviction, but here I am again. William Gouge’s practical handbook on family life is a refreshing stream of water flowing from such a wellspring. Modernized in three volumes under the title Building a Godly Home, the book was originally released in a single volume as Domestical Duties, and it excellently presents the blessings we have in Christ, along with the duties we owe to Him and to one another in our homes. It’s just what you’d like to see from an honored member of the Westminster Assembly: warm, firm, attentive, fatherly, compassionate, biblical, and catholic. It’s a work worthy of rediscovery in all the churches of God.

To that end, I’ll be posting a series of excerpts from Building a Godly Home.

The first is the very opening lines of the book:

It has pleased God to call every one to two vocations. One vocation is general, in which certain common duties are to be performed by all men (as knowledge, faith, obedience, repentance, love, mercy, justice, truth, etc.). The other is particular, in which certain specific duties are required of individual people, according to those distinct places where divine providence has set them in the nation, church, and family.
Therefore God’s ministers ought to be careful in instructing God’s people in both kinds of duties; both those which concern their general calling and those which concern their particular calling. Accordingly Paul, who, like Moses, was faithful in all the house of God (Num. 12:7), after he had sufficiently instructed God’s church in the general duties that belong to all Christians, regardless of sex, state, degree, or condition (Eph. 4:1-5:21), proceeds to lay down certain particular duties, which apply to particular callings and conditions (Eph. 5:22-6:9). Among these particular duties, he notes those which God has established in a family.
With excellent skill he passes from those general duties to the particular ones, laying down a transition between the with these words, “ Submitting your selves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5:21). The form and manner of setting down this verse, with the participle “submitting,” shows that it depends on that which was said before. Again, the fact that the word itself is the very same which is used in the following verse, shows that this verse contains the sum of that which follows, and connects the general to the particulars. This manner of passing from one point to another, by a perfect transition which looks both to that which is past and to that which is coming, is very elegant and frequently employed by our apostle.
Thereby he teaches us to pay attention to that which follows, while we do not forget that which is past. While we must give diligent attention to that which remains to be said, we must also retain that we have heard, and not let it slip. Otherwise, if (as one nail drives out another) one precept makes another be forgotten, it will be altogether in vain to add line to line, or precept to precept.
…
Let us not upon pretext of one duty, though it may seem to be the weightier, think to discard another, lest that fearful “woe” which Christ denounced against the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23:23) fall upon our heads. As God is careful to instruct us how to act both towards His own majesty and also towards one another, so in both let us seek His approval. Remember what Christ said to the Pharisees, “These ought ye to have done, and not leave the other undone” (Luke 11:42). The same Lord that requires praise to His own majesty instructs us in mutual service one to another. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6).

As was the case throughout, I was struck by how pointedly this speaks to our modern moment, which is to say: pitting duties one against another to avoid the ones we don’t like is a timeless temptation. One of the two broad classes of duties Gouge identifies here often cannibalizes the other. In teachings on the sexes, for instance, it’s not hard to find folks denying that there are manly duties distinct from womanly duties; all are simply to “be like Christ.”

But while all are to be like Christ with regard to our general duties, we must also render our due according to the particular callings to which we are called. Likewise, I see in young men (myself included) a tendency to use particular calls to defend the Faith as a cover to their lack of general, personal holiness. It is a deadly poison. Let us all endeavor to avoid the leaven of the Pharisees and not think to discard one duty on the pretext of another.

Counterpoint: Critiques Of Aimee Byrd’s Proposals (Updated: September 27, 2020) / August 15, 2019 by Shane D. Anderson

‪“A way-station to egalitarianism: A review essay of Aimee Byrd’s Recovering from Biblical Manhood” by Denny Burk‬

