Aimee Byrd, and on differences in interacting with men and women

“As if she were a man”

Why not just interact with men and women as if they were people, regardless? That’s what Jesus did.

— Tim Fall (@tim_fall) September 28, 2020

In response to my review of Aimee Byrd's book Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Tim Fall decided to fault me on one particular sentence in my introduction, whereby I clearly state that I am reviewing Byrd's book "as if she were a man." That phrase seems to be riling up some feathers, which was rather surprising since I do not buy into radical egalitarianism. But somehow I guess what used to be common sense and biblical good manners need to be defended in this current age. So here goes.

It is generally assumed in a civilized society that one treats women with more gentleness and kinder words, as compared to how one treats men. Call that treating women as a "weaker vessel" if you will, but a civilized society will want to protect women and children, and this (protect women and children) is NOT up for discussion. Part of such protection as it pertains to words is to not use strong words to a woman. One would rather play down the issue or verbally concede when interacting with women. Such actions may sometimes appear disingenous, and perhaps there are better ways society can mange such interactions. However, the notion that one should not speak strongly with women is a good general principle.

In the case of Aimee Byrd, what she has been doing in her rejection of biblical manhood and wommanhood, and the drama that comes along when she reacts to critics, is extremely off-putting. Her teachings are pernicious, but what makes it even worse is that she takes upon herself authority to publicly rebuke men and even pastors. Her aggression is like that of a man, and this is why I am treating her as if she were one. She is not teacheable, aggressive, uncharitable, and less than honest.

How does doing a review for a male author differ from for a female author? While I am not always consistent, here are some examples:

Typical reviewing of a male author	Typical reviewing of a female author
This reviewer suspects a greater fidelity to this hermeneutic due to Byrd’s unrepentant misrepresentation of her opponents.	This reviewer suggest a tendency towards this hermeneutic due to Byrd’s continual misrepresentation of her opponents.
After all, if the response to a critical review alleging misrepresentation is to double-down on those charges, then either Byrd is dishonest, or she embraces a reader-response hermeneutic wherein she gets to decide what a text really mean.	This suspicion comes about because Byrd fails to perceive her misrepresentations even after they had been pointed out to her. Since the charge of misrepresentation was clear, the only option possible is for her to embrace some version of reader-response hermeneutic where she decides the meaning of any text she reads.
One wonders just how bad is Byrd’s capability at comprehension, that she cannot even understand what Piper is plainly saying	Byrd is therefore misrepresenting Piper in what he is plainly saying.
For a book that claims to be a rejection of biblical manhood and womanhood, and a “recovery” from it, Byrd surprisingly misrepresents biblical manhood and womanhood throughout her entire book	While portraying itself as a biblical rejection and “recovery” away from biblical manhood and womanhood, Byrd sadly misrepresents it throughout her book.
Naselli in his review mentioned that Byrd has misinterpreted ESS, but she refuses to listen. Again, either she is a dishonest woman, or she embraces a reader-response hermeneutic. I leave it up to the readers to judge for themselves.	Naselli in his review mentioned that Byrd has misrepresented ESS, but she has not corrected her mistake. Supposing that she comprehends his word, the most charitable interpretation is that she is embracing a reader-response hermeneutic in her interpretation.
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.	In conclusion, while Byrd does have a few legitimate grievances over some practices in the wider church, her book is filled with an unbiblical hermeneutic and unbiblical interpretations of the biblical texts.
She is less than honest about her opponents, constantly misrepresenting them and doubling down on her misrepresentations when confronted about it.	She continues to misrepresent her opponents even after being corrected over it.

When I asked if one should be rough with women the same way one can be rough with men, Tim Fall decided that 2 Timothy 2:24-25 is appropriate here, to which I raised Galatians 5:12. But to flesh out my response, somehow "gentleness" as defined by the modern world is the gold standard. But the same apostle who wrote 2 Timothy 2:24-25 also wrote Galatians 5:12. The same gentle Jesus who would not break a bruised reed pronounced severe woes on the Pharisees. The fact is that biblical gentleness IS compatible with being rough if the occasion demands it. In the apostle Paul's case, it was against the false teachers in Galatia, the Judaizers. Thus, we see that when it comes to error, there is a place for strong words, in order to warn people and turn people away from falsehood. It is surely illuminating that all the "gentleness" in the American churches has allowed borderline heresy to thrive under the banner of Revoice, with very few being "man enough" to rebuke them and file charges against those involved.

When error is promoted by women, in line with the view that women should be generally protected from strong words, the tendency should be to suspect failure of understanding rather than failure of character, even when the evidence is clear it is the latter. Again, this may look disingenous, but this is the best practice so far. Generally, strong words should not be used on women, whereas men should be able to take it. Not being able to take and give strong words in a man is in my opinion a sign of effeminacy.

