Author and speaker Aimee Byrd has been blacklisted, cyberbullied, and recently ousted from a podcast she hosted for seven years.
Her crime has been challenging a popular definition of biblical manhood and womanhood and its theological foundation. And those coming against her have been pastors, elders, and officers in her own denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church or OPC.
Recently, screenshots critical of Byrd posted by a private Facebook group, called Genevan Commons, were published online. And they are breathtaking.
“I wish her husband loved her enough to tell her to shut up,” a pastor of a reformed church in Indiana wrote.
“Why can’t these women just take their shoes off and make us sandwiches!?!” wrote a Presbyterian pastor in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Give a gift of $30 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a copy of “Jesus v. Evangelicals: A Biblical Critique of a Wayward Movement” by Constantine Campbell. To donate, click here.
A minister in the OPC posted a picture of Byrd speaking in a church, calling it, “Gross. Visually sums up everything wrong with their movement.”
In addition to these online comments, Byrd has also been removed from the Mortification of Spin, a podcast she co-hosted with theologian Carl Trueman and pastor Todd Pruitt.
The group that supports the podcast, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE), reportedly had been receiving pushback from its audience concerning Byrd. The group also objected to Byrd’s refusal to answer a list of questions it had sent her.
Byrd, however, said she didn’t trust the entire interrogatory process. The questions, though posed by a colleague, were first presented to her in an online blog.
Byrd said she later received a private email from the chairman of the ACE board, asking for answers on the behalf of the board. But Byrd said she didn’t even know who was on the board.
“It felt like a trap,” she said. “I felt I was being given a trial by this unnamed jury.”
I reached out multiple times to members of the ACE board—who are not listed on ACE’s website, but are listed on the group’s 990 tax form—but no one replied.
Hear my podcast with Aimee Byrd:
Why the Fury?
Byrd is not a feminist and does not believe women should be ordained, nor that sex roles are interchangeable.
But she’s also not a proponent of “biblical manhood and womanhood” as promoted by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood or CBMW. And she’s called into question much of what CBMW, a major movement among conservative evangelicals, teaches.
The CBMW was founded in 1987 in response to feminist, or egalitarian, views of gender. The CBMW affirms a view known as complementarian, which holds that men and women are equal in worth but different in function. Egalitarians, on the other hand, hold that men and women are equal in both worth and function.
Though Byrd said she agrees with some of the complementarian view, she takes issue with its emphasis on hierarchy and submission. And her work over the past four years has called into question not just the movement’s definition of manhood and womanhood, but also its theological foundation.
In 2016, Byrd touched off what Christianity Today termed a “civil war” between complementarians over something termed the Eternal Subordination of the Son or ESS. ESS holds that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father. And, drawing on the analogy of the Trinity, proponents of ESS argue that just as Jesus is subordinate to God, so women should be subordinate to men.
One of the main proponents of ESS is Wayne Grudem, co-founder of CBMW. Another proponent is Owen Strachan, who in 2016, was president of CBMW. ESS is also promoted in the so-called “blue book” of the CBMW—“Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.”
In two guest posts on Byrd’s blog, Dr. Liam Goligher, senior minister at Tenth Presbyterian Church, denounced ESS as inconsistent with orthodox Christianity and the ancient creeds of the faith. Though Goligher stated he is an “unashamed biblical complementarian,” he argued that ESS presents a “novel” and errant view of God.
Goligher and other critics argued that ESS goes against the spirit of the Nicene Creed, which confronted a heresy known as subordinationism. Subordinationism claims that Jesus is subordinate in nature to God the Father, while still being divine in some way.
However, CBMW’s Wayne Grudem, argued that the Son’s subordination is merely functional and ESS (or EFS, Eternal Functional Subordination) does not diminish Jesus’ divinity in any way.
Grudem further argued that since Jesus was subordinate to the Father during his time on earth, and Jesus was the fullness of God in human form, then Jesus’ submission must be eternal.
