Against Being Too Scrupulous: Richard Baxter

Can a person seek to be obedient in all things in a way that actually ends up undermining obedience in all things?

Baxter says yes, and that being overly scrupulous about small practical details (what many call legalistic) is a particular way of tripping ourselves up as Christians.

I’m working back and forth through Baxter’s monumental “Christian Directory”, and found this advice quite helpful:

Another temptation to confound you in your religion, is, by filling your heads with practical scrupulosity; so that you cannot go on for doubting every step whether you go right; and when you should cheerfully serve your Master, you will do nothing but disquiet your minds with scruples, whether this or that be right or wrong.

Baxter seems to be referring to the sort of person who stumbles over every small detail in their obedience, not able to see that such a negative and worrisome focus on these small details is a hindrance to what God calls them to do. They are sidetracked from the more important “cheerful obedience” to which they are called by thinking of God’s Law as tedious and condemning, by fixating on this small gnat, that small splinter.

He then provides a remedy, obedience that pursues pleasing God while always resting in our free justification in Christ:

Your remedy here, is not by casting away all care of pleasing God, or fear of sinning, or by debauching conscience; but by a cheerful and quiet obedience to God, so far as you know his will, and an upright willingness and endeavour to understand it better; and a thankful receiving the gospel pardon for your failings and infirmities.

Be faithful in your obedience; but live still upon Christ, and think not of reaching to any such obedience, as shall set you above the need of his merits, and a daily pardon of your sins. Do the best you can to know the will of God and do it: but when you know the essentials of religion, and obey sincerely, let no remaining wants deprive you of the comfort of that so great a mercy, as proves your right to life eternal. In your seeking further for more knowledge and obedience, let your care be such as tendeth to your profiting, and furthering you to your end, and as doth not hinder your joy and thanks for what you have received: but that which destroyeth your joy and thankfulness, and doth but perplex you, and not further you in your way, is but hurtful scrupulosity, and to be laid by.

When you are right in the main, thank God for that, and be further solicitous so far as to help you on, but not to hinder you. If you send your servant on your message, you had rather he went on his way as well as he can, than stand scrupling every step whether he should set the right or left foot forward; and whether he should step so far, or so far at a time, &c.

Hindering scruples please not God.

Counterpoint: Critiques Of Aimee Byrd’s Proposals (Updated: September 27, 2020)

‪“A way-station to egalitarianism: A review essay of Aimee Byrd’s Recovering from Biblical Manhood” by Denny Burk‬

‪"But never mind the more charitable or cynical take. Either way, there’s a generation looking for a doorway, and Byrd provides it. Which means, she doesn’t really need to make good arguments. She doesn’t need to do careful exegesis. She can invoke whatever sources she wants. Why? Because she’s got a pre-made audience. This audience is ready to jump and is just looking for a reasonably intelligent pretext for doing so. It’s often this way in popular Christian books. They tap into something people are already feeling. This was true of Rob Bell’s material. It was true of Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz. To be sure, both writers are extremely gifted. But many gifted writers never get noticed. Which ones do? The ones that articulate what people are already feeling, so that they can identify with it. I don’t know how popular Byrd’s book will prove to be, but she’s sharp, and she’s tapping into something. Yet here’s the catch. The bad arguments, even when brilliantly presented and popular in their moment, don’t last. Where are Rob Bell and Donald Miller today? And their arguments? The world has moved on, and the only thing left behind are a vast number of sheep who were led astray a decade ago. Who knows how those sheep are faring in the faith today? I predict arguments like Byrd’s will prove over time to be a briefly held way-station on the movement from narrow complementarianism to egalitarianism. Readers who do not wish to take that journey should be cautious about Byrd’s book."

‪https://equip.sbts.edu/article/way-station-egalitarianism-review-essay-aimee-byrds-recovering-biblical-manhood-womanhoood

---

“Mrs. Byrd’s Yellow Wallpaper” by Bennie Castle

“Two examples will suffice to show how the feminist meta-narrative jaundices Mrs. Byrd’s reading of particular Biblical narratives; the story of Huldah and the rediscovery of the scroll in the temple in the days of Josiah (2 Kings 22:8-20, 2 Chronicles 34:14-32) and the story of Ruth.  The reason I have chosen these narratives, and Mrs. Byrd’s handling of them, is because they highlight three major problems with Mrs. Byrd’s book as it relates to the doctrine of Scripture: Mrs. Byrd’s eisegesis of Scripture, the Confessional doctrine of canonization, and the Confessional doctrine of the Holy Spirit.”

https://calvinistruminant.wordpress.com/2020/05/22/mrs-byrds-yellow-wallpaper/

---

‪‪“Book Review: Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Byrd)” by Zachary Garris ‬ ‪

“Aimee Byrd’s Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood carries a provocative title aimed at the 1991 complementarian book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Yet Byrd’s is mostly an empty title, as she does not substantially interact with that book or other books by complementarians. Instead, she claims complementarians ignore discipleship. She then surveys biblical passages about women in the Bible (“gynocentric interruptions”) that do nothing to undermine complementarianism, all the while ignoring the most important passage on the subject (1 Timothy 2:8-15). Most of her criticism of complementarians centers around ESS.

Byrd’s book is filled with lots of quotations and citations that come across as an attempt to impress the reader, but few actually support her thesis or help to form a coherent argument. Sadly, she makes many egalitarian claims and cites egalitarian authors positively throughout the book. Yet when critics ask Byrd to answer questions about exactly what she believes about men and women, she takes offense and refuses to answer.

