Against Wilson’s Divisiveness

Watch here:

https://youtu.be/v3EzfG6FLaU?si=DWcMN168XWlJYlKp

I want to express my thankfulness for this courageous, wholesome, and clearheaded response to Doug Wilson’s divisive public behavior, which brings a lot of confusion to the churches and divides faithful men due to the confusion and conflict it sows.

The faithfulness and wisdom of this response is, frankly, a rebuke to our denomination’s captivity to the chaotic whims of some of its ministers. Traditional Protestants like myself who were once welcomed to the CREC and hoped to find a communion in which we could live in peace have been shocked to find ourselves frequently and unjustly in Wilson’s crosshairs. After a decade or two of defending him and believing him, now treated like enemies by him, his sycophants, and others. Insiders now seem mainly concerned with everyone thinking and doing exactly what they want, right when they blog it. They gossip about you to other ministers and elders, and if you don’t grovel, like, and retweet their chaos, you are to be treated with suspicion and concern. No matter your doctrine and life, no matter your testimony and character. No matter that you have been nothing but a friend.

No, some of us are just Bible believing, Reformed Protestants who believe and live like it and aren’t waiting for chaotic men to tell us what to be wound up about next. Some of us are still Christian men living like it and will continue to by God’s grace. We don’t need permission from anyone but Jesus Christ to do so.

If they treat the Ogden ministers, Webbon, and Webbon’s church member this way, imagine how they likely treat the other sheep who get in their crosshairs who aren’t known publicly. Crazy.

https://youtu.be/v3EzfG6FLaU?si=DWcMN168XWlJYlKp

Touch Grass, See Clearly: Why the Reformed World Must Wake Up

This may upset some people, but those of you who avoid serious discussions on social media because of the discomfort of controversy need to wake up. Controversy is here, whether it’s comfortable or not. Everything significant in the real world—politics, business, culture, religion—is being hashed out on X (formerly Twitter) a year or more before it reaches other spaces and becomes operationalized. The democratization of knowledge is upon us, and we’re living in a cultural moment as seismic as the invention of the printing press. Burying your head in the sand or clinging to your discomfort won’t change this reality.

In Reformed church circles, if you rely on certain prominent bloggers (pastors? popes?) and talking heads, you’re likely being misled about where things are headed. These figures seem primarily interested in defending their current control of movements, positioning themselves at the conservative edge of the existing liberalizing order, and upholding its taboos. However, the broader cultural winds have shifted. There is a massive, reality-based, traditionalist backlash brewing on the right—industrious, pious, and unapologetically so. This could, I pray, mark the beginnings of a revival. Like all moves of God, it is dividing people and exposing long-cherished lies and sins, especially among church leaders. Churches that stood firm against tyranny, political, social, and ecclesiastical, during COVID have now seen an influx and concentration of a different kind of Protestant man in their churches, and while the renewal and growth is welcomed, it brings new tensions with conservative-normie leaders.

If what I’m observing is accurate, those retreating into Boomer-generation platitudes like:

“Israel is our greatest ally; there’s no Jewish conspiracy to corrupt Christian societies.”

“There’s no real sin of gluttony, and we’re not being poisoned.”

“Working out is gay.”

“Christian men are the problem, women are always victims.”

“Diversity is our strength, and race isn’t real.”

“Humility means doing what your rebellious parents want.”

“If people get upset at you, you have been unwise.”

“Stop wasting time by talking about these things, they don’t matter because they don’t matter to me.”

will soon face some cold, hard truths. For example, wave after wave of scandal and downgrades proves the conservative evangelical movement, and its fractured tiny denominations, are being exposed for conserving little besides men’s egos. Why won’t your church and denomination be next? Younger men are not buying it, wanting to see reality instead of posturing/marketing, even when shamed as “rebels.” They can sniff out the hypocrisy. The cyclical circus of new controversies and new heroes and new doctrines every ten years is less than entertaining, and many Christian men are developing the discernment to recognize the nonsense. “Maybe this time it will work” is no longer convincing. The democratization of Reformed theological resources and the recovered memory of the men our fathers once were mean that ordinary men can now bypass the filters of now self-serving leaders who cherry-pick the tradition to suit their marketing emphasis or ecclesiastical politics agendas. The little popes and their arbitrary decrees seem, well, silly, hypocritical, and arbitrary.

So, friend, I know this is uncomfortable. But it’s better to open your eyes, touch grass, and learn God’s Word from the old dead guys who weren’t making it up as they went along, unlike today’s institutional leaders who largely wear our tradition like a skin suit. Put on some reading glasses, blink, and adjust your eyes to see what your fathers saw. Realize that if men hate your fathers, they hate you, and they hate your children. The traditional Protestant way of thinking and living was robust, realistic, godly, and multigenerational. Everything good we have in the West is a fruit of that Protestant catholic tradition. Yes, this perspective is deeply out of fashion with those clinging to the “conservatism” of the last decades, who barely even memorialize our fathers now, but I see a small cloud on the horizon (shaped like an X?). It may herald a big change, a new day.

I’ve warned men in ecclesiastical settings before not to resist what is good simply because it’s uncomfortable for the current order. Too often, they wake up five years later, feeling foolish for lacking courage. Few listened then, but more are listening now. We are witnessing another such moment in the Reformed world. For over a century, evangelical fathers (pastors, institutions) have generally failed their children by failing to honor our past fathers. Instead, they labeled the godly as rebellious or prideful for refusing to join in their folly, and they rewarded the sycophants and pliable. A generation raised like this is now largely in charge of conservative Reformed institutions, but the steel spined rowdies are at the gate

We MUST honor our fathers, especially those who are dead, stable, proven, and clear-headed. It is a chief expression of honoring our Father in heaven. We are their fruits, their generations, their heritage only if we imitate their doctrine and life. But when we follow the loudest mouths in the religious marketplace and embrace doctrines and emphases that would excommunicate our godly fathers, we join the rebellion of the Boomers and their prideful arrogance. Honoring our fathers does not mean honoring their rebellion and foolishness. Instead, we should enter the room with a sheet to cover their shame—and take the keys.

3 Marks Of A Ministry God Hates

The prophet Jeremiah was God’s messenger in a time of national, ecclesiastical, and familial downgrade. The spiritual state of the people of God had declined so far that she was described as a fountain, not pouring out a river of living water to bless the nations, but a fountain of wickedness, violence and spoil, grief, and wounds. (Jeremiah 6:7)

This stirred up God’s anger. He warns “Be thou instructed, O Jerusalem, lest my soul depart from thee; lest I make thee desolate, a land not inhabited.” (vs. 8) But tragically they now lacked the capacity to hear his warning.

The American church and its churches are clearly in a similar place. If you know and love the Lord and his Law, you cannot help but see that the fruits of our nation and its churches are foulness and rot, flowing as a river into the world. There is little savor, if any, left in the salt, as holiness is passé and Christians often excel in wickedness and worldliness.