Though there were no clear winners in this debate, and no one admitted defeat, Strachan resigned from the CBMW about a month after Goligher’s article published. Strachan said the debate over the Trinity “played no part” in his decision, but many saw the timing as suspect.
When Strachan’s successor, Denny Burk, was asked whether CBMW still supports ESS, Burk asserted that “CBMW exists to promote the Danvers vision, which is silent on this current controversy.” (The Danvers Statement is a 1988 document published by CBMW, defining a complementarian view of gender.)
Byrd called Burk’s comment “just plain irresponsible,” pointing out that a 2001 CBMW document, which was still posted to CBMW’s website, clearly connected ESS to the complementarian position. Plus, Strachan’s 2016 book, which he co-wrote with CBMW’s Gavin Peacock, did likewise, as did a myriad of other CBMW sponsored events and writings.
In response, Burk called Byrd a “closet feminist” and an “accuser of the brethren.” Burk later retracted the “accuser” accusation, calling it “unnecessarily inflammatory.” But battle against Byrd among complementarians had begun.
In 2018, when Byrd published Why Can’t We Be Friends?: Avoidance is Not Purity, some of the reviews were very critical. At the Genevan Commons FB page, the book was outright mocked. (Below is a screenshot of an edited thread about the book from the Genevan Commons Screenshot website. Click here to read the full thread.)
Yet throughout this contentious period, Byrd remained a member in good standing with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and continued co-hosting Mortification of Spin.
However, Byrd’s latest book, Recovering From Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, which argues that CBMW’s definitions of manhood and womanhood are harmful, apparently has gone too far for ACE.
Three days after Byrd’s book published, Jonathan Master, editorial director of reformation21, the e-zine of ACE, challenged Byrd with an online post, Questions for Aimee. Soon after that, Byrd was removed from the podcast.
What Should We Think?
What should Christians make of these developments? Is Byrd correct in her critique of biblical manhood and womanhood? Whether she’s right or wrong, does it warrant the harsh treatment she’s been given? And does this treatment reveal a latent misogyny within the church?
I explore all these questions with Aimee Byrd in my latest podcast.
Already though, dozens of concerned ministers and elders in the OPC have signed an Open Letter condemning the comments at Genevan Commons as “misogynistic” and “completely unacceptable.”
The alleged offenders, on the other hand, remain defiant.
Genevan Commons member, Michael Spangler, wrote that the comments may have been “off-color, some immature . . . But in context most . . . were unobjectionable.”
Pastor Steven Wedgeworth went on the offensive, accusing Byrd of “doxing” and “deepfaking” him by republishing screenshots of edited threads with his comments.
Byrd replied that Wedgeworth had ‘DARVO’ed her (Deny, Attack, Reverse the Victim and the Offender.)
Hear my podcast with Aimee Byrd:
Transcript of podcast is available here.
44 thoughts on “Aimee Byrd, Cyberbullying & the Battle Over Manhood & Womanhood”
I’ve never understood why these men took a novel doctrine of God as they saw it, which emphasizes Jesus’ eternal subordination to the Father, and immediately went to eternal subordination of women to men, when the nouns for the Trinity are masculine. You might more easily transpose this doctrine of eternal subordination by tying it to sons in relation to their fathers. But we can’t have that, can we? You are right, these teachings are ripe to be abused by an abuser.
PS, I bought your book, Aimee, and am halfway through it. I suspect this abusive behavior you’ve received is going to help promote your work in the end. Good podcast, Julie and Aimee!
Hi, Lynn. Your point is a good one. Concerning the interrelationship of the persons of the Trinity, the scripture says very little about how the Father, Son, and Spirit interacted for eons in eternity past. One of the profound items of speculation is the “eternal generation” of the Son, which derives from Origen (AD 185-254). I can remember (in Seminary, 1993) asking my church history professor about this doctrine and he confessed it’s difficult to prove biblically, but it’s something theologians have, in the main, accepted. The doctrine finds support in the Nicene Creed (“begotten of the Father before all worlds”) and reminds us that the persons of the Trinity are not Triplets. However, whether one holds to EFS (Eternal Functional Subordination– this is to be distinguished from subordinationISM or Arianism) or not, it is simply bad logic to assert that the Son’s submission to the Father means all women submit to all men. Submission for women seems to be limited to “your own husbands.” And isn’t it interesting, according to Paul, the husband BELONGS to his wife.
