An Open Reply To “An Open Letter From Concerned Ministers And Elders In The OPC”

The following is a letter from a member of Genevan Commons, an OPC minister who serves on session with one of the admins of the discussion group, Shane Anderson. It is not an official statement for his session, or members of the discussion group (who have a wide range of perspectives on many matters.) Addition: we want to clarify that the admins of Genevan Commons agree with this response and are thankful for it.

---

Rev. Michael Spangler
Teacher, Providence Church (OPC)
Greensboro, NC

June 23, 2020

An Open Reply to “An Open Letter from Concerned Ministers and Elders in the OPC,”
Published on Aimeebyrd.com, here, June 22, 2020.

Dear Brothers and Fathers,

Your open letter calls for a response, for the sake of the good name of Christ, his elders, and his people.

I am a minister of the gospel, have been for years a member of Genevan Commons, and participate often in its discussions. I know many of the men now subject to your criticism, have had many exchanges with them, and have personally witnessed, in their whole context, many of the discussions excerpted on Genevan Commons Screenshots. I tell you plainly and sincerely, despite your best intentions and desires to promote righteousness, you have been deceived as to the nature of the group.

I wish to publicly state a few neglected facts, then directly address your four written concerns.

First, three important facts about our group have been ignored:

1. Genevan Commons exists to promote edifying dialogue among the Reformed. It has had good success in meeting this goal. Many of its long-term members will testify to true growth in knowledge of God’s word, in biblical doctrine, and in piety as a direct result of conversation in the Commons. I openly and thankfully attest to this myself: I am a better man and a better minister because of the interactions with my brethren in this group. One specific way it helps me is by giving me a broader vision of the faithful Reformed Christianity that exists beyond the bounds of my local church, presbytery, and denomination.

2. Every person in Genevan Commons is a sinner (1 John 1:8). That some things said in the group should not have been said, ought to surprise no one. It is a different thing entirely, however, to condemn the whole group as unedifying and ungodly based on a very small slice of the hundreds of thousands of posts and comments made throughout its lifetime. It would violate charity to call a Christian brother an ungodly man for a few sinful slips of the tongue. How much more so a group of hundreds of Christian brothers, of varying levels of maturity, and among whom no doubt, as in all Christian communities, there are at least some tares among the wheat?

3. That said, in my daily observation of the group I find that our words are in most every case reasonable and respectful. And moreover, when sinful exceptions do appear, the Commons actively polices them, and though imperfectly, it does so to my knowledge more carefully than any other similar group on Facebook. I have vivid memories of members in the group, and ministers especially, calling out violations of the second, third, fifth, seventh, and ninth commandments. Many posts and comments have been edited or deleted as a result, often by the original author himself, before admins could step in. Naturally, such changes could not be demonstrated in a screenshot. This is not to mention the times admins have quickly deleted ungodly speech, given firm reminders of our clear group rules, and even when necessary expelled participants, out of zeal for peace, truth, and righteousness. Neither this fact nor the other two were even mentioned in the screenshot site, on the blog of Aimee Byrd who promoted it, or in your letter.

Second, as to your four concerns:

1. That Byrd and Miller are “members of our church” is immaterial. Church members sin (James 3:2). Church members may fall from Christ (Heb. 3:12). Church members may even become false teachers (Acts 20:30). Insofar as they do this, they deserve rebuke: privately if they sin in private (Matt. 18:15), publicly if they sin in public (Gal. 2:14). Even when not speaking directly to them, we have a similar duty to warn each other about those who cause divisions and offenses (Rom. 16:17). Moreover, that such rebuke and warning is made with sharpness (Titus 1:13), and even with a solemn mockery, is no proof of “corrupt,” “foolish talking,” and “coarse jesting” (Eph. 4:29; 5:5). God himself mocks sinners (Ps 2:4; Prov. 1:26), as do his faithful servants (1 Kings 18:27). A minister is sometimes called to set his face like flint (Isa. 50:7; Ezek. 3:8–9), and spare not against the church’s sins (Isa. 58:1). You say elsewhere you are not endorsing the books we have attacked. Putting aside the contradiction that your letter was published on the personal blog of an author of such books, insofar as in it you seek to disarm us of the verbal weapons with which we make our attack, or at least imply that the books’ errors are not so serious as to warrant our sharp speech, you are indeed protecting those books, and their harmful teaching. We beg you therefore for less carping about our style and method, and more engagement with the substance of our critiques.