This book is published by Zondervan, so no one should have expected a defense of conservative gender roles. Yet being a member of a conservative Reformed denomination (OPC) and working for a conservative Reformed organization (Reformation21.org), this is a sad commentary on the state of Western Christianity. Despite her claim that only men can be pastors, Byrd consistently pushes her readers in the direction of feminism. I do not know how influential this book will be, but it is so poorly reasoned that it should not sway those seriously considering these issues. Regardless, Byrd’s book should serve as evidence of just how strong a foothold feminism and egalitarianism have inside the church­­, even “conservative” Reformed churches.“

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/book-review-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-byrd‬

---

“Recovering from Aimee Byrd’s Promotional Video“ by Christian McShaffrey

https://www.fivesolas.church/recovering-from-aimee-byrds-promotional-video

“Some readers are probably old enough to remember the ‘discussions’ that began in the Christian Reformed Church in 1970. These discussions led to study committees ‘to help the churches make all possible use of women’s gifts’ and moved the CRC slowly-but-steadily toward women’s ordination and even a version of gender-based affirmative action in 2015. 

It would be well worth your time to read the full chronology that is posted on the CRC’s website. You might also want to take mental note of some of the key words and phrases that were used during the CRC’s 45-year-long ‘discussion’; as they are the same words and phrases being used today in the PCA and, it would seem, soon enough in the OPC.

Aimee is probably not seeking to be ordained as the OPC’s first woman minister, but that is where these ‘discussions’ tend to lead and my prediction is that the OPC will probably follow the well-worn path of progressivism to final perdition. That is, unless the teachers of the church are men enough to say, ‘No thank you’ to Aimee’s invitation to come into their churches and initiate this discussion.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong about this prediction, but history suggests otherwise. There are several historical charts available which demonstrate the Presbyterian propensity (necessity?) to divide every 50 years or so to maintain biblical fidelity.”

---

“Does Anyone Need to Recover from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? A Review Article of Aimee Byrd’s 𝘙𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥” May 4, 2020 By Andrew David Naselli

“Here’s what I’ve argued:

1. Summary: The gist of Byrd’s book is that biblical manhood and womanhood—especially as John Piper and Wayne Grudem teach it—uses traditional patriarchal structures to oppress women.

2. Context: On the spectrum of views on men and women, Byrd’s position overlaps partly with the far left side of narrow complementarianism and partly with egalitarianism.

3. Evaluation: Byrd’s book is misleading because she misrepresents complementarianism, and it is misguided because she shows faulty judgment or reasoning.”

https://cbmw.org/2020/05/04/does-anyone-need-to-recover-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-a-review-article-of-aimee-byrds-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/

---

“Book Review: Why Can’t We Be Friends, Part II- What Exactly Is She Proposing?” by Peter Jones:

“Once we understand her proposal we see what a fundamental, sea change Mrs. Byrd is recommending. She is upending 2000 years of church teaching and practice as well as the teaching and practice of most human societies, on how men and women should interact.”

https://singingandslaying.com/2018/08/21/book-review-wcwbf-part-ii-what-exactly-is-she-proposing/

---

“A Sexual Or Asexual Public Square” by David Talcott via First Things:

“A Complementarianism that is so thin that it limits itself to a single point circumscribed within two narrow spheres does not do justice to the fact that “from the beginning God made them male and female.” This mysterious and unique human partnership of male and female extends to every part of our lives; it is not limited to small cloisters.”

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/09/a-sexual-or-asexual-public-square

---

“A Few Brass Tacks On ‘Christian Teaching’” by E. J. Hutchinson

“Have our natures been warped and deformed by sin? Of course; and even when renewed they continue to show its effects. But they have not been obliterated by sin. Our condition, then, makes all the more needful, first, a greater attentiveness to our irreducible and indestructible and natures and, second, a renewed vigor in Christian reflection upon those natures, precisely because human beings are otherwise prone to attempt the impossible: to reduce and destroy our natures.”

https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/09/15/men-women-nature-christian-teaching-two-responses-aimee-byrd/

---

“A General Response To Aimee Byrd” by Alastair Roberts via The Calvinist International

“By far the most significant point of difference between us, presuming that we are not speaking past each other, concerns the relationship between our natures and God’s moral command. I see a very close bond between nature and virtue. Virtue is the realization of the appropriate telos of our nature and is about us attaining to the full stature of what we are. It isn’t merely about obeying external commands. Virtue is seen when man is fully, truly, and gloriously man and woman is fully, truly, and gloriously woman.”

https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/09/15/men-women-nature-christian-teaching-two-responses-aimee-byrd/

---

“Can’t Men And Women Be Friends?” by Winfred Brisley via The Gospel Coalition

“While Byrd offers a thoughtful consideration of biblical siblingship and rightly draws out heart issues, on this point I fear she goes too far. Though our sanctification enables us to avoid sin, so long as we remain in our fallen state, the possibility of any particular type of sin won’t be removed. It’s certainly possible to go so far in trying to avoid sexual sin that we become pharisaical, potentially hurting others as well as ourselves. But it’s also possible to be overly optimistic about the likelihood of refraining from sin, particularly when placing ourselves in precarious situation”

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/why-cant-friends/

---

Doug Wilson’s helpful series through her book:

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/when-aimee-met-harry-and-sally.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/stereotypes-or-manners.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/a-rats-nest-of-a-situation.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/books/gaaa-jezebel.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/what-the-ornithologist-knows.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/like-so-many-dried-beetles.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/books/striking-while-the-irony-is-hot.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/defrauding-a-brother.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-great-servant-leadership-mistake.html

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/concrete-help-is-not-legalism.html

---

“Feminism In The Reformed Churches: A Series” by Michael Spangler

http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2020/5/12/Feminism_In_The_Reformed_Churches

---

“Review Of Aimee Byrd’s ‘Recovering From Biblical Manhood And Womanhood” by Mark Jones

“In relation to the concerns above, part of Byrd’s project involves the contention that “Christian men and women don’t strive for so–called biblical masculinity or femininity, but Christlikeness. Rather than striving to prove our sexuality, the tone of our sexuality will express itself as we do this…My contributions, my living and moving, are distinctly feminine because I am a female. I do not need to do something a certain way to be feminine (such as receive my mail in a way that affirms the masculinity of the mailman). I simply am feminine because I am female” (p. 114). I would say this goes against a lot of classical Christian thinking on anthropology that I have read. At this point, Byrd misses the vocational aspect of gender. I agree that for a woman to be feminine is “to be” (essentialism), but it is also “to become” (eschatological fruition), which only works if a woman has distinctively feminine aspects. As Mark Garcia has mentioned in his Greystone lectures on theological anthropology, in the Bible the feminine is a virtue complex we are called to, not merely a descriptor of what one is. Otherwise the motherly images of God in Scripture (nurturing, protective, strong in defense and care, etc.) are meaningless and may as well be asexual. It reduces to an amorphous asexual humanity, contradictory to her own agreement earlier that the feminine is meaningfully eschatological. Thus her contention that she doesn’t need to act like a woman because she is a woman (p. 120) is sort of like a Christian saying, “I don’t need to act like a Christian because I am one.” We are holy (positionally) and we are to be holy (progressively). Those sympathetic to her critiques of CBWM will see a statement like the one just mentioned and wonder if Byrd is really offering a better alternative.”

https://calvinistinternational.com/2020/05/11/review-of-aimee-byrds-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/

---

“My Christian Sisters and the Pence Rule (Why Aimee Byrd Is Misreading Scripture)” by G. Shane Morris:

“Byrd’s categorical mistake should be getting clearer, now. The grace of union in Christ does not abolish or supersede the natural distinctions of male and female, husband and wife, brother and sister. It adds to and sanctifies them. Given her apparent reading of the sibling metaphor as abolishing or superseding the biological realities that make close male-female friendship so fraught, it’s fair to ask why she doesn’t follow liberal theologians in taking Galatians 3:28 (‘There is neither Jew nor Greek…slave nor free…male and female’) as an abolition of all natural distinctions between the sexes within the church. Does Byrd (who is an otherwise conservative Protestant) support female presbyters and pastors? If not, why not? There is, after all, ‘neither male nor female’ in Christ Jesus!”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/troublerofisrael/2018/04/my-christian-sisters-and-the-pence-rule-why-aimee-byrd-is-misreading-scripture/

---

“Book Review: Why Can’t We Be Friends, Part I- Houston Is There A Problem?” by Peter Jones:

“Do we have a problem? Yes. But it is not the one Mrs. Byrd assumes. The problem is in a different direction. And if you assume the fire is going out but it is burning hot your solution will only make things worse.”

https://singingandslaying.com/2018/07/16/book-review-why-cant-we-be-friends-part-i-houston-is-there-a-problem/

---

“Natural Complementarians: Men, Women, And The Way Things Are” by Alastair Roberts:

“I have identified three different areas where an unhelpful narrowing of focus can be seen in Byrd’s piece. First, she fails to attend to the pronounced empirical differences between men and women as groups that Stanton highlighted. Second, she handles historical understandings of gender roles as if unalloyed ideology, rather than as practical attempts to respond to and address prevailing social realities, realities that arose in part on account of natural differences between the sexes. Third, she restricts her biblical analysis to an unclear term in relative isolation, rather than seeking to ascertain the larger biblical picture. At each of these points, she limits the part that nature, empirical reality, and scriptural narrative are permitted to play in the conversation. As these dimensions are marginalized, unchecked gender ideologies are given ever freer rein. Christian teaching on the subject becomes ever more of an abstraction, slipping its moorings in concrete natural, historical, and biblical reality.”

https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/09/13/natural-complementarians-men-women/

---

“Why It’s Very Difficult For Men And Women To Just Be Friends” by Wendy Wilson via The Federalist

“Byrd doesn’t seem to want to give men a say if their perspective contradicts hers, nor does she seem willing to give women who support measures like the Pence rule a fair hearing. Like secular feminists, she is adamant that such safeguards objectify women, reducing them to temptresses while reducing men to predators.”

https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/29/difficult-men-women-just-friends/

---

“A Byrd’s-Eye View For Remodeling The Church: A Review of Aimee Byrd’s ‘Recovering From Biblical Manhood & Womanhood’” by Bill Smith at Kuyperian Commentary

“This patriarchal structure that governs the new creation is to be imaged in the world. Men should be leading societies, the church, and the home. Isaiah says that when women and children lead, that is an indication that a society is being punished. (Isa 3.12) Men are created to be oriented to the creation in a way that women are not. Women are created to be oriented toward men in a way that men are not oriented toward women. (1Cor 11.8-9) This is creation glorified, not transcended.