I’m not sure how relevant this is, but that photo is not of her preaching at a church, it’s a photo of her speaking at chapel at Covenant College, the PCA college in Lookout Mountain, GA. So, if the comment by the OPC minister was stating that the problem with the photo is a women preaching at church, then even that doesn’t hold up.
Michael Spangler is one of the top leaders at Providence Church Greensboro, NC, along with Arie van Eyk. (wonder what pseudonym Arie comments under)
Shane Anderson is the ruling elder at Providence Church Greensboro, an administrator at Genevan Commons discussion group.
Such sweet smiles they all have, with talk of how much they love brothers and sisters.
Wonder how hard they’ve had to work at defining “love” as being cruel, incredibly unkind, denigrating, mocking…
Perhaps not hard at all.
What a hellhole that place must be. Gaslight Central. Dressed up in sweet smiles and fancy, important-looking robes.
It’s like the upsidedown, a parallel reality where things mean the opposite, where they say one thing and do the opposite with all righteous aplomb.
Spencer’s and Anderson’s replies were classic projection…any bachelor’s level psych major (or just common sense person) recognized that. Presbyteries REALLY need to evaluate the personality types of their candidates before ordination. Those who lean toward control often have serious issues to overcome that should not comingle with shepherding others, most especially women.
Julie, I think you are conflating things regarding the issues with the Genevan Commons FB group, and ACE. The treatment and derogatory language at GC regarding Aimee Byrd (and a number of other individuals and issues I might add) was reprehensible for a Christian site. However, the issues raised by ACE and others over her views and approach concerning the roles of men and woman are a concern for many, who regard them as mistaken and harmful to the church in a number of respects. I was a long time supporter of ACE, but felt constrained to cease that support because of some of her positions. I am glad to see the position that ACE has taken regarding the MOS podcast.
I don’t mean to conflate them. They are two separate responses by two separate groups. However, they are both responding to Aimee’s position on the roles of men and women.
Sounds similar to the filioque controversy that split off the East from the West. Are they related?
I am sorry Aimee Byrd has been unceremoniously dumped from MOS. IMO, she was the star of that podcast. I loved her wit, humor and knowledge. I doubt the podcast will be around long without her.
As for CBMW, they just removed the “truth-challenged” Thomas White from their Board and Council, yet Jason Duesing and Jeff Purswell remain. And of course, Wayne Grudem, a founding father, so to speak, has remained an outspoken supporter of C.J. Mahaney. No thanks, I’m not interested in hearing what they have to say.
Orthodox Presbyterian Church in many of it’s Churches, at least the ones I am familiar with have a hard line stance on many positions. For example only wanting to sing out of Hymn Book and never with musical instruments. They also do not like Children making noise or not sitting at attention for an hour long Church Service.
It is selective legalism as long as their rules do not interfere or restrict the Christian Liberty of the person wanting to enact rules on someone else. The OPC in my observations is a Church for those who want to be the Authority as long as no one else tries to be the authority over them. If you do not like that Church simply go to another Church. Personally, In my opinion stay away from the OPC. The worst Chistian Denomination anywhere.
I don’t know what OPC’s you’ve been to, but what you are describing is definitely not the norm. I don’t know of a single OPC that refuses to use instruments in worship, children (and their noises) are welcomed in worship as covenant members of the body, and we definitely sing things outside of the hymn book.
While it may be true that their are individual churches that have authoritarian leadership, again this is not the norm. This is a case of extreme broad brushing.
Thankfully, Jdizzle Sgt.’s observations do not match my experience in the OPC either. Thank you for speaking up, Janna.