We live in downgrade days, and we should understand from God’s Word these downgrades, these apostasies, stir up his just anger. He announced on Israel a judgement traditional Americans are already now living under:

“And their houses shall be turned unto others, with their fields and wives together: for I will stretch out my hand upon the inhabitants of the land, saith the Lord.” (vs. 12)

But like the old Jewish church, it seems Christians now lack the capacity to hear and heed God’s Word, so their profession of faith and inclusion in the church does little but elevate the wickedness of their wickedness, adding on top of sinful worldliness the sin of hypocrisy.

“To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the Lord is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.” (vs. 10)

In our day there is little to no concern for or appetite for God’s commands and way of salvation. A million other matters, feelings, desires, plans, and concerns choke out the most important things. The show must go on. The grift must go on. The brand wars must go on. The good ole boys must be affirmed. There are ears to be tickled, consciences to be assuaged, false comforts to dole out. Ministry is SUCH HARD WORK, we hear, but we see little tears, little wisdom, little faithfulness. Just the grind of religion flavored activities. When the Bible is used, it is used for our own concerns and feelz, massaged into a new shape to fit today’s hot topic of interest. It’s certainly not to know the mind and will of God and his deliverance in Christ. There’s no time or energy to know God! But there’s loads of energy for stuff we care about and are troubled by!

There’s no energy for what is actually needed when the churches, families, and towns are flowing with filth and wounds: trembling at God’s warnings of his anger and soon-coming, surprise judgment that will sweep all comforts away in a moment: “Arise, and let us go by night, and let us destroy her palaces” (vs. 5) he forewarns. But she will still not be ready.

Amid this spiritual downgrade, inability to care, and warnings of impending judgment, we ought also note that this horror has been propagated by a kind of church ministry God hates. So on to the main point of this essay.

What are three marks of a ministry God hates?

First: God hates a ministry oriented around itself and its success rather than the fear of Lord.

“For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.” (vs 13)

When churches and ministers succumb to this particular evil it may not be first noticeable, as they are busy about good work, preaching, writing, leading, organizing, counseling, etc. But under God’s searching sight, he finds the reason for this religious activity is that the church or minister might get more: money, esteem, self-assurance, power, recognition, or maybe just pay the bills. The heart of this ministry God hates is self-service based in desires for what he has either not promised or has wisely withheld in his providence.

The desire, the coveting is hiding in the heart, but God sees it, yet it bursts out in lies. “…every one dealeth falsely.” Often these are the lies of overt false doctrines, long ago rejected by the faithful but resurfacing anew like the shameful foaming of waves. Or it is the deception seminally in that first lying question, “has God really said?” This is the oft repeated in many forms, basic lie of what we call “liberalism.” Or it may be the lies of silence where the clear and sharp edges of God’s Word are shaved off as not to offend. Or it may be the simple, flashy lies of the salesman who has turned his ministry, sect, brand, or denomination into a business to be sold to consumers. However it plays out, a ministry arising from a covetous heart is a ministry that lies.

Second: God hates a ministry that values superficial peace and comforts rather than thorough reformation and renewal.

“They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.” (vs. 14)

“Sermonettes from preacherettes” might be an apt enough phrase for this sort of evil, and the churches are full of those.  This superficial Christianity shows itself in many forms, but I’ll highlight two: a managerial approach to the church and a therapeutic approach to the Christian life. From the managerial standpoint, the minister and presbyters begin to behave as if what really matters is simply keeping the organization going with minimal disruptions. Uncomfortable conflicts, hard matters, difficult people, divisive questions or disagreements all become matters to address primarily through strategies that bring consensus, cooperation, or at least a less uncomfortable resolution. But, there is an order to peace in the church: it begins in the peaceful holiness of the life of the triune God. Individually it begins in peace with God through faith in Jesus Christ and the experience of that peace more and more as the Spirit conforms us to the image of the very beloved Son. When this God-ward vision of peace is replaced with a managerial approach, organizational, interpersonal, and brand concerns create a superficial “peace” that mimics the deeper healing of sanctification but leaves a deep festering infection just under the surface.

In the same way, the therapeutic approach to the Christian life is another ministry of superficial peace that God hates. This is where the Law of God and the thorough sanctification Christ brings, gets replaced with more momentary concerns like feelings, temporal success, interpersonal dynamics, styles, outward conformity, mantras, mimicking each other, self-improvement techniques, and mutual affirmations. All of these things have their place, but they each can easily mask a heart that is not healed from its self-service, pride, and works-righteousness. Jesus still saves, and it goes all the way down into the very recesses of the soul. No superficial salvation will save us from God’s wrath, and in fact God hates ministry’s that announce “peace” when peace isn’t REALLY there, especially peace with God.

Third: God hates a ministry that has lost the grace of shame.

“Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the Lord.”

If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard a Bible believing minister make a joke or giggle about sin or another holy matter, I’d be rich. But, fathers and brothers, God hates it. He hates that you can be involved in wickedness and not humble yourself in dust and ashes. He hates that your people live like heathens and you parade around as the faithful elect ones because of what your church is on paper. He hates that your assemblies include rank unbelief, ungodliness, and foolishness of every sort and you are not sensible enough to blush.  He hates the effeminate way you turn on the tears for interpersonal gain or position, or when you suffer some loss, but have NO REAL SORROW OVER ACTUALLY SORROWFUL THINGS like people going to hell!

Can you still blush? The old ecclesiastical leaders of Jeremiah’s day couldn’t. Is your heart so hard not to see or feel shame anymore? They were unable. Have you given up seeking the convicting work of the Holy Spirit? They had.

There is a solution for those who still have ears to hear:

“Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.” (vs 16)

Do you have a heart for that work: standing, seeing, and asking for the old, good ways of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church? And knowing the old, stable ways, will you walk in them. The church of Jeremiah’s day answered, “we will not” and fell under God’s just judgments.

This call to see and walk in the old paths encapsulates the mission of The Daily Genevan and its friends. We’ve been privileged to stand together for this mission despite persecution the compromised and compromising. The Lord has convicted us that there is a better way, a well worn holy path, that believers may go amid our modern apostasies, and it is privilege to walk in that way. The true way of life is narrow and can feel lonely at times, but the Lord has given us a great cloud of witnesses who’ve lived before and is preserving his own remnant in our time. “Walk therein” the Lord says, and “you will find rest for your souls.

Do Not Love The World (Free Printable)

The Apostle John commands and warns us “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 1John 2:15-17

Here are twenty reasons from God’s Word why we shouldn’t set our hearts on the world and worldly ways, compiled by Bonar. Print this out and put it somewhere as a reminder, or use it as a prompt for family worship. Let’s have hearts set on Christ and his kingdom above all things!

From: https://www.monergism.com/20-reasons-why-you-are-not-love-world

---

Printable PDF “Do Not Love The World” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BxQgFp9EH0ZiJ_IZUT9UqBCiO5W9RfFg/view?usp=drivesdk

On The Proposed CREC Race & Diversity Memorials

My letter to my pastors and consistory, published here as my public testimony against the proposed adoption of these memorials:

Dear brothers,

I want to tell you where my mind is regarding these statements being considered at council. 

Our well-intentioned CREC, like most sincere Bible Christians have done when faced with statements against racism, will likely adopt these statements. In my opinion they are terribly written, unnecessary, performative, confusing, and historically novel—but likely to be endorsed because that’s how this works due to our history as a nation. It’s wired into American conservatives to self-destruct into liberalization and to feel principled while we do it. No church has permanently figured out how to buck the trend and the rate at which it happens seems to be increasing. 