Because a woman can do something doesn’t mean that she ought to do it any time or in any space she wants. The same goes for a man. We have God-given lanes to stay in to use the abilities God has given us in the structures in which he has commanded us to use them. Not to stay in our lanes as men and women will be debilitating to our kingdom mission. Consequently, we don’t need to recover from biblical manhood and womanhood. We need to grow into and delight in the beauty of them.

Despite her best efforts to distance herself from egalitarianism, Byrd, in the end, practically promotes a baptized version of egalitarianism. In the end, I don’t think Byrd has a good eye for redecorating the church, so she needs to be careful about ripping down wallpaper in the church.” 

http://kuyperian.com/a-byrds-eye-view-for-remodeling-the-church-a-review-of-aimee-byrds-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-womanhood/

---

“Men Of Straw” by G. Shane Morris via Breakpoint

“Aimee Byrd of Carl Trueman’s popular ‘Mortification of Spin’ podcast recently shared how ‘triggered’ she is by the ‘pervasive’ emphasis on masculinity in the evangelical church. In reaction to a Patheos blog post by one pastor who advised men to give firm handshakes and limit how often they touch other men’s wives, Byrd heaps 1,600 words of scorn and 1950s caricatures on the very idea that we need to raise men to act differently from women. This is the same Aimee Byrd, by the way, who thinks the ‘Mike Pence Rule’ is ‘pickpocketing purity,’ and argues in a recent book that men and women ought to have more frequent and intimate one-on-one friendships with one another (what could go wrong?).”

http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/01/men-of-straw/

---

An Anonymous Customer Review (many people are afraid to address Byrd publicly since her followers punish people with slander, doxing, and cancelling)

“As one who holds to the complementarian position, I did not find the book particularly helpful or insightful.
The critique that there should not be separate bibles for men and women was odd. Men and women use the same bible. Just because a publisher decides that it would be nice to supplement a particular bible translation with devotions for men or women is not the same thing as saying that those men and women have different bibles.

What is more troubling though was the exercise throughout the book of ‘finding the woman’s voice’ in scripture. The Word of God is primarily and preeminently God’s voice: ‘for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will’; and the Word of God was delivered by men, ‘men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’ 2 Peter 1:21.
The notion that we need to find ‘women’s voices’ in Scripture is deceptive and contrary to the doctrine of divine plenary inspiration.

Indeed, there are women quoted in the Bible and whom we acknowledge and value. Some, such as Deborah and Huldah, were even identified as prophets (or prophetesses). But unlike Aimee’s description, they were neither authors of the Scriptures, nor functioned as authenticators of the Scripture. Throughout the book, Aimee uses terms like ‘gynocentric interruption’ to describe narrative discourse that features women in the midst of the ‘androcentric’ text. She characterizes the women portrayed in scripture as ‘tradents’ of the faith, without regard to the technical use of the term. Another claim is that women actively participated in the role of canonical selection which contradicts the nature of how the church received the canon of scripture.

Furthermore, a large portion of the book puts forth the egalitarian arguments for passages of scripture that specifically relate to the ways in which women participated in the covenant community, both in the old and new testaments. In so doing, she overstates her case. Do we need to continue to grow in how we value and see how God used women in the scriptures? Absolutely! Do we need to invent or borrow categories from those who have taken unacceptable positions on the nature of God’s Word? Absolutely not. The book puts forth exegesis of New Testamant passages used by egalitarian scholars who argue for women’s ordination and equal access to the pastoral/ priestly offices with men. While Aimee stops short of affirming female ordination, the exegesis by egalitarians is copiously used throughout without any practical engagement with traditional scholarship of the passages under review. Finally, the book neglects any engagement with 1 Timothy 2:12-15 or Titus 2, which was disappointing considering the nature of the topic. If Aimee wants women (and men) to ‘recover from’ their biblical understanding of womanhood and manhood, those passages seem important to the endeavor.

I cannot recommend this book to other readers, except for those who are equipped to understand the many serious errors within and to understand the ways readers will be misled. The idea that the church needs to value women more is important. This is not the answer because it swings the pendulum over to the other side and invites as many issues and errors as it attempts to dispel.”

Originally: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2SFCXXNCXEHC4/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B07TF3TC2J

---

“I would now turn to plainly warn the reader against the errors that render this work ultimately a threat to the sound doctrine and practice of Christ’s flock. In so doing, it is my aim not to mock nor ridicule, but rather to labor to recover those who are being drawn towards error.”

“A Review of Recovering From Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (Part 1)” by Pastor Bryan Peters

https://westportexperiment.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/rfbmwreviewpart1.pdf ‬

---

“In conclusion, while Byrd does have a few legitimate grievances over some practices in the wider church, her book is soaked through with an unbiblical hermeneutic and unbiblical interpretations of the biblical texts. Her hermeneutic is subjectivist in nature, contrary to the Reformed objectivist hermeneutic. She is less than honest about her opponents, constantly misrepresenting them and doubling down on her misrepresentations when confronted about it. Her interpretations of difficult texts are contrary to what the texts actually teach, and no amount of hand-waving against “biblicism” is going to save her from that. Byrd’s book therefore is contrary to sound theology, and undermines the Reformed Confessions. While she claims to be Reformed, her hermeneutics is not Reformed. The way she does theology is not the Reformed manner of doing theology, and this book is not recommended for anyone wanting to know about biblical manhood or womanhood, or even what the Reformed tradition’s view on women in the church is and should be.”

