Punching Right While Leaning Left

In light of our previous posts, we see that the underlying issue involves, as some others have well-noted recently, Big Eva in general and those conservatives in Reformed denominations in particular punching hard against those to the right of them on doctrinal and practical issues (politically too usually), while also extending an open arm and warm embrace for those to the left, sometimes quite far left, of them. This “sets the tone” for acceptable rhetoric. It is the Overton Window, which I say just to sound smarter than I am. If you punch hard to the right (or at least think of those further right as bug-eyed aliens) you are faithful, if you punch hard/speak sharply against those to the left your behavior is suddenly the opposite of love, insensitive, unkind, even misogynistic and racist. If you poke fun or try to hit hard those to the right of you (as Aimee Byrd herself has done, with sarcastic images to boot), you are doing the Lord’s work or at least are not accused of anything sinister. It’s the old double standard. Expect the same graciousness for yourself and nope, turns out you are sub-human. But the double standard, oddly enough, is why the faithful must not fear, but stand firm. The left believes in firm speech, spicy memes, and jeering too, just not against them. They can mock those who are opposed to them with memes and sarcasm, posting images of robotic women saying, “The Fembots are coming to destroy the world,” but if some complementarian or patriachal type says or jokes about women needing to be in the kitchen, making dinner, and breastfeeding babies, you have just revealed your dark, evil, misogynistic and oppressive heart. The more they accuse so absurdly, the more they expose themselves. These thin-skinned women and their “concerned” men cannot bear to not know what is being said about them. If you defend/explain what you and others said by demonstrating your words/posts were stripped of context, spliced together, and designed to give the worst impression possible, and even throw some comments/commenters under the “absolutely sinful and require repentance” category (to try and appease the mob?), the accusing party still gets to respond with howling emoji laughter for thinking you have the right to defend yourself in such fashion:

  

We in Genevan Commons are glad to see people laugh and have a good time and use sarcasm and jokes to try to make a point, even when the joke’s on us. If it crosses a line to sinfulness, it gets called out. Nobody is keen, however, in having ninjas and spies enter private groups just to take what is said, distort it, and then broadcast it in a broader, more public setting to make you sound like a misogynist, racist, and pervert, among other things. We can grant that perhaps at times our rhetoric was a bit loose and too glib, or mixed with bitterness rather than righteous frustration, without falling apart as if doing such is the greatest sin known to man. My sarcastic GIF of a witch burning a man to depict Byrd’s dismissive reply to Jonathan Master’s (and others’) questions to her concerning her book was meant in jest but to point to a real truth, namely that she was dismissive and sharp, maybe even sarcastic, and clearly didn’t like having to answer questions from men, at least one of whom had legitimate authority over her. I thought, and still think, that my meme was quite funny while also making a salient point. After all, Byrd essentially says such questions and setup are an example of the yellow wallpaper she wants scraped away and torn down, and she even quotes a favorable review of her work that hails her as the one who has at last, after some 2,000 years, perceived that the Church is ready to hear this new teaching and tear down the old! Out goes the natural theology of Augustine, Gouge, and Bavinck (what all will come in remains to be seen, but little of it sounds biblical or logical). It must, for we now have discovered it is oppressive because it “sounds harsh to our ears.” Ah yes, harsh sounds, that great determiner of Truth.

So yeah, I’m not apologizing for this funny, sarcastic, meme that I think pretty well hits the nail on the head:

  

And apparently ACE thought similarly, because Byrd is no longer on the Mortification of Spin podcast and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals “parted ways” with her:

By our very nature, as an alliance, we do not hold a monolithic perspective on theology. That is by design. But we do expect contributors to defend their views in a gracious and ready manner. We do not always expect to agree with their views even after explanation. But when they can’t or won’t provide clarification, we must part ways.

Again, we are not opposed to providing for conversations we don’t perfectly agree upon. That seems to be in keeping with iron sharpening iron. Yet it must be a conversation, a two-way dialogue, and done so graciously. When that is not possible, when contributors will not or cannot define or defend what they believe, continuing together is no longer viable.

Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to state his case seems right until another comes forward and examines him.” The optics are terrible for those in Genevan Commons due to the screenshotting website’s distorted depictions. But the thing is, if you fundamentally agree with Aimee Byrd, that the natural theology of old in general and biblical manhood and womanhood in particular needs to be burnt down after 2,000 years, then it really isn’t going to matter. Genevan Commons is the Yellow Wallpaper for these folks. It must come down, come hell or high water. Doxing and distorting is nothing in comparison to committing the heinous sin of believing, without apology, what the church has believed for 2,000 years concerning man and woman. (Pssst, if you cannot see the problem yet, I don’t know if I can help you.)

The screenshot site doesn’t care to represent things fairly. It shouldn’t have to when women have been oppressed by the Church for 2,000 years with all this Yellow Wallpaper. Being completely imbalanced and never showing anything except what can possibly be construed as incriminating is fair game; we haven’t even gotten to women’s reparations yet. Now note, I found it absurd on the one hand that Byrd would not answer the questions given to her, but I also said I agreed with Byrd that anonymous questions are pretty pathetic and wondered why men couldn’t just put their names to them. But you won’t find my agreement with her on that point anywhere on the leaking website. And to underline the point again -- I don’t think for a second that Byrd and those like her who punch right and slink left care one whit about the original context. That we exist in private, and we talk about her book negatively, is the great sin. It’s oppressive patriarchy. It is complementarian convulsion.  Add to it the biting humor and sarcasm that serves to make the point, and we have just committed cyberbullying against them. We are criminals (and no, that’s not a confession, though it might appear that way in a screenshot). You know, it’s almost as if women are the gentler sex or something.    

In the throes of theological dispute, especially when each side believes they are fighting for a righteous cause, the rhetoric is going to get turned up. It should, though always with righteous self-control and restraint. That is the tricky part, and I confess I have not held the balance perfectly. From what I have heard and read, neither did all the Westminster Divines while crafting the Westminster Confession. There is a place for biting sarcasm, and yeah, it probably shouldn’t go full Martin Luther. And in Genevan Commons, I do not think it ever has gone full Luther. Though I do think it would be appropriate to quote him from the Lutheran insulter and say, “You are jugglers of imaginary sins” (from The Keys, pg. 360 of Luther’s Works, Vol. 40); that’s a restrained Luther. The moderators/admins in Genevan Commons are godly men who have rooted out any sort of comments that are over the line (and that goes far beyond anything related to Aimee Byrd). If anyone in Genevan Commons said of Mrs. Byrd or anyone else, as Luther did (not of Byrd herself of course), “You ought to feel shame in your hearts, you great gruff asses’ heads” (From Against the Heavenly Prophets, pg. 194 of Luther’s Works, Vol. 40) that would get deleted and reprimanded as inappropriate, unkind, and unhelpful. That’s three quarters Luther. But nobody in Genevan Commons makes those kind of remarks that I know of. Nor would this esteemed eloquence from Luther’s pen be permitted:

You think like this, "As I am a crude ass, and do not read the books, so there is no one in the world who reads them; rather, when I let my braying heehaw, heehaw resound, or even let out a donkey's fart, then everyone will have to consider it pure truth."

From Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, pg. 300 of Luther's Works, Vol. 41

That’s full Luther. Never go full Luther. And I challenge you to rummage through all the leaked screenshots and find anything even remotely close to this.  

The problem with those Revoicers who were mocking Matthew Henry (from the previous post) was much less the mocking itself and more the fact that they were mocking articulation of the truth of God’s holy Word! I have heard sermons from the progressive wing of the PCA on racial matters, ridiculing white people from the pulpit, in such ways that were really racist and uncalled for. But that’s acceptable and perfectly fine for many because it is punching hard to the right (and it is punching the white, a double righteousness). If you told this minister that just because he is black that doesn’t mean he can make baseless accusations against white folks, oh boy, watch out. You are somehow the bad guy.