Book Review: Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Aimee Byrd

The book review that many may dread has arrived. I have finally managed to read and review the book Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Aimee Byrd, and it can be found here. Byrd wants equality as a woman, and thus she is given fair treatment in my review, with no holds barred, as if she were a man. It should be obvious that I am not a fan of her conduct, and most definitely not of her social egalitarianism. But I am fair in my review. An excerpt:

2016 marked the year of the ESS (Eternal submission of the Son) controversy. For various reasons, ESS is somehow linked to CBMW. Certain people within the Reformed camp who were chafing at what they had decided were foreign to the Bible broke away from complementarianism altogether, including Rachel Green Miller and Aimee Byrd. Miller had written a book earlier entitled Beyond Authority and Submission, and Byrd now entitled hers Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The not so subtle dig at CBMW notwithstanding, what the title intends to convey is that Byrd sees the teaching of biblical manhood and womanhood as a false teaching which she has once held and is now “recovering” from it.

In this light, Byrd’s book acts as an attack against the teaching of biblical manhood and womanhood, and the recovery of what she believes to the better approach to the topic of not just gender roles but also church relations. The use of the word “recovery” links her to the ressourcement movement in parts of Evangelicalism, with all the connotation that it has.

[more]

Aimee Byrd, Deepfakes, and the importance of integrity

Aimee Byrd has recently kicked up a storm with her assault upon Genevan Commons, a private Facebook group. In her post, she linked to a "discernment" website which doxxed members of the group as well as posted doctored and deepfaked images of screenshots from the group, insinuating that the people there are ungodly slanderers and misogynists. This came after her forced departure from the Alliances of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE). In light of those images, it seems that the pastors and elders and all commentors on Genevan Commons are to be sharply rebuked and censured for their conduct, for after all, there is no excuse for such sinful behavior despite the fact that Byrd is in error in her egalitarianism.

The case agaisnt Genevan Commons however starts to unravel when one begins to peer beneath the surface, and noticing the way the comments are rearranged in order to mislead, as Seven Wedgeworth (whom I have criticized over his view of justification and therefore cannot be said to be a friend or ally of mine) had pointed out. Another commentor has joined in to show how the images had misrepresented his commment which was not directed at Byrd at all. Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of using the term "whore," the fact remains that "whore" is a perfectly proper term in the English language to refer to a prostitute, and pornographer Stormy Daniel deserves that label. Now, in order for sin to be sin, it must be truly a sin. In other words, if the comments in their proper context are not sinful, then the images, having misrepresented the comments, are guilty of violating the ninth commandment. Thus, the creator of those images and those who share them, including Byrd, are guilty of violating the ninth commandment. But instead, we see Byrd doubling down and refusing to aknowledge her sin. The question is very simple: Were those images misrepresentations of the comments? Yes or no? If yes, then they violate the ninth commandment. If no, then the onus is on the one asserting that it is not a misrepresentation to prove that the images are indeed a prroper representation of the comments. Instead, what we see from Byrd is a hysterical vent about how "tired" she is, portraying herself as a victim, while totally ignoring the substance of Wedgeworth's post.

None of this exonerates the ungodly conduct of some commentors. Those who do so ought to repent. However, if we are to be people of truth, then we must stick to the truth. Slandering Byrd is sin, but so is slandering her critics. Just because Byrd was sinned against does not in any way give her the right to sin against others as well.

The key question therefore, for Byrd and her defenders, are these:

1. Do you agree that the images misrepresented some of the comments, and specifically Steven Wedgeworth and Paul Barth? Yes or no?

2. If yes, do you repent of bearing false witness against them?

3. If no, please disprove Wedgeworth's and Barth's assertion. Saying you are "tired" and playing the victim card gets no brownie points from me. Answer the question, and show you are interested in actually engaging the issue, instead of playing the victim card.

News: Aimee Byrd kicked out of ACE

In an interesting development, soocial egalitarian Aimee Byrd has been removed from contributing to the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, which occasioned her current "update" about the event on Scott McKnight's blog on Christianity Today.

There are three things that I want to comment here. First, Byrd states that she does not know who the Board of Directors of ACE are, presumably except for the chair since she was contacted by him. She has also mentioned the unnamed people who have contributed to the questions posed to her by Jonathan Master. I will just add that I do not like this practice of seeming anonymity in the Reformed world. I do not understand the reason for anonymity especially for ordained ministers, so perhaps someone would want to enlighten me why this is the case. I do believe the best way to deal with disagreement is to be frank and honest about it. What is the point of anonymmity and getting someone to be the spokesman for a group of people in the church?

The second issue I want to comment is Byrd's conduct concerning the questions put forward by Jonathan Master. According to Byrd, in response to the question, she answered one of them, and decided "afer seeking counsel" to decline answering the rest of them. Now, I do not know which universe Byrd resides in, but I think that when someone has questions concerning your orthodoxy, you should try to assauge their concerns and answer their questions properly. Instead, Byrd's conduct in this mattter has been the same as to her conduct with CMBW, which is mere obfuscation of the issues. In the supposed response to one of the questions, her response is one of non-response. The questions was one of natural law, yet Byrd's reponse is to to talk about ontology, but the two are not the same thing. It is possible that Byrd does not understand the question, but if that is the case, then she has no business writing a book on the topic of biblical manhoood and womanhood, in the same way no one is interested in whether a five-year old agrees with Einstein's theory(ies) of relativity.