This is no disparagement of Aimee, but this whole controversy seems like the natural and logical fruit of a complimentarian theology which has always suppressed and minimized the contribution of women. You start going down that rabbit hole and the sinful misogynistic men will magically appear. I defy anyone to give me an example of the Godly fruitfulness of complimentarianism.
Did anyone reply to
You? I would love to read their responses if possible.
A word in defense of Aimee Bird. Full disclosure– I am a semi-retired pastor in a Reformed denomination. I am about as conservative as they come theologically (and politically!). I have listened to Mortification of Spin on and off for five years. I have both enjoyed and appreciated Aimee’s input, and have found her perspectives to be insightful and refreshing. On a personal level, there is something about her which is very endearing. She is the “girl-next-door” type, a likable gal with an infectious laugh whom you could relate to like a sister. I never found Aimee to contentious or strident in her speech. The opposite is true. She was always thoughtful and measured in expressing concerns or discussing controversy in the church.
In my judgment, we need more women like her in the kingdom, not less. I agree with Todd Wilhelm. The podcast will not be the same without her.
I am in the process of reading Aimee’s book, “Recovering From Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.” So far, she has struck the proverbial nail on the head. I really wish that my conservative brothers and sisters, including CBMW, would stick to the text of scripture and the clear biblical perameters and stop trying to play Holy Spirit for people, especially women. Frankly, we’ve had enough legalists weaving spiritual straitjackets for us. For help with this serious problem, I recommend the book of Galatians.
Finally, there is something really, REALLY wrong with us if we can’t, while adhering to the Reformed Confessions (which includes, of course, scriptural fidelity), have honest disagreements about nonessential and non-confessional issues. This kind of infighting and the APPALLING berating of a sister who disagrees with you reminds me of churches which split because of disagreement about the color of the carpet. What a disgrace! The Arminians are better at loving people who disagree with them than we are. This is to our shame.
I’m on the process of reading her book as well, and agree it offers a refreshing perspective, especially the chapter on Ruth. “Weaving spiritual strait jackets” is right. Over the years, Piper and Grudem have done a lot of exegeting their own notions, not Scripture. Long, tedious lists of levels of authority in the church and what women can and can’t do, for example. Telling all women how to give deference and respect to all men, and be careful if you give a man directions about anything that you don’t emasculate him in the process. And etc.
But their actual bible exegesis on divorce and remarriage has compounded their philosophising issues. Wayne Grudem has changed his views, but Piper has been a staunch no divorce no remarriage advocate, which has caused its own problems. I don’t agree Piper’s views on divorce are biblical, and I can only imagine how a wife in an abusive or adulterous marriage would suffer under the weight of such extra biblical expectations on her.
I do not see how Aimee Byrd was berated. The 3, and only 3, immature one-sentence posts attempting humor, obviously neither profane nor obscene, were selectively emphasized by Julie Roys. Having read all the comments on the link Roys provided, the remaining 17 pages were were adult comments and conversations.
Returning to the merits of Byrd’s arguments, why does Byrd decline to answer the thoughtful questions asked (none of which pertains to ESS). Her excuse is laughable, and suggests that it is not sincere.
Why is it illegitimate to query whether it is really OK for a married Christian woman to hang out privately with a brother-in-Christ other than her husband?
Behind the downplaying and the tendentious phrasing in this comment is a real difference of opinion about Christianity. Aimee Byrd’s contention is that Christian men and women, though unrelated by blood, can interact in a familial way, “in all purity,” as St. Paul wrote to Timothy. The alternative view is that all men are sex pests at heart, would-be rapists if they could get away with it, who are unable to avoid pursuing genital gratification given any opportunity.
There’s anecdotal and sociological-research support for either view, but it’s peculiar to find Christians espousing the latter view, and especially contending that they, themselves, are a threat to fellow Christians of the other sex.
That seems to fit St. Paul’s description of men “holding the form of religion but denying the power of it,” (2 Tim. 3:5). He counsels the reader to “avoid such people.”