‪"But never mind the more charitable or cynical take. Either way, there’s a generation looking for a doorway, and Byrd provides it. Which means, she doesn’t really need to make good arguments. She doesn’t need to do careful exegesis. She can invoke whatever sources she wants. Why? Because she’s got a pre-made audience. This audience is ready to jump and is just looking for a reasonably intelligent pretext for doing so. It’s often this way in popular Christian books. They tap into something people are already feeling. This was true of Rob Bell’s material. It was true of Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz. To be sure, both writers are extremely gifted. But many gifted writers never get noticed. Which ones do? The ones that articulate what people are already feeling, so that they can identify with it. I don’t know how popular Byrd’s book will prove to be, but she’s sharp, and she’s tapping into something. Yet here’s the catch. The bad arguments, even when brilliantly presented and popular in their moment, don’t last. Where are Rob Bell and Donald Miller today? And their arguments? The world has moved on, and the only thing left behind are a vast number of sheep who were led astray a decade ago. Who knows how those sheep are faring in the faith today? I predict arguments like Byrd’s will prove over time to be a briefly held way-station on the movement from narrow complementarianism to egalitarianism. Readers who do not wish to take that journey should be cautious about Byrd’s book."

‪https://equip.sbts.edu/article/way-station-egalitarianism-review-essay-aimee-byrds-recovering-biblical-manhood-womanhoood

“Mrs. Byrd’s Yellow Wallpaper” by Bennie Castle

“Two examples will suffice to show how the feminist meta-narrative jaundices Mrs. Byrd’s reading of particular Biblical narratives; the story of Huldah and the rediscovery of the scroll in the temple in the days of Josiah (2 Kings 22:8-20, 2 Chronicles 34:14-32) and the story of Ruth. The reason I have chosen these narratives, and Mrs. Byrd’s handling of them, is because they highlight three major problems with Mrs. Byrd’s book as it relates to the doctrine of Scripture: Mrs. Byrd’s eisegesis of Scripture, the Confessional doctrine of canonization, and the Confessional doctrine of the Holy Spirit.”

https://calvinistruminant.wordpress.com/2020/05/22/mrs-byrds-yellow-wallpaper/

‪‪“Book Review: Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Byrd)” by Zachary Garris ‬ ‪

“Aimee Byrd’s Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood carries a provocative title aimed at the 1991 complementarian book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Yet Byrd’s is mostly an empty title, as she does not substantially interact with that book or other books by complementarians. Instead, she claims complementarians ignore discipleship. She then surveys biblical passages about women in the Bible (“gynocentric interruptions”) that do nothing to undermine complementarianism, all the while ignoring the most important passage on the subject (1 Timothy 2:8-15). Most of her criticism of complementarians centers around ESS.

Byrd’s book is filled with lots of quotations and citations that come across as an attempt to impress the reader, but few actually support her thesis or help to form a coherent argument. Sadly, she makes many egalitarian claims and cites egalitarian authors positively throughout the book. Yet when critics ask Byrd to answer questions about exactly what she believes about men and women, she takes offense and refuses to answer.

This book is published by Zondervan, so no one should have expected a defense of conservative gender roles. Yet being a member of a conservative Reformed denomination (OPC) and working for a conservative Reformed organization (Reformation21.org), this is a sad commentary on the state of Western Christianity. Despite her claim that only men can be pastors, Byrd consistently pushes her readers in the direction of feminism. I do not know how influential this book will be, but it is so poorly reasoned that it should not sway those seriously considering these issues. Regardless, Byrd’s book should serve as evidence of just how strong a foothold feminism and egalitarianism have inside the church, even “conservative” Reformed churches.“

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/book-review-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-byrd‬

“Recovering from Aimee Byrd’s Promotional Video“ by Christian McShaffrey

https://www.fivesolas.church/recovering-from-aimee-byrds-promotional-video

“Some readers are probably old enough to remember the ‘discussions’ that began in the Christian Reformed Church in 1970. These discussions led to study committees ‘to help the churches make all possible use of women’s gifts’ and moved the CRC slowly-but-steadily toward women’s ordination and even a version of gender-based affirmative action in 2015.

It would be well worth your time to read the full chronology that is posted on the CRC’s website. You might also want to take mental note of some of the key words and phrases that were used during the CRC’s 45-year-long ‘discussion’; as they are the same words and phrases being used today in the PCA and, it would seem, soon enough in the OPC.

