Feminists who claim to be daughters of Calvin, Bullinger, and Knox...

Check out this post opposing what the author refers to as "Biblical patriarchy." It's written by a complementarian woman who styles herself "a daughter of the Reformation." With respect to the matter of God's Creation Order of sexuality, though, Ms. Miller is no daughter of the Reformation.

Her arguments are a combination of error, straw men, and straightforward repudiation of the Biblical doctrine of sexuality taught by Protestant church fathers through the centuries, starting with Luther, Calvin, and Knox, and continuing unbroken down through the centuries until a very few years ago.

First, the error: the post's author, Rachel Miller, quotes a Phoenix Seminary prof saying Don Bloesch was a complementarian. Don was not.

Don and his wife, Brenda, were good friends. One night my wife and I joined two Roman Catholic sisters...

Don and Brenda's pastor and his wife, and one of Don's fellow profs at Dubuque Seminary for a lovely dinner in the Bloesch's home. After dinner, we discussed the meaning of sexuality and Don stated his support for woman pastors and elders. Even by the extremely loose definitions of 'complementarianism' abroad today, I can think of no definition that would qualify Don Bloesch to be called "complementarian." (And keep in mind I have no dog in the race to protect this precious circumlocution.)

Don was a godly man. Don was a humble man. Don was brilliant. Don was hard-working. Don was wise. Don was prolific. Don was honestly neo-orthodox. But Don was no complementarian. Don was a feminist who rejected God's prohibition of woman teaching and exercising authority over man. Don's wife, Dr. Brenda Bloesch, was the one in the home who submitted to God's Order of Creation. Her husband did not.

Second, lots of straw men with the most obvious being the writer connecting the application of the Creation Order (Adam first, then Eve) to civil society with the denial of male and female equality. Yet the writer claims to hold to God's Creation Order in the home and church. If male responsibility and authority in civil society denies male and female equality, why doesn't male responsibility and authority in the church and home also deny male and female equality?

Ms. Miller is inconsistent. If authority and submission necessarily imply inequality, it's immaterial which sphere authority and submission are exercised in. If the Apostle Paul's statement in Galatians 3 that "in Christ there is neither... male nor female" is a Divine declaration of the end of authority in man's relations to woman, complementarians like Rachel Miller need to wake up to the fact that they're merely fighting a conservative retreat action. The battle is over and they've lost.

Never forget that this sword wielded by Miller and her fellow feminists is two-edged and very sharp. If the premise is true, that the exercise of authority and submission to that authority by two classes of men necessarily means the inequality of the those classes, it's not just true in civil society. It's also true in the home and the church. And it's not just true between men and women. It's also true between the president and his citizens, the king and his subjects, the boss and his employees, the principal and his teachers, the master and his slaves, and mother and her children. Is Ms. Miller going to smear Pastor Ted Tripp with not believing in the equality of children because he teaches that children should obey their parents? When, contrary to her own conviction, the copy editor at Ms. Magazine submits to her managing editor's command that the serial comma not be used, will Ms. Miller declare the hierarchy of Ms. Magazine to be an assault against the equality of all womyn?

Half a minute thinking through the inconsistency of Ms. Miller's application of this principle makes the malice and dishonesty of her attack upon those she calls "patriarchs" (such as Doug Wilson and RC Sproul Jr.) clear. Authority and submission do not establish inequality. Hierarchy does not establish inequality. Distinction does not establish inequality. In the Image of God He created them. Male and female He created them. In Christ there's neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. Children, obey your parents. Honor your father and mother. Submit to those in authority over you for they keep watch over your souls as men who must give an account. Honor the king. Wives, submit to your husbands as unto the Lord.

If submission to God's Order of Creation in civil society is a denial of the equality of woman, the Magisterial Reformers uniformly denied the equality of woman and it's so well-documented as to be a heaving of the chest, a sigh, and a yawn. Reformation fathers such as Calvin, Bullinger, and Knox could never have conceived of the coming of a day when women like Rachel Miller would claim to be a daughter of the Reformation while arguing for female government:

"(T)he government of women ...is utterly at variance with the legitimate order of nature" (Letter CCCXLVIII from John Calvin to Heinrich Bullinger;Geneva, 28 April 1554.)