That was an unusual insight. I had not considered the threat to be sexual assault or rape as you did. Rather, the threat is to the marriage covenant when a married woman hangs out in private with a brother-in-Christ other than her husband. For purposes of our discussion, consider the brother-in-Christ with whom the married woman hangs out privately also to be married. In this scenario, the threat would be to two marriage covenants. Would you agree with me that the marriage covenant is worth guarding?
Your striking sexual descriptors of men, and your characterization of men as rapists, is unwarranted in the context of my simple question. My question fairly arises from Aimee Byrd’s advocacy for Christian men and women, each married but not to each other, spending time together, alone, sharing their joys and distresses, as “friends.” What could possibly go wrong?
Although you immediately, and rather strangely, focused on rape, the more likely unfavorable outcome would be consensual sexual interaction born of the emotional bonds developed during these private times. In turn, the very real threat is the destruction of marriage covenants, with resulting harm to innocent spouses and children, and the ravages of probable divorce.
The Greek employed in the first five verses of 2 Timothy, often translated as “people,” contemplates men and women. Notwithstanding my disagreement with Aimee Byrd in her advocacy for Christian women to hang our privately with other women’s Christian husbands, I certainly do not believe that Byrd is one “having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.”
Again, it seems clear to me that a great divergence of perspective exists. If a man spends time with his sister, is this ipso facto a threat to his marriage? If a woman spends time with her brother, is this a threat to her marriage? Why would it be? This is the Biblical description of relationships between Christians.
If a man or a woman, single or married, is in the market for nonmarital sexual activity with a person of either sex, that involvement is not friendship or a brother-sister relationship. It is the pursuit of fornication or adultery, and one doesn’t have sex with siblings or friends, but with a spouse.
Simply as a practical, I don’t really see the circumstances in which a married woman would “hang out” with a married man, neither of their spouses around, on a regular basis. People are busy with their families. You might chat with someone while your children play a sport, I suppose, or go out with a college friend who’s in town for a couple of days.
In summary, and to repeat: if either party even considers pursuing an immoral sexual relationship, then the association is neither “friendship” nor “Christian siblinghood.” It seems to me that the argument against Mrs. Byrd’s concept – I don’t remember, in her books, examples of the “hanging out” you have mentioned – is that there is no possible involvement between a man and a woman that is not sexual-activity-based. This is what her book calls “The Billy Crystal Rule” (although I don’t think that’s fair to the actor), and it is not Biblical.
Your 4th paragraph nailed it, thank you. In their puffiness, they are acting like kids in a sand box.
I really admire Aimee Byrd’s intellectual passion for theology and I love No Little Women and Housewife Theologian. I’m a molinist and disagree with many of the distinctives of reformed theology but I find her call for women to be discerning and know theology so inspiring. It is such a shame that Christians are treating her this way. I only followed subscribed to ACE so I could get updates on her blog.
No one should have to endure dehumanizing comments or behaviors like those Aimee Byrd is now putting up with.
I absolutely think she should be defended and that relevant denominations should be addressing those that have been making inappropriate comments privately as well as publicly.
That being said, I do think it is worth noting that there have been also inappropriate comments toward others that Mrs Byrd did not stand up against when she had a platform at MOS. The attacking of multiple people over racial issues especially make it a good example of how many often times not understand concerns until it hits them more directly.
We do not have to agree, in order to publicly call for appropriate speech and accuracy in accusations.
Re: ACE- I have not been able to donate there for quite some time- this decision, another confirmation;
Re: MOS, I never understood why Ms. Bryd was accepting of some condescension from Carl Truman;
Re: the OPC, there is overt (at the least via social media) contempt there for women from at least some.
As Paul says – let us try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord and walk that way.
Julie, for a careful and gracious critique of Aimee’s views on gender and the role of men and women, your readers will benefit by this helpful piece by Andy Naselli:
Just as an aside, I’m amazed at the gendered criticism here; ‘That’s just not manly!’, something women have used to shame men for centuries. Curioulsy old-fashioned. The problem with a lot of this is, yes, the GC tone and comments are deeply concerning and don’t do those who made them any credit. But my biggest issue with Aimee, Rachel, Valerie and all the rest is they only, only focus on men and their sins and NEVER even suggest that anything a woman says or days is wrong or harmful. Getting Liam Goligher to buldoze a path to clear the way for a higher profile and sales for your own book is far more pitiful and manipulative than someone putting forward questions with anonymity. We have two groups of people here who delight in picking targets and going after them relentlessly. A plague on both your houses!