As people object to these statements once they are adopted (or even now before they are adopted) the discussion will quickly turn to “see how justified we are! We were right over the target! We’re ratting out the racists.” And it will serve for justifying further performative measures that pressure white people (because from experience that is the only way these statements are EVER used) to prove they aren’t racist. 

But the modern diversity beast is never satisfied. You can NEVER prove you are adequately against “separatism” or “racism” or not being “vainglorious” or are not “anti-Semitic” or are “nationalistic” in just the right way. This is because, number one, none of these things are necessarily sins and number two they are fake laws and highly malleable. You are instead trapped in a perpetual struggle session. 

These sorts of statements do one thing: They enshrine the method of liberalization into an organization and are eventually used to keep the organization returning over and over to that method. 

Study the history of every declining Christian church and it includes these sorts of statements and virtue signals about diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

When Christians are concerned about sins that have some racial context, we need talk about those sins and confront them from a biblical framework, teaching against actual sins. While remaining intelligible, we ought not adopt the world’s framework, definitions, and terms. No one I know of in the CREC will be able to stand against the way a statement like this will likely be used against our churches and people over the next years. Older men will say, “we didn’t mean it that way when we adopted it” and it will prove in their inquisitor’s minds that the men who made the statement were rank hypocrites: “Racists like Doug Wilson always try to cover their tracks. Antisemites like Peter Leithart who believe the church is the true Israel always try to hide their hatred through doctrinal nuance!”

Traditional Protestants like myself who spent our adult lives defending the reputation of the CREC and came into the CREC over the past few years as other conservative churches are crumbling keep hearing that there is no way the CREC will repeat the history of every other American denomination. But here we are entering a well worn path, one previously stepped firmly out of in resisting the COVID regime together. Already we have seen adjacent ministries like Davenant promoting liberalization using the same methods liberals have used over and over. And the recent publication of Gilder’s evolutionary psychology approach to gender and the blowback against criticizing his views from CREC voices evidences that we are more vulnerable than we might think. 

I’d also like to say that the human toll from such statements as these can be very high. Real Christians will be officially set at odds against each other, not as a matter of mere discussion, difference, and iron sharpening iron, but by official church doctrine. To oppose it or to not adequately affirm it will necessarily cause divisions in families and churches. To me this further division of Christians by our shepherds, a true American tragedy, is one of the saddest parts of this. 

Yes. I’m already sad, and already disappointed, because it looks to me that it is destined to play out like it has and does among every other Christian group. Maybe in God’s kindness I’ll be wrong. 

I would recommend opposing these statements. I would also ask that this letter be forwarded to our presiding ministers.  

With love in Christ,

Shane 

Proceeding Safely: Aiming For Godliness

Counsels for those who desire godliness

I’m plodding slowly, back and forth through Baxter’s monumental “Christian Directory” trying to glean and condense some of his practical advice for myself, my family, and those who may be interested.  For the next several posts, I’d like to focus in on Chapter 2 of Volume 1, where Baxter gives advice to new believers who are seeking to make their way forward, counsels “proper to those that are but newly entered into religion.” Yet, as I have read his counsels these many years down the road with Christ, I have found myself both encouraged and challenged, and I think no matter where a true believer is in the pilgrimage to glory, Baxter’s admonitions will be a help.

Counsels for those who live amid religious uncertainty and tumult

Baxter’s advice is particularly apropos for pursuing godliness in our day. Much of what he says in this chapter involves the Christian’s interaction with schisms, conflict, and disagreements.  Want to know what your obligations are to the church down the street? How are we to live amid great doctrinal and ecclesial controversies? What are the dangers of zeal? Of moderation?  

In short, how can we aim for godliness in uncertain times?

Direction 1: Beware of Novelty & Reputation

“Take heed lest it be the novelty or reputation of truth and godliness, that takes with you, more than the solid evidence of their excellency and necessity; lest when the novelty and reputation are gone, your religion wither and consume away.”

The New-Liberals & The Woke Trident

If you live in America and have been paying attention, our culture and churches are experiencing dizzying, rapid change—the dramatic changes all around us won’t make sense until you understand what we have termed “the new-liberalism” and the “woke trident.”

Faithful Christians face a three fold threat, three points of a common new-liberal trident, 🔱, here’s a brief summary and a link to an article we published that further explains it.

Add your own thoughts below in the comments 👇.

The trident:

1. Feminism

2. LGBTQI+

3. Racial Marxism

The methods:

• Victim culture

• Sentimentality

• Redefining terms

• Legal maneuvering/bureaucracies

• Censorship

• Incrementalism

• Demonizing opposition

• Fake crises

• Credentialism

• Doubting Scripture

• Epistemic uncertainty

• Antinomianism

• Replacement of natural relationships with arbitrary ones

• Fostering mobs in service of elites

• Marketing above substance

• Hiding the consequences

• Moderatism

• Consumerism

• Porn

• Propaganda

• Distractions/entertainment

• Destroying the means of production

Check out J. Landon’s excellent article: http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2021/2/7/TridentFogFuture

If you love Christ and his truth, I’m here to be an encouragement and friend. Have questions? Need prayer? Need help finding a decent church? Shoot me an email. thedailygenevan @ gmail . com

“Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called” 1Tim 6:12

Bishop Ussher, 1645, On Husbands & Wives As Superiors & Inferiors

Following the common biblical and catholic paradigm, Bishop Ussher’s Twenty-fifth Head of doctrine in his influential A Body Of Divinity, Being The Sum And Substance Of The Christian Religion (1645), describes the various privileges, duties, and violations taught by the fifth commandment using the paradigm of “inferiors and superiors.” This is the same paradigm the Westminister assembly, influenced as it was by Ussher, adopts in its discussion of the fifth commandment.

In this post, I simply would like to provide the reader an easily accessed excerpt of this wholesome teaching on the family from our early Reformed father. May Christ be praised in the churches.

Who are private Superiors, and Inferiors? They are either in the Family, or in the Schools.

What is the duty of Superiors in a Family? First, To provide for the Household the things belonging to their Soul, by a familiar catechizing and examintion; and to go before them in Prayer accordingly; the Householder being therein to be the Mouth of his Family. Second, To provide the Necessaries belonging to this present Life; as Food and Raiment both sufficient and agreeable to every ones place and estate, ( Gen. 18. 6, 7, 8. Prov. 27. 23, 24, 25. & 31. 15. 1 Tim. 5. 8.) with convenient Government.

What is the duty of Inferiors in a Family? To submit themselves to the Order of the House: and according to their Places and Gifts, to perform that which is commanded by the Governors thereof, for the good of the Household, Gen. 39. 2, 3, 4.

What are the differences of Superiors and Inferiors in a Family? They are either natural, as Husband and Wife, Parents and Children: or otherwise, as Masters and Servants, Ephes. 5. & 6. Col. 3. & 4.

What are the common duties of the Husband and Wife each to other? Mutual and conjugal love one towards another: yet so, as the Word presseth love at the Husband's Hands more than at the Wives; because Men are commonly more short of that Duty, Ephes. 5. 25.