Many of Aimee Byrd’s allies are to the theological left of her. That shouldn’t be surprising. If you have discovered some Yellow Wallpaper in the Church in one area that needs be torn down after 2,000 years, maybe others have in other areas/doctrines of the Church as well? Let us look at a few tweets and pictures that are publicly available and see what they tell us. First, showing solidarity with Aimee Byrd for the supposed misogyny spewing forth from Genevan Commons, comes Beth Moore. Rather than making her main teaching focus, as an elderly woman, the younger women on how to be homemakers (Titus 2:3-5), Moore encourages the younger Byrd to do this:

Best I can tell from this and other posts/tweets by Moore, she believes that she and Byrd have a calling that the Complementarians and Patriarchalists simply cannot take away from them. Many elders in the Church agree and so extend their arms and bless these female re-constructors of church dogma, coming to their defense while attacking the men who are opposing Mrs. Byrd as a false teacher who has no calling to teach at all. A form of Feminism, or Egalitarianism if that makes you feel better, has free reign, while firm opposition to it is automatically misogyny.

“Wait,” someone screeches. “There’s the slander right there! They aren’t Feminists, they have denied being such!” Okay. Look at their writings and what they are doing. Go back 50 years in time, certainly 100. Would Bavinck deny they are Feminists? Would Calvin, or Knox, or the Puritans? Ah, I forgot, it is 2020 now, and these once-esteemed pastors and theologians of yesteryear who lived during that bygone bit of history that should be swept into the dustbin, are also misogynists. If we can tear down statutes of Teddy Roosevelt and all but define racism as the horror of being white these days, then why can’t we tear down the Reformation Wall, that godless monument to misogyny, slavery, and everything else, as just a bit of that “Yellow Wallpaper” that Byrd keeps trying to awaken everyone to in her book? Perhaps this is the way to, as Byrd’s subtitle put is, have the Church “Rediscover Her Purpose”.

 

She seems to be calling for recovering from Reformational manhood and womanhood, by arguing it extends back to pagan roots with men like Aristotle. We need a newer, more inclusive, more egalitarian view of male and female than what our Reformed forebears, and by extension our very Confessions, give us. So whenever Byrd says she is within the bounds of the Reformed Confessions, just remember how many men who either wrote the confession, or before them were the Magisterial Reformers who inspired the authors of the confession, or who more recently like Charles Hodge wrote our systematic theologies and lectured on our Confessions at our seminaries, are maligned and set aside as teaching things we must recover from and move beyond, for the sake of the Church getting her purpose back.

But wait a second, what exactly do the words on Beth Moore’s shirt mean? Sound kind of familiar? It should. Moore’s shirt is from the campaign slogan of that wonderful lady, Senator Elizabeth Warren. (Some have called her Pocahontas given her ethnic claims, backed up by her DNA results.)

According to Wikipedia, and I am sure elsewhere, “Nevertheless she persisted” became a rallying cry several years ago when Sen. Mitch McConnell said the following:

Following the Senate ruling to silence Senator Warren, Senator McConnell said on the Senate floor:

“Senator Warren was giving a lengthy speech. She had appeared to violate the rule. She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.[10]”

Moore certainly seems to be saying that Aimee Byrd should “persist” because they (all those who stand in Byrd and Moore’s way on this, especially men) cannot take their callings from them, callings of being female instructors of God’s Word to God’s people, of doing anything an unordained man can do.

But hold on I say! What callings? God did not give them such a call. They are not called and qualified to be teachers in the Church, whether they technically hold office or not. An unordained man certainly could not get away with writing books rebuking the Church for its “Yellow Wallpaper” of biblical manhood and womanhood that has been held and taught since the time of Christ, much less replacing it with the new “pink” wallpaper teachings of Feminism lite. And yet, we have within the OPC a woman who rises up to write such a work, and what’s more, an ever growing list of OPC ministers and elders tripping over themselves to support her against that stubborn bit of Yellow Wallpaper that won’t quite come off.