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

Thanks for the traffic you're sending my way.

I'm reminded again why I'm thankful that you are not my father, my husband, or my pastor. May God grant you more grace than you show to others.

You surely know that ACTUAL feminists would never stop laughing to hear you to call a complementarian a "feminist," right?

Egalitarians/Feminists/Complementarian(ish) posts on patriarchy are beyond hackneyed. Hackneyed doesn't fully describe these bloggers . They're are not just boringly wrong, they are willfully wrong. They cannot be corrected because they're poised for an aggressive conflict. That's how they read biblical patriarchy: violently.

There is a bit of irony lost to the author when she quotes Matthew Henry and his paternalistic view of Adam's role in relation to Eve - a faint reflection of the glorious Savior.

He is deeply threatened by women. Fortunately, Jesus was not, and He never said a word about the subjugation of women, a topic so popular here.

Thank, Mr. Bayly, for writing this. I LOVE God's Law and I love His order in the world and I am thankful for His grace and kindness to me which enables me to see the joy and loveliness of submitting to my husband. I know it is His Spirit which has made me content in His ways, not my own flesh nor understanding. May He be glorified in the truth of His Word and may His people obey and love it.

Isn't Virginia Ramey Mollenkott the chick who called herself an evangelical feminist in an article back in the 1980s?

One thing I would like to point out is that during the Scottish Reformation there was a godly group of women who spoke out on behalf of religious freedom known as the" Ladies of the Covenant" and much of their correspondence with Samuel Rutherford is recorded in his letters. There is nothing wrong with Rachel speaking on behalf of the Gospel and the truths of Scripture. In fact, she really is acting like a daughter of the Reformation! Ladies, don't think keeping silent makes one more godly - follow Rachel's example - know what God's Word says and take your stand on it. Don't just take some pundit's word for what Scripture says.

>>There is nothing wrong with Rachel speaking on behalf of the Gospel and the truths of Scripture.

You're right—nothing wrong at all. But that's precisely what she doesn't do. Instead, she opposes God and His Word and that's why this post warns readers against her.

The problem isn't her sex. It's her rebellion against God's Order of Creation.

Love,

I don't see where she is rebelling. She plainly states she's in submission to her husband. If you're referring to her statements on women in the workplace or government, that is an opinion or belief that should fall under "Christian liberty" and not "rebellion to God's created order." I understand where you're coming from as I've done both - worked outside the home and held public office. But the inflammatory accusation that she's in rebellion is over the top and not conducive to godly debate. I really don't think you want to throw stones since it appears you are a follower of Doug Wilson who has questionable theology as in "Federal Vision."

>>the inflammatory accusation that she's in rebellion is over the top

My dear sister,

Rachel Miller rebels against God's Order of Creation when she claims, "Scripture does not teach that God-honoring society will ...prefer male leadership in civil and other spheres." Such ignorance of Scripture is shockingly common today, so most of Ms. Miller's readers are defenseless against her justification of the feminist rebellion. They've heard it repeated so many times that no one gasps or sucks in their breath in horror or cries out, "Silence, woman!"

What Ms. Miller denounces has, in fact, been the universal teaching of Christians across history—including the Reformers—and one doesn't have to look far in Scripture to know why. For instance:

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18

Woman is created to be man's helper.

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. - 1Corinthians 11:7-9

Woman is created for man's sake and is his glory, whereas man is the glory of God.

 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. - 1Timothy 2:12-14

Woman is not to exercise authority over man because God created Adam first, then Eve. 

O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths. - Isaiah 3:12

God mourns over the shame and indignity of his people being oppressed by children and ruled by women.

Calvin is merely repeating the unanimous teaching of the church across human history that "a god-honoring society will prefer male leadership" in all spheres because of the Order of Creation revealed again and again in the Word of God.

Rachel Miller is a rebel against God's Order of Creation revealed in God's Word. Is it over the top to say so?

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is a monster.