2. The appeal to ordination vows is a red herring. The vows say nothing against appropriate use of privacy in Christian conversation. The equivalent response to you would be, please send us transcripts of your private phone calls, emails, and messages that went into the preparation of your letter: if God will reveal all secrets on the last day, why keep secrets now? Furthermore, by your standard we ought never talk behind closed doors with our wives, our elders, or our members; or at least we ought to be willing to reveal everything that was said, to anyone, and any time. That this would not be keeping our ministerial vows, but in fact breaking them terribly, by betraying the trust of all God’s people, should be obvious to you. The propriety of private conversation is proven by this whole debacle: words which in private context are appropriate and godly, out of context are likely to appear otherwise to the uninitiated observer. So privacy actually helps us keep our reputation, which is a duty of the ninth commandment, and the man or men who broke privacy by publicizing close conversation among friends (Prov. 17:9), boldly broke that commandment. Even some who oppose the Commons have condemned the screenshot site as shameful libel (here and here). Moreover, God forbid that what you insinuate would ever be true, that we forget that God will judge our private words. I for one conduct even my most secret conversations with godly fear, and without a doubt that I will give an account for every idle word (Matt. 12:36). I remain accountable, and gladly so, to my own presbytery and session. And as far as I know my close friends in the Commons, they all think exactly the same.

3. Calling our speech “misogynistic” begs the question. It might be fair to call some of screenshotted comments off-color, some immature, some silly, some just unnecessary. But in context most of them I read were actually unobjectionable, even if I would not have said them all myself. We openly affirm in Genevan Commons all the Bible texts you cited about women. You can be sure that if anyone in our group denied that women bore God’s image (Gen. 1:27), were fellow heirs in Christ (1 Peter 3:7), and gifted members of his body (Eph. 4:7), he would be reproved, and if recalcitrant, expelled. We are not women-haters: that is slander. We believe, from the Bible, that the heart of godly patriarchy is a loving, sacrificial use of manly strength for the care and protection of the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7; Eph. 5:25). This is as far from misogyny as possible. Moreover, though “thoughtful critique” was not as obvious in the screenshots, in most cases it is the very substance of our group discussion. The captured comments, for example, were often subjoined to extended articles, which of course would not fit in a screenshot, or in the screen-shotter’s narrative. And what of my articles I recently wrote, published on the blog associated with the Commons? In them I labored to be as careful as possible, citing years of evidence and many passages of Scripture, with all the persuasive logic I could muster. Take them as the substantial bulk of our critique, and you will find the Commons is much more thoughtful than you let on.

4. Yes, we agree “undue silence in a just cause” is a sin. That is why we have not been silent against Byrd, Miller, and others who support them. It is why we will not be pressured into silence by your letter. And furthermore, it is why I am compelled to write this reply to you: despite your good intentions, your rebuke is unjust and ill-considered, and ought to be retracted.

I remain your brother in Christ and fellow servant in his gospel, and I am happy to be contacted by anyone at any time about these matters.

Sincerely Yours,

Michael Spangler

Feminism in the Reformed Churches: 5. A Call to Arms

Feminism In The Reformed Churches: 5. A Call To Arms

Feminism is attacking the Reformed churches. In previous articles I named the leaders of the movement, especially Aimee Byrd, Rachel Miller, and Valerie Hobbs, then discussed their tactics online, in books, and in the church. Now I call all Christians, and especially Reformed ministers and elders: mark such women, and the men who follow them, see the error of their teaching, and resist it with all your might. God forbid that any of us would be that watchman who sees the sword come, and blows not the trumpet, and the people be not warned, and their blood be required at our hand (Ezek. 33:6).

Take Up Your Pen

Each of us must fight according to his calling and ability. Some have influence only over their own soul, or in their own family. They ought to use it. But others have more sway, because as ministers, as elders, as professors, as publishers, as bloggers, people listen to what you say. If that is so, I appeal to you especially, now is the time to write. 

