Feminism In The Reformed Churches: 3. The Tactics, in Books

3. Feminism in the Reformed Churches: The Tactics, in Books

This series seeks to expose the threat of feminism against the Reformed churches, and to call on the godly to wage war against it. We first met the leaders of the movement, then we considered the ungodly tactics they employ online. Now we will consider the tactics they use in books, specifically in two books, which we now summon as star witnesses in our case against the feminists: Rachel Miller’s Beyond Authority and Submission and Aimee Byrd’s freshly published Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. These books have already been ably reviewed at length by careful scholars (Miller’s here and here; Byrd’s here and here). In this article I underscore a few things those men have already said, with commentary of my own.

These two books sin against four great basic principles.

1. Against Honesty

The first sin is against the principle of honesty. This is committed, first, by misrepresenting history. Rachel Miller’s constant naming of the “Greeks, Romans, and Victorians” (47–75, and many other places) as enemies of biblical teaching on men and women is not only tiresome, but deceitful, in two respects. One, Christians should be, and have been, happy to find broad agreement with the consensus of the best pagan thought on many topics. Paul quotes Greek theological poetry in Acts 17:28, and appeals to common sense even in such a small matter as hair length in 1 Corinthians 11:14–15. That Greeks and Romans said something is no proof that it is wrong. The Bible does correct natural men where they err, and it alone reveals supernatural and saving mysteries, but it does not demean God’s image by suggesting that anything it says apart from Scripture is false (as Miller does, by constantly coupling “extrabiblical” and “unbiblical,” 14, 49, etc.). Two, her history leaves out the entire sweep of Christian history before the Victorians arose, conveniently ignoring the fact that Christian doctrine on these matters during that whole time was solidly and consistently patriarchal (e.g. read Chrysostom, then Aquinas, then Luther and Calvin, then Gouge), that the best Christians in the Victorian era stood for the same patriarchy of their fathers  (e.g. Palmer and Warfield), and indeed that the Victorian era, insofar as it gave birth to modern feminism, actually departed from the consensus of classical and Christian antiquity. Is it not therefore the irony of ironies that Carl Trueman, who wrote the book against such biased history, nonetheless said of Miller’s book, “This is a refreshingly sane read”?

Sin against honesty is also committed in regard to contemporary history, in how these women portray their living opponents. Wedgeworth takes Miller to task for speaking evil of well-known ministers: for example, she blatantly misrepresents Mark Jones (168), Voddie Baucham (143), and Douglas Wilson (236). Andy Naselli gathers and refutes Byrd’s calumnies against complementarians, in which she attributes to them positively absurd ideas, such as that “all men lead all women” (22), that “the key aim for preaching, teaching, and discipleship” is manhood and womanhood, not eternal life with Christ (109), and that complementarianism is “irresponsible teaching” that promotes abuse (131). These claims are not only patently false, but uncharitable in the extreme. They are sinful slander, made all the more grievous because they are committed against ordained public servants of the Lord (1 Tim. 5:19; cf. 2 Kings 2:23–24). 

I only have to add that the theological high horse they ride against proponents of “Eternal Subordination of the Son” (Miller, 115–117; Byrd, 100–104) is lame. At best the argument is a red herring: stinky, but misleading. Let’s say we follow the feminists in decrying certain complementarians as outright Trinitarian heretics. Even if the charge is true, then what does it matter? Show me that Michael Servetus himself also believed in the subjection of women: I would have no more reason to doubt its truth, and no less reason to condemn his heresy.  And moreover, what of men who defend not the modern idea of complementarianism, as such, but rather classical and biblical patriarchy? Men who pore over Turretin and van Mastricht, but have barely glanced at Ware and Grudem? Are they therefore exempt from this theological taint?

Moreover, the authors’ suggestive smearing tactic could with at least equal justice be used against them. For when angry and contentious women (Prov. 21:19), teaching harmful error in regard to Christian living (Titus 2:5; 3:8–10), present themselves as bold defenders of orthodox Trinitarianism, why should we take their claim at face value? Moreover, against their charge of eternal subordination, we could retort, the “first-wave feminists” Miller admires (77–88) repudiated the divine authority of Scripture (The Woman’s Bible, Introduction by Elizabeth Cady Stanton), and called for women “to speak and teach...in all religious assemblies” (The Seneca Falls “Declaration of Sentiments,” Resolution 5; Miller, 78–79, appears to approve of the Declaration). We could furthermore ask why Miller feels the need to rescue some measure of reputation for the notorious eugenicist Margaret Sanger (85). Do modern Christian feminists not have any more reputable allies for their cause?

To the same point, it seems fair that if Byrd can blame men for citing those who teach eternal subordination, then we can blame Byrd for citing those who teach outright egalitarianism. Naselli summarizes:

To support her conjectures, Byrd interacts primarily with egalitarian works and repeatedly cites them—authors such as Richard Bauckham, Kenneth Bailey, Lynn Cohick, Kevin Giles, Carolyn Custis James, Philip Payne, Cynthia Westfall, and Ben Witherington. As Byrd selectively quotes egalitarians to support her arguments, she usually assumes the egalitarian reading is correct without interacting with robust complementarian arguments. This suggests that she shares many philosophical principles with egalitarianism.

We do not deny that a man is known by the company he keeps (Prov. 13:20), and a tree known by its fruits (Matt. 7:20; Titus 1:16). Nor do we say that we ought not try to draw out the hidden counsel in an author’s heart (Prov. 20:5). But this gives no excuse for attempting to hide grave error behind the bulwark of historic orthodoxy.

2. Against Truth

The second sin of these books is against truth. I do not mean merely to say that they tell many untruths, though they do. Rather, I mean that they drill holes in the foundation of all truth. They do this by sounding a subtle but insistent note of skepticism. This is evident in their framing of their discourse, not in terms of an argument, but of a conversation. In Byrd’s foreword to Miller’s book, note the repeated implication that no group or person can say anything on these matters with final, binding authority:

While not aligning with a movement, Rachel does want to contribute as a complementary, reciprocal voice in response to the many we have read and heard… If complementarianism is truly complementary, it should value this kind of engagement. Published resources for the church are meant to be thoughtfully engaged. Most authors do not presume to be the final voice on matters such as these; rather, they aim to offer their interpretation of pertinent scriptural principles in hopes to move forward in a biblical understanding of the sexes.

The same is subtly shown in that both books end their chapters with discussion questions, as if inviting the reader to agree or disagree. But all this talk of dialogue is a ruse. No true conversation is intended. Remember how when a godly Doctor of the church asked Byrd some reasonable questions, she dismissed him as a mere “colleague” barely worthy of a reply.