“Review of Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Aimee Byrd”

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2020/09/book-review-recovering-from-biblical.html

The PCA And Liberalism: A Warning From Our History

(The following is a post, reproduced here in its entirety, by Lacy Andrews, Regional Home Missionary for the Presbytery of the Southeast of the Orthodox Presbyterian church.)

I rarely get involved in theological discussions online, but I believe it’s important that I express a concern over developments in the PCA and especially the latest GA. Sorry for the length of this post. For those who don’t know me, I’m a minister in the OPC. This concern has grown as I’ve read different responses to what was unfolding at the GA. Some expressed alarm, but then settled down after seeing many positive signs at the assembly. I’ve even read posts of repentance for statements made rashly.

One thing I’ve not seen anywhere in the posts that I’ve read is any real reflection of church history regarding watershed General Assemblies in Presbyterian denominations. I took note of some of the strategies employed by conservatives in the PCA, and though I sympathized greatly with what they did and rejoiced in things said, I wondered if they were repeating a conservative error that has plagued the church in the face of rising progressivism in the past.

The 1923 and 1924 General Assemblies of the PCUSA were watershed GAs in the battle between conservatives and progressives (then often called fundamentalists and modernists). The thing we need to note is that conservatives left both of those assemblies greatly encouraged, believing that their show of power had reclaimed the church. After an initial loss (the election of the moderate, Charles Wishart as moderator over the fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan) in 1923, the conservatives believed they’d won the day on virtually every issue to come before the assembly. First, the assembly sided with the conservatives regarding the preaching of Harry Emerson Fosdick, and second, the assembly voted to require all officers to affirm the Five Fundamentals. Though conservatives rejoiced, they failed to realize that neither action had any teeth. Subsequent to the assembly, the Presbytery of New York essentially ignored the directive of the GA regarding Dr. Fosdick. Also, the modernists convened a meeting to strategize how to respond to the conservative “wins” at the GA that concluded with the writing and signing of the Auburn Affirmation. Sadly, those who signed the Auburn Affirmation understood the constitution of the PCUSA better than the conservatives who were trying to defend it. By adopting the Five Fundamentals the conservatives added extra-confessional requirements for ordination. Though the Five Fundamentals spoke directly to the issue at hand, they provided an open door for the progressives to cry “foul.”

All of this came to a head at the 1924 GA. The conservatives struck first and elected Clarence E Macartney as moderator, who appointed Maitland Alexander as chairman of the Bills and Overtures Committee. William Jennings Bryan also served on the committee creating a false-sense of security for the conservatives at the GA. An overture came to the GA from the Presbytery of Cincinnati putting the matter of the Auburn Affirmation before the GA. Though the dynamics on the Bills and Overture Committee were complex (with a liberal majority of 13 to 9), in the end, no action was taken on the overture as it was placed on the table. There were no dissenting votes recorded to placing it on the table, and it’s been noted by OPC historian, Danny Olinger, that J. Gresham Machen was a commissioner and even he didn’t record a negative vote. The result was that nothing of consequence happened to those who signed the Auburn Affirmation. The conservatives had given them a foot-hold by essentially adding extra-confessional requirements for ordination, which enabled the signers of the affirmation to get away with the egregious aspects of the affirmation which affirmed the Five Fundamentals as truths, but as truths open to various broad interpretations. In the end there was no discipline. The conservatives, by focusing upon the Five Fundamentals instead of the Standards of the Church, made it almost impossible to bring charges against those whose doctrine was contradicted by the Standards. This error of exposing modernism in the church, but not bringing charges against those espousing false-doctrine would continue over the next few years. Interestingly, while conservatives celebrated saving their church after the 1923 and 1924 assemblies, it was only 12 years later that the leading conservative in the PCUSA, J. Gresham Machen was deposed as a minister by that same church. The fall happened rapidly, a conservative majority was caught off guard, the church was lost. I’m not making any predictions about the PCA, only reminding you of history. I understand the sentiment of bringing the Nashville Statement before the Assembly. It is a Biblical Statement, but I’m concerned the battle wasn’t fought by bringing the Westminster Standards to bear, instead of using an extra-confessional statement established by a para-church organization.

In the early 2000s, conservatives (moderates to most of us) in the PC(USA) repeated the same error as the conservatives did in the 1923/1924 General Assemblies. Of course, the confessionalism of the PC(USA) was already eviscerated by the adopting of a contradictory Book of Confessions and watered-down ordination vows, yet still, the same method was used with the establishment of the Confessing Movement. This time, the conservatives selected three Fundamentals instead of five: (1). Salvation only in Jesus Christ, (2) The authority of the Bible for Faith and Life, and (3) sexual fidelity in monogamous hetero-sexual marriage. I had a conversation with a PC(USA) conservative at that time who was excited about the Confessing Movement and reminded him of what had happened in 1923/1924. I also pointed out that the PC(USA) had already abandoned any semblance to confessionalism and pled with him to leave the church. He was sure that the conservatives had turned the tide and were going to win the day. Alas, see what’s happened to the PC(USA). Interestingly, those who opposed the Confessing Movement in the PC(USA) developed their own Auburn Affirmation. Again the progressives understood their history better than the conservatives.

This is a plea for my conservative brothers in the PCA to remember our history and to take note of previous mistakes.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church: Against Racism

In 1974 the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) received the report of its Committee On Problems Of Race.