Love,

So glad you quoted Isaiah 3:12 - Did you also take to task the immature men who are mere infants in administrating "dominion" like Doug Phillips? If I had to choose between Rachel Miller's writing on Biblical Patriarchy and DP's, I would choose Rachel's. In fact I have. Now when you take the "patriarch's" in grievous sin and/or error to task for being immature "babes," I and other women will be more open to what you have to say.

Angela,

Even if what you accused Tim of doing was accurate, two wrongs do not make a right. Ignoring Rachel's error because you believe that Tim is selective in his criticism of gender related issues (which I do not perceive) is just death by a different poison.

If what Tim is saying is unBiblical, please demonstrate it. Otherwise, you had better get a lot more than "open" to it if you are intending on honoring God in your view of men and women in society.

Husbands should love their wives just as Christ love the church - humbling himself he became man - and died for her. I sense non of the humility, mercy, or self-sacrificing love of Christ in your writing. While I submit to my husband, I ultimately submit to Christ. I submit to my husband because I see the humility and servant-nature of Christ reflected in his love. Christian women are called to respect men who emulate and emanate the love of Jesus, who - though he was Lord of all things - was humble enough to wash his disciple's feet, and have mercy upon prostitutes and thieves. We, as Christian women, are not called to be oppressed by tyrants who would deny us even the very basic privilege of studying and sharing God's Word - as all Christians are called to do by Jesus Christ himself. We are not called to put our lamps under a basket. We - like all Christians - are called to test the spirits, and as I test yours, I do not see how attacking the value, integrity, intellect, or ministry of women such as Rachel is helpful in advancing the Kingdom of God. Remember Esther. Remember Deborah. Remember Anna. Remember Mary. Remember Elizabeth. Have the humility not to scorn those whom God honors, because he has honored and valued women throughout history. Also remember, that the majority of the catastrophes of the Old Testament were precipitated by men, who were not righteous or wise enough to do what God required of them.

Also ... in your third to last paragraph you spelled women, "womyn." And, Rachel is married, so you can call her Mrs. Miller. Come to think of it, if you're really so worried about headship, why are you scorning a married women publicly in a blog? Why aren't you taking it up with her husband or church leaders?

Rachel, there are many, many of us men and women who will follow Christ rather than these Genderizers. We love and honor our husbands for being the godly men that they are. My godly husband remarked to me that Luther stepped outside the bounds of his man-made "authority structures," as did Calvin, and Zwingli and a host of others. You are a true daughter of the Reformation!

Sad so many women show-up here and lacking either context or any decent non-pomo/modernistic/contemporary sense of "sense" or perception, or in other words who expect that every phrase and word should be kind, tender, gentle--nothing like that Paul guy using racial and sexist slurs and phrases--that they are at all qualified to then come and say "Husbands should love their wives just as Christ love the church - humbling himself he became man - and died for her. I sense non of the humility, mercy, or self-sacrificing love of Christ in your writing."

These women have been coddled by effeminate "pastors" and readers of Scripture--they don't even realize that even the much beloved "a woman of valor..." passage is addressed to...men! They would think Bayly here a monster if he referred, as the prophets of God do, to women who make request of their husbands--"Bring us some drinks!"--as "kine": such ungodly and unchristlike prophets led by God's 'holy Spirit! They sense none of that humility in them--better not read or heed them prophets of God.

Methinks such ladies need to be silent a while and read the Scripture's own way of handling these matters. The language is far more harsh, coarse, and directly inconsiderate of what you "feel" coming from these pastors who relay that word unashamedly. You read that passage about Jesus sacrificing himself for his bride as a command to speak to women as women, rather than as a Lord: you don't like being told to be subordinate or to call your husband "Lord" yet that same Scripture does command it--and to cover yourselves in prayer or in prophecy, as well as to be silent in the churches.

It is not loving to avoid telling you these things--they're God's words for you. Paul's own response to those who fought him on these issues seems quite the indirect but stark, serious threat: "We" (the apostles) "have no other custom" (that "custom" word has long been known, btw, to be rather misleading vs. the Greek--JFB proposes "usage"; the problem of English "custom" is that as English it implies it is just a cultural preference or matter--yet then why would the apostle belabor such a point? The one who spoke of becoming all things to all men?--a question unnecessary since preceding he gives it as an apostolic command the women cover/veil) "neither the churches of God."