This skepticism is also evident in the constant use of questions that sow doubt on matters of great weight. Byrd, on pages 104–119, in four successive section headings asks four questions: (1) “What makes a ‘masculine male’ and a ‘feminine female’?”; (2) “What are feminine and masculine virtues?”; (3) “Is biblical manhood and womanhood our aim in discipleship?”; (4) “Distinct male and female discipleships?” If you were eager for answers to these very important questions, you’d be disappointed. It appears as far as she’s concerned, even searching for Scriptural solutions to them is dangerous, if not impossible. Indeed, when it comes to teaching what it actually means to be a man or woman, these women are emphatically undogmatic. Byrd admits that men and women are in some sense complementary, but explains, “I would not want to overgeneralize every man’s or woman’s disposition…. I wonder about being too rigid by assigning these dispositions as masculine and feminine” (125). This noncommittal rhetoric degrades to the point of saying nothing of substance at all, as shown in Miller’s quote from Gary Welton on p. 148: “The notion of what it means to be female, or what it means to be male, is extremely broad…. In fact, there should be no singular conception of what it means to be masculine or feminine.”

So, on these questions so basic to human existence, so necessary for virtue, so important for godliness, the best they appear to offer is an open question, “Who knows?” But lest you think they have altogether abandoned absolutes, they do remain entirely and unflinchingly dogmatic on one point, which they hammer home throughout their books: that the Greeks, Romans, Victorians, and Complementarians are all dead wrong. “Authority and submission” is something we must get beyond. “Biblical manhood and womanhood” is a dangerous ailment from which we must recover.

The inconsistency of this skepticism should be a reminder that appeals to uncertainty are usually deceitful and self-serving. When Pilate asked, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), he was not sincerely seeking an answer, but trying to wash his conscience clean of condemning the Son of God. Skepticism trumpets doubt as the means to truth, but when examined, what it calls “doubt” is rather the certainty that what God says, or nature proves, cannot be true. This tactic is no different in principle from that of Satan in the garden: “Yea, hath God said...?” (Gen. 3:1; cf. this article). It is a demonic method, pulled right from the playbook of the father of lies (John 8:44). 

3. Against Nature

These women also sin against the concept of nature. This is a variation on number 1, since the Greeks and Romans were at their best merely seasoned nature guides, pointing out truths that should be obvious to all who live on earth. Such truths as, that women’s bodies and souls show that they were made for bearing and nursing children, and for the quiet refuge of the home. That men’s bodies and souls testify to their place as public aggressors, powerfully pursuing a vocation, not the softer life of domesticity. That families ordered according to these realities are consistently happier. That no one is happy when a career woman rules the roost, or dad changes all the diapers. I need no chapter and verse to prove these things. Others can back them up with endless statistics, but that is not necessary. Their undeniable truth is revealed by the reaction to them, right now, in the conscience of most readers: they either assent to them as facts of common sense, or are enraged that I had the gall to name the very things they’ve been laboring to erase from memory. But nature is indelible.  Every poor transgender person has found this to his great grief, when he wakes up from a sex change surgery. And every feminist who takes an honest look at nature will find it too, at the very latest on the day of judgment. Like all forms of unbelief, nature leaves feminism without excuse (Rom. 1:20).

I could go on longer. But the point in regard to these books, is that they say almost none of this. Miller does recognize, “Biologically, only women can bear children” (143), and, “It’s appropriate for us to raise our children as male or female based on their biological sex” (148). How brave. But in neither Miller nor Byrd is there much else by way of common sense sexuality. In fact, they repeat that we should argue from the Bible, and not from nature. But what of the Bible’s own appeals to nature in these matters? Why, we ask Paul, may women not preach (1 Tim. 2:12)? Because, as Satan knew, they are by nature more easily deceived (v. 14; cf. 1 Peter 3:7; 2 Tim. 3:6). The weaker vessel is not made for the rigors of the gospel ministry. They shouldn’t preach, because they can’t. Experience in liberal churches abundantly confirms this. 

Now granted on this point, Miller says “only qualified men should be ordained as leaders in the church” (16). But Byrd seems to have already gone a few steps further, as the best I could find her saying was, “I do hold to the ordination of qualified males” (121). What about females? A hint of what’s to come appears in her constant legitimizing of the alternative:  “I join hands with evangelical egalitarians...in the gospel” (121), “Whatever our stance is on ordination…” (203), “Churches that uphold male-only ordination...” (228, 231), “Some denominations and churches that hold to male-only ordination…” (232), “Whether you hold to male-only ordination or not...” (233) Indeed, the rot has run deeper into her heart than most want to admit. She openly advocates for women publicly reading Scripture and leading corporate prayers (232). She suggests she has found in the Bible a female “intermediary” of Paul, “carrying his gospel message” (146), female “leaders of house churches,” and even a female apostle (223).  So when in a discussion question Byrd clucks condescendingly, “Complementarian churches fear that this will lead to women’s ordination” (234–235), we are not ashamed to respond, With all the hints she has given, isn’t that fear reasonable?

If we bring our focus back to nature, this slide makes perfect sense. Once we deny the natural reasons for a duty, the steps are very short to complaining against that duty as unreasonable, then finally to denying it altogether. Even Scriptural arguments will not hold up long, when we doubt the natural realities to which the Bible clearly points. Sexuality is a natural matter, and to studiously avoid natural arguments in natural matters, is either deceitful or ignorant. Nature is the elephant in the room, and it’s not going anywhere.

4. Against Scripture

Bless God, though, that in his kindness to us sinful creatures, he did not leave us without supernatural help, even in natural matters. The end of the Bible is to make sinners wise unto salvation, and thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:14–17), and therefore it gives us an infallible divine word for all matters necessary to that end. One of those matters is what it means to be a man or woman, and as even a casual reading will show, the Bible teaches abundantly on that. This is why we began our series with long lists of Scripture texts. Patriarchy is not merely a matter of “thus saith nature,” but all the more, “thus saith the Lord.”

Therefore, especially since these books are written by professing Christians, intended for readers in the churches, to help them understand biblical teaching, it is a very great shame that they abuse the Bible. They do so, first, by twisting the meaning of texts that are crystal clear. Apparently Byrd is afraid of 1 Corinthians 14:34, Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. It “can be,” she says, “a sort of Spook Hill in the back roads of the Bible” (194). Yet notwithstanding the fright, she assures us that both 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14 “actually reveal the efforts to include the women’s voice and contribution, even in the worship service” (193). So somehow “Let your women keep silence” is a valiant effort on Paul’s part “to include the women’s voice.” Such ridiculous gymnastics of egalitarian exegesis would make one laugh, if it weren’t for the dire consequences that God threatens will follow them. Peter gave a fearful warning with regard to what feminists do to Paul’s epistles: ... in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

They abuse the Bible, second, in that apart from a few such dishonest attempts at exegesis (cf. Byrd 188–189 on the Hebrew ezer; for Miller see below), these books have precious little positive dealing with actual texts of Scripture. The reviews cited above clearly catalog this fact. Wedgeworth here deserves quotation:

Given the ambitious nature of Miller’s thesis, and her goal to provide a “biblical” paradigm, one would expect Beyond Authority and Submission to engage in substantial exegetical argumentation. Surprisingly, this is not the case. The section on biblical theology of authority and human relationships is actually one of the shortest in the entire book. Miller makes foundational arguments in the briefest of ways. Her framing of the creation ordinance, the original relationship between man and woman, is limited to just a few sentences. When it comes to a passage which earlier Christians appealed to in support of a hierarchical view of humanity, Miller casually states, “Woman was made for man’s sake, but all men since Adam have been born of women (see 1 Cor. 11:9–12)” (40). She gives no indication that this might be an extremely controversial passage or that its interpretation might be worth explaining more. She does not return to it anywhere else in the book. First Corinthians 14:34 is only mentioned once, and it is explained as only having an occasional referent, a specific group of particularly disruptive women. No consideration is given to the meaning of “as the Law also says.” Ephesians 5:22 is cited three times, but in only one place is an explanation given. That explanation is entirely a negative one, telling us what the text does not mean. Miller never tells us what it does mean. Colossians 3:18 is never mentioned. We are never told why Paul thinks it is important that the man was created first, and there is no discussion of the meaning of kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11. Likewise missing is 1 Peter 3:1. First Peter 3:6 is mentioned once, but again its meaning is not explained. Instead, Miller assures us that there was at least one time where “God told Abraham to follow Sarah’s lead” (145). First Peter 3:7 is also mentioned only once, and there, again, we are only told what the text does not mean.

Then note his keen analysis:

The reason that none of these individual passages are thought to be terribly significant is that Miller believes her interpretative paradigm of original equality, voluntary submission, and authority for the sake of service is the main “biblical” teaching. True biblical leadership is a matter of love and service, and any specific text can be read through that lens.

Matters are no better in Byrd, as Naselli explains at length. Rather than quoting him, I’ll conclude by quoting three passages, all central to the question of biblical manhood and womanhood, all of which Byrd does not treat, even once. 

1 Peter 3:1–7

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

1 Corinthians 11:7–9

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Timothy 2:8–15

I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

These texts will not be silenced by omission. God’s word speaks more loudly against these women than man’s words ever could.

There is much more we could say about these books, but we will stop for now. We plan to close our case against the feminists with one more article, exposing their harmful influence in the church of Jesus Christ, before sounding one last applicatory alarm.

Pastor Pruitt, Are Critics Of The New Feminism Allowed To Talk?

Pastor Pruitt has made it a habit of publicly and privately attacking my character for years due to my opposition to Rachel Green Miller and Aimee Byrd, so I have had the misfortune of learning the methods he uses to distract from actual issues, stake out his place as the conservative apologist for the new feminists, and make sure that critics are silenced. He’s called me vile and nasty more times than I can count, accused me of all sort of unseemly things, but never provides any evidence to back up his claim or allow me the privilege of defending my name

It’s an effective tactic.

Pastors of large, influential congregations who are at the same time sheltered and paid by parachurch organizations, can play a useful role for those in power. They can quickly enforce the unspoken rules about what is going to be allowed in our online discourse: Jules Diner, the most prolific post-complementarian RPCNA twitter personality who also happens to be a habitual liar and gossip? Fine. Never addressed. An article comes out from an OPC minister against feminism? Quick write a blog that makes all critics of this new post-complementarianism into ghouls.

His role in the whole conflict is very important. He never has to contribute anything of substance. He just has to be an attack dog for anyone to his right on this issue, and if he takes other stands that make conservatives happy that just reinforces that his attacks on those of us who are actually opposing feminism must be fair.

I’ll briefly discuss a couple of things from his latest post for Reformation 21.

Todd mockingly notes what is sort-of the case: “I am a squishy, moderate complementarian who is in league with radical feminists to destroy the church.” Actually, Pruitt plays a much more important role. He is the “conservative edge”, he is the line on the right edge of what is to be allowed, and anyone who actually corrects the feminists or sees the new NAPARC advocates of feminism as actual threats is called “extreme” or “hyper”. Our beliefs and lives could be very similar to Pruitt, but because we are willing to say that it is actually, objectively stupid for a married man to give his “intimate spiritual” lady friend a ride in his car late at night to her hotel, we’re “bad actors.”

He also says we have a “penchant for heavy handed patriarchy” —this is just simply a lie. I’m actually pretty moderate compared to all our Reformed forefathers. But, hey, what’s new? ACE writers have often lied about people and wronged the little guy to protect the powerful men and women who run the Reformed mafia. And by the way, Pastor Pruitt, we all know that you realize that Aimee has specifically taught that anything a man does, which would include pink cardigans, is definitionally masculine and he should not be told to pursue more masculine behavior. But wait, if you didn’t just make it into a joke you’d have to engage the actual issue instead of just punching down to your right.

His list contains many fine ideas, but more and more insinuations of bad guys who do things like “berating and mocking women within your own denomination.” That’s garbage. And if I call a garbage accusation “garbage” it isn’t “berating” though it could be called “mocking.” But there is a big difference in tearing down a person and trying to oppose their ideas. I have not attacked Mrs. Byrd as a person, and have often in fact prayed for her, but I do oppose her ideas and her tactics. And for all the years of her cronies spying on me, they have yet to find evidence of that which they accuse me. Because of that, she and many others are trying to make sure I shut up.

I wish pastors and people who could actually make a difference would start standing up more. But obviously, from recent experience, there is no way to actually do that. Ask gentle questions like Master? Nope, not acceptable. Write a gentle critique like Jones? Nope, he’s been a friend of monsters. Even Deyoung doesn’t have enough political clout to directly correct Byrd’s book.

The bottom line: critics of the new feminism are not allowed online.

Feminism In The Reformed Churches: A Series

Feminism In The Reformed Churches: Index

1. The Leaders

2. The Tactics, Online

3. The Tactics, In Books

4. The Tactics, In Church

5. A Call To Arms

A compendium of past critiques of Mrs. Byrd’s writings:

http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2019/8/15/Aimee_Byrd_Critiques

Feminism In The Reformed Churches: 2. The Tactics, Online

The following article was originally published on Purely Presbyterian, but was taken down on May 12, 2020. Their own explanation is here. At least one of the members of their editorial team was persuaded that our particular battle with feminism was not theirs to fight, that they could not in good conscience affirm every claim we had made, and that therefore the blog would no longer run the articles. Other editors strongly objected but were not able to change the decision: we thank them for standing firm. We are glad that Shane Anderson at the Daily Genevan was willing to repost them. They are reproduced here as originally published, and Lord willing, the final three installments will appear here over the next days.

Feminism in the Reformed Churches:
2. The Tactics, Online

In the last article we met three women leading the charge of feminism in the Reformed churches, and three men who publicly aid them in the fight. That we might better see the fruit these women and their supporters are bearing, it’s worth taking a closer look at their battle tactics, here considered as they appear online: on blogs, social media, and podcasts.

In a word, the prominent tactic in their online discourse is victimhood. This is the all-too-familiar method, borrowed from Marxism and applied by every progressive, of painting all disagreement as the oppression of the weak by the powerful, in order to garner sympathy for the opinion of the oppressed. 