This report, the Bible (which is the OPC’s official primary standard), and the Westminster Confessions and Catechisms (the OPC’s secondary standards) all reject the sins commonly referred to under the term “racism.” Additionally, both the good news of Christ which is for all people and nations and the law of God, given in creation and again summarized plainly in the Ten Commandments, call all Christians to love our neighbors as we love ourselves and to live in such a way that the world can vividly see the love of Christ by the way we treat people.

Studying the people, doctrines, and practices of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, one will see that the overarching question for this small communion of Christians has been, by God’s grace, “how can we be faithful to God according to His Word and so bring Christ glory?” This impulse fueled the work of the 1974 Committee On Problems Of Race, and the General Assembly’s concern that the churches live out this mission of faithfulness in matters of race relations:

Although there are marked distinctions and even divisions among men, including those of race, mankind, according to the teaching of the Bible, has a single origin. Later distinctions and divisions are indeed significant and may not simply be pushed aside; nevertheless, the Bible clearly teaches that the gospel is universal in its offer and its call. All those who are in Christ are united together with Him as their Head in a new humanity, in which the distinctions and divisions that otherwise separate men are transcended in a new unity. This is also true of the divisions occasioned by race. True, the distinctions mentioned in the Bible as having been overcome in Christ are not primarily those of race, nor does the Bible think along lines that correspond with the distinctions of race as we understand them today; nevertheless, racial distinctions and divisions as we know and understand them today certainly fall under those things that have been transcended in Christ. How, then, is the new unity in Christ to be expressed in the communion of the saints today as it bears on the question of race?

In a world marked by violence, bigotries, self-centeredness, injustice, anger, and all manner of sins surrounding matters of race, the Bible presents an ethic of love for God and neighbor according to his law. This law has never been followed perfectly in Christ’s church, and it sometimes has been directly contradicted by what Christians (including Presbyterians) have taught or done. But, let it be clear to the fair observer, the Orthodox Presbyterian church is no refuge for those who want racial strife, but it has been a refuge for those who want to live lives pleasing to God and good for our neighbors.

Also See: Mark Robinson’s article in the OPC New Horizons magazine “Four Theses for Reforming Race Relationships”

 “A Public Statement on the Shooting at the Chabad Synagogue” by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Godliness Evidenced When Against The Stream: Richard Baxter

I know law, and custom, and education, and friends, when they side with godliness, are a great advantage to it, by affording helps, and removing those impediments that might stick much with carnal minds. But truth is not your own, till it be received in its proper evidence; nor your faith divine, till you believe what you believe, because God is true who doth reveal it; nor are you the children of God, till you love him for himself; nor are you truly religious, till the truth and goodness of religion itself be the principal thing that maketh you religious. It helpeth much to discover a man's sincerity, when he is not only religious among the religious, but among the profane, and the enemies, and scorners, and persecutors of religion: and when a man doth not pray only in a praying family, but among the prayerless, and the deriders of fervent constant prayer: and when a man is heavenly among them that are earthly, and temperate among the intemperate and riotous, and holdeth the truth among those that reproach it and that hold the contrary: when a man is not carried only by a stream of company, or outward advantages, to his religion, nor avoideth sin for want of a temptation, but is religious though against the stream, and innocent when cast (unwillingly) upon temptations; and is godly where godliness is accounted singularity, hypocrisy, faction, humour, disobedience, or heresy; and will rather let go the reputation of his honesty, than his honesty itself. 

From Richard Baxter’s “Christian Directory”  http://a.co/0rbSMSd

It’s Easier To Get New Religion Than To Get A New Heart: A Warning From Baxter

 “Either a religion made up of loose opinions, like the familists, ranters, libertines, and antinomians, and the Jesuits too much; or else made up of trifling formalities, and a great deal of bodily exercise, and stage actions, and compliments, as much of the popish devotion is: and a little will draw a carnal heart to believe a carnal doctrine. It is easier to get such a new religion, than a new heart. And then the devil tells them that now they are in the right way, and therefore they shall be saved. A great part of the world think their case is good, because they are of such or such a sect or party...”

If you’ve engaged in social media for long, you surely have seen at least some religious conversions and de-conversions. The modern context puts everything on display, making observations of human tendencies as easy as a click away. Even for the well-grounded Christian, it can be disconcerting to see someone falling into various doctrinal and practical sins. Or, it can be disappointing to see people stay in unbiblical churches, opinions, and practices when you hoped better for them. Particularly troubling is when someone seemed to know and love Christ and his Word, but later falls to a sect with a false gospel, false worship, false piety.

Sometimes the problem is less severe, at least outwardly. In our context, there are so many religious options that a person can simply find whatever degree of soundness they can tolerate and settle there, until they again are strongly challenged (by the Word or Providence) in the particulars of their own life before God. Then they simply move on again to somewhere that feels easier to the flesh.

In this quotation from Baxter’s Christian Directory he warns of two kinds of sects that appeal to this sort: on one side are those that are of “loose opinions” (what I call “free range”) and on the other side are those that excel in man-made religious activities (exotic liturgies, false worship, special works or missions, and extras of all sorts.) So then, as you see if you are observant and wise, times have not changed! These great Scylla and Charybdis still wreck many souls. As Baxter says, “It is easier to get such a new religion, than a new heart.”

