christian living

A Strategic Survival Plan For Christian Living In Strange Times by Christian McShaffrey

C8C2F64D-ECBE-4D66-8CAA-B064494034B0.png

Based on Jeremiah’s Letter to the Captives (Jeremiah 29:1-14)
By Christian McShaffrey, Pastor of Five Solas Church (Reedsburg, WI)
 

Few, I suppose, would deny that we are indeed living in strange times. The word “unprecedented” has been essentially worn out through over-use during the past year.  While I will not review all the “unprecedented” events we have recently experienced in America, I will say this: Most Christians are starting to feel like strangers living in a strange land. 

That is a very good thing. No, it is not a good feeling, but it is good because that is how the Bible describes us. In both Old and New Testaments, we are described as strangers, pilgrims, exiles, those who are IN the world, but not OF it, citizens of heaven who are seeking a heavenly country; but who are also (even at the same time) citizens of earthly commonwealths, stuck in godless cultures, surrounded by unbelievers, and sometimes even oppressed.

The reality of that dual-citizenship had hit Jeremiah’s friends like a ton of bricks. Their city was sacked, their temple destroyed, their houses burned, the able-bodied men put in chains, and their brightest minds put to work in the Babylonian palace. They were very much in shock and some, it seems, were even in a state of denial; so Jeremiah sent a letter that they come to terms with their situation and survive it.

I am convinced that Christians today need to do the same (i.e., come to terms with our current cultural situation and survive it), so please allow Jeremiah’s letter to the captives to accomplish that good end. His counsel can be summarized into five practical words of advice.

Acknowledge the Sovereignty of God

This, of course, is one of the core doctrines of Reformed theology. We acknowledge the absolute and all-encompassing sovereignty of God. From the rise and fall of nations, to the salvation of individual sinners, to a little sparrow falling to the ground, even to the very number of hairs on our head; the Lord is sovereign over all.
  

Many recoil at the thought, but the Bible-believer not only receives this doctrine as true, but realizes that it is the only way he can make sense of his experience in this world (especially the bad experiences).

The Babylonian captivity was, arguably, the lowest point in the history of God’s people. They had lost everything and were now living as exiles in an extremely evil culture. They believed God, trusted in God, and had tasted and seen that the Lord is good. So why this? What had happened? Who, you might say, was to blame?

From an earthly perspective, the Babylonians certainly shared much of the blame. They are the ones who attacked Jerusalem in the first place, put them under tribute, kidnapped Daniel and his friends, attacked yet again, and finally razed it to the ground. One might also place some of the blame on God’s own people, for when he constituted them as a nation he also warned them that disobedience would result in discipline, even enemy invasions and exile.

Nevertheless, while we can acknowledge the ambition of Nebuchadnezzar and the iniquity of Jerusalem as true causes of the captivity, they were but secondary causes. The chief cause of all things (including calamity) was, and always is, God Almighty. This is clearly affirmed in vs. 4, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, unto all that are carried away captives, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem unto Babylon…

Do you believe that? Do you accept the attribute of God that we call his absolute sovereignty? You must or, again, you will never be able to make sense of your experiences under the sun. Worse, you might not even survive that feeling of being a stranger in a strange land. God wants you to survive, so he first declares his sovereignty over the situation. 

Listen for God’s Voice in Scripture

That phrase in vs. 4, Thus saith the LORD of hosts is always the best news to hear (especially in Babylon). God was speaking to his people from heaven. 

The God of the Bible, by the way, is a speaking God. He does not communicate himself through feelings or emotions or irrational ecstasies. He communicates through words, and vv. 1-4 show us something of how that works.

Now these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent… (vs. 1). This is the doctrine of divine Inspiration and 2 Peter 1:21 explains even further: the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. God, the Holy Ghost, moved Jeremiah’s pen as he wrote, ensuring that every word written in that letter was perfectly true. 

Connected to that crucial doctrine of inspiration is also that of Transmission, for vs. 1 says the letter was sent from Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders which were carried away captives, and to the priests, and to the prophets, etc. This inspired letter needed to travel almost a thousand miles before it reached its intended audience, so how could Jeremiah be sure that it would arrive in-tact and unaltered by the false prophets that were in the land? Was it that the hand of Elasah the son of Shaphan (vs. 3) was so strong? We can probably assume that Elasah and Gemariah were trustworthy enough as messengers, but this is no safe source of certainty.

Ultimately speaking, it is our sovereign God who keeps his word pure and entire. It is called the doctrine of Preservation, and it affirms that the same God who inspires scripture also protects it by his singular care and providence (even if that involves a thousand miles, or a thousand years,  or a thousand manuscripts). 