The Reformed women promoting feminism on the internet are experts at playing the complaining victim. Take Aimee Byrd: she complains that men do not hear women’s voices (here). Then when men do hear her, she complains when they critique her (here), and apparently, even when they ask her reasonable questions (here). The only way a man can escape such complaints, it seems, is to join the complainers in their complaining (e.g. here). If he does not, they yet again complain (again, as Byrd does here). Very many men hear these complaints, perceive that a woman is in trouble, and as men tend to do, rush to her side, or rush against those who are bringing trouble upon her, taking her word for it that she is an innocent victim, and they are evil oppressors.

If these complaints are false, they are simply lies. But even if they are true, this tactic is still deceitful. The method of loudly trumpeting the defense of victimhood rests on a false assumption, that the weak are always in the right. God instead says, “Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor” (Lev. 19:15). God does not say, nor do I, that there is no real oppression of the poor, no real tyranny of male leaders, no real abuse of women. These sins abound in our culture, and sadly, in our churches. And at least in my church, we exercise a biblical severity against them. But being a victim of these sins does not mean that the victim thereby possesses a clearer understanding of biblical truth, a greater right to be heard in church courts, or an open invitation to lecture at conferences or teach Sunday School. Victimhood is worthy of pity, not a platform.

This is especially so in cases where people are victims, at least in part, of their own foolish choices. Again, this is cause for pity—like Christ, we weep over sinners (Luke 19:41). Yet it is not cause for approval of the sins that made them victims in the first place. Indeed, witnessing the shame of drunkenness should make us all the more hate the abuse of alcohol, and rebuke the drunk himself (Lev. 19:17). So insofar as feminists have oppressed themselves, or given others occasion to oppress them, by refusing to keep silence in the churches (1 Cor. 14:34), or to marry, bear children, guide the house (1 Tim. 5:14), by disputing their subjection to their husbands (Gen. 3:16), by going out in the attire of an harlot (Prov. 7:10; see Byrd’s claim of “perfectly acceptable bikinis”), we do pity them. But we do that best by calling them to repentance, not by handing them a microphone.

More briefly, but no less seriously, we address two other tactics. The first is spying. This is not merely the collecting and presenting of public evidence, as we have done. Spying is collecting information with intent to harm, and often by deceit. For a testimony that the feminists have, for years, been deceitfully spying on the godly, see this explanation. Then see the letter linked to it at the end, in which Aimee Byrd’s own session admits that she asked her elder to be a “ninja,” spying for her on a private Facebook group. His refusal to do so was apparently one reason for her to call for his resignation. The same letter features screenshots and quotations taken without permission from that private group, presented out of context to paint Byrd as a victim. Like the Pharisees and Herodians, they have been seeking to catch good men in their words (Mark 12:13). But their efforts have so far been fruitless, and quite pitiful: the crowning item of evidence the letter marshals against the evil patriarchs is their “laugh emojis.”

Finally comes slander. As already shown, claiming to be oppressed implies alleging that others are oppressors. But if these allegations are false, they are sins against the ninth commandment. These women are practiced at such slander. Rachel Miller came to public notice by accusing well respected teachers, such as John Piper, of Trinitarian heresy and denial of the gospel (the links can be found on her blog). None of these charges have ever been substantiated. Some have been answered decisively (e.g. here). Yet Miller to my knowledge has made no retraction, and shown no remorse for harming good men’s reputations. Valerie Hobbs has insinuated numerous times that Reformed pastors demean and abuse women (see her academic work cited in our previous article, and her various pieces in the Aquila Report). And if we may descend to Twitter, it too will testify, filled as it is with accusations from these women and their followers that their critics are vile, dirty jerks. Then just last week in this episode of Mortification of Spin, Todd Pruitt mocked critics of Byrd as “hardcore patriarchalists” guilty of “shoving the women in the small corner.” The written podcast introduction says such men accuse Byrd of the “crime” of “refusing to be barefoot and confined to a yellow wallpapered kitchen making sandwiches for men.” Do they not realize that unbelieving feminists mock Christian family life in these exact same terms? Nor can they stand that these same awful men make light of these slanders by rejoicing publicly in sandwiches lovingly made in the kitchen by their happy pregnant wives. Such unflappable delight in their home life is, in Byrd’s judgment, “shameful.” Carl Trueman weighs in with a more academic but no less slanderous critique, accusing Complementarians of Trinitarian heresy (a serious charge we will deal with elsewhere) and insinuating that they are driven by a Marxist and Nietzschean obsession with power. And all this is crowned by incredulous laughs shared among the co-hosts against those who would even suggest that Aimee Byrd is a danger to godly churches.

I could say more, but these samples will suffice to show the behavior of these feminists online. We will have occasion next to show more from their books, and then from their work within the church itself.

Feminism In The Reformed Churches: 1. The Leaders

The following article was originally published on Purely Presbyterian, but was taken down on May 12, 2020. Their own explanation is here. At least one of the members of their editorial team was persuaded that our particular battle with feminism was not theirs to fight, that they could not in good conscience affirm every claim we had made, and that therefore the blog would no longer run the articles. Other editors strongly objected but were not able to change the decision: we thank them for standing firm. We are glad that Shane Anderson at the Daily Genevan was willing to repost them. They are reproduced here as originally published, and Lord willing, the final three installments will appear here over the next days.

Feminism in the Reformed Churches:
1. The Leaders

The Reformed churches have found themselves at war. The battle lines are drawn, and the conflict is underway. This article is the beginning of a series, in which I make a plea to godly readers, to recognize the enemy, and to take up arms against it.

The enemy is feminism. By feminism I mean the ideology that disputes the following facts:

1. God made men stronger, and appointed them to public work, and to rule in family, church, and state. (1 Sam. 4:9; 1 Cor. 16:13; Gen. 3:19; Prov. 31:23; 1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23; 1 Tim. 3:4; 1 Tim. 2:8, 12; 3:2; Titus 1:6; Ex. 18:21; Prov. 31:23; Num. 1:2–3)

2. God made women weaker, and appointed them to domestic work, and to submit to the rule of men. (1 Peter 3:7; 1 Tim. 2:14; Prov. 31:27; 1 Tim. 2:15; 5:14; Titus 2:5; 1 Cor. 11:7–9; Eph. 5:22; 1 Cor. 14:35; Ps. 68:12; Isa. 3:12)

A good one-word summary of these facts of nature, and of Scripture, is patriarchy, “father-rule.” Feminism is its opposite. The desire that unites all feminists is, as they say, to “smash the patriarchy.”

The oft-repeated objections to the above facts are too many to be dealt with here. Our concern here is the definition: feminism is the ideology that disputes these facts. And by that definition, feminism has invaded our Reformed churches.

Here I begin to prove this claim, by introducing the generals of today’s feminist army. They are women, and three of them in particular.