Fitting to add to this comment in light of thier posts here: the feminists who simultaneously neutered the word as they produced the NIV, secretly co-producing what became the TNIV (and before, TNIVI), rebelled and threatened and demanded their names removed from the translation if ignored in their demand...remove the "fake translation" of 1 Corinthians 11:15 from the margin: one of the translators/editors had inserted a comment/"alternate" suggesting the covering was a woman's haircovering, and the rest were repulsed--the Greek doesn't allow such an interpretation from any angle. It's still in the earliest editions of the NIV but of course all after had it removed. The "Reformed" and "Evangelical" mean behind the ESV introduced it straight into the main text without shame while the honest academitricians--despite inconsistency with their neutering efforts--were mollified that it should even be suggested as a possibility in the margin.

Perhaps indeed--as various feminists do argue--their intent was simply to portray the Bible as accurately in its "sexism" as possible. Plenty such people think doing so will mean even fewer who want to be believers, i.e. why atheists like to say to get people to stop believing they just need to be told to read the Bible. It is that offensive to sensibilities of ladies such as those commenting here and one need not say that in orer to defend biblical patriarchy or oppose its enemies--it's simply the case. Even more insulting about that passage--and applicable as reproof for them "head-covering for God and not my husband" youtube testimonials, is that the Biblical reason is subjugation of woman to man--actually something Muslim women love to point out since they cover thinking they're submitting to God, but don't like to think they do so in subjection to men (over whom, in fact, plenty revel as having a sort of power due to mystique that fully veiling grants them).

What I REALLY hate though is you just point out these things should you want an intelligent discussion, perhaps even with unbelievers or something, and just citing the facts, being considered a kind of threat, is labelled sexism and you can be blacklisted: Allan Bloom's "Closing of..." really really relevant in light of this fact.

p.s. "...as a Lord..." with the capital L not stealing from God priority or in reference to the convention of Scripture, but as that word is a title of honor--though "lord" seems also appropriate in that it should be be said merely out of formal duty without sincerity or acceptation if that word is followed and believed.

Hi David, I am merely pointing out hypocrisy. And I am not open to your advice. I am a wife and member of a sound church - I don't need some stranger with unknown theology to give me counsel.

Angela,

I did not offer advice. Rather, I pointed out that your comment to Tim was not a Biblical response. Even if Tim was hypocritical, which I do not see that he is guilty of, even then, if what he is pointing out is Biblical, then we are bound to follow it because it is Biblical, regardless of the human vessel through which the admonishment comes through.

Oh, and Angela, if you only take advice from people you know, then might you have made a serious miscalculation in posting comments and engaging people on a blog on the internet? In boxing, we would call what you are doing the "jab and weave".

Some of these comments remind me of my days back in college at Indiana University. There was a particular phrase you could use to shut down conversation and avoid a possible rebuke. The phrase was, "I have a peace about it."

If you told a Christian friend that you were sleeping with your girl friend, you'd probably get a rebuke, so you needed to add, "but I've prayed about it and I have a peace about it." Quickly, we learned that you could do just about anything you wanted to do, and as long as you had a peace about it, you were okay. Getting drunk on the weekends? Better have a peace about it. Smoking pot? Cheating on tests? …

Vonette Bright, the wife of the late Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, used to preach in churches all over the country and she would begin by saying something like, "I want you all to know that I am preaching while under the authority of my husband …" and then she'd launch into her sermon. So, this was her way of heading off at the pass any objections to her preaching and teaching congregations of men and women. It was just like us saying, "I have a peace about it."

So Rachel and any other woman think they can do whatever she would like, as long as she says, I'm doing it under the authority of my husband (or my father or my pastor or Dominic Aquila …), it's okay.

I hope you'll all understand if I say, "sorry ladies, I don't have a peace about it."

Jennifer,

I agree with much of what you posted, but what does your response have to do with what Tim wrote? God honored the women you referenced, but not because they held to a view of men and women such as the one that Tim spoke negatively about. For example, Mary, the mother of our Lord, was not a feminist, at least not by any modern use of that word.