Lastly, I want to comment on Byrd's insistence that she and what she has written is "in line with the confessions in which my Orthodox Presbyterian Church subscribes." As someone who was in the OPC as a licentiate during the time I was in the US, merely stating that she is "in line with the confessions" is not sufficient. She may think she is in line with the Reformed confessions, but she may be wrong and self-deceived. It is not enough for her to assert that she is "in line with the confessions" of the OPC. Since she has written a book on the topic, anyone can test what she has written to what the Reformed Confessions, and what the Word of God, actually says about the topic.

This assertion by Byrd that she is in line with the OPC's Confessions is troubling. Most people do not assert that they are in line with their church's confession as an argument in favor of their position, but if they say so, they prove that their views are in fact in line with their church's confessions. From Byrd however, there is much talk about her being in line with the OPC's confessions and about her being in good standing in her church, and little proof about how what she says is actually biblical and Reformed. To be honest, this is my first time seeing someone make an argument about the validity of their position from their standing in the church, as if the latter has any bearing on the former at all!

What Byrd should have received from Reformed pastors is empathy, compassion, correction, and teaching. Instead, she has been propped up in her ignorance by men who should have known better: men like Carl Trueman, Todd Pruitt, and R Scott Clark. The current situation with Byrd is a disaster, and this infection of egalitarianism will weaken the Reformed churches.

CBMW book review: Aimee Byrd's "Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood"

Over at the CBMW (Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) website, Andrew David Naselli has written a review of Aimee Byrd's new book Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. An excerpt:

John Piper and Wayne Grudem edited Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1991, and now Aimee Byrd has written Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood some thirty years later. Byrd, an influential author, speaker, blogger, and podcaster, claims to be recovering from so-called “biblical manhood and womanhood.” For the past several years on her podcast and blog, Byrd has been criticizing the version of complementarianism that leaders such as John Piper teach. (The term complementarianism summarizes the theological view of the Danvers Statement and conveys that men and women are both equal in value and dignity and beneficially different.) Byrd has developed and expanded those critiques in her latest book.

[more ...]

Whatever one thinks of the topic of complementarianism, the main thing to take note is that one should properly represent one's opponent(s). And that is one virtue of which Byrd shows a shocking lack. From the review, it seems that Byrd misrepresents her opponents regularly, which is not surprising seeing how impervious to correction she is online. Misrepresentation, especially willful misrepresentation, is a violation of God's law, specifically the ninth commandment.

As it pertains to the ESS controversy of 2016, this is what Naselli wrote, after saying that he disagrees with ESS:

1. Byrd misrepresents the eternal relations of authority and submission view when she writes, “This doctrine teaches that the Son, the second person of the Trinity, is subordinate to the Father, not only in the economy of salvation but in his essence” (101). Grudem and Ware and others who hold to eternal relations of authority and submission would not affirm that statement; they would explicitly reject it.

2. Byrd misrepresents the motives of those who teach this view when she asserts that they employ “an unorthodox teaching of the Trinity, the eternal subordination of the Son (ESS), in order to promote subordination of women to men” (100). But the motive for such a teaching is to elevate women and dignify the submission that God calls them to. The motive for such a teaching is to attempt to explain and apply passages about authority and submission such as 1 Corinthians 11:3: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”

3. Byrd implies that theologians such as Grudem and Ware are heretics and thus not genuine Christians. She argues that such theologians hold unorthodox teachings “on a first-order doctrine,” (121) and that they are “unorthodox teachers that are not in line with Nicene Trinitarian doctrine” (173). But the eternal relations of authority and submission position that Grudem and Ware defend is not heresy.

4. Byrd repeatedly writes (especially in ch. 4—pp. 99–132) as if the eternal relations of authority and submission position that Grudem and Ware defend is essential to complementarianism. I understand why some might assume it is essential since Grudem is a leading proponent of complementarianism. But some complementarians intensely criticized Grudem and Ware on this matter, and most complementarians realize that Grudem and Ware made some theological missteps—even Grudem and Ware acknowledge that! More importantly, complementarianism does not stand or fall regarding whether the eternal relations of authority and submission view is true. That view is not part of the Danvers Statement, which states what all complementarians affirm. Complementarianism is not intrinsically tied to that particular view of the Trinity.

While I myself do not agree with Grudem and Ware's formulation of ESS, it is truly astonishing to see all the misrepresentation on this issue. The fact is this: ESS (of any form) does not postulate submission or subordination of any person of the Godhead in the essence of the Godhead. Whoever says otherwise is lying and has to repent.

Now that Byrd's views are stated in black and white, there is a public record of what she has to say about the issue, and anyone is free to read it and see whether she has truly proven her case. For those on her side however, it is unlikely that they will actually interact with Naselli's review in a fair manner. After all, if they have continually misrepresented ESS for years, why would they suddenly swallow their egos and confess their sin and error in this matter?