I am not familiar with this particular situation, but, just speaking generally, it is not wise when dealing with issues of gender to, in effect, cut such foundational verses as Genesis 1:27, Ephesians 5:21, and Galatians 3:28 out of one’s Bible and think that doing so is somehow virtuous.
You state you don’t mean to conflate the issues with respect to CBMW, Geneva Commons, and ACE but the blog makes it seem all of one piece. Todd Pruitt, Carl Trueman, Steven Wedgeworth, and Mark Jones were all co-belligerents with Aimee against the heterodox doctrines of the Trinity found within CBMW. Todd and Carl also received regular heat (and still do) from Geneva Commons folks and regularly wrote of their horror regarding some (not all) who participated there.
I think the framing of this issue (and the responses) is a good example of the kind of cancel culture or “we must take sides” on an issue that we see throughout social media and the news in general. I have read two of Aimee’s books (including her latest). I have commended her to my wife and other women. I have never participated in Geneva Commons, never read much of CBMW, and yet I found problems with her latest book that were worthy of exploration. You failed to note in your article that Tood, Carl, and Aimee discussed her latest book on her podcast and they were very civil and did not press too hard on her out of friendship and respect. To write an article that sort of lumps them and the ACE in with CBMW on ESS and the Geneva Commons is not fair and frames the issue as if the problem is just another example of men having a problem with Aimee’s views or an issue of misogyny and abuse within the Reformed world. There is some misogyny and biblical ideas of patriarchy and even other bad forms of the Trinity but they are not all the same issues.
For my own part, I defended Aimee to other more extreme dismissals of her book but I did find her approach strange in the latest work. I’ve always had a problem with the way in which women are treated as if they have to inherently submit to men and Aimee draws that out but I believe she fell into the trap of writing her book in such a way as to undermine the differences between men and women. CBMW and other groups make things all about men and women and Aimee fell into the same trap in her book. What she could have reached for, within her own tradition, was the notion of superiors, equals, and inferiors from our Larger Catechism. The WLC expands upon the duties of the 5th Commandment and notes that there are those who are superiors with respect to age, wisdom, gifts, office, etc. There are equals and there are inferiors. Parents are in a superior relationship to their children while children are in the inferior position. The former needs to provide and care for while the latter needs to show respect. These roles are useful because a person can be in both a superior and an inferior role with the same person. Imagine a Pastor of a Church whose mother is a member. He is her superior with respect to Church office but her inferior with respect to being her son. Each owes the other a degree of respect. Each owes the other a degree of submission.
When we use these terms it “unties” the typical male/female paradigm where people only try to deal with Church and home and economic relationships with only a few Biblical passages. It’s absurd to argue that a Mom will submit to her son at some point because he gets older and, after all, he’s now a man and she’s a woman. No, he’ll always be her son and always owe her the respect of a superior. A woman can be an equal to a man in some gifts and superior to a man in other gifts. A woman can be a superior to a man in some roles or inferior or a peer to a man in other roles.
What I read Aimee trying to write in her book was this: “Hey, women aren’t dumb. They are smarter than some men and as capable as some men. Look, here are examples where women were valued and listened to.”
If she had reached for the superior, peer, and inferior language then she would have had a stronger book. As it was, she reached for egalitarian arguments that erase the distinctions between men and women. It’s almost like she played into the same problem that many Evangelicals do and tried to reduce all interactions between men and woman as men and women (rather than superiors, equals, and inferiors). As it is, she used egalitarian arguments that question the legitimacy altogether of certain male roles and then stops as the point of saying: “Oh, but we shouldn’t ordain women.”