Who is denying you the privilege of studying God's Word? But for all of us, men and women, studying God's Word requires humility, and the ability to be corrected. Who is oppressing you exactly, and who are the tyrants you reference?

Nowhere in Ephesians 5 and 6 does Paul limit the submission of a subordinate to how "humble" the subordinate feels or believes that authority is. In fact, it would seem the very power of submission is used to convert evil husbands (1 Cor 7:16), or lead to their judgement (1 Sam 25:37). Even a modicum of such submission to a man who "didn't deserve it" saved this woman's marriage.

It's shameful how several women have responded in the comments, with the exception of that shining example of Mrs. Jeff Swanson. Why do I say "shameful"? Several reasons, and I won't even get into the obvious that the sneers are directed toward faithful pastors.

Evil motives are being imputed for the purpose of discrediting God's truth. It is His truth for us, for our benefit. This is why I say this is nothing short of violence. I understand, though. Really, I do. I don't like chastisement. Submission is so much easier when there's no pill to swallow. I rarely see the good my superior is seeking and manage to find all kinds of evil about him to show submission in this "isolated case" would actually be wrong. You see, insubordination is almost always fueled intellectually.

Scripture prepares us constantly for obedience. It is explicit. In God's goodness, He even acknowledges we're not going to like it (Proverbs 3:11-12; Hebrews 12:6-11)...not even the most godly among us likes it. Yet, as Hebrews tells us, it "yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness". 

Hard words accepted, internalized, and acted upon yields peace. It takes a humble man to speak the words Pastors Tim and David speak. I wonder how many parishioners they've lost in comparison to how many they've "won" with words like these? Those railing against these words sow violence, shaking their fists red-faced screaming "PEACE! Give me PEACE!"

I wonder how many of the men commenting here are actually in long term marriages? I've been married to the same man for almost 40 years... Perhaps I'm not the rabid feminist y'all think I am? My husband, who was a champion bull rider and archer, certainly isn't effeminate, nor would he want a masculine wife. I invite my critics to please click on my name and read some of my work before they embarrass themselves further. Thanks!

Also, if the owners of this blog are pastors, what denomination do they belong to? Just wondering as I don't see any type of doctrinal statement posted. Thanks.

Angela,

No one that I saw commented on the masculinity of your husband. However, a person does not need to be effeminate as a man, or "shemale" as a woman, in order to err in terms of issues of authority in the Christian life, when it comes the Bible's teaching on how gender factors into all of this. In other words, as sinful as humanity is, we have invented myriad ways to miss the mark here. There are plenty of city folk as well as country folks who do not follow I Timothy 2:12-13.

To respond to your earlier post where you pointed out that the woman in discussion stated that she was operating under husband's authority, so she is in the clear, this tact simply raises the question as to whether the Bible would teach that men have the right to "authorize" what ostensibly seems to be a material contradiction of a plain statement of the Scripture by Paul. Would it be alright for me to commit adultery if I tell the adulteress that "my wife knows about this, and she's alright with this arrangement"?

No one called you rabid, did they? See, this is an old debate trick where one person attempts to obfuscate the issue at hand by defending them self against a charge that no one levied, one which distracts from the substance of the discussion.

Perhaps if you had searched this blog, or the site for Clearnote church where the Bayly's pastor, you would have found areas replete with the doctrinal information you claim you are interested in. Also, if you had simply asked Tim what his doctrinal views were concerning a particular subject, as opposed to leading off with comments such as you did, I am sure he would have answered your questions. There are also days and days worth of blog entries from this site that you could have read, if you had been inclined, by simply searching for them. There is even a tag labeled "Feminism" at the end of the post above.

Dear Craig,

There's also 1 Peter, which is full of instruction about walking by faith in submission, even particularly when our superior is unreasonable:

But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously... - 1 Peter 2:20-23 NASB

Love,

David, I have never heard of Clearnote Churches. I saw the links and assumed they were for other blogs this one promotes. Thanks for not directly answering my question (?)...I suppose these gentlemen are starting their own denomination.