It is time for articles, for posts, for comments. It is time for likes, retweets, and memes. It is time for scholarly journal articles, and for popular opinion pieces. It is time for new books, and for classic reprints. It is time for seminary lectures, and especially for sermons. We need as much material as possible to be released asserting, maintaining, and defending classic, traditional, natural, and biblical teaching on men, women, marriage, family, children, and society.

Some have already done excellent service in this field of the battle. Among them high praise is due to Shane Anderson, an Orthodox Presbyterian ruling elder who has for years now been faithfully witnessing online against the teaching of Byrd and company, receiving in return abuse and scorn. He has remained steadfast under trial, pressing on in his labor to fill Twitter and Facebook with solid biblical material. For examples, see the hashtag #originalpurityculture (here or here), or his compilation of articles against Aimee Byrd, here. I serve on session with Shane, and can testify to the godliness of his heart and of his family. Our churches need dozens more ruling elders like him.

Shane Anderson, thankfully, is not alone. He’s joined by hundreds of others on Genevan Commons, one of very few Reformed discussion groups on Facebook which stand firm against the onslaught of feminism, for which it has suffered spying and slander (dealt with here). Praise is also due to Ben Castle and Mike Myers, both OPC ministers, for their public writing for the cause (here, here and here), to OPC minister Christian McShaffrey, who launched the first salvo against Byrd’s forthcoming book and videos (here; on Miller, here), to PCA ministers Steven Wedgeworth and Mark Jones for their dissections of Miller’s recent book (here and here), and now to Jones for his of Byrd’s (here), to PCA minister and seminary president Joseph Pipa, Jr. for addressing some key issues head-on in a podcast (here), to CREC minister Doug Wilson for his ever-pungent critiques (e.g. here and here), and to Andrew Naselli, pastor and professor at Bethlehem College and Seminary, for writing the first full-length critical review of Byrd’s new book (here). Others should be honored for their effort to publish positive explanations and applications of biblical patriarchy, men like Michael Foster and Bnonn Tennant at It’s Good to Be a Man, Greg Morse at Desiring God, and especially John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and all the faithful men at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Nor can we forget John MacArthur: he deserves a medal for telling Beth Moore to go home, and then for standing firm despite the rage that followed. I probably need to add, for all the purists, that if you think some of these men are not Presbyterian enough to merit praise, please go and meditate on Jesus’ words, “He that is not against us is on our part” (Mark 9:40).

I praise God for these faithful men. However, given the gravity of the threat, I wonder why more watchmen are not sounding the alarm, especially among my fellow Reformed ministers and elders. Indeed, I grieve to see that not a few are laboring to silence their more vocal brethren. Perhaps they don’t realize how bad things really are. Perhaps they aren’t persuaded on the issues. Perhaps they are afraid of reprisal, in church or home. Whatever the excuse, brothers, I pray you’ll put it away, take up your pen, and write for the cause of godliness.

Use the Keys of the Kingdom

The pen is mighty, but not strong enough itself to win this battle. The word builds up the church’s walls, but strong walls will be useless if discipline does not cast out the enemy within. 

All Christians must do their own part to resist false teachers, by marking and avoiding them (Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 3:5). But the elders of the church have an indispensable biblical duty to help their people do this, by disciplining those who err, through ecclesiastical trials and censures (Titus 3:10), and when needed, through appeals, protests, and complaints. 

That such discipline is appropriate and necessary in this case is powerfully argued in the Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 20, “On Christian Liberty,” section 4:

And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.

I am surely not the only pastor who has witnessed firsthand how feminism subverts whole houses (Titus 1:11). It destroys marriages and families, estranging women from their husbands and homes, and wives from their children. It destroys churches, not only churches where liberal unbelief has dealt the death blow by securing women’s ordination, but also conservative churches where women denied office try nonetheless to lead by complaining, manipulation, and “unofficial” teaching (Ezek. 13:17; Neh. 6:14; Rev. 2:20; Prov. 21:19). To assert that feminism is not contrary to the light of nature, to Christian conversation, and to the power of godliness; to assert that the teaching of it is not destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the church; to assert that the ungodly manner in which it is usually published and maintained does not increase its destructiveness; to assert that therefore we are speaking of a mere difference of opinion, not a grave scandal subject to church censures, is either supreme naivete, or malicious dissembling.