The reason men are ordained as Pastors has nothing to do with them being innately superior to all women but because the role is given to men by God. That said, the Pastor of a Church (or elder) is not a “superior” in all respects to every man or woman in his congregation. He may well be an employee of one of them and owe them due respect in that relationship.
So, to conclude, I have enjoyed your work over the years but would urge you not to allow your interview to become a cause for “party spirits” to dig their heels in. Aimee is intelligent and competent. I don’t think it’s fair to lump ACE in with the Geneva Commons or CBMW. I think Aimee can be challenged on the way she employs egalitarian theologians in her book and even encouraged to use the best of Reformed theology to “reform” some of her arguments. She also could be challenged further as to why it is onerous to answer questions from ACE. If anyone reads those questions in light of some of the arguments Aimee makes it is not unreasonable to ask for clarification. ACE is not a bunch of mean guys in Facebook groups.
In all of this – Julie and Aimee. You both know how hard it is and hurtful it is for men (and women) to treat you unfairly and with derision. I ask you to remember that in your zeal to defend yourself. Some people are getting caught up int this scandal who were defending you. Imagine those who were once your argent defenders who are now daily assailed as being misogynists.
I’m sure Julie and Aimee will be just fine on their own. They seem quite capable so I doubt they will miss these unknown “argent” defenders, but thank you for mansplaining to Julie and Aimee how they could have written better articles and books. If only Julie had taken your course at Northwestern…
I think your response is the kind of partisan or even “male vs female” side taking that is so sad in today’s society. I commended Aimee’s works and her intelligence. I repeatedly affirmed that women can be superior to men in gifts, age, and role. I made a theological case that assumes that both are capable of interacting with another image bearer (regardless of sex) to have a discussion about a controversial issue.
I apologize for my typo but I am legally blind in both eyes and don’t always catch them. That said, there are those who have (and continue to) defend Aimee against attacks both during the ESS skirmishes and during the latest challenges. These men are having their lives destroyed because our social climate has only one volume. Not everybody that disagrees are enemies.
Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth. Matt 5:5
Grace and Peace.
Is there a reason why you are leaving your comment anonymously? I use my name, and I think it’s fair to ask those who want to engage with me on significant issues to do the same.
You are correct that Carl Trueman wrote very convincingly against ESS. My article would have been stronger if I had mentioned that. I regret I didn’t.
That being said, I honestly don’t know to what extent there’s overlap between Genevan Commons and ACE. Jonathan Master posed questions that he admits came from other people who wanted to remain anonymous. That opens the door for speculation, and in my opinion, it shows poor judgment on Master’s part to do that. I would never ask questions in a public forum for other unnamed people.
Aimee also said the following in our podcast, which indicates some Genevan Commons folks having influence in ACE (This is from the transcript that’s posted on the podcast page.):
AIMEE BYRD 47:09
No. So the night before I got a heads up email saying, you know, “Here’s the post. I’m going to post tomorrow, I thought I’d let you know. I actually saw a review from someone who ended up sharing the same concerns that we do. But then, at the last minute, he backed out. So now I’m just going to ask you these questions.” And I kind of pushed back saying, “Why are you doing it like this?” I found out later that he had actually sought the review from Mark Jones. Mark Jones told me this.
JULIE ROYS 47:40
And who is Mark Jones?
AIMEE BYRD 47:41
He is a pastor at the same church as Steven Wedgeworth. He’s the head pastor, and he is in Genevan Commons as well. And I knew that from the screenshots, so you know, I’m not going to respond to Mark Jones. I’m not responding to any of these guys. Mark ended up posting it on another website.
Thank you for your reply.
As to my anonymity, it is a personal conviction not to reveal it as my employment could be affected. I tried to be helpful and am not trolling you nor Aimee. I merely wanted to offer a perspective as I understand why Aimee would be very angry about certain things but merely wanted to offer a perspective FWIW.
Grace and peace.