On Gender Roles and Society

The problem with Miller’s approach is there are no such thing as “man-actions,” and “woman-actions.” Both genders can do any action depending on the context! The nature of men and women are not dependent on what action they are currently doing, especially when the same action word can mean different things for both men and women. For example, the leadership of Deborah was one that seek to encourage a man to take up leadership (Barak; Jdg. 4:6-7), while the men in leadership in Israel do not do so. By focusing on actions instead of the manner of how things are done, Miller gives the impression that there is no essential difference (besides biology) between men and women in their natures, which is essentially the egalitarian position. [-DHC, from my review of Rachel Miller's book Beyond Authority and Submission]

The crushing normalcy of egalitarianism pervades modern culture today. Egalitarianism is the air that we breathe, so much so that it take tremendous effort to not think in terms of egalitarian terms. That is likely why Rachel Miller is a social egalitarian, because the church focuses (as it should to a certain degree) most of her efforts on the church and less on how the Bible orders how men and women ought to reflect the glory of God in Creation. The Church rightly teaches concerning Redemption, yet its teaching on Creation is sorely lacking, which is why so-called "soft complementarianism" has emerged in supposed orthodox Reformed circles.

As I have alluded to in my review of Miller's book, I agree that there are no "men" and "women" actions, but that the manner of doing such actions are to be informed by nature which includes gender. (For general purposes, I treat "sex" and "gender" as interchangeable terms.) Some people may think that this implies that a woman can do anything a man can. But such is not what I am asserting. Rather, I am saying that men and women can do all actions, which is different from saying they can do all things interchangeably. The case in point is the action of leading, where I contrasted the action of leading of Deborah to the action of leading of any male leader in Israel. Deborah's leading is a deferential leading, a leading because of a lack of leadership. The correct way of understanding Deborah is not that she wants to lead, but she leads because there is no competent male judge at that time, and Barak refuses to take the lead even after being asked to do so.

Thus, there is a distinction between an action, and the context and persons involved in the action. Unlike many complementarians, I do not like to give concrete applications of what a man can or cannot do. Application of what God has taught concerning gender is a matter of wisdom, not law. The principles however should be taught concerning gender roles, and who one is in his or her nature ought to influence how one acts and behaves in life, including in society. Having said that, there are some issues of which we should have no ambiguity over. To have women in the armed forces in combat vocations is definitely wrong, for how can one think that having the potentiality of women dying in wars to defend the country is ever acceptable? Or how about women being the top ruler(s) in a country? All of these are contrary to the principles of Creation ordered by God, and thus should be rejected by Christians.

In today's fallen, non-Christian world, such things and more have become increasingly common, under the so-called push for "equal rights." As Christians living in secular countries, we submit to the ruling authorities no matter how wicked they are. That does not however mean that we endorse what is happening as something good. Christians must submit to female prime ministers, but we should not think that is a good thing, and we must agree that such a person if she were in our churches should be investigated for possible church discipline. We live as dual citizens. As earthly citizens, we submit to earthly authority, but as heavenly citizens, we testify to the evils of the earthly kingdom, including its violation of the Natural Law given by God.

On the one hand, we must acknowledge the ethical equality of men and women, On the other hand, we must acknowledge the ontological inequality of men and women. Men and women are not the same and will never be the same, no matter what nonsense the world says in her wickedness. All of these we must not only hold intellectually, but also practice as best as we can, living as counter-cultural witness to the Kingship of God in this world, not just in Redemption but also in Creation.

Book Review: Beyond Authority and Submission, by Rachel Green Miller

I have finally managed to find the time to read the book and write a review of Rachel Green Miller's book Beyond Authority and Submission: Women and Men in Marriage, Church, and Society. The review can be seen here. An excerpt:

The Church in the West (which bleeds into the Global Church) is currently facing many challenges without and within the church. In the later half of the 20th century, Christians in America reacted against radical feminism and re-asserted the biblical teaching of complementarianism, with its flagship organization being the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). Its opponent within Christendom is egalitarianism, held by many who have been influenced by feminism. ... [more]

To summarize one critical part of my review, Miller's book is promoting social egalitarianism while holding on to a weak form of ecclesial complementarianism (male-only ordination). Her book is disingenuous in her portrayal of those she disagrees with, and her citation of sources is unscholarly and less than acceptable for someone who has been given an oversized platform to promote her aberrant views.

Rachel Miller and Issues of Ancient History

In the blog Ars Politica, an article was written in response to WHI's review of Rachel Miller's book Beyond Authority and Submission, dealing with the historical facts of ancient Greco-Roman civilization. The article is indeed fascinating, so do read it here.

The issue of gender roles as it pertains to ministry within the church

With John MacArthur's two word answer to the question "Beth Moore" being "Go home," the issue of women in the church has risen again to the forefront. The assault against complementarianism it seems continues unabated. One of the defenses excuses concerning Beth Moore in ministry is that she is not preaching to men but merely "sharing," especially on special occasions such as Mothers' Day. But is that defense even valid at all?

Complementarianism, or the biblical teaching concerning the roles of men and women extending to the rejection of the validity of woman pastors and elders (and perhaps deacons), is based upon the whole of Scripture concerning what God has commanded concerning how men and women ought to function in the world and in the church. Since gender is a creation construct, therefore distinction in gender roles are not caused by sin and are to be celebrated. Although the teaching on gender roles permeate all of Scripture, there are particular texts in the Bible that specifically deal with the topic. One major text is that of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and it was for that reason that I had read up and written an exegetical paper on that passage, which is entitled Gender Roles: Ordained order of mankind towards the Creator. This was written when I was in seminary nearly seven years ago, but I continue to stand by what I have written, and I reject the notion of gender egalitarianism in any form it manifests itself.