First in prominence is Aimee Byrd. The easiest way to prove her feminism is simply to read her blog. Here she complains that women don’t write more theology and aren’t encouraged in higher theological learning, and wonders why “all the women publishing good academic works are egalitarian.”  Here, here, here, and here, she promotes the writings of egalitarians. Note, egalitarian is a polite term for feminist. Here she criticizes the Nashville Statement on human sexuality. Here she warns of the perils that attend teaching abstinence from premarital sex.  Here she praises a book called “Vindicating the Vixens” for its focus on “gynocentric texts” and its teaching that “the women’s voice in Scripture corrects any promotion of androcentrism.” Here she praises an author for denying that Scripture is “a hopelessly patriarchal construction” and for explaining the “gynocentric interruption of the dominant androcentricity of Scripture.” These articles and others repeat claims basic to feminist exegesis: that women were the first heralds of the resurrection, that Junia was a female apostle, that Priscilla is a model for female theologians, that women’s voices in Scripture and in theology are historically marginalized and misunderstood, etc. 

She has also shown her feminism in her books, especially her recent Why Can’t We Be Friends?, and the soon to be released Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (here, video study here). In the first she comes out hard against the “Pence Rule” (held by our Vice President, and also by Billy Graham). She argues that adult women and men, though not married to each other, should not make rules against time alone, but rather cultivate intimate personal friendships. See the weighty critiques of this book collected here. The second book tells on itself before it even opens: its cover makes a clear allusion to the feminist short story “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and its title boldly challenges the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (here), which is one of most well-known contemporary works written to fight feminism and promote masculine leadership according to the word of God. For a thorough survey and critique of the book, see Andy Naselli’s pre-publication review, here.

Byrd has spoken at many church-sponsored events and conferences (just do a Google search), and has exercised great influence as a co-host on the podcast Mortification of Spin, which like her blog is published under the auspices of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. There will be more to say about her work in future articles.

Second is Rachel Miller. She is known mostly for her recent book, Beyond Authority and Submission. As with Byrd’s new book, the title says it all, but for more, read this review. Byrd wrote the foreword to the book, calling Miller a “discerning and helpful voice on men and women in the church” (here). Miller was also for a time the News Editor of the Aquila Report.

The third woman is Valerie Hobbs. She was previously a fellow at the Greystone Theological Institute, working alongside noted Reformed ministers and professors. A senior lecturer in applied linguistics, one of her pet projects has been researching the treatment of women in conservative Reformed churches: see her journal articles here, here, here, and here. The abstracts reveal her animus against the teaching of Reformed churches about women. Her popular level articles reflect the same, e.g. this one in which she positively cites well-known feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Aimee Byrd, and suggests that 1 Corinthians 16:13, “Quit you like men,” might be faithfully rendered, “Act like women.” 

Moreover, these three women are not working independently. Miller in the acknowledgements of her book says, “Aimee Byrd and Valerie Hobbs are my ‘kindred spirits.’” Hobbs defended Miller’s book on Byrd’s blog (here), as did Byrd herself (here). Both Hobbs and Miller have been featured on Mortification of Spin, which Byrd co-hosts. The three are fighting together for the same goal, which appears to be the eradication of patriarchy from the church.

These women, influential as they have become in their own right, do have help in their fight for feminism from various men. A few have distinguished themselves, so as to become as if lieutenants to these lady generals. Among them three ministers deserve mention. 

First is Carl Trueman. Perhaps of all people he is most at fault for the encroachment of feminism into the Reformed churches. He promotes Aimee Byrd by being her co-host on Mortification of Spin. He gave a glowing endorsement to Miller’s Beyond Authority and Submission (see it here). And because he is a gospel minister (OPC), with a name as an historian and cultural critic, his word carries great weight. His reputation has probably done more than anything else to lift these women into the limelight.

Second is Todd Pruitt. He is also a minister (PCA), and a host on Mortification of Spin. He is a useful moderate in the feminist cause, for he expresses wise concerns about confusion over sexuality in the churches (here), but then when it comes to the confusion promoted by the feminists above, he argues they are not as bad as people think (here), and complains that the discussion needs more “sober and well-qualified voices” (here).

Third is Todd Bordow. He is Rachel Miller’s pastor (OPC), and his church hosted a conference (here) featuring her and Aimee Byrd. He’s made his own contributions to the feminist cause, one of which was arguing in public (here and here), in opposition to his church’s Confession of Faith (24.6, here), that “emotional abuse” should be added to adultery and desertion as a third cause for lawful divorce (briefly answered here). We will address more of Bordow’s feminist teaching later. 

These three men and the three women they support are, as far as I can see, the most prominent public leaders in the recent assault of feminism upon our Reformed churches. I publicly call out their names here, because their public teaching against the Bible, or their public support for such teaching, requires it. Paul did the same with Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 4:14), Demas (2 Tim. 4:10), and even the apostle Peter (Gal. 2:11). Christ did it with the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6, 15) and “that woman Jezebel” (Rev. 2:20). God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), and every Christian has a duty, when it comes to public teachers, to search the scriptures (Acts 17:11; Isa. 8:20), try the spirits (1 John 4:1), and know men by their fruits (Matt. 7:20).

In the next three articles I will give further proof that these feminist leaders and their followers are a threat to our churches, by discussing their tactics online, in books, and in the church itself. 

Has God Really Said? Resisting the #ReformedDowngrade

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…

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

The Left Fears Homeschoolers

A response to: “The Risks of Homeschooling” by Erin O’Donnell
https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/05/right-now-risks-homeschooling#28127

In the age of Corona, the Leftist academics and state functionaries that set education policy are more afraid than ever of homeschoolers.

They are afraid that more people will discover that most homeschool families get better results academically in a half to a third of the instructional time and at a tenth of the cost that the modern public school spends per pupil. They are afraid that more people will discover that the old canard about socialization is 180 degrees opposite of the truth, and that today's public school environment is really the one that is, by and large, socially stunted and toxic. Most of all they are afraid that they will lose their near monopoly on access to your children's prime waking hours, and with it their ability to shape their values and beliefs to reflect their own, rather than yours.

Case in point, this hit piece in Harvard Magazine about Elizabeth Bartholet, who is organizing an invitation-only summit of homeschool opponents. An excerpt:

In a paper published recently in the Arizona Law Review, she notes that parents choose homeschooling for an array of reasons. Some find local schools lacking or want to protect their child from bullying. Others do it to give their children the flexibility to pursue sports or other activities at a high level. But surveys of homeschoolers show that a majority of such families (by some estimates, up to 90 percent) are driven by conservative Christian beliefs, and seek to remove their children from mainstream culture. Bartholet notes that some of these parents are “extreme religious ideologues” who question science and promote female subservience and white supremacy."

The practitioners of evangelical secularism understand that education is a battleground, and that families that homeschool tend to win the battles. They hate you, they hate your kids, and they want you gone, so they can have the kids for themselves.

Notice the bigoted image used: homeschooling is a prison, a prison defined by education and God’s Word in which a young girl suffers.

The Subjection Of A Wife To Her Husband: Daniel Cawdrey, Westminster Divine

"Question. What is the main duty of the wife? Answer. Subjection, or submission to her husband, (Genesis 3: 16).

Question. What does this subjection consist of? Answer. In these two things: an acknowledgment of his superiority over her. In her respect to him, as her superior.