Wherein must this Conjugal Love be declared? First,. By mutual help, Gen. 2. 18. Second, By due benevolence, ( 1 Cor. 7. 3. ) except by consent for a time, that they may give themselves to Fasting and Prayer, 1 Cor. 7. 5. 2 Sam. 11. 11.

What are the sins common to the Husband and the Wife? 1. Want of Love. 2. Betraying one another's Infirmities. 3. Discovering each others Secrets. 4. Jealousy. 5. Contention.

What is the duty of the Husband towards his Wife? First, An entire love unto her, to cherish her, as he would cherish his own Flesh, and as Christ does his Church, Ephes. 5. Second, To provide for her that which is meet and comely during his Life: and then also that she may be provided for after his Death, if it so fall out. Third, To protect her, and defend her from all Evil. Fourth, To dwell with her, as one of Knowledge, 1 Pet. 3. 7. Fifth, To give honor to her, as the weaker Vessel, ( Ibid. ) that is, to bear with her infirmities. Sixth, To govern and direct her.

What are the special sins of the Husband? 1. Not dwelling with his Wife. 2. Neglect of edifying her by Instruction and Example. 3. Denying her comfortable Maintenance, and Employment.

What is the Duty of the Wife to the Husband? First, Subjection, in a gentle and moderate kind and manner, Eph. 5. 22. For albeit it be made heavier than it was from the beginning, through the transgressions: yet that Yoke is easier than any other domestic subjection. Second, Obedience: wherein Wives are oft short, as Husbands in Love, Ephes. 5. 33. 1 Pet. 3. 1-6. Third, She must represent (in all Godly and commendable Matters) his Image in her behavior, that in her a Man may see the wisdom and uprightness of her Husband, 1 Cor. 11. 7. Fourth, She must be an helper unto him, ( Gen. 2. 18. ) as otherwise, so by saving that which he bringeth in, Prov. 31. 11-12. 1 Tim 3 11. Finally, She must recompense her Husbands care over her, in providing things necessary for her Household, and do good for her Husband all the days of her Life, ( Prov. 31. 12. ) that so he may be unto her, as it were, a veil and covering before her eyes. Gen. 20. 16.

What are the sins of the Wife, in respect of her Husband? . 1. Failing in reverence: which appeareth in froward looks, speech, or behavior. 2. Disobedience in the smallest Matters. 3. Disregarded of her Husband’s Profit.

What Duties come in the next place to be considered? Those of Natural Parents, who are specially mentioned in this Commandment: whereunto also are to be reduced all in the right Line ascending, and their Collaterals; as also Fathers in Law, and Mothers in Law.

What are the Duties of Natural Parents towards their Children? They are either common to both Parents, or in particular to either of them.

What are the common Duties of both of Parents? They do either respect the things of this Life, or of that which is to come.

What care are they to have of the Souls of their Children, to fit them for the Life to come? 1. To make them Members of the visible church by Baptism. 2. They are to catechize and instruct them in Religion, as they are able to receive it: and to bring them up in nurture and the fear of God, Ephes. 6. 4. 3. They are to pray to God to bless them, and guide them in his Fear.

What is required of them for the things of this Life? First, To mark the wits and inclinations of their Children; and as far as their own ability will reach to apply them accordingly, in due time, to some good, honest, and godly Calling: that so being trained up in such a Trade as they are fittest for, they may not afterwards live idly without any Calling, Gen. 4. 2. Prov. 20. 11. & 22. 6. Second, To provide for them a Godly Marriage (if it please God) in time convenient, 1 Cor. 7. 36. Third, Not only to maintain them, during their abiding in their House, but also to lay up and provide somewhat for them, that they may live honestly afterward. And therefore are they to distribute their Goods among their Children: and what they have received from their Ancestors, to leave the same (where it may be done lawfully) to their Posterity, 2 Cor. 12. 24. 2 Chron. 21. 3. Prov. 19. 14.

What special regard is here to be had by Parents to the Eldest Son? That since God hath honored him with that dignity, as to be their strength, ( Gen. 49. 3. ) he should also be honored by them (at the least) with a double portion, ( Deut. 21. 17. ) as by the rest of the Brethren, with honor: yet so, as he fall not from his honor by some horrible sin, Gen. 49. 4.

What are the common sins of Parents? 1. Negligence in not instructing their Children early in life. 2. Not correcting them till it be too late: or doing it with bitterness, without Compassion, Instruction, and Prayer. 3. Giving them ill example. 4. Neglect of bringing them up in some lawful Calling. 5. Not bestowing them timely, and religiously in Marriage. 6. Light behavior before them, and too much familiarity with them; whereby they become vile in their eyes. 7. Loving beauty, or any outward parts, more than God's Image in them.

What is required of the Father in particular? To give the name unto the Child, Gen. 35. 18. Luke 1. 62, 63. For notwithstanding the Mothers having sometimes given the Name, yet that hath been by the Father’s permission.

What special Duty is laid upon the Mother? To nurse the Child if she be able, Gen. 21. 7. 1 Sam. 1. 23. Lam. 4. 3, 4. 1 Thess. 2. 7, 8. 1 Tim. 2. 15. & 5. 10.

So much of the Duty of Parents to their Children.

What is the Duty of Children to their Parents? It is either general or special, viz. in the case of Marriage.

What are the general Duties? First, To reverence them: and to perform careful obedience to them in all things that they command: by the example of our Savior, who was subject to his Parents, Luke. 2. 51. Second, To pray for them. Third, So to carry themselves, while they are under their Parents tuition, and after they are departed from them, as they may cause their Parents (in their good bringing up) to be commended, Prov. 10. 1. & 17. 25. & 31. 28. Fourth, To be an aid unto them, as well as they be able, and to help them with their Bodies, when they are in distress, Ruth. 1. 16. & 2. 17, 18. Fifth, To repay their Parents care over them, by being ready to relieve them, if they stand in need of relief, and want any thing wherewith God hath blessed them, 1 Tim. 5. 4. Gen. 45. 11. & 47. 12.

What are the contrary sins of Children, in respect of their Parents? 1. Disobedience. 2. Murmuring at their Parents’ Chastisements. 3. Condemning them for any default of Body or Mind. 4. Unthankfulness, in not relieving them, not standing for their deserved credit, etc.

What is the special Duty of Children to their Parents, in case of Marriage? That they ought not so much as or attempt to bestow themselves in Marriage, without their Parents direction and consent; especially Daughters, Gen. 24. & 21. 21. & 27. 46. & 28. 9. Judg. 14. 2. 1 Cor. 7. 36, 37, 38.

What Reason have you to persuade Children to this Duty? That seeing their Parents have taken such great pains and travel in bringing them up, they should reap some Fruits of their Labors in bestowing of them. Besides, they should give them this honor, to esteem them better able, and more wise to provide for their comfortable Marriage, than themselves are. Is this Duty required onfy of Children to their Natural Parents that beg at them? No: It is also in some degree required of Children to their Uncles and Aunts; or to any other under whom they are, and that be instead of Parents unto them, when their Parents are dead, Esther 2. 10, 20. Ruth. 2. 18, 23.