To talk practical church politics, in Presbyterian churches the burden of adjudicating charges rests first on the court of “original jurisdiction” for those who are spreading falsehood. For non-ordained members, and for elders, that means the local session; for ministers, the regional presbytery. Yet charges may be delivered to those courts by other competent persons. So perhaps, reader, this is a call to you, to prepare charges, or to assist others in doing so. At the very least, elders, if your members, or your fellow elders, are spreading these feminist lies, you bear responsibility to stop them.

But whoever tries to do so should be duly warned: these errorists in some cases already have won the support of their sessions, of their presbyteries, and even of denominational assemblies. This is a not a call to back down. A just cause is worthy of pursuing, even if not likely to succeed. But it is a call to count the cost. If charges are to stick, judgments may need to be appealed all the way to the broadest courts of the church. Those pursuing charges will face opposition and slander, and perhaps counter-charges. Their efforts may in the end not seem to succeed at all, and not be vindicated until the final judgment. But it is not in itself proof of sin to be surrounded by difficulty and calumny. In our Savior and in his chosen servants, it was a sure mark of their faithfulness to God (Matt. 5:11; 1 Peter 4:14; 2 Tim 3:12).

Some will object to this, and to everything else I’ve said, that it sounds quite judgmental. How dare I presume to judge men’s hearts, and imply that those who hold views with which I disagree are not just incorrect, but dangerous false teachers worthy of severe censure. But this is begging the very question. A judgment is not judgmental when made upon good grounds (John 7:24). It is illogical and uncharitable to challenge, or ignore, the goodness of those grounds by challenging the motives of those who argue them. Yes, the critical spirit is a sin (Matt. 7:1), but it is not those who call for godly discipline who are guilty of it, but rather those who stubbornly resist it (Exod. 2:14).

It is also missing the point of church discipline. Elders do not, and cannot, directly judge the secrets of the heart, which belong to God alone (Deut. 29:29). They judge what they can know: speech and behavior, the fruit that tells the tree (Matt. 7:20). Moreover, if those who by their fruit are worthy of discipline do sincerely trust Christ, and want to obey him, then under censure they will reveal that, by their true repentance. But if, as I fear, many in need of discipline are also in need of a new heart, under censure they will prove that too, by their contumacy, or their conversion. 

Repent of Feminism

I am afraid that for all my labor to convince and to exhort, this plea for writing and for discipline will fall on deaf ears. Or that if it is heeded, it will lack any power to persuade or change the church. Or that if change does come, it will not be thorough or long lasting. And this is because many of those who perceive feminism to be a problem to be fixed, do not see it as a sin to be repented of. Or if it is a sin, it is the sin of others, not of ourselves, our homes, our hearts. So lest I be condemned for healing the hurt of God’s people slightly (Jer. 8:11), I conclude by calling every reader to deep, honest, personal repentance of the serious sins that attend the corrupting error of feminism.

I will not spare specifics. As Paul did with the Ephesians, I call first upon my female readers, to repent of a besetting sin of women, that of insubordination. Repent of not submitting yourself unto your own husbands (Eph. 5:22). Repent of anger and contention (Prov. 21:19). Repent of chafing against “the man,” who is the image of glory of God, and of not stooping to be his glory (1 Cor. 11:7). Repent of not wisely building your house, but plucking it down with your hands (Prov. 14:1). Repent, aged women, of not teaching the young women to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, and obedient to their own husbands (Titus 2:5). Repent, young women, of not seeking to marry, bear children, and guide the house (1 Tim. 5:14). Repent, all women, of thinking yourself exempt from the weakness of the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7), and of not therefore depending as you ought on God, and on the men God appointed over you for your good (1 Peter 3:5–6). I realize most men do not dare speak so directly to women, about women’s sins. But I do it without fear, and without respect of persons (Acts 10:34). For women too are God’s image bearers (Gen. 1:27), and therefore they will, just like men, be called to account for the ways in which their sins have marred that image (Rom. 14:12).