Aimee is probably not seeking to be ordained as the OPC’s first woman minister, but that is where these ‘discussions’ tend to lead and my prediction is that the OPC will probably follow the well-worn path of progressivism to final perdition. That is, unless the teachers of the church are men enough to say, ‘No thank you’ to Aimee’s invitation to come into their churches and initiate this discussion.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong about this prediction, but history suggests otherwise. There are several historical charts available which demonstrate the Presbyterian propensity (necessity?) to divide every 50 years or so to maintain biblical fidelity.”

“Does Anyone Need to Recover from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? A Review Article of Aimee Byrd’s 𝘙𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥” May 4, 2020 By Andrew David Naselli

“Here’s what I’ve argued:

Summary: The gist of Byrd’s book is that biblical manhood and womanhood—especially as John Piper and Wayne Grudem teach it—uses traditional patriarchal structures to oppress women.
Context: On the spectrum of views on men and women, Byrd’s position overlaps partly with the far left side of narrow complementarianism and partly with egalitarianism.
Evaluation: Byrd’s book is misleading because she misrepresents complementarianism, and it is misguided because she shows faulty judgment or reasoning.”

https://cbmw.org/2020/05/04/does-anyone-need-to-recover-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-a-review-article-of-aimee-byrds-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/

“Book Review: Why Can’t We Be Friends, Part II- What Exactly Is She Proposing?” by Peter Jones:

“Once we understand her proposal we see what a fundamental, sea change Mrs. Byrd is recommending. She is upending 2000 years of church teaching and practice as well as the teaching and practice of most human societies, on how men and women should interact.”

https://singingandslaying.com/2018/08/21/book-review-wcwbf-part-ii-what-exactly-is-she-proposing/

“A Sexual Or Asexual Public Square” by David Talcott via First Things:

“A Complementarianism that is so thin that it limits itself to a single point circumscribed within two narrow spheres does not do justice to the fact that “from the beginning God made them male and female.” This mysterious and unique human partnership of male and female extends to every part of our lives; it is not limited to small cloisters.”

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/09/a-sexual-or-asexual-public-square

“A Few Brass Tacks On ‘Christian Teaching’” by E. J. Hutchinson

“Have our natures been warped and deformed by sin? Of course; and even when renewed they continue to show its effects. But they have not been obliterated by sin. Our condition, then, makes all the more needful, first, a greater attentiveness to our irreducible and indestructible and natures and, second, a renewed vigor in Christian reflection upon those natures, precisely because human beings are otherwise prone to attempt the impossible: to reduce and destroy our natures.”

https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/09/15/men-women-nature-christian-teaching-two-responses-aimee-byrd/

“A General Response To Aimee Byrd” by Alastair Roberts via The Calvinist International

“By far the most significant point of difference between us, presuming that we are not speaking past each other, concerns the relationship between our natures and God’s moral command. I see a very close bond between nature and virtue. Virtue is the realization of the appropriate telos of our nature and is about us attaining to the full stature of what we are. It isn’t merely about obeying external commands. Virtue is seen when man is fully, truly, and gloriously man and woman is fully, truly, and gloriously woman.”

https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/09/15/men-women-nature-christian-teaching-two-responses-aimee-byrd/

“Can’t Men And Women Be Friends?” by Winfred Brisley via The Gospel Coalition

“While Byrd offers a thoughtful consideration of biblical siblingship and rightly draws out heart issues, on this point I fear she goes too far. Though our sanctification enables us to avoid sin, so long as we remain in our fallen state, the possibility of any particular type of sin won’t be removed. It’s certainly possible to go so far in trying to avoid sexual sin that we become pharisaical, potentially hurting others as well as ourselves. But it’s also possible to be overly optimistic about the likelihood of refraining from sin, particularly when placing ourselves in precarious situation”

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/why-cant-friends/

Doug Wilson’s helpful series through her book:

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/when-aimee-met-harry-and-sally.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/stereotypes-or-manners.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/a-rats-nest-of-a-situation.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/books/gaaa-jezebel.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/what-the-ornithologist-knows.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/like-so-many-dried-beetles.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/books/striking-while-the-irony-is-hot.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/defrauding-a-brother.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-great-servant-leadership-mistake.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/concrete-help-is-not-legalism.html