Censuring Ministers For Their Silence, 1648

Oh that we had this zeal for the Lord and His church! May the Lord restore the abundance of Zion!

Excerpts from the 1648 deliverance of the church of Scotland, “Act for Censuring Ministers for their Silence, and not Speaking to the Corruptions of the Time.”

The Generall Assembly, taking to their serious consideration the great scandals which have lately encreased, partly through some ministers, their reserving and not declaring of themselves against the prevalent sins of the times, partly through the spite, malignity, and insolency of others, against such ministers as have faithfully and freely reproved the sins of the times without respect of persons;

For ministers:

Such as shall be found not applying their doctrine to corruptions, which is the pastorall gift—cold, and wanting of spirituall zeal—flatterers, and dissembling of publick sins, and especially of great personages in their congregations—that all such persons be censured according to the degree of their faults, and continuing therein be deprived.

…Tis also hereby recommended to the severall Presbyteries and Provinciall Synods, that they make speciall enquiry and triall concerning all the ministery in their bounds; and if any be found too sparing, generall, or ambiguous, in the foresaid applications and reproofs, that they be sharply rebuked, dealt with, and warned to amend, under the pain of suspension from their ministery.

…if there be any who do neglect and omit such applications and reproofs, and continue in such negligence after admonition and dealing with them, they are to be cited, and, after due triall of the offence, to be deposed—for be ing pleasers of men rather then servants of Christ—for giving themselves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in the cause of God, and for defrauding the souls of people; yea, for being highly guilty of the blood of souls, in not giving them warning.

And for the people:

And in case any minister, for his freedom in preaching, and faithfull discharge of his conscience, shall be, in the face of the congregation or elsewhere, upbraided, railed at, mocked, or threatened—or if any injury or violence be done to his person—or any stop and disturbance made to him in the exercise of his ministeriall calling, the Presbyterie of the bounds shall forthwith enter in processe with the offender, and whoever he be, charge him to satisfie the discipline of the Kirk by publick repentance; which if any do not, or refuse to do, that then the Presbyterie proceed to excommunication against him.

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/church-scotland-records/acts/1638-1842/pp166-200#h2-0017

Disturbing The Peace Of The Church With Truth

Posted here in honor of Rev. Michael Spangler, a “troubler of Israel” for the love of Israel and its God in truth. HT: Michael Hunter

From "A Pastoral Letter by the Associate Presbytery of the Carolinas to the People Under Their Care" (1826):

One of those popular sentiments, by which the light of divine truth is obscured, its influence weakened, and its authority set aside, is, That we should not disturb the peace of the church by contending for divine truth and institutions. This sentiment is urged with much vehemence and apparent christian zeal, and followed by a correspondent practice. If, however, the zeal expended for this sentiment, were employed, without its attendant acrimony, in defence of truth, it might be useful.

There is, perhaps, no one error, so fatal in its consequences as this popular principle, because, not only may every error, however gross, be introduced under its shield, but it takes away the church's weapon of defence. The sentiment is plausible, but neither the dictate of divine authority, or of sound reason. To shew that it flatly contradicts the holy scripture, it is sufficient only to ask, Did the prophets, apostles, or our Lord himself act on this principle? or did they teach it? Did not Elijah contend for pure worship, and ordinances? Did not Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others contend for God's truth and law? and were they not under express injunctions to do so? Who can read Ezekiel's instructions, chapter 33, without surprise at the popularity of the sentiment we oppose? Did not our Lord himself warn and reprove? did he not maintain, against opponents, the perfection of the divine law, and the purity of divine worship? for an example, see Mark vii. 1-13. And do not all the apostles warn, and reprove, and enjoin this as a duty on all gospel ministers? Did not Paul reprove Peter himself, and that openly? Did he not forewarn Timothy, that the time would come, when they would not endure sound doctrine, but would with itching ears, heap up to themselves teachers? Was not this his time to warn Timothy not to reprove error, if such silence had been a christian duty indeed? But on the contrary, his solemn charge, was to reprove, rebuke, and exhort; to watch in all things; to endure afflictions; to make full proof of his ministry: II. Tim. iv. 1-5. And again, of what spirit are the last admonitions of Christ to the churches of Asia? But time would fail in noting authorities. The holy scriptures give no instructions to gospel ministers, if injunctions to warn, admonish, and reprove, are not given.

Connected with the above sentiment, it is urged, That an error introduced, or held by a professed believer, should be spared; that charity requires forbearance respecting his mistakes. But error is seldom introduced into the church by any other. It is not generally the professed infidel that makes the innovation. It was not such that introduced and supported errors among the Galatians, and became the objects of Paul's severe reproofs. It is not the professed infidel, that shall, according to prophecy, in the latter days, give heed to seducing spirits: 1 Tim. iv. 1. Nor was it the professed infidel, whom Isaiah had commission to warn and reprove: Isa. lviii. 1. Cry aloud, spare not; lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.

But is it said these were notorious sinners, and under gross apostacy? not more so, than many, who are found at present, pleading for this silence. Give the former their claims, which are as well founded as the latter. Are those whom we reprove, church members? so were the objects of Isaiah's reproof. Do our opponents wear the appearance of piety? so did they. “Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God: they ask of me the ordinance of justice; they take delight in approaching to God.” Isa. lviii. 2.

Or whom did our Lord, when on earth, reprove with severity? were they not the professors of religion? members of a church of high and ancient privilege? But an end is put to all contention for truth, and such injunctions of holy scripture must be unmeaning, or inapplicable and useless, if the doctrines and institutions of God's word, must not be supported, when they are neglected, or opposed by professors of religion.

Besides, Satan has nothing to do, in order to introduce any error, with which he chooses to subvert the church, but to employ a professor of religion for this purpose. He can thus introduce it with impunity, when it is sheltered from the reproofs of holy scripture by its patron; and with more plausibility and efficiency for the purpose of deception; because it is clothed with the appearance of sanctity, and protected by the name of piety.

Nor is it unworthy of notice, that if all this plea for unconditional peace were well founded, our reforming forefathers were most uncharitable, narrow-minded, and unchristian in their spirit, in contending against Popery, Prelacy, Arminianism, and Socinianism, and we should yet have been enveloped in the darkness of the 15th century. No excuse for their conduct is possible, if the objection, which we oppose be admitted. They opposed a church of the greatest antiquity, and boasting of numerous saints; they continued their opposition, under the severest charges of a spirit of division, of irreligion, and a want of charity. If we only contend for the truth, and against error, charges against us, of illiberality and want of charity, are of the same spirit with those against our forefathers.

A Stench In Their Nostrils

“You’ve made our church a stench in the nostrils of the OPC.”

“Maybe, if you’ll promise to get off social media we can move forward together.”

“Who do you think you are?”

“You deserve this. You’ve brought it on yourself and your family.”

“What do you think gives you the responsibility to engage in these matters publicly?”

“You’re nothing but a keyboard warrior.”

With these encouraging words I’ve heard from my dearest and professed friends, I’m writing to ask you to set your face as a flint and join me in embracing the shame of obedience in an age of worldlings and timid men.