Question. How does it appear that her husband is her superior? Answer. God has given it to him, (Genesis 3: 16). Nature teaches it, in the weakness of all females, and so, inferior to the males, (1 Peter 3: 7). His titles imply superiority, as lord (1 Peter 3: 6), guide (Proverbs 2: 17), head (1 Corinthians 11: 3). He represents Christ, and she represents the church, (Ephesians 5: 23). Woman was made for the man, not the man for the woman, (Genesis 2: 18, 1 Corinthians 11: 8-9).

Question. What reason is there for this acknowledgement? Answer. Because man is the ground of all true subjection, and obedience, as to the ordinance of God.

Question. How is she supposed to respect him? Answer. In two things: reverence and obedience.

Question. What is her reverence to him? Answer. Inward, or outward.

Question. What is her inward reverence? Answer. A high esteem of him, for his place’ sake, as her lord and head, by the ordinance of God, which is called fear, (1 Peter 3: 2) and reverence, (Ephesians 5), a reverential fear.

Question. Where is this fear manifested? Answer. By her care to please him, (1 Corinthians 7: 34). By her joy in pleasing him, (Proverbs 31: 12). By her grief in offending him.

Question. How is her outward fear or reverence shown? Answer. By her behavior and speech."

- (Kindle Locations 1338-1373). Puritan Publications. Kindle Edition.

When Love Declines Into Partiality: Richard Baxter

There are many schemes Satan, the world, and the flesh use to war against our progress in the life we have in Christ. One thing we need to guard ourselves against is declines in grace, or corruptions in what was once godly in our lives. Baxter warns against love for other Christians corrupting, declining, into partiality.

This can happen when our love for God’s people begins to narrow to be love for God’s people who are esteemed outwardly but not for spiritual reasons:

Many have honoured them that fear the Lord, who insensibly have declined to honour only those of them that were eminent in wealth and worldly honour, or that were esteemed for their parts or place by others, and little honoured the humble, poor, obscure christians, who were at least as good as they: forgetting that the "things that are highly esteemed among men, are abomination in the sight of God," Luke xvi. 15; and that God valueth not men by their places and dignities in the world, but by their graces and holiness of life.

This might look like thinking we love the church, when really we are loving people who are like us: the young couple with children, other singles, upwardly mobile people, socially astute and enjoyable people, etc. Baxter calls us to take note of who we love: do we value what God values? Is it graces and holiness that we are drawn to? Is it spiritual life we are seeking to know and foster in our brothers and sisters in our church, or are we drawn to outward, worldly things?

Yet, there is another way our love may corrupt or decline:

Abundance that at first did seem to love all christians, as such, as far as any thing of Christ appeared in them, have first fallen into some sect, and over-admiring their party, and have set light by others as good as them, and censured them as unsound, and then withdrawn their special love, and confined it to their party, or to some few; and yet thought that they loved the godly as much as ever, when it was degenerate into a factious love.

The Christian is called to receive other Christians in the Lord (Romans 15:7). Our union with Christ creates a union with each other (Romans 12:5). But there are those who “desire to be first” and draw people into their support or party. It may be around certain doctrinal distinctive or emphases, certain practices and methods, or ways of talking and acting (a style or brand). When those teachers have a particularly sectarian bent, they foster not only an undue admiration and loyalty to themselves as leaders and to their followers as the true and faithful servants, but they also foster an undeserved disdain for those who do not follow their sect, or even worse in their view, oppose it. Baxter’s insight is searching: could it be that my love for Christians is really love for my sect, my preferred type of Christian, a factious love? Is it the appearance of Christ in the brother or sister that I love, or is it the reflection of me in them that I love?

A third way that love may decline: when zeal for godliness in others morphs into a desire for their hurt or even damnation:

Are you zealous for God, and truth, and holiness, and against the errors and sins of others? Take heed lest you lose it, while you think it doth increase in you. Nothing is more apt to degenerate than zeal: in how many thousands hath it turned from an innocent, charitable, peaceable, tractable, healing, profitable, heavenly zeal, into a partial zeal for some party, or opinions of their own; and into a fierce, censorious, uncharitable, scandalous, turbulent, disobedient, unruly, hurting, and destroying zeal, ready to wish for fire from heaven, and kindling contention, confusion, and every evil work. Read well James iii.

My brothers and sisters, in the words of James “these things ought not be.” Let us be zealous for God: his name, his works, his word, his servants, his church. Be zealous that everyone who names the name of Christ would depart from iniquity. Be zealous that everyone who claims to know the Lord would know and love him in truth and be built up in the most holy faith. But may we turn from any enjoyment of other’s failures, pleasures in their mistakes, delight in uncovering dirt, zeal in stirring up controversy, nit-picky judgmentalism, and as Baxter says, every evil work.

A Prayer:

Holy Father,
To you who gives rain to the ungrateful and who is slow to anger,
who has chosen us in Christ not according to our merits but his mercies,
who has given us the Spirit of adoption that we would reflect your character:
we praise you and acknowledge you to be our great and faithful God.
Forgive us of not loving others as we ought,
and chiefly of not loving you and your kingdom as we ought.
Grant us, that being mindful of how we may fall from love into partiality, factiousness, and hatefulness,
we may instead be well pleasing to you, as your servants, loving your name and its service in the lives of others.
May we esteem others as more important than ourselves and so follow our Savior.
Bless us, and your whole church with us, that we may grow up into this holiness,
By the Spirit you have given,
To the praise and glory of Christ on the day of his coming in glory.
Amen.

From  “A Christian Directory (complete - Volume 1, 2, 3 & 4 of 4): A SUM OF PRACTICAL THEOLOGY AND CASES OF CONSCIENCE by Richard Baxter” http://a.co/dr6a1rQ

Example Is More Effectual Than Precept: The Reformed Catholic Family, J. Merle D’Aubigne (free ebook)

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

Against Being Too Scrupulous: Richard Baxter

Can a person seek to be obedient in all things in a way that actually ends up undermining obedience in all things?

Baxter says yes, and that being overly scrupulous about small practical details (what many call legalistic) is a particular way of tripping ourselves up as Christians.

I’m working back and forth through Baxter’s monumental “Christian Directory”, and found this advice quite helpful:

Another temptation to confound you in your religion, is, by filling your heads with practical scrupulosity; so that you cannot go on for doubting every step whether you go right; and when you should cheerfully serve your Master, you will do nothing but disquiet your minds with scruples, whether this or that be right or wrong.

Baxter seems to be referring to the sort of person who stumbles over every small detail in their obedience, not able to see that such a negative and worrisome focus on these small details is a hindrance to what God calls them to do. They are sidetracked from the more important “cheerful obedience” to which they are called by thinking of God’s Law as tedious and condemning, by fixating on this small gnat, that small splinter.

He then provides a remedy, obedience that pursues pleasing God while always resting in our free justification in Christ:

Your remedy here, is not by casting away all care of pleasing God, or fear of sinning, or by debauching conscience; but by a cheerful and quiet obedience to God, so far as you know his will, and an upright willingness and endeavour to understand it better; and a thankful receiving the gospel pardon for your failings and infirmities.