I call next upon the men, to repent of their besetting sin of irresponsibility. Repent of your refusal to be the head of your wife (Eph. 5:23), of not loving her as Christ loved the church (v. 25), of not sanctifying and cleansing her by the word of God (v. 26), of not nourishing and cherishing her (v. 29). Repent of not rebuking her when she cries out in foolish fear (Job 2:9–10). Repent of bringing shame upon her by your own foolishness (1 Sam. 25:25). Repent of being bitter against her (Col. 3:19). Repent of sexual unfaithfulness (Prov. 5:20). Repent of browbeaten effeminacy, of yielding to her sinful provocations (1 Kings 11:4), of letting her rule over you (Isa. 3:12), of pleasing your wife more than pleasing Christ (Luke 14:26). Repent of not giving honor unto her, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). Repent of not praising her for her womanly virtues, for her godly homemaking, and especially for her fear of the Lord (Prov. 31:28–31). Remember that upon your stronger shoulders, men, there falls a greater weight of duty, and therefore a more serious call to repentance, insofar as you have failed in greater responsibilities.

I call third upon the elders and ministers of the church, to repent of toleration of the sins above, and those first of all in your own hearts and homes. You are called to be an example to Christ’s flock (1 Peter 5:3; 1 Cor. 11:1), and to rule your own house well (1 Tim. 3:2–5). Let Paul’s searching question rest with all its weightiness upon your soul: For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? (v. 5). Too many men’s ministries are ruined by a discontent wife, too many men’s sermons are emasculated by a nagging household critic. Ask yourself, have you, or would you, preach against the angry and contentious woman (Prov. 21:19)? Have you, or would you, discipline a female member for disrespecting her appointed head (Eph. 5:23)? If not, why not? Is it because you could not return home and face the woman in your own house? Or the man in your own mirror? Or if by grace you do rightly rule your house, I call upon you to repent of fearing to exercise such rule in the house of God. I call all elders, including myself, to repent for shunning to declare unto the church all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27), for not rebuking false prophetesses (Rev. 2:20), for not teaching godly female domesticity (Titus 2:1, 4–5), for not exposing the shame of an uncovered female head in public worship (1 Cor. 11:6), for not insisting that our women keep silence in the churches (1 Cor. 14:34), and for instead suffering a woman to teach and to usurp authority over the man (1 Tim. 2:12). For all these sins we masters shall receive the greater condemnation (James 3:1), and thus should humble ourselves in deeper repentance.

With this call to office bearers comes a solemn rebuke to those who have a leading hand in the promulgation of the errors we have examined. If you are a pastor or an elder of the women teachers we have seen, you ought to be ashamed for allowing your own members to afflict God’s heritage (Ps 94:5). If you are a conference organizer who called on our new feminists, who hosted them, who paid their speaking fees, you must reckon with the fact that you, even if without intent, exposed Christ’s lambs to ruthless wolves. If you are a parachurch leader or a publishing agent who has overseen the export of these errors as far as books and blogs can reach, your name is tied to them, and sullied by them, unless somehow you save your reputation by an open, public disavowal. At the least you ought to fire every author, every host, and every editor who countenances the overturning of creation, and of God’s clear word on sexuality.

I call finally upon all readers of both sexes and of every station, to repent of the sin that undergirds all these, the sin that is the worst of all. We must repent of unbelief. That feminism is a form of unbelief should be obvious from all the Scripture we have seen throughout these articles. All the things against which the feminists are fighting, God has written. Their constant appeal is the same as that of the serpent, “Yea, hath God said?” (Gen. 3:1).

The church today needs to hear again the grave concern of Paul: I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). I plead with all my readers to put away the gullibility of our first mother, to believe what God has clearly said, and then out of that belief, to manfully obey. With feminism at the gates, take care to heed God’s call to arms. Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong (1 Cor. 16:13).

Feminism In The Reformed Churches: 4. The Tactics, In Church

Aimee Byrd “speaking” in chapel at the PCA’s Covenant College

4. Feminism in the Reformed Churches: The Tactics, in Church

Feminism is on the march against the Reformed churches. We met its leaders, then considered their tactics online. Then last time we looked at two key books, and saw how they set themselves against honesty, truth, nature, and Scripture. Now we consider how the feminists have already breached the city gates, and are wreaking havoc within the walls of the church itself. Our survey will begin broadly, then descend to life in the local church, and in the Christian home.