10 Godly Expectations For Husbands & Fathers

At the start of a new year, it is a seasonable time to re-evaluate ourselves in our calling as husbands and fathers. In light of this opportunity, Pastor Uriesou Brito of Providence Church CREC of Pensacola, Florida offers “Ten Straightforward Godly Expectations for Husbands/Fathers in 2019.” He’s graciously allowed them to be shared here:

1. It doesn't matter how many times I say it, it needs to be repeated until it pierces the Christian masculine soul: Under normal circumstances, church is not optional. It is God's fourth commandment requirement of you. Men, if you allow your wife or other circumstances dictate your faithfulness to worship God with his people, you are weak and need to be rebuked.

2. Your children (to borrow Peterson's language) will grow to be annoying to you if you do not invest in them now. Love. Care. Spend time. Read. Play. Hug. Kiss. Instruct. You won't be annoyed with your future children when you invest in the present.

3. Don't just "date night your wife," but kiss her, love her, write to her, romance her, cook for her, and make her job at home as easy as possible by making yourself useful. If you don't know what that looks like, ask her. She will tell you.

4. Family devotions are either too boring or non-existent in the home. Secret: make them short and participatory. Men, most of you are not pastors and don't play one on TV. Don't  play preacher to your kids. They will resent you.

5. Read. If you don't read at least 3-5 books in a year, you're a poor leader in the home. "But I don't like to read!" Then get yourself an audible subscription and have at it.

6. Pray like a man. "But I don't have a habit of praying for me or my family." Then get a copy of the "Valley of Vision" or Evelyn Underhill's "Prayer Book" on amazon. And read those and learn how to pray by reading people's prayers.

7. Serve your church. "But I work odd hours and only have a few hours to spend with my family on the weekends." That's irrelevant. If your church has set-up to do, or if they have widows and shut-ins in need, or a host of things, there will always be time for service. And if you are concerned about not spending enough time with your kids, take them with you to serve. I guarantee you your family time in service will be doubly as profitable as just about anything you can do together.

8. Sing God's songs together. "But I can't sing." Ever heard of youtube? Contemporary, psalms, hymns or whatever, it's all there. No more excuses, gents. Gather around dinner with a few printouts and sing something.

9. Get together with other men. "But my wife says I am not allowed to go out at nights with my friends." Tell her it will make you a better husband if you spend time with other godly saints. Don't isolate your masculinity. On the other hand, if you don't extend the favor to your wife, you're an idiot that needs gentle but a firm rebuke.

10. Watch good movies together. Quit isolating your styles from others in the household. A little here and there is okay, but when you have adult kids watching one thing, you watching something else and your spouse watching something else frequently, you have isolated the family from an exercise that may build healthy bonds and provide a forum for interesting conversations.

Men, don't waste your leadership!

They Live On Earth But Their Citizenship Is In Heaven: The Epistle to Diognetus

The Epistle to Diognetus is an early, apologetically oriented, Christian writing (c. 150-250 AD). It survived into the modern era by only one manuscript that eventually was destroyed in the Franco-Prussian War. You can find the text online in many places, one of which is here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diognetus-roberts.html

​The letter feels quite familiar to modern Christians and contains some beautifully written sections. This one describes the place of the Christian Church in the world: 

​​For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

Always In Christ Alone: Baxter On Sanctification

I am continuing slowly through Richard Baxter’s monumental Directory and am sharing various ideas and quotations I have found particularly encouraging. Immediately preceding this quotation, he has been challenging the person who wants to please God to rid himself of any thought of self-merit or deserved acceptance before God in anything but Jesus Christ. Conversion and the beginnings of new life are only in and by Christ, but so it the way of sanctification and ultimate victory:  

 Alas! without Christ,

we know not how to live an hour;

nor can have hope or peace in any thing we have or do;

nor look with comfort either upward or downward, to God, or the creature;

nor think without terrors of our sins, of God, or of the life to come.

Resolve, therefore, that as true converts,

you are wholly to live upon Jesus Christ,

and to do all that you do by his Spirit and strength;

and to expect all your acceptance with God upon his account.

Remember When Driscoll Plagiarized? An Appeal For An Explanation: Derek Thomas, P&R, and Plagiarism: Part 3

Back in 2013 Reformed social media went nuts over Mark Driscoll’s plagiarism.

Mortification of Spin even did a show about celebrity preachers and plagiarism and how it evidenced a deep flaw in the YRR movement.

Yet, even though several thousand [edited] unique visitors to thedailygenvan.com have read about P&R’s public, yet ambiguous, announcement of plagiarism in Derek Thomas’ Acts Commentary, I see no open concern or discussion about the importance of integrity in our Reformed circles in light of this. His book was nominated for awards and paraded as a great achievement on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelical blog. But now even after P&R’s announcement it is still being sold at various Reformed online bookstores....

Instead of a concern that we clean up our own act regarding plagiarism, I’ve seen 1. Efforts by ministers and elders to identify “the source” who first reported the plagiarism to P&R. 2. Efforts to get me to take down the public call for an explanation. 3. Accusations of me not loving Christ, the church, and good polity because public actions by a public figure and a public publishing house are being discussed publicly. 4. A virtual emotional meltdown over my decision to post the “appeal for an explanation” anonymously—-yet, why? So the good ole boys can hunt down the unloyal and punish?

I understand the emotional sorrow over these realities among those who are close to Thomas or have particularly benefited from his ministry. Yet, frankly, that is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and potentially adds weight to the need for a more reasonable public explanation and plan for future accountability at P&R than, say, bad note taking, whoops.

So here’s a question to ponder: could it possibly be that Reformed folks are just as big of sinners as non-Reformed folks and need accountability? Could it be that celebrity and the gospel-industrial-complex aren’t just a problem out there with those other guys?