I’m asking you to use your own voice in your home, church, session, and presbytery to publicly stand against the new liberalism and its advocates and collaborators who are pushing wokism-marxism, feminism, and sexual libertinism. I have hoped to be an example to you, not in exact methods, but in steadfastness and courage against the #ReformedDowngrade. I have also become an example, in the short term, that initially we will probably “lose,” and may have very little influence for a while and even fewer friends. You’ll likely be banned on social media, lose your jobs eventually, and be silenced or disciplined in your “conservative” denominations.

That is fine with me, because as this article by Doug Wilson expresses, the Lord has worked in me something I pray will grow more and more and be expressed more clearly—a love and fear of God above the scorn and praise of men. Please join me in your own place and manner in that mission. In our conflict with encroaching liberalism in the Reformed churches, some haven’t and won’t, with the Lord’s help, be quiet in the face of pressure from those who have sought for varying reasons to silence us: Aimee Byrd, Rachel Green Miller, Todd Pruitt, Valerie Hobbs, Carl Truman, ninety-plus OPC ministers and elders who signed a lying letter, TGC, the Alliance Of Confessing Evangelicals, “abuse” advocates, pastors in my presbytery who’ve conspired against us and others who protect them, a mob of Reformed-marm-twitter-liars, an army of gossipy women of both sexes, and even now many friends who refuse to stand with us in any way that would cost them.

But in an evil age, there are costs to pay when you want to do what’s right. So I propose a catechism for you:

Question: “Who do you think you are?”

Answer: “I am a Christian. I obey Jesus and His Word.”

Question: “Don’t you see what this costs you and those you love?”

Answer: Jesus said “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” John 14:26

Question: “What if no one stands with you? Wouldn’t it be better to wait for support?”

Answer: Paul said “At my first defense no one stood with me, but all forsook me. May it not be charged against them. But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that the message might be preached fully through me, and that all the Gentiles might hear. Also I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.” 2 Timothy 4:16-17

Also, check out this article from Doug Wilson, a man who knows these things and has taken his share of “encouragement” from the NAPARC nanny-state :

When men lie about you, when women slander you, when they snatch at your words, when they call you a racist, or a misogynist, or a bigot, or a heretic, what are you commanded to do? Jesus says that we are to walk around the corner, just out of sight, chuckle a little chuckle, shrug our shoulders in the presence of the Holy One of Israel, and dance a little jig. Rejoice, He said. Be exceeding glad, He said.

And He also cautioned us in the other direction. Not only are we to rejoice when the abuse starts to fly, so also are we to worry about it when the accolades do. ‘Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.’ Luke 6:26 (KJV)

We may rank the sayings of Jesus in the following way. There are those things He taught which everybody already knows and agrees with, like the importance of honoring your father and your mother. Then there are the things He taught that are ranked as the ‘hard sayings,’ like those about loving your enemies and feeding the poor and the outcast. Tough, but more than a few believers have earnestly made the attempt. And then there are these sayings, which are clearly impossible, highly dangerous, and not even to be considered. And if you even attempt to live by such sayings, then we will mark you down as a conceited prig, in addition to the racism.

Scorn Proof

The reason the evangelical church in North America today is languishing is to be found right here. We are led by men who crumple under criticism. We are led by men who wither under any level of abusive commentary. But this is actually just another way of saying that we are not being led by men at all. There will be no recovery, there will be no reformation, there will be no revival, until God raises up a generation of men who are scorn proof. No sign of them yet, but God is the one who works marvels.”

I’m a nobody—and likely so are you—but I am a Christian, and because of that I have permission from the throne of heaven and accountability to the LORD to tell the truth, however inconvenient it is for those who hear it. If you feel ashamed to become a stench in other’s nostrils, remember it will be more embarrassing, possibly now in this life, but certainly later when Christ comes, for those who have not been willing to stand publicly for the truth. So tell the truth, stand firm in the freedom purchased for you by our Savior, and don’t be afraid. When you are rejected, rejoice!

Doug Wilson “Scorn Proof” at https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/scornproof.html

Calvin On Romans 16:18, Marks Of A False Teacher

Romans 16:18 “For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”

Calvin's commentary:

He mentions an unvarying mark, by which false prophets are to be distinguished from the servants of Christ; for they have no care for the glory of Christ, but seek the benefit of their stomach. As, however, they deceitfully crept in, and by assuming another character, concealed their own wickedness, he at the same time pointed out, in order that no one might be deceived, the arts which they adopted -- that they ingratiated themselves by a bland address. The preachers of the gospel have also their courtesy and their pleasing manner, but joined with honesty, so that they neither soothe men with vain praises, nor flatter their vices: but impostors allure men by flattery, and spare and indulge their vices, that they may keep them attached to themselves. He calls those simple who are not cautious enough to avoid deceptions.

Romans 16:18 identifies two features of false teachers:

1. They are not concerned for Christ’s glory but for their own pleasures.

2. They deceitfully creep in through alluring men with the use of “bland speech”, “flattery”, “vain praises”, and “soothing” speech—indulging others’ sins to keep their favor.

The gospel minister is instead:

1. A man who seeks the glory of Christ above his own pleasures.

2. Gospel preaching has a fitting manner. It certainly has its own courteousness and pleasantness, but it is joined with an honesty that does not flatter, spare or indulge vices, and is not designed to attach men to oneself but to the glory of Christ.

So, don’t be simple, and so led astray.

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

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

It’s an effective tactic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has God Really Said? Resisting the #ReformedDowngrade

In the long run, the church of our Lord Jesus Christ always wins. It rises up by the Spirit into life, trampling serpents, breaking down idols, filling the earth with generations of faithfulness, and praising the Triune God from shore to shore. But anyone who has lived the Christian life and is familiar with biblical and church history knows that this upward trajectory of victory is marred by many sad declines, beguilings of the devil, and little idols that gain temporary residence in heart, home, church, society. These downgrades from our upward calling in Christ are caused by a lack of faith, for without it, no one can please the Lord.

The occasion of one such downgrade in the church, where unbelief slid the church into temporary ruin, started when a brilliant, learned, appealing, and highly-effective leader ruined everything by asking a question, “starting a conversation” with the wife of the priest-king of a holy and tranquil realm. Having studied the cultural baggage she had inherited (rife with authoritative rules that forced the queen into involuntary submission and kept her in ignorance) he stirred up this queen’s desire for more from this life than mere fruitful multiplication by asking “Has God really said?”

And by the end of that conversation, the world was plunged into our present state of sin and misery.

I am going to say something you may not yet believe: we are currently heading into a great crisis in the conservative Reformed churches, we have begun a precipitous slide into sin and misery. It has not reached its conclusion, like it already has in the PCUSA, the United Methodists, and the old Reformed Church in America. It has not progressed into complete institutional compromise with liberalism like in the CRC. But all the beginnings of our repeating the feminist-liberal decline are there: women theologians advocating for “more women’s voices”, seminiaries enrolling women in MDiv programs, churches hiring more and more not-officially-ordained-yet women “ministers” of this and that, denominations calling for hiring parity between men and women, creative theologians tinkering with the plain teachings of scripture through the use of sophisticated argumentation, more and more women writers in the place of ordained men in our denominational magazines, etc., etc., etc. 