“Feminism In The Reformed Churches: A Series” by Michael Spangler

http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2020/5/12/Feminism_In_The_Reformed_Churches

“Review Of Aimee Byrd’s ‘Recovering From Biblical Manhood And Womanhood” by Mark Jones

“In relation to the concerns above, part of Byrd’s project involves the contention that “Christian men and women don’t strive for so–called biblical masculinity or femininity, but Christlikeness. Rather than striving to prove our sexuality, the tone of our sexuality will express itself as we do this…My contributions, my living and moving, are distinctly feminine because I am a female. I do not need to do something a certain way to be feminine (such as receive my mail in a way that affirms the masculinity of the mailman). I simply am feminine because I am female” (p. 114). I would say this goes against a lot of classical Christian thinking on anthropology that I have read. At this point, Byrd misses the vocational aspect of gender. I agree that for a woman to be feminine is “to be” (essentialism), but it is also “to become” (eschatological fruition), which only works if a woman has distinctively feminine aspects. As Mark Garcia has mentioned in his Greystone lectures on theological anthropology, in the Bible the feminine is a virtue complex we are called to, not merely a descriptor of what one is. Otherwise the motherly images of God in Scripture (nurturing, protective, strong in defense and care, etc.) are meaningless and may as well be asexual. It reduces to an amorphous asexual humanity, contradictory to her own agreement earlier that the feminine is meaningfully eschatological. Thus her contention that she doesn’t need to act like a woman because she is a woman (p. 120) is sort of like a Christian saying, “I don’t need to act like a Christian because I am one.” We are holy (positionally) and we are to be holy (progressively). Those sympathetic to her critiques of CBWM will see a statement like the one just mentioned and wonder if Byrd is really offering a better alternative.”

https://calvinistinternational.com/2020/05/11/review-of-aimee-byrds-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/

“My Christian Sisters and the Pence Rule (Why Aimee Byrd Is Misreading Scripture)” by G. Shane Morris:

“Byrd’s categorical mistake should be getting clearer, now. The grace of union in Christ does not abolish or supersede the natural distinctions of male and female, husband and wife, brother and sister. It adds to and sanctifies them. Given her apparent reading of the sibling metaphor as abolishing or superseding the biological realities that make close male-female friendship so fraught, it’s fair to ask why she doesn’t follow liberal theologians in taking Galatians 3:28 (‘There is neither Jew nor Greek…slave nor free…male and female’) as an abolition of all natural distinctions between the sexes within the church. Does Byrd (who is an otherwise conservative Protestant) support female presbyters and pastors? If not, why not? There is, after all, ‘neither male nor female’ in Christ Jesus!”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/troublerofisrael/2018/04/my-christian-sisters-and-the-pence-rule-why-aimee-byrd-is-misreading-scripture/

“Book Review: Why Can’t We Be Friends, Part I- Houston Is There A Problem?” by Peter Jones:

“Do we have a problem? Yes. But it is not the one Mrs. Byrd assumes. The problem is in a different direction. And if you assume the fire is going out but it is burning hot your solution will only make things worse.”

https://singingandslaying.com/2018/07/16/book-review-why-cant-we-be-friends-part-i-houston-is-there-a-problem/

“Natural Complementarians: Men, Women, And The Way Things Are” by Alastair Roberts:

“I have identified three different areas where an unhelpful narrowing of focus can be seen in Byrd’s piece. First, she fails to attend to the pronounced empirical differences between men and women as groups that Stanton highlighted. Second, she handles historical understandings of gender roles as if unalloyed ideology, rather than as practical attempts to respond to and address prevailing social realities, realities that arose in part on account of natural differences between the sexes. Third, she restricts her biblical analysis to an unclear term in relative isolation, rather than seeking to ascertain the larger biblical picture. At each of these points, she limits the part that nature, empirical reality, and scriptural narrative are permitted to play in the conversation. As these dimensions are marginalized, unchecked gender ideologies are given ever freer rein. Christian teaching on the subject becomes ever more of an abstraction, slipping its moorings in concrete natural, historical, and biblical reality.”