So, are we allowed to pick apart people we don’t like but not allowed to criticize our own friends? That’s unhealthy, and worse ungodly, and in fact the reverse should be true. We should hold ourselves to higher standards.

On their Alliance podcast in 2013, Carl Truman, Aimee Byrd, and Todd Pruitt discuss plagiarism the lack of ethics and accountability in the YRR movement. 

On his Alliance blog, Todd Pruitt in 2013 lamenting celebrity culture and how it promotes plagiarism.

The Aquila Report In 2012: https://www.theaquilareport.com/derek-thomas-commentary-on-acts-finalist-for-prestigious-christian-book-award/

If You Aren’t The Victim

  “...Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.” Ephesians 5:15-16

If you aren't the victim, you are the perpetrator. Or so they say.

What is it with kids (men, women, actual kids, and uniquely-self-identified individuals) these days? Well, sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning say that we are in the midst of a transition of moral cultures, from a society that used to be honor based, then was dignity based, to one which is victim based.

In an honor-based society, people were obligated to maintain their reputation through direct, forceful responses to insults or slights. Think duels and such. In a dignity based culture, people maintain their dignity by ignoring insults and slights, “rising above them” and then using the force of government or other authorities to step in if things get crazy. But in a victimhood culture, the first one to cross the victimhood finish line wins! Slights and insults are to be uncovered, their naked wickedness publicly exposed and then assaulted through “empowered victims” who “are given a voice” and “a seat at the table” where they can use power to eradicate “systemic injustices.”

The implications for educational environments are already being seen. During my first undergraduate and graduate studies (1993-2001), I did not experience this approach. I reentered the education environment in 2008 for graduate studies in nursing, and I’m working on my second nursing degree now (update: finished in 2016! Now I’m a nurse practitioner in family medicine—Whoop!). At both a major private university and two public universities, I have personally witnessed the massive inroads this way of thinking has made. “Safe spaces” are being created for the student who is “triggered” by an “uncomfortable discussion.” Special educational plans are being developed for students individually, so that their special specialness is never slighted and always celebrated. Aggrievement processes and sensitivity discussions occupy a large percentage of lecture content. And “I don’t feel safe” isn’t about being mugged or raped, it’s about being “attacked” verbally, which sometimes means simply overhearing something you don’t like.

As others have noted, a victimhood culture creates perpetual conflict: drama, inefficiency, perpetual discussion and litigation.

Where does this leave us as Christians? Here are a few modest proposals for navigating this new cultural morass.

1. Be wise.
   As people around us (and we ourselves) are influenced by this way of thinking, notice it, discern when it is happening, and watch your step. Perpetual fighting, visits to HR, social media shaming, and lawsuits are in your future. So pay attention, think, be careful: “The wisdom of the prudent is to discern his way, but the folly of fools is deceiving.” Proverbs 14:8

2. Don’t let this nonsense infiltrate the church.
   I have already begun to witness both within the churches and its governments the sad drift toward this approach. Is the aggrieved to be listened to more because he or she (or ze?) is more “hurt” than the one they accuse? Are we to parse the words of others to find hidden oppressive meanings and subtle “attacks” against us or whomever we are choosing to “give a voice?” Do we foster a “brokenness” culture in our churches where being a “beautiful mess” is lauded? Unless we see that this victimhood culture approach is a substitute for biblical living, we will begin to co-opt this foolish way in our lives and congregations.

Follow the Ten Commandments.
“The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul” Psalm 19:7 The way of wisdom is expressed perfectly in God’s law, and it is a light to our feet so we will sufficiently know how to live in this world. The days are evil, but the way of the righteous will prosper.

How do the Ten Commandments provide an alternative to the victimhood culture? Primarily they do this by rightly orienting all of our relationships under the saving kingship of the Triune God. Because He is our Savior in Christ, we now have the true and living God over us as our only “end game.” Our finish line is not dominance over others, by the means honor cultures, dignity cultures, or victimhood cultures offer. Our finish line is the full maturity of the complete man in Jesus Christ. The Ten Commandments lived out in faith, hope, and love point the way forward. If we believe this and are buoyed up in hope by God’s promises given to that way of life, we will navigate this cultural change just fine.

(originally posted at Torrey Gazette November 2015)

Bavinck: The Unanimous Opinion Of The Reformed Regarding Covenant Children

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 4, p. 56 

“Reformed theologians unanimously agreed on the following points:

1. That the benefits of the covenant of grace were usually distributed by God in connection with the means of grace; hence regeneration is in connection with the Word;

2. That God, however, is not bound to these means, and hence he could also take an unusual route and regenerate and save especially young children without the Word;

3. That he, as a rule, worked that way in the case of children of believers who were taken by death before reaching the age of discretion;

4. That the baptized children of believers who were part of the life of the congregation had to be considered elect and regenerate until the contrary was evident from what they said and did; and

5. That this however, was a judgment of charity, which must indeed be the rule for our attitude toward these children but cannot claim to be infallible.

On the other hand, from the very beginning there was disagreement over whether the children of believers, to the extent that they were elect, were regenerated already before, or in, or only after baptism.  Some—like Martyr, a Lasco, Dathenus, Alting, Witsius, Voetius, Mastricht—tended to favor the first view.  But the majority—Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Ursinus, de Bres, Acronius, Cloppenburg, Walaeus, Maccovius, Bucanus, Turretin, Heidegger, and others—left the question undecided.”