I don’t write this post to convince you that the decline is happening. (Though it is. Just ask those who lived through the fall of the CRCNA how this works.) But I am writing to alert you to a type of thinking that is itself a downgrade and apart from repentance will always lead to a further downgrade: a lack of faith in God’s Word. 

There is a footing we can have, a stance, a gait as we approach Scripture that will always stumble and fall: unbelief. It comes to the Bible on the defense. It comes to the Bible “concerned,” with personal problems and feelings it wants addressed adequately and comfortably. It avoids parts of the Bible that would correct the person. Or it comes to passages it describes as difficult, complex, and easy to misunderstand not first asking with humility to learn and be changed—it marches up to them with sandpaper in hand, ready to smooth down all the pointy parts. “Let’s have a conversation… let’s discuss the complex issues… let’s explore the rich tapestry of meaning and context and all the other rich things we can explore… you know, ‘Has God really said?’”

And at the end of the “discussions”... the “conversations”... the “explorations”... the “rich tapestries of meaning”.... we are left with something quite different than the authoritative, sufficient Word of God where yes is yes, and no is no. Once you begin to admit that this approach is itself a sinful capitulation to self-worship, you are well on your way to understanding why feminist exegesis is itself, apart from its ungodly conclusions and practices, its own sort of ungodly downgrade. 

Let women clothe themselves with modesty such as is fitting for godly women… “Has God really said? Who determines what is modest or fitting to godly womanhood? Is there even such a thing as godly womanhood?”

Women may not teach or have authority over men but are to learn in silence with subjection…. “Has God really said? How will men represent women’s unique perspective? How will the rights of women be preserved without women having power in church structures?” 

The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is of the church…. “Has God really said? Can’t we move beyond authority and submission? Why is there so much fixation on headship?”

Man was not made for woman, but woman for man… “Has God really said? I’m an ezer warrior, a coequal life partner!” 

Imitate Sarah who obeyed her husband and called him Lord… “Has God really said? I shouldn’t be forced to obey! Oppression!!”

The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God… “REEEEEEE! HAS GOD REALLY SAID! PATRIARCHY!”

This is actually what is currently happening in the Reformed world, and it is the downgrade that begins all downgrades: “Has God really said?”

One final word: don’t just reject this false, rebellious way when you see it in others—reject it in yourself. Do you desire to approach God’s Word with faith rather than irreverent questioning but you find yourself poked and prodded by what it says  in painful ways with sensitive topics? The way forward is to recognize that the problem is always in us, not God. You and I oversleep an alarm, lose our keys, fumble at relationships, have greatly erred and, yes, in thought, word, and deed sinned in many ways. Our comfort or discomfort with God’s commands says a lot about us but nothing about the goodness of those commands. He is all wise in what He has said and how He has said it. In our rebellion, ignorance, corruption we need the mighty working of his blessed Spirit to bring us to humility before him. So, we must come to Him as a beggar in prayer through Jesus Christ who receives repentant sinners: He has given you these difficult places in His Word for your salvation. As Spurgeon once said, these hard places are for setting up an altar to worship your God! Bow under His commands, commit your way to believe and obey his Word no matter the consequences. Trust Him for the forgiveness and help you will need, and you will see that His every word proves true and in keeping His commands our foot will never slip.

It’s not my fault Aimee Byrd wants to be taken seriously and other responses to those calculating ways to silence the very few of us willing to criticize the new feminism being promoted in NAPARC…

A public statement first posted in our discussion group: Genevan Commons.

An important announcement related to the spais, permission granted to share elsewhere:

As we all know, and have always known, the things said here in Genevan Commons are monitored by Aimee Byrd, Rachel Green Miller, people connected to R. Scott Clark’s twitter gang/sect/group, and others who believe we ought not be allowed a private discussion group in which their public “ministries” are critiqued. A number of us have been subject to false accusations, and it’s been said over and over on twitter that there are screenshots that prove me and others here: “nasty” “vile” “jerk” “slanderers” “dirty-mind” etc.

Against this backdrop, Mrs. Byrd has been laboring in her own session and in the OPC to develop some way to bring charges against me and others for opposing her. To do this, they have assembled (dissembled?) snippets of this and that for years. And now, she has accomplished the removal of one of her own elders without proper discipline procedures for not adequately supporting her.

On Good Friday, members of Mrs. Byrd’s church began receiving a mailed document in which the session presented its written case against Genevan Commons to its congregation as part of its work to divest the elder who displeased Mrs. Byrd by his membership in Genevan Commons. I was unaware of any of this when it was happening, but now that they have made their intentions public, I would like to ask you all to please pray for our brother and his family and his church. He has filed a complaint against this action and more complaints are likely.

As part of the accusations, all their factual errors and embarrassing details of Mrs. Byrd’s influence over them notwithstanding, they have announced that they are in fact pursuing ecclesiastical actions against me and others in Genevan Commons. They have been being advised on these matters by OPC insiders who serve on denominational committees. Mrs. Byrd, Todd Pruitt, and others have publicly called for discipline against us.

Despite Pruitt, Byrd, Green Miller and others accusing me publicly and privately, for years, of slander, perversion, being a jerk, having a dirty mind, saying horrible things, etc, their evidence of this is nothing. You know, as they are fond of noting about Mrs. Byrd, I also am “a member in good standing.” I hold to the Westminster Standards of the OPC without exception. And I am actually an elder in Christ’s church. None of this sort of thing matters in a victim culture: as long as Byrd and Green Miller can present themselves as aggrieved minorities, victims of an oppressive system, they are allowed to say anything they want about anyone they want, demonizing all opposition. They have in fact been rewarded for it.  

Despite personal, multiple requests for evidence of the things they have accused me of, they would never provide it to me so I could respond or others could examine the claimed evidence. They have not allowed me the decency of explaining, defending, or repenting of things I’ve supposedly said. They instead have continued these public and private attacks on me while formulating an ecclesiastical attack plan in the background, monitoring my posts and comments, threatening me that they are doing such, publicly hoping I will fall into disrepute, and coordinating with various people throughout the OPC. The only things I’ve ever been provided are “concerns” that I said her agenda is evil, ungodly, feminstic, etc. Yes, I have. And, yes, I will. If I will be brought up on charges for that, so be it. #ReformedDowngrade anyone? #RememberTheCRCNA anyone? 

It has not been enough for Mrs. Byrd to publicly attack CBMW, John Piper, John Macarthur, Doug Wilson, and many others with her public “ministry” of criticizing the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not enough that no one in the history of our Bible-believing Reformed churches ever advocated for her teachings without leaving for churches consumed by rank liberalism. It is not enough that she is supported by the biggest institutions and names in the Reformed world. She apparently will not allow people to oppose her. And men are lining up to support her. 

It only takes a casual acquaintance with her writing to understand why men do this: her agenda is deeply rooted in feeling offended at how men treat her. 