The question of the place of women in the church of course runs deeper into just whether women can be office bearers. In total's sharply (social) egalitarian society, there is pressure towards bringing that egalitarian mindset into the church. One way of doing that is to simply have women doing the functions of the special office, without the office that comes with those functions. Thus, Beth Moore merely "shares": she doesn't "preaches," even though for all intents and purposes she is preaching. Another way is to blur the line and be involved in radio programs where ordained men discuss theological issues affecting the church (e.g. Mortification of Spin), and say that you are not preaching by being on the program, which is technically correct. That is, unless you are a regular, where you are in effect given a platform with equal status alongside other ordained men. The sheer number of ways the sinful human mind can think of to attempt to circumvent God's prohibition on women preaching is truly astonishing.

Along this same line however is the focus on the issue of the special office itself, which is also under attack as being unfair at best and a "laity control" system or worse when egalitarianism comes knocking. Both gender roles and the special office are similar in the fact that God has ordained them both and limit people under both. But they are not the same thing. Gender roles is a creation ordinance, while the special office of the church is a redemptive ordinance. Yet, there is sufficient similarity that, in the context of the church, it can be said that unordained men are like women, in that just as women cannot partake of the ordained ministry of the church, so likewise unordained men cannot partake of that ministry of the church. The key point in positing this similarity is to show that gender restrictions in the church are not purely arbitrary since the restriction against ministry applies likewise to unordained men.

This analogy is sometimes framed as saying that women can do whatever unordained men can do in the church. But if that is the case, then conversely it can be logically inferred that unordained men cannot do what women cannot do [If p, then q = If ~q, then ~p]. But how does that affect ministry within the church? Well, if unordained men cannot do what women cannot do, then, when you wonder if an unordained man should be doing this ministry in the church, ask yourself, "Would I be comfortable with a woman doing it in the church?" If yes, then go ahead. But if no, then clearly, no unordained man should be doing that ministry in the church.

This applies particularly to preaching in the church, where many church plants have a practice of allowing anyone that the church planter feels is able to preach to bring the Word. But if the church plant rejects egalitarianism, then they should not have any unordained man preaching. They can have licentiates (who have been licensed to preach) or even those under care of the church to preach, but the pulpit should not be open to anyone else! Church plants are not free to violate the commands of God just because they are church plants! Did God give a special dispensation to church planters so that they can violate the commands of God because they have the "good intention" of starting a new church? Where is that taught in Scripture?

This goes for all aspects of the church's ministry, especially including the liturgical elements of the reading of the Law and the declaration of pardon. It should be abundantly clear that unordained men do not have the authority of the church to declare God's forgiveness of sins (Te Absolvo) upon the people, so upon what basis should they be asked to conduct that section of the liturgy? Neither do they possess Christ's authority to call the people of God to worship Him (Call to Worship), or take the authority of Christ to represent the church in public prayer to God in the service (Remember that this is public prayer not private prayer). If unordained men cannot do what women cannot do, then there is no difference between asking unordained men to do the Call to Worship, do the Reading of the Law and the Gospel and the Declaration of Pardon, doing the public corporate Prayers of the church, and asking any woman to do the same. Any church or church plant that does this is no different from a church having a woman pastor who regularly conducts the services of the church! It is sin, it is treason against the most holy God, and must be repented of! No two ways about it!

The problem with us living in a society of radical individualism and autonomy, with an unholy entitlement complex, is that we subconsciously bring this mindset into the church. We think that ministry is an entitlement that we can grasp, and see God's good commands as limitations upon our ambitions of "service." We resent the fact that God has only called SOME to serve, not all, and we are constantly thinking of new ways to circumvent God's holy ordering of the world and the church. This is something that we all have to repent of constantly, and submit to Christ in all things in our lives, both men and women, ordianed men and unordained men. Amen.

Summer White Jaeger: Why Feminism Can't Save You

Last year, Summer White Jaeger, the daughter of apologist Dr. James White, gave a talk on the topic of Feminism with mention of Critical Race Theory as it affects the church. It is an interesting talk which can be heard here.

[Source]

MoS: Bully Pulpit and Patriarchy

The recent Mortification of Spin (MoS) podcast has an interesting discussion on the issue of patriarchy, as least as contemporarily interpreted by those who are (over)-reacting to feminism. You can hear it here.

Paper: Gender Roles: Ordained Order of Mankind towards the Creator

I have finally received back the last of my papers to be returned from last semester. The paper is entitled Gender Role: Ordained Order of Mankind to the Creator, being an exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:8-15. The paper can be found here. An excerpt:

The issue of women ordination in particular and women ministry in general is a hotly debated issue since the 1950s. With the rise of Feminism in the general culture, the Feminist movement has also impacted even professing Evangelical and Reformed churches. Numerous articles and books have been written on this issue, and it has generated controversy in churches and denominations. With the splitting of Evangelicalism into approximately two camps on the issue of women in the church, namely Egalitarians (“Biblical Feminists”) and Complementarians, accusations and counter-accusations have been made regarding the compromises and distortions of biblical teachings done by the other camp. Recently, egalitarian theologian William David Spencer has formulated a document entitled “An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity,” in which he accuses Complementarians of embracing Subordinationism in order to prop up their belief in the submission of wives to their husbands. Such a charge has been made before, and it is easily refuted.