The believer must trust God to preserve his word, else how could he ever receive it as God’s word? That is, after all, what the exiles were supposed to do: They were to receive this letter not as the words of Jeremiah, but as the very words of God. 

That duty applied to all, for vs. 1 mentions the elders, the priests, the prophets, and all the people. Also mentioned in vs. 2 is the king, the queen, eunuchs, princes, carpenters, and smiths. The specific mention of so many different individuals in such diverse stations of life lends itself to an important universal application: You also need to listen for the voice of God in scripture, and when you hear it, you need to receive it as God’s word and with all readiness of mind.

Embrace, my fellow-exiles, these essential doctrines of God’s Sovereignty, Divine Inspiration, and Providential Preservation so that you can, first of all, make sense of your experience in this world, but even more importantly, know how to live in it. 

Just Keep Living a Normal Life

Though the captivity was a great tragedy and a sore chastisement from God, it was no reason for God’s people to give up hope or to start acting strange. They were still God’s people and God wanted them to act like his people (yes, even in Babylon). This would look very, very normal.

The first word of practical advice is Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them… (vs. 5) which assumes that they were going to be in Babylon for a long time. The substance of this counsel is, “Just settle down, settle in, and enjoy the simple pleasures of life.” In order to follow this advice, they would, of course, have to find gainful employment in Babylon (it obviously takes money to build a house) and this is where many stumble; but their scruples are without scriptural support. Daniel kept a clean heart while working for his pagan boss, so they could do the same. You can do the same. 

The second word of practical advice is Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. (vs. 6) Modern paraphrase: “Find a girl, fall in love, get married, and have lots of babies.” 

Many stumble at this point as well, but also without cause. Marriage and procreation are also some of the simple pleasures of normal life under the sun. Besides that, Jeremiah adds a theological reason for receiving this advice: that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.

Previously mentioned was that temptation to give up hope while living in Babylon, and having children is an act of hope. It is a very practical way to affirm, to embrace, even to cling to the promise of God: I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. (Genesis 17:7) The Christian must never give up hope.

The other temptation mentioned was that of acting odd. People tend to do this when facing unfamiliar situations or an uncertain future, but the believer must never be soon shaken in mind. This was not the time for conspiracies, militias, or storming of the Babylonian Capitol. God’s way of strengthening his kingdom is far more quiet and far more sensible: Have babies and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Sure, the objection will be voiced, “But the Babylonians are making that very difficult! They have this book in the public schools, ‘Heather Has Two Mommies.’ They have ‘Trans Story Time’ at the local library. They are placing restrictions on how many people can meet for worship. Now, they want us to bow before an idol. They are going to throw Daniel into the fiery furnace!”

Yep, welcome to Babylon. What else did you expect? 

To the anticipated response, “We have to do something!” I will voice no disagreement. We should do something and here it is (divinely inspired of God): Get married, have kids, build a house, plant a garden, etc. Those who cannot receive that advice will never be open to that which follows: seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. (vs. 7)

The New Testament version of this exhortation is found in 1 Timothy 2:1-3, I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

The application is inescapable: Jeremiah’s friends needed to seek the peace of Babylon and pray for Nebuchadnezzar. Paul’s friends needed to seek the peace of the Roman Empire and pray for Nero Caesar. We need to seek the peace of the United States of America and pray for President Biden. 

Some unsettled soul will here object, “He’s not my President!” Come now, and read again the phrase whither I have caused you to be carried away captives (vs. 7). Realize that when God puts us somewhere, it is God who put us there. Acknowledging that truth and obey his clear command: seek the peace. This command is also very reasonable, for he adds: in the peace thereof (i.e., of Babylon, or Rome, or the USA) shall ye have peace.

Christians are not trouble-makers. They are just the opposite, as Jesus said: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Pursue peace and you will be blessed. If anyone suggests otherwise, he is a liar and ought to be avoided.

Don’t Allow Liars to Deceive You 

Jeremiah was obviously not the only prophet of his day. The Lord had raised up several holy men to preach, prophesy, and write about this era of exile; and unfortunately, so had the devil. That is why Jeremiah had to issue the stern warning of vv. 8-9, For thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed. For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the Lord. 

This is a call to spiritual discernment and the step toward discernment is understanding that false teachers, liars, and prophets of the devil are not only found out there in the big bad world; but oftentimes in the church. That is why Jeremiah calls them your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you. These were not Babylonian mystics but their own brethren. That always makes discernment somewhat complicated.