She admits over and over in writing and interview that her impetus for writing has often been situations in which she feels offended as a woman, slighted, or personally neglected. When I think about that, I’m sorry that she has felt that way, as those sorts of feelings are uncomfortable and unpleasant and when they arise from some real situation and are fueled by self-pity often lead to false judgements and sinful actions. And I am even more sorry that her husband, elders, the ministers and elders who lead the publishers who publish her and the ones who lead ACE, Trueman, Pruitt, and others have not realized that rather than helping her, they have extended her ego into the arena of public conflict. And I am even more sorry for the churches of our Lord Jesus who must now be disturbed further by her feelings and teachings. (For some critiques, see below.)

She has promoted herself as a public critic of mainstream conservative Christian teachings and practices, she has frequently mocked her critics on MOS and Twitter, she has at times attacked the most steadfast ministers of our current age, and she has openly said she is presenting a new way of thinking through gender issues, one that has benefited greatly from egalitarian exegesis. It is because of that, and her unwillingness to change course, that I became a public critic of her work and those who promote it. 

I will confess that I, at times, lack a temperance in speech. 

I have not ever claimed to be the best spokesman against this feminist cause—there are others who are clearer, less offensive, less uncouth. I completely understand that I do not appeal to people who don’t understand the issues yet, prefer genteel teas together, or have yet to become as zealous as they ought to have been in the first place to defend our churches. I don’t need nor am I requesting public affirmation of everything I have ever said. Those qualifications notwithstanding, in relation to her errors and its consequences in our lives my speech is not intemperate. I believe it is commensurate with the sadness it will bring to our congregations and the dishonor it brings on God’s Word. Yet those contemplating how they may silence me are particularly offended at certain things—things that I believe I ought to say more plainly and repeatedly as to encourage others to say the same, but with their own voices and styles. 

Let me once again publicly state for the record:

1. I think her agenda, as expressed in her books and on social media, is actually stupid—not her, not her emotions or feelings, not anything like that. Her agenda is stupid. A bad, dumb plan. It lacks a reasonable natural and biblical foundation, a faithful method of theological reasoning, and a wise and wholesome practical end. How could I possibly justify calling it stupid? Well, I’ll say it a different way: I think it is actually really stupid to encourage men and women who aren’t married to each other to have “intimate spiritual friendships” and spend time alone together. Foolish. Really dumb. Lots of other hurt-words. How can I say this more winsomely—it’s crazy! Cookoo! Really, really stupid to go on long walks with your intimate spiritual friend of the opposite sex while your spouse is at home. Really stupid to be alone with her in a car driving her to her hotel late at night. Really stupid. Stupid in real life, not in the world of Twitter grievances, used to manipulate masses—stupid in the real world where sexual sin destroys lives and draws the soul from God.

2. I think her teaching is ungodly: it does not arise from unreserved faith in God’s Word, but from dissatisfaction with her experiences. It relies on exegesis that does not start with the principle “thus says the Lord” but with “has God really said?” So, yes, I’ve used the word ungodly to describe her teaching. I really do think all of the slippery egalitarian exegetes sound ungodly, just like the devil: instead of reading a verse and thinking “how can I fully and completely believe and obey this?” They say “how can I shave down all the edges, pull all the teeth, and transform a passage that says ‘be silent’ to mean ‘we need more women’s voices?’” That’s ungodly, and I think it’s only right to call it such. 

3. I think her aims and methods are very similar to what we see among secular feminists and other Marxist-like aggrievement approaches. She has played the victim in her books, blogs, and social media interactions. She believes it to be real and actual suffering for people to say the things I’ve just said. This is a victim-culture technique, where the feelings of the aggrieved are used as justification for canceling the critics. #RememberTheCRCNA

4. I think her demand that no one have private groups in which they can talk about her public books and public teaching and public ecclesiastical support is ridiculous. Many people who are supporters of Aimee Byrd are members of private discussion groups. I am happy to be held accountable for what I say here in Genevan Commons or in other even less public settings. Surely, one should first ask if it is appropriate to share what I’ve said, if in private, giving me an opportunity to also engage, but however that goes, I am accountable and am fine being accountable. The idea that I’ve tried to create a place where we are unaccountable is foolish. Genevan Commons is a large transdenominational discussion group with many divergent opinions. We’ve sought to keep it an old, settled, happy Reformed group. In life many discussions are considered appropriately private, and yet the Christian ought to know he can be brought to account both by church discipline now and on the day of judgment before Christ. I have no problem with that, and they should stop pretending that I have some secret, hidden agenda or actions. 

5. I think the idea that one cannot warn against public sin and error done by a member of an OPC church would disallow all Christian conversation about our church. No church is perfect, and we ought to be able to publicly discuss publicly promoted sins and errors, especially those sold for $$$, and being marketed by the largest and most well funded and protected parachurch ministries. 

6. Commoners should all be aware that Aimee Byrd and those connected to her monitor people (particularly ministers) online to make sure that they don’t like the wrong tweets, use laugh emojis inappropriately, etc. Then they “advise” sessions and parachurch leaders to mark and oppose these opponents. This is a familiar and repeated reality. The National Partnership has done it for years in the PCA. Reformed parachurch organizations do it all the time. Numerous scandals prove it. It is a feature of the current Reformed world—the people on the inside use private means to control the public narrative. 

You and I, if we don’t kiss the right rings, are not free to talk. 

But the Word of God is not chained,

Shane 

====================

A link to the document from Mrs. Byrd’s session: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U6BKavPEgdED53eQuDK2YFTO8ltxi290

A link to critiques of Mrs. Byrd’s writings: http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2019/8/15/Aimee_Byrd_Critiques

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Love Declines Into Partiality: Richard Baxter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Prayer:

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

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

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

This is a powerful excerpt from a short book, “Family Worship” by the Swiss minister and historian, J. Merle D’Aubigne (1794–1872). This book is available at the link below for free from our friends at Chapel Library. The book explores the proper motives for family worship and provides sound guidance for the venerable practice:

Parents! If your children do not meet with a spirit of piety in your houses; if, on the contrary, your pride consists in surrounding them with external gifts, introducing them into worldly society, indulging all their whims, letting them follow their own course, you will see them grow vain, proud, idle, disobedient, impudent, and extravagant!

They will treat you with contempt; and the more your hearts are wrapped up in them, the less they will think of you. This is seen but too often to be the case. But ask yourselves if you are not responsible for their bad habits and practices; and your conscience will reply that you are; that you are now eating the bread of bitterness that you have prepared for yourself. May you learn thereby how great has been your sin against God in neglecting the means which were in your power for influencing their hearts. And may others take warning from your misfortune, and bring up their children in the Lord!

Nothing is more effectual in doing this than an example of domestic piety. Public worship is often too vague and general for children, and does not sufficiently interest them. As to the worship of the closet, they do not yet understand it. A lesson learned by rote, if unaccompanied by anything else, may lead them to look upon religion as a study like those of foreign languages or history. Here, as everywhere, and more than elsewhere, example is more effectual than precept.

They are not merely to be taught out of some elementary book that they must love God, but you must show them God is loved. If they observe that no worship is paid to that God of Whom they hear, the very best instruction will prove useless. But by means of family worship, these young plants will grow “like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither” (Psa 1:3). Your children may leave the parental roof, but they will remember in foreign lands the prayers of the parental roof, and those prayers will protect them.

Free ebook “Family Worship” from Chapel Library:

Free ebook link