[more]

The failure of conservatism in apostate denominations

In a conference I attended some time ago, there were some conservative PC(USA) people, who may have been from Fuller Seminary, present. For some reason I was present in a conversation where remarks were made about the denomination. It seems that while the leadership of the denomination is extremely liberal, the assertion is made that they could not offend the conservatives in the denomination who it seems pastor growing congregations, while churches pastored by the liberals are small and dying.

This came to my mind as I read this post by Rachel Miller. Following the link provided, we can see what this Fellowship of Presbyterians is about. It is interesting to note their stance on ministry, where they state:

Egalitarian Ministry: We believe in unleashing the ministry gifts of women, men, and every ethnic group.

It is highly likely that these "conservatives" are Barthians, especially as they omit inerrancy from their values. The key point to make is that these people are hardly conservatives. They are "conservatives" only when compared to the loony left wing of the apostate PC(USA).

A little leaven leavens the whole loaf. By continuing to stay unequally yoked in the PC(USA), these "conservatives" have paid a high price. Their witness for Christ is sullied; by their identification with false teachers, they have dragged the Name of Christ through the mud. They have confused their congregations at worst about what is truth and what is mere difference in opinion, and at best have installed in their congregations a latitudinarian attitude towards sound doctrine (if it wasn't present there already).

Lastly, false doctrine have infiltrated these compromising churches, with their embrace of egalitarianism and Barthianism. So much for standing firm for Christ it seems.

By choosing to implement some form of separation now due to the immorality of promoting homosexuality at the highest level, while not doing so due to the entrance of false doctrine, shows their inverted notion of biblical priority, which places theology above praxis although both are important. It's straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. Having compromised biblical teaching, they are hypocritical for trying to take a stand on biblical ethics.

We may be tempted to rejoice that more people are separating from the liberals. But what's the point if they continue to harbor false doctrine? What's the point of affirming morality while denigrating theology? Hell is full of moral people after all!

We should continue to call these "conservatives" to full repentance, not affirm them only when they merely reject one shibboleth. There is more hope for a person who believes the truth and struggles with homosexuality, than for a person who believes error and is a properly functioning human. The break of these "conservatives" with the liberals smack of self-righteous moralism more than any real stand for the Bible, and I wouldn't be surprised if the liberals think of them that way (obviously for other reasons than me). If they really want to stand for the faith, let them stand for ALL of Scripture, not just the ones they like.

Response to "An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity"

I have previously briefly responded to the so-called "Evangelical Statement on the Trinity" here. Here, I would like to publish my full response to that Statement, which interacts with the theological section of the Statement. The full response can be found here. As I have written,

Recently, William David Spencer, in consultation with many theologians, has drafted a document which he has called “An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity.” Is this document however what it proclaims to be? Is this statement truly Evangelical, in the historic sense of the term? More importantly, is it biblical?

In this article, I would like to analyze this statement as it is made available online. Is this a statement that Christians and especially Evangelicals should embrace, or should it be rejected?

The theological commentary of the Statement is arranged according to a few themes, and we will therefore in part one first address these themes in the order they are written, then give an apologetic for a more biblical view of the Trinity in part two.

[more]

Excerpt on Complementarianism

In my full response to the supposed An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity, which is currently delayed as I have sought feedback to it, I have included a section on Complementarianism. I would like to post that section here first.

We shall start with a brief description of complementarianism, the biblical antidote to egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the view that equality (especially as it pertains to men and women) pertains to every aspect of being, roles and relationships. Therefore, egalitarianism teaches that there is full equality between men and women to the extent that there are no fundamental differences (besides biological which cannot be denied) between men and women. In society, egalitarianism teaches what is called absolute gender blindness. No discrimination between men and women is allowed, and whatever men can do, women can likewise do. Whatever men can be, women can likewise be. You will seldom hear of course of the converse that men should be able to do what women can do, although egalitarianism should promote that same truth.

In marriage, egalitarianism is worked out in the rejection of any form of headship of the husband over the wife. If any headship is allowed at all (soft egalitarianism), it is a functional headship whereby one party especially the dominant party makes the final decision. In Christian circles, this can be worked out as the husband being the head of the family in the sense of functionally leading the family. Yet any other form of headship is implicitly or explicitly denied.

Complementarianism is the view that agrees that men and women are equal before God. Women are not inferior to men, or vice versa. However, we stress that there is a creational difference of roles and relationships between men and women. Men and women are different not just biologically, but also ontologically as created. If it was just biological, then having a sex-change operation would turn one automatically from a male to a female or vice versa. Rather, gender is not a biological or social construct but a created construct.