https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/09/13/natural-complementarians-men-women/

“Why It’s Very Difficult For Men And Women To Just Be Friends” by Wendy Wilson via The Federalist

“Byrd doesn’t seem to want to give men a say if their perspective contradicts hers, nor does she seem willing to give women who support measures like the Pence rule a fair hearing. Like secular feminists, she is adamant that such safeguards objectify women, reducing them to temptresses while reducing men to predators.”

https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/29/difficult-men-women-just-friends/

“A Byrd’s-Eye View For Remodeling The Church: A Review of Aimee Byrd’s ‘Recovering From Biblical Manhood & Womanhood’” by Bill Smith at Kuyperian Commentary

“This patriarchal structure that governs the new creation is to be imaged in the world. Men should be leading societies, the church, and the home. Isaiah says that when women and children lead, that is an indication that a society is being punished. (Isa 3.12) Men are created to be oriented to the creation in a way that women are not. Women are created to be oriented toward men in a way that men are not oriented toward women. (1Cor 11.8-9) This is creation glorified, not transcended.

Because a woman can do something doesn’t mean that she ought to do it any time or in any space she wants. The same goes for a man. We have God-given lanes to stay in to use the abilities God has given us in the structures in which he has commanded us to use them. Not to stay in our lanes as men and women will be debilitating to our kingdom mission. Consequently, we don’t need to recover from biblical manhood and womanhood. We need to grow into and delight in the beauty of them.

Despite her best efforts to distance herself from egalitarianism, Byrd, in the end, practically promotes a baptized version of egalitarianism. In the end, I don’t think Byrd has a good eye for redecorating the church, so she needs to be careful about ripping down wallpaper in the church.”

http://kuyperian.com/a-byrds-eye-view-for-remodeling-the-church-a-review-of-aimee-byrds-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-womanhood/

“Men Of Straw” by G. Shane Morris via Breakpoint

“Aimee Byrd of Carl Trueman’s popular ‘Mortification of Spin’ podcast recently shared how ‘triggered’ she is by the ‘pervasive’ emphasis on masculinity in the evangelical church. In reaction to a Patheos blog post by one pastor who advised men to give firm handshakes and limit how often they touch other men’s wives, Byrd heaps 1,600 words of scorn and 1950s caricatures on the very idea that we need to raise men to act differently from women. This is the same Aimee Byrd, by the way, who thinks the ‘Mike Pence Rule’ is ‘pickpocketing purity,’ and argues in a recent book that men and women ought to have more frequent and intimate one-on-one friendships with one another (what could go wrong?).”

http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/01/men-of-straw/

An Anonymous Customer Review (many people are afraid to address Byrd publicly since her followers punish people with slander, doxing, and cancelling)

“As one who holds to the complementarian position, I did not find the book particularly helpful or insightful.
The critique that there should not be separate bibles for men and women was odd. Men and women use the same bible. Just because a publisher decides that it would be nice to supplement a particular bible translation with devotions for men or women is not the same thing as saying that those men and women have different bibles.

What is more troubling though was the exercise throughout the book of ‘finding the woman’s voice’ in scripture. The Word of God is primarily and preeminently God’s voice: ‘for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will’; and the Word of God was delivered by men, ‘men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’ 2 Peter 1:21.
The notion that we need to find ‘women’s voices’ in Scripture is deceptive and contrary to the doctrine of divine plenary inspiration.

Indeed, there are women quoted in the Bible and whom we acknowledge and value. Some, such as Deborah and Huldah, were even identified as prophets (or prophetesses). But unlike Aimee’s description, they were neither authors of the Scriptures, nor functioned as authenticators of the Scripture. Throughout the book, Aimee uses terms like ‘gynocentric interruption’ to describe narrative discourse that features women in the midst of the ‘androcentric’ text. She characterizes the women portrayed in scripture as ‘tradents’ of the faith, without regard to the technical use of the term. Another claim is that women actively participated in the role of canonical selection which contradicts the nature of how the church received the canon of scripture.