Angela,

No, Clearnote is not like a chain of churches. I do not believe that these men are starting their own denomination, either, but one of the Bayly's could better answer that.

Mrs. Wittman,
There is no satisfying you. I actually clicked to your blog the first time you posted a comment here, so I'm familiar with your creds. I concur with what David S. said to you and further emphasize the immateriality of your questions/points.

David S. provided you with places you could go to find what standards Pastors Tim and David Bayly subscribe to. By portraying David S. as evasive you continue your practice of imputing ill motives to others. You further demonstrate your implacability by shifting the focus away from yourself to something immaterial, such as supposing "these gentlemen are starting their own denomination."  You obviously didn't follow the links to any Clearnote Church, nor to Christ the Word Church (PCA). If you were concerned, and seeking truth, you would have clicked through. None hide what their beliefs are.

It is not without a slight amount of irony that one may note your willful implacability resembles what others might say of a man like _____________ (insert your favorite patriarchal whipping boy). What an inversion of sorts, with biological connotations.

>>biological connotations

The wonderful thing about biology is that it never connotes. It always denotes. This is the reason we should always talk "sex" rather than "gender," and never stop pointing out how body parts give witness to the truth of Scripture. Despite the gnashing of teeth, biology is, in fact, destiny. Which is to say biology is God's decree and every man and woman is to obey it. Obeying it is to obey Him.

Thus it is not man, but woman, God commands to "be domestic." Where there are many words, lies are not absent. But let body parts speak and truth returns.

Love,

" It always denotes."

Thank you. That is the word I should have used.

>>That is the word I should have used.

Not at all. You just got me thinking.

Love,

I'm just popping in to collect all the matches, lighters, and other fire-starting devices. The feminists with their straw persons are making me nervous ;-)

Oh, and if being in a long term marriage makes you not-a-feminist, could one of you I-am-NOT-a-feminists have a wee chat with Alan Alda?

Angela's point there is that Tim should remove the beam from his own eye regarding his alleged wrongs prior to attempting to remove Rachel's mote.

However, there is the more general principle regarding sins against the order of Creation. Read the reason annexed to the 2nd commandment and (the WLC's explanation of it) and Romans 1. Mr. Baylay consistently argues for and promotes worship that Calvin, Knox and every Reformed person prior 1720 would have considered grossly idolatrous. He is fighting a losing battle himself because he won't repent of his own departures from Historic Reformed theology and practice especially in worship. Mr. Baylay is not alone in this, so he doesn't bear sole responsibility. Mrs Miller loves her Popish holidays too (among other things). Romans 1 clearly states that being turned over to sins against the order of Creation are the consequence for idolatry.

Mr. Duggan,

I've looked back through your past comments and I can't find anywhere that you've charged that "Mr. Baylay [sic] consistently argues for and promotes worship that Calvin, Knox and every Reformed person prior 1720 would have considered grossly idolatrous."

Dear sir, what are you talking about?

Love,
Daniel

Excellent post Tim, thanks for exposing the futility of the arguments.

Andrew Duggan, I hope I am wrong but the words you use make it sound like you worship at the throne of 'Historic Reformed theology' rather than at the throne of God. There is a very real danger of committing a similar error to the Pharisees in their blind and self-righteous adherence to many things, including laws that God never gave.

Do you find when you argue with other Christians that you most naturally appeal to 'Historic Reformed theology' as your defense rather than the Bible?

>>I'm reminded again why I'm thankful that you are not my father, my husband, or my pastor. May God grant you more grace than you show to others.

Note well the response of Mrs. Miller and her sisters-in-rebellion. No arguments. No reason. No logic. No claim that her abuse of Don Bloesch is right and my correction wrong. Not the smallest effort to argue from Scripture. In fact, no argument at all.

Simply female hissy-fits.

Am I being rude to point it out that hissy-fits are peculiarly feminine?

No. It's necessary in order to get us back to Scripture where we're told false shepherds prey on weak women (2Timothy 3:6), it was not the man but the woman who was deceived (1Timothy 2:14), and woman is to be silent in church, saving her questions for her husband at home (1Corinthians 14:34,35). These are categorical rules of the sort that Reformed Evangelical men today studiously avoid noticing, let alone teaching. 