Socially, this means that men and women are not the same. Certainly, women should not be discriminated against in terms of denying of jobs and promotions and pay, but this is not what we are getting at. The issue here is that men and women think differently, perceive things differently etc. To the extent that such differences are manifested, they should not be denigrated as mere social constructs, as if women must be able to be almost a carbon copy of men with the exception of biology. Differences between the genders are to be celebrated, not denigrated. Along this line, having mandatory gender quotas for any field of study and work denies both the equality of value and worth, and the created differences between the two sexes. Having a minimum number of women in politics (an affirmative action) is one such error of egalitarianism. Fields such as these should be based purely on interest and meritocracy rather than some misplaced egalitarian view of human nature. If no woman for example wants to join politics, one should not force them to, and one should not discriminate against them entering the field either.

In the family, there is an equality in the worth and value of the marriage partners. But the headship of husband is ordained by God not merely as a functional reality but as a creational ontological reality. A woman submits to her husband not because that is the best way to run a household; not because if both sides insist on their way there would be perpetual conflict. A woman submits to her husband because that is the ordained reality of creation. Similarity in worth and value, but differences in roles and relationships.

In complementarianism, the submission called for is not that of a superior over the inferior. Men are not superior to women and women are not inferior to men. Rather, it is a submission of an equal to another equal, based upon creational reality. Only the embrace of radical egalitarian assumptions would make this incoherent, for egalitarianism equates submission to inferiority, whereas that is not true.

Misquoted verses: Compiled article

I have just created and uploaded the compiled article containing all the exegesis of the misquoted verses onto my website. It can be found here.

Misquoted verse: Gal. 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28)

In context:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Gal. 3: 23-29)

Gal. 3:28 is indeed a precious verse when understood correctly. Misinterpreted, however, and it becomes a tool for devastating the Faith, as has happened in the hands of the feminists and their egalitarian allies.

Gal. 3:28 is located in a discourse in Galatians on the topic of salvation. More specifically, the topic is with regards to the historical unfolding of the Gospel of promise which bring an end to the former era of Law (capital 'L') in redemptive history. In Paul's view, the era of the Law placed the people of God under bondage which is necessary to create the ground for the Gospel to take root, the Law functioning as our pedagogue (v. 24) to lead us to Christ through our being justified by faith.

It is in light of the dawning of the Gospel promise that the Apostle Paul make this amazing statement in Gal. 3:28. Traditional Jewish culture tends to look down to women, yet Paul here makes the clam that men and women are alike as to salvation (which is the immediate context). Through the use of merisms, Paul states that all of humanity is encompassed in God's plan of salvation through the promise of the Gospel. Gal. 3:28 therefore functions to proclaim the universality of the Gospel promise unto any and everyone who believes and are thus made one in Christ.

As it has been seen, this verse has to do with the equality of all people in salvation. The feminists and their egalitarian allies, in their attempt to wrest this verse to promote the abolishments of any differences in roles between men and women are thus reading a concept alien to the context (and alien to Scripture too) into the verse. The feminist and egalitarian misuse of this verse to promote their errant theory is thus wrong.

AWARE and the homosexual agenda

I guess I didn't have a good opinion of AWARE, seeing as a sexist organization. But the recent AWARE saga, in which a group of women through democatic means wrest control of the feminist NGO from the Old Guard and was then accused of staging of coup by them, is indeed interesting. The hysterics of the Old Guard and the spin placed on the media to promote the homosexual agenda here in Singapore is really revealing (so much for the neutrality of the press). As it is correctly reported by the Christian Post:

For the past week they were blasted by members of the public for an aggressive 'takeover'.

But leaders of the 'coup' have revealed to the media that the actual takeover had occurred some years back when certain elements in the organisation had used it as a platform to promote homosexuality.

In an impromptu press conference conducted yesterday at Raffles Town Club, New AWARE President Josie Lau opened up on the real crisis behind the NGO that had led the new team to run for leadership positions.

“I was being very polite when I said [that Aware had lost its focus]… It has really not lost its focus but I think it has gone further than that, much, much further than that,” she said.

“It has now become a single-objective organisation. So that's what the new team is here to do: we want to bring Aware back to its original, very noble objective, which is to represent all women, to advance their cause, all women whatever religion and race in areas such as professional development, their private life, their health... We need to look at ageism, all the problems... So we should be pushing those cause.

"Lau and the other new leaders, who form a third of the entire exco, were democratically elected at the NGO's annual general meeting last month but have been accused of using strong-arm tactics to gain control of the organisation in what has been negatively portrayed by public media as an act of Christian fundamentalism.

Under the leadership of ex-president Constance Singam, Aware sponsored the screening of the lesbian-themed movie Spider Lilies at its charity gala in 2007. When a concerned parent wrote in to the media asking why Aware’s choice of movie for a charity show was a film about two lesbians who fall in love, Singam said Aware embraced diversity and individual choices and was glad Singapore is now more open to discussing diversity.

In the NGO’s comprehensive sexuality education programme conducted in 30 schools for young girls aged from twelve to 18, homosexuality is regarded as a neutral rather than a negative word.

“The suggestion is that in this programme, young girls from twelve to 18 are taught that it’s okay to experiment with each other,” said Dr Thio Su Mien, the founding partner of a local law firm and first woman law dean at the National University of Singapore. Dr Thio says Aware was started by her contemporaries and friends and as a concerned party she played a part in persuading the four new exco members, namely, Ms Josie Lau, Ms Maureen Ong, Ms Jenica Chua and Ms Lois Ng to join the NGO and is presently acting as their mentor.