The New Testament affirms the same dynamic. Acts 20:28-30, Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

While we all tend to take down our guard (at least a little) when we perceive that someone is one-of-us (e.g., “Well, he is OPC… or URC… of PCA… or so-and-so endorsed his book…”), that is no safe method of spiritual discernment.

An added complication to the process of discernment is that false teachers speak in God’s name. This is affirmed in vs. 9: they prophesy falsely unto you in my name. The most dangerous deceivers in this world will always have a Bible in their hands. They read from it, they quote, yet all they are really doing is twisting unto their own destruction. God needs you to know: I have not sent them, saith the Lord.

In issuing this warning, Jeremiah does not disclose exactly what the false prophets were teaching, but it is probably safe enough to speculate because false teachers usually just tell people what they want to hear. If you were living in this exile what would your itching ears want to hear? 

Some would want to hear, “Don’t worry, you will not be here long. We are going to escape. God is going to rapture us out of here any day now.” Others might long to hear, “Don’t give up hope! We are going to rise up and fight! In God’s name, we will bring Babylon to its knees!” 

Based on modern trends, most would probably prefer to hear, “Stop obsessing over the exile, God put us here and wants us here.” So far, so good, but then enters the lie: “We are Babylonians now and you know what they say: when in Babylon, do as the Babylonians do.”  

No. This letter (and only this letter) was given that these captives might make sense of their experience, sanctify themselves through obedience, and find true hope for the future. That hope had nothing to do with a great escape, or an insurrection, or conformity to the culture, or anything else the false prophets were preaching. It consisted, rather, in biblical hope.

Believe That Better Days Are Coming

As low a point in history as the captivity was, God was still God, God was still sovereign, God still answered prayers, and God had good plans for his people. Better days were coming and the captives needed to believe this with all their hearts. vs. 10, Thus saith the Lord: That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. 

God Visits His People: The captivity would not be permanent. After seventy years, God would visit these captives and bring them back home. Seventy years, however, is a long time. Most of the young men who were carried away would never live to see the day, but hope still remained.

God Keeps His Promises: While many would die in captivity, their children and grandchildren would live to see this day of visitation and be able to say: “God kept his word. His promises are always yes and amen.” They are certainly that, but they are not always fulfilled immediately. When the children of the captivity arrived at Jerusalem, they found it still broken down. Hope yet remained.

God Builds His Kingdom: As scripture teaches, God is faithful to raise up men like Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah to rebuild his temple, teach his people, and fortify his city. His faithfulness in the past should convince us of his faithfulness in the present and the future. Better days were coming.

God is Always Good: Though he may chastise for a season, he always has good plans for his people: I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end (vs. 11).  The captives needed to set their hearts upon this infallible truth and seek those better days by faith.

God Answers Prayer: According to vv. 12-13, if these captives sought the Lord with all their hearts, the Lord would look down from heaven with tender mercy and grant them all the grace they needed in this, their time of need. He would also, eventually, bring them home.

God Gathers His People: Though scattered now as a people, the promise of vs. 14 is that God would call them out from all the nations, gather them to himself, and bring them back home. That is exactly what happened. After the appointed seventy years, God brought them back home, just as God promised.  

There is also a New Testament fulfillment to this promise; namely, that thousands more are being called out of all the nations every single Lord’s Day through the preaching of the holy Gospel. We know this because Jesus said: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (John 10:27). 

Have you heard the Shepherd’s voice and would you now follow him? Even if it means living as a stranger in a strange land? Even if it means feeling out-of-place in these United States of Babylon? If so, then praise God and consider the advice that has here been offered that you might not only survive, but even thrive in these strange times:  Acknowledge the Sovereignty of God - Listen for God’s Voice in Scripture - Just Keep Living a Normal Life - Don’t Allow Liars to Deceive You - and Believe that Better Days are Coming.


 

Christian McShaffrey serves as Pastor of the church which he planted in 2003: Five Solas Church (OPC). Mr. McShaffrey is a graduate of Worsham College of Mortuary Science and Mid-America Reformed Seminary. He is the administrator of the TR Friendly Church Directory. He and his wife Kelly live in the rolling hills just outside of Reedsburg, WI where they built a house, planted a garden, and are raising their six children.

Has God Really Said? Resisting the #ReformedDowngrade by Shane D. Anderson

HipstamaticPhoto-610399374.294084.jpeg

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.

When Love Declines Into Partiality: Richard Baxter by Shane D. Anderson

public.jpeg

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

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

public.jpeg

‪“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/



“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

IMG_3548.jpeg

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church: Against Racism by Shane D. Anderson

racism opc.png

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