Much of the broad influence of feminism upon the church has already been discussed. Carl Trueman, Todd Pruitt, and Aimee Byrd are known throughout the Reformed churches for their podcast Mortification of Spin, which together with their blogs is published by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Rachel Miller’s book Beyond Authority and Submission was published by Presbyterian & Reformed, a well-known purveyor of Reformed theology. Aimee Byrd’s new book was published by Zondervan, and has benefited from their broader reach. It is currently on Amazon the number one new release in Christian Discipleship. If we consider Byrd alone, she is now one of the best-selling authors in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and whether she intended it or not, has become to many broader evangelicals a public face of that denomination.

I wish that were an exaggeration. But Byrd is more influential than most realize. She has a following on Twitter nearly ten thousand strong. She has been featured on numerous podcasts (e.g. here, here, and here). For years now she has traveled far and wide for speaking engagements. She has taught to crowds at well-known conservative churches, e.g. Tenth Presbyterian in Philadelphia, Independent Presbyterian in Savannah, and Christ Church Presbyterian in Charleston. She has been featured at her own denomination’s retreat center, and was sent to speak to one of its churches in Puerto Rico. She often speaks to groups of women, but also to groups of men and women, and sometimes to groups of only men: as she explains here, she has been welcomed to advise a presbytery, to teach seminarians on preaching, and to speak at a pastors’ retreat. Besides her speaking engagements, further evidence that her teaching has been broadly received is found in writing. Byrd has written for Ordained Servant, her denomination’s journal for church officers (here), her book against the “Pence Rule” was given high praise in that journal (here), and in the denominational magazine New Horizons (here). In the latter are other positive reviews of books by Byrd (here and here), a piece about her podcasting (here), and one of Byrd’s own articles on making women better theologians (here). Her influence in writing is also seen in the Presbyterian Church in America’s magazine (here), in the Gospel Coalition (here), and in Ligonier Ministries (here and here). Byrd seems to be by far the most influential figure of the women we have seen, but others have made some waves themselves. Rachel Miller, also in the OPC, has joined Byrd on the conference circuit (here), and has defended women teaching in this manner (here).

Now many interject that all this information is entirely beside the point, for it is no sin for a woman to speak in public, or to write for church magazines. This objection is common, but facile, for two reasons. First, many of the above items testify not merely to a woman speaking or writing, but to a woman speaking or writing harmful error, with the tacit approval of Christ’s church. If any of the grave problems we previously exposed in Byrd and Miller’s thought are true, then all of their spoken and written content should be suspect, as should the faithfulness of those who solicit it and publish it.

Yet errors aside, second, I contend that it is in fact a sin against the word of God to allow any woman, orthodox as she may be, to teach men publicly in the church of Jesus Christ. This is not popular to say. But it is biblical and apostolic. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (1 Tim. 2:11–12). Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church (1 Cor. 14:34–35). What Byrd, Miller, and other women do, traveling to speak in churches, in presbyteries, and in pulpits, Paul calls a shame. The passages cited cannot be explained away. They are speaking not of office, but of function, to teach, to speak. They are speaking not of a single circumscribed event, such as a Sunday worship service, but of a sphere, a venue, in the churches, in the church. The context of these passages does nothing at all to dull the edges of their prohibitions, but rather makes them cut more deeply: per 1 Timothy 2:8 women also ought not lead in public prayer, just as per 1 Corinthians 14:26 they also ought not prophesy or speak in tongues, at least in public.

Nor do these passages give any cover for conferences (e.g. here and here). If a woman speaks to a large mixed audience, if she stands in a lineup with male ministers, if like them she gives words of exhortation from the Bible, her behavior cannot withstand the scrutiny of Scripture. I suffer not a woman to teach. The question of women writing would take more time to answer fully, but honest readers should honestly ask, in what way does a woman publishing words of spiritual instruction in an authorized denominational magazine not fall under the apostolic ban? I suffer not a woman to teach. Those who aren’t convinced from exegesis ought still to be convinced from propriety and witness. If my neighbors see my wife taking out the trash, they’ll think I’m traveling or sick. If our people, or the world, see our women teaching Scripture to the church, they will ask, “Where are the men?”