“And this is something which should concern parents in Singapore. Are we going to have an entire generation of lesbians?” She added that the parents to whom she had spoken about the sexuality programme were indignant. Such programmes, she noted, are not new and have been taking place in the United States and Europe.

[continued]

Guess what would happen if those in the new Exco were women from a certain religion known for the violence of its adherents? Oh yes, the newspapers would suddenly find other things to report. But of course, Christians are fair game to attack, mock and ridicule. So much for the Singapore creed: "regardless of race, language or religion".

Also, if four homosexuals were to take over a Christian NGO, do you think the Press would be decrying that the new guard had done an aggressive takeover? Forget it! I think we would see glowing reports of how "progressive" Christians NGOs have become. The duplicity of the Press is astonishing, if it was not so sad.

Article: On Women's Ordination - A Response to Dr. Davis on 1 Tim. 2:12

Over at Reformation21, Rev. Rick Phillips evaluates the egalitarian argument by Dr. John Jefferson Davis on 1 Tim. 2:12, who attempts (unsuccessfully) to argue for women leadership in the church.

In August 2008, Professor John Jefferson Davis of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary posted a serial paper on the proper exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:12, titled, "1 Timothy 2:12, the Ordination of Women, and Pauline Use of Creation Narratives." His paper argues that the Greek word authentein, traditionally rendered as "to exercise authority," is better translated as "to usurp authority" or "to dominate". Furthermore, he argues that Paul's appeal to the creation narrative in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 should not be taken as establishing a universal, transcultural principle with regard to women in church leadership. Rather, Davis argues, Paul's commands are church-specific, intending only to deal with local problems in Timothy's immediate pastoral setting. Davis then extrapolates from the example of Deborah's leadership in Judges 4 and 5, citing it as a positive biblical example of divinely-approved female leadership that sets a precedent for the same today. By accepting his revision of 1 Timothy 2:12, regarded as a crux of the complementarian position, Dr. Davis concludes that "the way would be clear to recognize the calling of such gifted women and set them apart for leadership in the church."

Dr. Davis' paper deserves a response from the complementarian camp for two reasons. The first is that we should all be willing to consider biblical appeals and take seriously the exegetical arguments of other positions. Second, given today's context in which many Christians would readily escape from the cultural scorn heaped upon those who uphold traditional Christian views of male headship, any biblical argument is likely to serve as a pretext for revising our beliefs and practice. For this reason we should be especially careful in our exegetical arguments. In assessing the contribution of Dr. Davis's paper with this in mind, I would like to pose four questions.

[more]

Article: Does Sarah Palin present a Dilemma for Complementarians?

An interesting look at the topic raised on the topic of women and the role of women in society, caused by the unexpected choice of Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as the Vice-President candidate on the US Republican ticket. How are Christians therefore to view this issue? More fundamentally, how does one view this issue biblically in light of the biblical truths of Complementarianism and the different gender roles assigned in Scripture?

Over at the Gender blog, David Kotter has posted a four-part series on this topic [part 1, 2, 3, 4] to help us think through this topic.

The media is swirling with opinions and breathless news about Sarah Palin potentially being the Vice President — or even under some dark scenarios the President —of the United States of America. The role of Gender Blog is not to provide a voter's guide, but to help Christians to think biblically about a female vice presidential candidate. It is times like these that underscore the importance of looking to the Word of God as our guide in sorting through ever changing cultural and political situations.

From the outset we must remember that on November 4 the voters will not elect a national minister or pastor in chief. A president is not held to the same moral standards as an elder of a church. While it is a blessing from God to have ethical or even Christian political leaders, the Bible places no such requirements on secular governments. Even though the Bible reserves final authority in the church for men, this does not apply in the kingdom of this world.

Therefore we must be careful to not go beyond the teaching of the Bible. The Bible calls women to specific roles in the church and home, but does not prohibit them from exercising leadership in secular political fields. Rather, the Queen of Sheba is presented in 1 Kings 10:1-13 in a positive light in her interaction with King Solomon. Queen Esther offers an even better example of a woman who appropriately exerted influence for the good of her people without holding the highest position of national authority (Esther 2:17). In this light, we cannot categorically say that it was sinful for Queen Victoria to lead England as a single woman strictly because of her gender, nor can we condemn Governor Palin or any other woman for seeking the office of Vice President.

Women should not be held back from an office that is not strictly forbidden in the Bible. Nevertheless, the question remains whether or not it is wise for a specific woman in a particular season of life to seek such an office — and the same would apply to any man. In evaluating individual cases, a spouse and a local church pastor would be a crucial source of counsel and a means of grace from God. Because of cultural voices to the contrary, we must remind ourselves of the unbelievably high calling of being a wife and mother, and that faithful service in the home is just as pleasing to God as national leadership.

I echo these sentiments. The only legitimate question that I think can be raised is whether such a decision is a wise one in light of family and other commitments, but this is a question to be answered by Sarah Palin and her family and her church to God, not to others.

P.S. There is nothing wrong with Sarah Palin being a Charismatic, even New Apostolic. The way some people criticize her doctrine, you would have thought that civil leaders are to be elected national pastors and popes of the country!