Be faithful in your obedience; but live still upon Christ, and think not of reaching to any such obedience, as shall set you above the need of his merits, and a daily pardon of your sins. Do the best you can to know the will of God and do it: but when you know the essentials of religion, and obey sincerely, let no remaining wants deprive you of the comfort of that so great a mercy, as proves your right to life eternal. In your seeking further for more knowledge and obedience, let your care be such as tendeth to your profiting, and furthering you to your end, and as doth not hinder your joy and thanks for what you have received: but that which destroyeth your joy and thankfulness, and doth but perplex you, and not further you in your way, is but hurtful scrupulosity, and to be laid by.

When you are right in the main, thank God for that, and be further solicitous so far as to help you on, but not to hinder you. If you send your servant on your message, you had rather he went on his way as well as he can, than stand scrupling every step whether he should set the right or left foot forward; and whether he should step so far, or so far at a time, &c.

Hindering scruples please not God.

The Reformed Catholic Family: Timeless Wisdom From A Westminster Divine

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)

‪“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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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

The PCA And Liberalism: A Warning From Our History

(The following is a post, reproduced here in its entirety, by Lacy Andrews, Regional Home Missionary for the Presbytery of the Southeast of the Orthodox Presbyterian church.)

I rarely get involved in theological discussions online, but I believe it’s important that I express a concern over developments in the PCA and especially the latest GA. Sorry for the length of this post. For those who don’t know me, I’m a minister in the OPC. This concern has grown as I’ve read different responses to what was unfolding at the GA. Some expressed alarm, but then settled down after seeing many positive signs at the assembly. I’ve even read posts of repentance for statements made rashly.

One thing I’ve not seen anywhere in the posts that I’ve read is any real reflection of church history regarding watershed General Assemblies in Presbyterian denominations. I took note of some of the strategies employed by conservatives in the PCA, and though I sympathized greatly with what they did and rejoiced in things said, I wondered if they were repeating a conservative error that has plagued the church in the face of rising progressivism in the past.

The 1923 and 1924 General Assemblies of the PCUSA were watershed GAs in the battle between conservatives and progressives (then often called fundamentalists and modernists). The thing we need to note is that conservatives left both of those assemblies greatly encouraged, believing that their show of power had reclaimed the church. After an initial loss (the election of the moderate, Charles Wishart as moderator over the fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan) in 1923, the conservatives believed they’d won the day on virtually every issue to come before the assembly. First, the assembly sided with the conservatives regarding the preaching of Harry Emerson Fosdick, and second, the assembly voted to require all officers to affirm the Five Fundamentals. Though conservatives rejoiced, they failed to realize that neither action had any teeth. Subsequent to the assembly, the Presbytery of New York essentially ignored the directive of the GA regarding Dr. Fosdick. Also, the modernists convened a meeting to strategize how to respond to the conservative “wins” at the GA that concluded with the writing and signing of the Auburn Affirmation. Sadly, those who signed the Auburn Affirmation understood the constitution of the PCUSA better than the conservatives who were trying to defend it. By adopting the Five Fundamentals the conservatives added extra-confessional requirements for ordination. Though the Five Fundamentals spoke directly to the issue at hand, they provided an open door for the progressives to cry “foul.”

All of this came to a head at the 1924 GA. The conservatives struck first and elected Clarence E Macartney as moderator, who appointed Maitland Alexander as chairman of the Bills and Overtures Committee. William Jennings Bryan also served on the committee creating a false-sense of security for the conservatives at the GA. An overture came to the GA from the Presbytery of Cincinnati putting the matter of the Auburn Affirmation before the GA. Though the dynamics on the Bills and Overture Committee were complex (with a liberal majority of 13 to 9), in the end, no action was taken on the overture as it was placed on the table. There were no dissenting votes recorded to placing it on the table, and it’s been noted by OPC historian, Danny Olinger, that J. Gresham Machen was a commissioner and even he didn’t record a negative vote. The result was that nothing of consequence happened to those who signed the Auburn Affirmation. The conservatives had given them a foot-hold by essentially adding extra-confessional requirements for ordination, which enabled the signers of the affirmation to get away with the egregious aspects of the affirmation which affirmed the Five Fundamentals as truths, but as truths open to various broad interpretations. In the end there was no discipline. The conservatives, by focusing upon the Five Fundamentals instead of the Standards of the Church, made it almost impossible to bring charges against those whose doctrine was contradicted by the Standards. This error of exposing modernism in the church, but not bringing charges against those espousing false-doctrine would continue over the next few years. Interestingly, while conservatives celebrated saving their church after the 1923 and 1924 assemblies, it was only 12 years later that the leading conservative in the PCUSA, J. Gresham Machen was deposed as a minister by that same church. The fall happened rapidly, a conservative majority was caught off guard, the church was lost. I’m not making any predictions about the PCA, only reminding you of history. I understand the sentiment of bringing the Nashville Statement before the Assembly. It is a Biblical Statement, but I’m concerned the battle wasn’t fought by bringing the Westminster Standards to bear, instead of using an extra-confessional statement established by a para-church organization.

In the early 2000s, conservatives (moderates to most of us) in the PC(USA) repeated the same error as the conservatives did in the 1923/1924 General Assemblies. Of course, the confessionalism of the PC(USA) was already eviscerated by the adopting of a contradictory Book of Confessions and watered-down ordination vows, yet still, the same method was used with the establishment of the Confessing Movement. This time, the conservatives selected three Fundamentals instead of five: (1). Salvation only in Jesus Christ, (2) The authority of the Bible for Faith and Life, and (3) sexual fidelity in monogamous hetero-sexual marriage. I had a conversation with a PC(USA) conservative at that time who was excited about the Confessing Movement and reminded him of what had happened in 1923/1924. I also pointed out that the PC(USA) had already abandoned any semblance to confessionalism and pled with him to leave the church. He was sure that the conservatives had turned the tide and were going to win the day. Alas, see what’s happened to the PC(USA). Interestingly, those who opposed the Confessing Movement in the PC(USA) developed their own Auburn Affirmation. Again the progressives understood their history better than the conservatives.

This is a plea for my conservative brothers in the PCA to remember our history and to take note of previous mistakes.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church: Against Racism

In 1974 the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) received the report of its Committee On Problems Of Race.

This report, the Bible (which is the OPC’s official primary standard), and the Westminster Confessions and Catechisms (the OPC’s secondary standards) all reject the sins commonly referred to under the term “racism.” Additionally, both the good news of Christ which is for all people and nations and the law of God, given in creation and again summarized plainly in the Ten Commandments, call all Christians to love our neighbors as we love ourselves and to live in such a way that the world can vividly see the love of Christ by the way we treat people.