In a couple of years you can host a podcast where you welcome callers who saw their marriages blow up after reading Aimee’s perspective/advocacy on “friendships” with the opposite sex. Most will be from those who followed this “leading edge thinking” after getting the book from you. That will be on you for promoting the book and author (Support me and the book is yours). One of those guest therapist podcasts where real life case studies will be abundant.
Precisely. Aimee and Julie are about incrementally advancing egalitarianism, not preserving marriages.
Nothing in the Reformed Tradition interprets Scripture as permitting a married Christian woman to company alone with another Christian woman’s husband.
The book you’re referencing is “Why Can’t We Be Friends,” not “Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” That being said, I trust people to use their own discernment when reading books and if people don’t, that’s on them. Be like the Bereans and study the Scriptures to see if what an author is espousing is true.
There’s been a group of OPC elders who signed a letter (as individuals, not on behalf of a session, church, or the denomination) condemning the GC posts in question. Does anyone know of any efforts by PCA elders like this? Or any articles by PCA leaders that critique the GC threads?
Aimee Byrd has mis-defined the classic definition of Eternal Submission of the Son. The Nicean Creed and ALL theologians since then have defined it as Equality in the ESSENCE / NATURE / ONTOLOGY of the members of the Trinity and Subordination / Submission of the Son to the Father and Spirit to the Father in their ROLES / FUNCTION / ECONOMY — in their relationships one to another. OK? Equal in Essence, Subordinate in their Roles.
Aimee Byrd has consistently mis-defined and mis-stated this doctrine (see p. 101 of her Rec. From Bib M&W) as “the Son, the second person of the Trinity, is subordinate to the Father, not only in the economy of salvation BUT IN HIS ESSENCE.” That is an incorrect accusation. She then CORRECTLY states, “The eternal RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN the Father and the Son is then described as one of authority and submission.” THAT IS CORRECT, but NOT because the Son is less equal in His Deity, His Godhood — He is Very God of Very God. And He has also submitted Himself AS GOD to His Father AS GOD in the outworking of our Redemption.
Who agreed to the Father’s plan of Redemption, to become incarnate, to take on flesh, in order to be an atoning sacrifice, and submit His Human will to His Father’s? Jesus did! And where is Jesus now and for all Eternity? In a body, at the right hand of the Father, the place of willing submission, UNTIL everything is placed under his foot, Psalm 110. No one knows the hour of the Son’s return, except the Father — not even the Son. NOT BECAUSE HE IS LESS GOD than the Father, but because He is still subordinate to the Father in the outworking of Redemption. Theology 101.
If Aimee Byrd had simple done what she claimed to do, but apparently did not do a good job of, and that is read Piper & Grudem’s “Rec. From Bib M&W,” p. 103, 128, 129, 130, 228, 257, 374, 456 & 457, she would have discovered (as can any of you) that the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son clearly is consistent with the Nicean Creed that the Son is Eternally God and equal in essence with the Father, BUT is eternally subordinate to the Father in His function and role as Mediator and Savior.
It’s clear as mud. I’m not the first to observe that the eternal subordination of the Son makes the Son lesser than the Father and is therefore Arianism. Period. Also, it’s important to note that this specious doctrine seems to have been invented in order to defend Complementarianism. That teaching as well makes women lesser in nature than men. That’s clear to me.
10 Lies the Church Tells Women and Lies Men Believe by J. Lee Grady and When Women Were Priest by Karen Jo Torjeson and Pagan Christianity (green cover) by Frank Viola. Books exposing lies, myths.
The ESV Bible is great and all, it’s even my preferred version, but I lost all respect for Grudem when he went down the Trump road. Also, he does strike me as a bit of a legalist.
There would be no conflict, nor controversy, if people would just get to know The Lord.
As long as people cling to their falsities regarding the Lord, they will always be in conflict.
Endless councils, edicts, acronyms, and multi syllabic words trying to to explain the Lord will get nowhere, which has been the case for all time.
The Roys Report seeks to foster thoughtful and respectful dialogue. Toward that end, the site requires that people use their full name when commenting. Also, any comments with profanity, name-calling, and/or a nasty tone will be deleted.
Comments are limited to 300 words.