There is yet more evidence of the forward march of feminism, which though not directly linked to the women we have mentioned above, is nonetheless troubling. Reformed seminaries, the training grounds for our ministers, are more and more producing female graduates, and employing female teachers, including Aimee Byrd (mentioned here; discussed more fully in Recovering, 144–145). This shift is not unintentional: just watch the marketing (e.g. here).

Another evidence of influence is more subtle, but no less serious, and that is in our churches’ speech. Reformed publishers have across the board adopted style guides requiring “gender-inclusive” language, and Reformed preachers have largely followed suit. The human race is no more called “mankind” or “man,” as if Adam were no longer head of his posterity. The unknown or generic “person” is discussed as “he or she,” or as the vague colloquial “they,” pronoun usages all but unknown in classic English, yet required by law in our transgender age. Addressing all the congregation as “brethren,” or as “brothers,” may be allowed for Paul, but not for modern ministers. “Men and women” is preferred when speaking of a group of “human beings,” so much so that our women, when they see in the Nicene Creed that Christ came down from heaven “for us men, and for our salvation,” feel excluded.

Other evidences of feminism in the Reformed churches are less subtle. The Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church allow the ordination of female deacons, though the winds of change seem to be blowing in a good direction. But it is an open secret that many congregations in the Presbyterian Church in America, against their own church order, are appointing deaconesses, and even shepherdesses (e.g. here and here). Yet in that denomination looms a larger and more sinister threat to godly sexuality. The Revoice conference, hosted in 2018 by a PCA church with an openly gay minister, exists to promote the flourishing of those in our churches who are “same-sex attracted,” that is, who are sodomites, but only in their hearts. This outright sexual confusion is but a late stage of the feminism we have diagnosed. If you doubt this connection, note that the first day of Revoice20 will feature evening worship with woman’s homily. The ungodly logic of gender-bending is inevitable: Aimee Byrd is but a few steps from Greg Johnson, and beyond. For if a woman can play the man in the pulpit, why can’t a man play the woman in the bedroom?

I wish I could stop there. But we need to bring these things home to the local church. Feminism is not just a problem on the conference circuit. It is preached from pulpits as if it were the word of God. Take a recent sermon by OPC minister Todd Bordow, Rachel Miller’s pastor, on 1 Peter 3:5–6. In it he labors to untie some difficulties in the text, and goes on at length to explain what a wife’s submission must not mean, giving some sound and necessary warnings about abuse. But near the beginning of the sermon, when it comes to explaining what submission actually is, he leaves very much to be desired. Again, he tells us what it’s not: “The word submit does not mean that a husband is the master and you’re the slave. Not the way you would submit to a military commander.” And later, on Sarah’s calling Abraham her lord, “Again, like the word submit, the word lord in the Old Testament does not mean ‘master,’ but ‘sir.’” Citing Genesis 24:18 and John 20:15, he argues that lord is “a term of respect often from women to men.” So what, according to Bordow, does submit actually mean? He says, “The idea of submission we see used in Ephesians, where it says, ‘Submit to one another,’ is to seek to serve, seek to put their needs before your needs, to defer to their needs. And so it’s not a blind obedience of a master, but a servant seeking to help.”

This specious explanation is yet one more example of the same Scripture-wresting Peter condemns in his next epistle (2 Peter 3:16). The first and most obvious response is, in these verses (1 Peter 3:5-6), Peter is not telling the wives just to submit. He is telling them to obey, “Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.” Bordow says almost nothing about Peter’s choice of verb. Second, Bordow’s own words condemn himself. If indeed lord does not mean “master” but “sir,” what then is gained? Most wives today don’t care to call their husband “sir” either. And if indeed in the Bible this “sir” is a term of respect used by all women toward all men, is that not evidence that godly women recognize the natural inferiority of the female sex? Third, the appeal to Ephesians is disingenuous. “Submit” is used in a generic way in the verse he quoted (5:21), but then immediately after in a specific way, that leaves no doubt that in Ephesians, a wife’s submission certainly includes careful, detailed obedience to her husband’s lawful authority: vv. 22–24, Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. … Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