No one likes rebuking a woman in public. It's amazing that, still at this late date, men continue to be called bullies when they do so.

I wish it were possible to expose the error and rebellion Mrs. Miller promotes by rebuking a man. But sadly, as Jill Briscoe's feminist errors are promoted by her husband, Stuart; and as Kathy Keller's feminist errors are promoted by her husband, Tim; and as Carolyn Custis James's feminist errors are promoted by her husband, Frank; so Rachel Miller's feminist errors are promoted by...

Not her husband, but rather Dominic Aquilla. He's the one who's provided Mrs. Miller her forum to teach the church and we've remonstrated with Dominic privately, to no avail. So this post is the nasty job somebody had to do.

But of course, Mrs. Miller's denial of God's Word is not being done in the church. And it's not teaching. And it's not error. And the error doesn't matter.

>>thanks for exposing the futility of the arguments.

Arguments?

Smile.

Love,

Mrs. Miller pejoratively quotes the Vision Forum saying it is preferable to have male leadership in the public sphere. I would like to know why this is unbiblical? Would she also object to the statement that women should not be placed in combat roles or in coed situations (such as ships and submarines)?

I heard that you suggested that because only women were rising to defend Rachel from your scurrilous attacks, so in spite of my aversion from entering into debate with people who continue to show themselves unwilling to really discuss ideas and help and/or be helped to understand issues better, I rise today to defend this daughter of the reformation. I have heard you complain that you and those who hold your particular view of Biblical Patriarchy do no evil to women, but this is the second time that you have taken after Mrs. Miller without reason or without biblical basis to do so. I suggest to you that given the way leaders in this movement treat women and girls, and your unwarranted attacks on those who have the courage to stand up and challenge your biblical views, you run the risk of confirming the stereotypes rather than denying them. So this Son of the Reformation stands up to say stop mistreating women! Especially a daughter of the Reformation that has the courage to challenge your views and actions.

Jon Green,

What defense? You've haven't responded to anything. For what specific charge are you providing a defense? I read your comment twice. I see nothing at all.
Saying you think Tim is wrong and Mrs. Miller is right isn't a defense.

Also, you haven't even enter the debate unless, of course, you consider accusing Tim of mistreating, attacking, and committing evil acts against women. That makes you at best a heckler that yells nonsense from the chairs while the people on the stage have a debate. My counsel would be to either come up on stage or stay quite in the chairs.

Michael! puh-LEEEEze!

We don't want hecklers up on the stage!!

Jon, this is not rocket science. A woman who champions what the Reformers (any of them) would repudiate as doctrines of demons is, at best, an incorrigibly delinquent daughter of the Reformation. That Rachael Miller does this is fact. And what the Reformers (any of them) thought about patriarchy has been documented repeatedly at this blog (including the quote from Calvin in this blog).

To call out Miller's delinquency is no attack; it is simply ecclesiastical journalism.

And those who carp at such journalism (to which, as Michael points out, you have offered not one scintilla of refutation) have joined the rebellion. You are no son of the Reformation. You're just another delinquent.

Dear Mr. Meyer,

First apologies to Mr. Bayly for the extra "a" I added to his name.

To answer your question, here's three quick examples:
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2013/12/what-child
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2013/11/come-one-come-all
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2013/09/sound-well-all-your-pipes

Dear Mr. Duggan,

Now I'm guessing what you want to argue, but guessing at each others' arguments is a tiresome way. Won't you make your charge directly?

Love,
Daniel

Tim,

Since you insist on accusing me of being in rebellion, as a member in good standing in the same denomination, I would suggest you take your concerns to my pastor. His name is Dave Muntsinger. You can find his contact information through the PCA's website. Alternately, you may contact me for my husband's info, if you'd like to speak with him.

Dear brothers and sisters,

The comments here are not on point, generally, and so they're now closed.

We'll make an exception for Mrs. Miller, though: if our sister wants to respond in defense of her errors, we will allow her to do so.

Love,

Pastor Tim Bayly