Furthermore, a large portion of the book puts forth the egalitarian arguments for passages of scripture that specifically relate to the ways in which women participated in the covenant community, both in the old and new testaments. In so doing, she overstates her case. Do we need to continue to grow in how we value and see how God used women in the scriptures? Absolutely! Do we need to invent or borrow categories from those who have taken unacceptable positions on the nature of God’s Word? Absolutely not. The book puts forth exegesis of New Testamant passages used by egalitarian scholars who argue for women’s ordination and equal access to the pastoral/ priestly offices with men. While Aimee stops short of affirming female ordination, the exegesis by egalitarians is copiously used throughout without any practical engagement with traditional scholarship of the passages under review. Finally, the book neglects any engagement with 1 Timothy 2:12-15 or Titus 2, which was disappointing considering the nature of the topic. If Aimee wants women (and men) to ‘recover from’ their biblical understanding of womanhood and manhood, those passages seem important to the endeavor.

I cannot recommend this book to other readers, except for those who are equipped to understand the many serious errors within and to understand the ways readers will be misled. The idea that the church needs to value women more is important. This is not the answer because it swings the pendulum over to the other side and invites as many issues and errors as it attempts to dispel.”

Originally: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2SFCXXNCXEHC4/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B07TF3TC2J

“I would now turn to plainly warn the reader against the errors that render this work ultimately a threat to the sound doctrine and practice of Christ’s flock. In so doing, it is my aim not to mock nor ridicule, but rather to labor to recover those who are being drawn towards error.”

“A Review of Recovering From Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (Part 1)” by Pastor Bryan Peters

https://westportexperiment.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/rfbmwreviewpart1.pdf ‬

“In conclusion, while Byrd does have a few legitimate grievances over some practices in the wider church, her book is soaked through with an unbiblical hermeneutic and unbiblical interpretations of the biblical texts. Her hermeneutic is subjectivist in nature, contrary to the Reformed objectivist hermeneutic. She is less than honest about her opponents, constantly misrepresenting them and doubling down on her misrepresentations when confronted about it. Her interpretations of difficult texts are contrary to what the texts actually teach, and no amount of hand-waving against “biblicism” is going to save her from that. Byrd’s book therefore is contrary to sound theology, and undermines the Reformed Confessions. While she claims to be Reformed, her hermeneutics is not Reformed. The way she does theology is not the Reformed manner of doing theology, and this book is not recommended for anyone wanting to know about biblical manhood or womanhood, or even what the Reformed tradition’s view on women in the church is and should be.”

“Review of Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Aimee Byrd”

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2020/09/book-review-recovering-from-biblical.html

Bavinck: The Unanimous Opinion Of The Reformed Regarding Covenant Children / January 16, 2018 by Shane D. Anderson

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 4, p. 56

“Reformed theologians unanimously agreed on the following points:

That the benefits of the covenant of grace were usually distributed by God in connection with the means of grace; hence regeneration is in connection with the Word;
That God, however, is not bound to these means, and hence he could also take an unusual route and regenerate and save especially young children without the Word;
That he, as a rule, worked that way in the case of children of believers who were taken by death before reaching the age of discretion;
That the baptized children of believers who were part of the life of the congregation had to be considered elect and regenerate until the contrary was evident from what they said and did; and
That this however, was a judgment of charity, which must indeed be the rule for our attitude toward these children but cannot claim to be infallible.

On the other hand, from the very beginning there was disagreement over whether the children of believers, to the extent that they were elect, were regenerated already before, or in, or only after baptism. Some—like Martyr, a Lasco, Dathenus, Alting, Witsius, Voetius, Mastricht—tended to favor the first view. But the majority—Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Ursinus, de Bres, Acronius, Cloppenburg, Walaeus, Maccovius, Bucanus, Turretin, Heidegger, and others—left the question undecided.”

Covenant Succession: Parenting In Faith / July 11, 2017 by Hans Saunders

The doctrine of covenant succession (whether or not I knew it by these terms exactly) drew me to the reformed faith. The language of sonship, of heirs, of family, of promise, of generations, of covenant, stood in stark contrast to casting a lot and hoping it just happens to land in the lap. Nurturing our little ones in the faith rather than herding them towards it.