Studying the people, doctrines, and practices of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, one will see that the overarching question for this small communion of Christians has been, by God’s grace, “how can we be faithful to God according to His Word and so bring Christ glory?” This impulse fueled the work of the 1974 Committee On Problems Of Race, and the General Assembly’s concern that the churches live out this mission of faithfulness in matters of race relations:

Although there are marked distinctions and even divisions among men, including those of race, mankind, according to the teaching of the Bible, has a single origin. Later distinctions and divisions are indeed significant and may not simply be pushed aside; nevertheless, the Bible clearly teaches that the gospel is universal in its offer and its call. All those who are in Christ are united together with Him as their Head in a new humanity, in which the distinctions and divisions that otherwise separate men are transcended in a new unity. This is also true of the divisions occasioned by race. True, the distinctions mentioned in the Bible as having been overcome in Christ are not primarily those of race, nor does the Bible think along lines that correspond with the distinctions of race as we understand them today; nevertheless, racial distinctions and divisions as we know and understand them today certainly fall under those things that have been transcended in Christ. How, then, is the new unity in Christ to be expressed in the communion of the saints today as it bears on the question of race?

In a world marked by violence, bigotries, self-centeredness, injustice, anger, and all manner of sins surrounding matters of race, the Bible presents an ethic of love for God and neighbor according to his law. This law has never been followed perfectly in Christ’s church, and it sometimes has been directly contradicted by what Christians (including Presbyterians) have taught or done. But, let it be clear to the fair observer, the Orthodox Presbyterian church is no refuge for those who want racial strife, but it has been a refuge for those who want to live lives pleasing to God and good for our neighbors.

Also See: Mark Robinson’s article in the OPC New Horizons magazine “Four Theses for Reforming Race Relationships”

 “A Public Statement on the Shooting at the Chabad Synagogue” by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Training Your Children in the Covenant

Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.

If you are a parent, you know that kids are observant. Kids know the schedules and the daily routines, even if they don’t always want to follow them. They notice when other kids have new shoes or the newest phone. They probably even know where you hide your secret stash of chocolate chip cookies!

Observation plays a big part in the development of children. Often what they regularly observe translates into actions and behaviors down the road; child sees, child does. Consequently, who do children watch more than anyone else? Their parents.

Teachers, coaches, friends, and classmates can all have a major impact on a child and their development, but it is the parents who most influence their young ones. A parent’s words and actions have a significant effect on their kids, and it is their example that most resonates in the mind of the child.

Proverbs 22:6 teaches that we are to train our children to follow the way of the Lord so that they will not depart from the Way later in life.  However, this task is not taken seriously in many Christian homes today. For many, their training is nothing more than giving their children a picture Bible and praying before eating dinner. These parents have no problem spending hours teaching the proper baseball pitching mechanics or helping their child memorize their speaking lines for the school play, but when it comes to teaching their children the things of the Lord, there is a sense of apathy.

Parents, please understand this: if you are apathic in the manner in which you serve God, do not be surprised when your children reciprocate.  

We must teach our children how to live according to the will of God. We must teach them the laws and statutes that are given in His Word. We must teach them what it means to profess that Jesus is Lord and how every facet of our lives must reflect that allegiance to the King. Teach them when they are young, and teach them these things often.

We must teach them these things and then, just as importantly, we must demonstrate what they look like. The way in which we live is just as important as the words that we teach them. The expression, “practice what you preach” is especially true in parenthood. Reading Scripture to your children every night will hold no real value if your own actions do not match what you are reading.

If you tell your children that they are not allowed to watch certain movies, then you must not be watching vulgar television shows every week. Send your children to Sunday school, but then go to the adult Sunday school class yourself, instead of drinking coffee in the foyer. Make prayer and devotion an intricate part of the day and not just an activity that is easily dropped.

Deuteronomy 6 and 11 exhort that we are to lay God’s words on our hearts and souls, that we are to bind them as a sign on our hands and before our eyes. But it also tells us to teach them to our children when we are at home and while we are on the road, from the moment we rise to the time when we lie down.

Your children are watching. Are they seeing what it looks like to be a follower of Christ?

About the author: Jacob is the youth director at Knox Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Harrison Twp., MI. He graduated from Kuyper College with a degree in Bible and Theology and is currently enrolled in Reformed Theological Seminary’s Distance M.Div. program. He and his wife are expecting twins in September.

The Fall Was Not A New Creation: Bavinck On Nature, Sex, And Socialism

“In all these issues Reformed theology was able to make such sound judgments because it was deeply imbued with the idea that Adam did not yet enjoy the highest level of blessedness. Sin undoubtedly has cosmic significance. As is evident from the phenomenon of death, sin also impacts our physical existence and has brought the entire earth under the curse. Without sin the development of humanity and the history of the earth would have been very different—though still unimaginable. Still, on the other hand, the state of integrity cannot be equated with the state of glory. We may not draw conclusions from the former for the conditions of the latter. Isaiah 11:6 and 65:25 can no more be applied to the state of human life before the fall than Mark 12:25; Luke 20:36; and 1 Corinthians 6:13 (etc.). Though the form (forma) has changed, the matter (materia) of humankind, plant, animal, nature, and earth is the same before and after the fall. All the essential components existing today were present also before the fall. The distinctions and dissimilarities between men and women, parents and children, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends; the numerous institutions and relations in the life of society such as marriage, family, child rearing, and so forth; the alternation of day and night, workdays and the day of rest, labor and leisure, months and years; man’s dominion over the earth through science and art, and so forth—while all these things have undoubtedly been modified by sin and changed in appearance, they nevertheless have their active principle and foundation in creation, in the ordinances of God, and not in sin. Socialism and communism, also the socialism and communism of many Christian sects, are right in combating the appalling consequences of sin, especially also in the sphere of society. But these systems do not stop there; they also come into conflict with the nature of things, the creation ordinances, and therefore consistently take on, not a reformational, but a revolutionary character.”

From Reformed Dogmatics, Vol 2. ch. 13 on Human Destiny

Godliness Evidenced When Against The Stream: Richard Baxter

I know law, and custom, and education, and friends, when they side with godliness, are a great advantage to it, by affording helps, and removing those impediments that might stick much with carnal minds. But truth is not your own, till it be received in its proper evidence; nor your faith divine, till you believe what you believe, because God is true who doth reveal it; nor are you the children of God, till you love him for himself; nor are you truly religious, till the truth and goodness of religion itself be the principal thing that maketh you religious. It helpeth much to discover a man's sincerity, when he is not only religious among the religious, but among the profane, and the enemies, and scorners, and persecutors of religion: and when a man doth not pray only in a praying family, but among the prayerless, and the deriders of fervent constant prayer: and when a man is heavenly among them that are earthly, and temperate among the intemperate and riotous, and holdeth the truth among those that reproach it and that hold the contrary: when a man is not carried only by a stream of company, or outward advantages, to his religion, nor avoideth sin for want of a temptation, but is religious though against the stream, and innocent when cast (unwillingly) upon temptations; and is godly where godliness is accounted singularity, hypocrisy, faction, humour, disobedience, or heresy; and will rather let go the reputation of his honesty, than his honesty itself. 

From Richard Baxter’s “Christian Directory”  http://a.co/0rbSMSd