And there you have it, OPC officers hastily punching hard right with an open letter of concern against posts in Genevan Commons for “overtly misogynistic” tones, the “deriding and mocking others,” and the “locker room talk” of “corrupt, foolish talking, and coarse jesting” (Eph. 4:29; 5:5) with the purpose of encouraging their fellow man to “disparage women.” This would be comical if it weren’t that these pastors and elders are serious. These OPC officers also extend their arm to the left by writing this open letter of concern on Aimee Byrd’s own personal blog while stating that they “are not endorsing the books which [Genevan Commons] have attacked.” Ah, okay. An attempt at overthrowing 2,000 years of biblical manhood and womanhood musters the war cry of a non-endorsement. Those decrying and warning the Church about what a wicked disaster overturning such doctrine would be, by using reasoned argumentation/Scripture, sharp criticism, sarcasm, and scoffing at the absurdity of it all, receive open reprimanding and to be falsely accused of all sorts of sins. You know these officers investigated the matter well before crafting and signing such reprimand when they misspell the name of the offending Facebook group.  

Hopefully these OPC officers have been hoodwinked, acted in haste, and will issue an equally loud retraction soon, and ultimately a denouncement of Byrd’s writing. Many elders would rein in an unordained man quite quickly if he tried to write such a book, telling him how arrogant he is, how young he is, and how little he knows; only the senior elders should be handling such lofty matters is the usual refrain. I’ve heard that, and I know other young and concerned office bearers in the Church have as well. It is quite intimidating and has a certain soundness to it, until you see these same elders rushing to sign letters of “open concern” on Mrs. Aimee Byrd’s blog concerning things they know nothing about. So these women, they get a pass, they get platformed on podcasts with supposedly conservative men in the PCA and OPC and with big book publishers to g­­ive them legitimacy. The goal is clear – Big Eva too wants you to see how capable women are at theology and teaching, so just let them do it already why don’t you, you misogynist jerks!

But when the “misogynistic jerks” don’t shut up, Beth Moore tells Aimee Byrd they together must persist in their righteous cause. Even after, especially after, men in authority (or even our whole Reformed tradition and Confessions) dutifully admonish and rebuke them, they must persist. Cry foul, complain, and persist. Move the agenda forward under the cloak of the spirit of the age, maybe tell the world that they have gotten some of this right, that it is the church that must get woke and repent of all their forefathers these last 2,000 years, and therefore denounce and decry any men who hold to the old misogynistic paths of yesteryear. Cancel them, and cancel any who hold to them today. List their jobs and locations so they can lose their jobs and reputations. After all, the men in authority in the Church cannot be allowed to take from Moore and Byrd what God has given them, but these women sure can take away the callings that God’s ministers who stand in their way have been given! “Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you,” says Paul to Titus. Those are also the sentiments expressed from Moore to Byrd. Uh, do you spot the problem here? Do you see the difference? Give it time and mull it over.   

So yes, I absolutely think Byrd and the other women involved in this wicked canard against manhood and womanhood, along with Church authority and the teaching and (eventually) preaching ministry, should be righteously mocked and scorned, or ridiculed, whatever word that communicates the point. This whole exposure of Genevan Commons is a farce. To treat it with an absolute straight face would be to pretend that the over-the-top charges are actually serious, carry real weight, and are being presented by those in good faith holding to sound teaching, as if they were honest and truthful rather than sneaking and distorting in order to play the victim card to gain a sympathetic ear to their new doctrine that frankly tickles ears (2 Tim. 4:3) rather than “sounding harsh” on the ears. We are supposed to accept Byrd’s definitions of “common decency,” and apparently many OPC ministers think the same way. The bounds of acceptable discourse have been revealed to us. Who do they favor? Whose cause is helped and advanced when the rules of rhetoric are set as such? It certainly isn’t those striving to hold fast to our Confessions and most importantly God's Holy Word, and live its teaching out in our families, churches, and society.