I’m afraid this is but one example of what is heard today in preaching on the theme of men and women. But I’m also afraid of the silence of our pulpits on this subject. I ask the Christian reader, when was the last time your pastor preached on the subjection of women? On the rule of men? On the requirement that church officers be male? How about on Proverbs 31? Or Numbers 30? Or on the passages we saw above, 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2? Ministers, I ask you, if Bordow’s slippery sermon bothers you, when will you preach next on 1 Peter 3? And when you do, will you like Peter encourage wives today like Sara to obey their husbands, and to call them lord? I hope my questions prove a point. No doubt one reason why our churches do not believe in patriarchy is simply because it is not preached. 

There are many causes for such silence. I want to point out three. First is that ministers cannot preach against feminism, because they cannot face its advance within their congregation. For example, how can a man discourse on the woman’s headcovering, arguing with Paul from propriety (1 Cor. 11:4–6, 10, 13–16), from universal custom (v. 16), from creation (vv. 7–9), and from Christ and God (v. 3), if not a single lady in his pews has ever worn a hat in church? Or how can he preach the duty of men to lift up holy hands in prayer (1 Tim. 2:8), and of women to be silent (v. 11), when right after the service comes the church’s “popcorn” prayer meeting, led in part by little girls? This is not to excuse ministers from being reformers, but simply to be realistic. In many churches, the cost of preaching repentance is higher than the preacher is able, or willing, to pay.

A second cause is a common problem, occasionally complained about, but then yielded to as if inevitable, that women are put on pastoral search committees. Think about what this means. A member who is not qualified to rule the church (1 Tim. 3:2), who is subject to her own husband (Eph. 5:22), who is more easily deceived (1 Tim. 2:14), and who is required to be busy at home (Prov. 31:27; Titus 2:5), is appointed to oversee a decision more weighty, more public, and more dangerous than most any made by any elder in his lifetime. A woman is expected to help find a candidate, to evaluate his character and gifts, to critique his sermons, to ask him searching questions, and to do all this in close, intense, and often difficult discussion with other men, but not her husband. If a church so readily makes the weaker vessel a gatekeeper for the gospel ministry, it should not wonder if it therefore receives a weaker minister, or none at all.

Α third cause for which our churches lack good teaching on these subjects, is the spiritual condition of the church’s families. The faithful few who preach a wholesome patriarchy will confess, it costs. And it costs, because it cuts, deep into the heart of family sinfulness. Husbands who do not take spiritual responsibility will also not take kindly to a minister who says they must. Wives without a meek and quiet spirit (1 Peter 3:4) will chafe at calls to feminine humility. Households addicted to dual incomes will see a woman’s full-time homemaking as an existential threat. Young couples persuaded that their youth is not the best time for procreation, that abundant fruitfulness is fearful, or that pets are substitutes for kids, will hate the man who tells them God is seeking godly seed (Mal. 2:15). Our people do not have faithful teaching on these matters, in large part because they do not want it. They will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim. 4:3).

I rest my case, at least for now. With all we have seen in these articles, of the influence of feminism online, in books, and in the church itself, together with the testimony of all the other resources I have cited, we do not need any more evidence to see that we are at war, and that the enemies are at the gates, and even in the walls. What we need now is courage for the fight. The final installment then will be a plea for the godly to take up arms, and manfully resist these errors that would destroy our churches.

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

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

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

These two books sin against four great basic principles.

1. Against Honesty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Against Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Against Nature

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

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

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

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

4. Against Scripture

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

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

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

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

Then note his keen analysis:

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

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

1 Peter 3:1–7

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

1 Corinthians 11:7–9

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

1 Timothy 2:8–15

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

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

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

Feminism In The Reformed Churches: A Series

Feminism In The Reformed Churches: Index

1. The Leaders

2. The Tactics, Online

3. The Tactics, In Books

4. The Tactics, In Church

5. A Call To Arms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism In The Reformed Churches: 1. The Leaders

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

Feminism in the Reformed Churches:
1. The Leaders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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