Authority Figure: Rachel Green Miller?

At least according to Carl Truman.

Blockquote She is not interested in making the Bible fit 1950s ideals of what men and women should be; rather, she wants to help the reader to think about what the Bible actually means in the present. This is a refreshingly sane read." – Carl Trueman , Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Grove City College

Who says we’re trying to make the Bible fit the 1950s ideals of what men and women should be? And who says we haven’t been thinking about what the Bible actually means in the present? And does it mean something different in the present than it has in the past?

Lots of straw men here. Lots of false assumptions. Truman makes her out to be an authority figure. Hopefully someone will write a review of this garbage the way Doug Wilson did with Amy Byrd’s book. Both these birds are of the same feather.

4 Likes

I forgot to link to it. Here.

2 Likes

Rather, Carl, she’s interested in making the Bible fit 1960s feminist ideals of what men and women should be.

9 Likes

And Aimee Byrd wrote the forward.

The author also recommends this review and summary of her book.

In practice, it seems, that conservative Christians use the term “complementarian” as a catch-all for holding to these basic beliefs. But Complementarian ism is an ideology that goes beyond these basic beliefs. As a result, Miller rejects Complementarian doctrine since it goes beyond by claiming:

  • women were created to be submissive, responsive, soft
  • men were created to be leaders, providers, strong
  • men are supposed to be priests for their families
  • women are supposed to be at home and not in the workforce
  • divorce is wrong even when there is biblical justification for it
  • the eternal subordination of the Son, especially as it is applied to men and women
  • all women are rebellious feminists at heart and men must put down that rebellion (based on an erroneous interpretation of Genesis 3:16
2 Likes

I did that with something else she wrote when she was attacking Doug Wilson.

And for those who don’t know, she is the one who ran (runs still?) The Aquila Report.

3 Likes

I mean, that’s the silliest strawman I’ve ever read. Her opponents actually say, “Yes, the Bible allows this divorce, but I’m still against it”? Really. If you cannot state your opponents’ position fairly, you likely have a poor grasp of it.

4 Likes

I remember reading that article. It really helped at the time since she was attacking me as well.

BTW, she no longer works for Aquila.

4 Likes

I don’t know that any of the complementarians in my life would say those things. They just aren’t willing to say things like men are leaders. If only…

1 Like

That’s exactly what I was thinking.

1 Like

If these women had it there way, it would be Bloody Mary all over again.

1 Like

I think that’s a straw woman argument, Ken. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

What argument is it that you think I’m making, and based on what straw evidences?

For clarity, the only argument I’m rebutting is the idea that women in leadership is somehow a virtue in an of itself that would solve the churches problems. Those like her are literally blaming sexual abuse in the church on the lack of women in leadership.

E.g.

2 Likes

Dear @Krlamb1, I thought that you were making a hyperbolical leap. But no, I think you are right.

I was also trying to be funny with “straw woman”…

7 Likes

I wasn’t sure. Either way. I welcome the pushback.

I laughed. :slight_smile:

I followed a couple links and found quotes she cited as “proof” that complementarians believe that divorce is wrong even with Biblical justification:

I don’t think the Bible allows divorce and remarriage ever while the spouse is living.

JOHN PIPER, WHAT JESUS DEMANDS FROM THE WORLD (WHEATON, IL: CROSSWAY BOOKS, 2006), 303.

Seems clear even from this brief quote that Piper is talking about remarriage after divorce, not the divorce itself. I haven’t read the context of this quote, but I remember Piper spent about a chapter (appendix?) making this case in his book This Momentary Marriage.

Taken together, Jesus and Paul teach that divorce is not an option for believers. The only exceptions that they allow are in cases of immorality or desertion. Neither Jesus nor Paul says that a person must be divorced if there is infidelity or desertion . They are simply saying that it can be permissible in those two situations … Nevertheless, covenant faithfulness within marriage sends a message to the world about Christ’s covenant faithfulness to his bride. For this reason, upholding this icon of the gospel ought to be a matter of first importance to every Christian spouse – even when that spouse has what would otherwise be legitimate grounds for dissolving the marriage.

DENNY BURK, WHAT IS THE MEANING OF SEX? (WHEATON, IL: CROSSWAY, 2013), 134-135, EMPHASIS ORIGINAL.

The ellipsis in this quote seems awfully conspicuous. If anyone has access to the source on this one, I’d be interested to know what’s been omitted. But even disregarding that, what’s controversial about this quote? Should emulating Christ’s covenant faithfulness not be of first importance in a marriage where these sins are present? Shouldn’t reconciliation and restoration of the marriage always be Plan A and divorce always be Plan B, done only when it’s determined Plan A is not possible?

This use of sources is either careless or dishonest. If this is at all representative of the book, it doesn’t bode well.

Link to post: https://rachelgreenmiller.com/2019/08/06/the-definition-of-complementarianism/

5 Likes

Zak,

I have little to contribute yet, but as to the ellipsis included in the Burk quote, it appears to reference only that in the original text there is a paragraph break there.

2 Likes

Y’all can get a general idea of what the book contains by listening to the interview she did with Kerry Baldwin:

Be prepared to laugh at the historical ignorance (“this [the first wave of feminism] wasn’t a power grab by women or anything like that” KB) and rage at the Biblical interpretation. For example, they are so on board with the Elyse Fitzpatrick tweet above that they utterly contradict the Apostle Peter (1 Peter 3).

5 Likes

Thanks for looking that up. :+1:

1 Like

Ugh. I don’t think I could handle listening. Curiosity got me and I listened to Kerry Baldwin on Theology Gals talking about Rachel Jankovic’s You Who and it was terrible. I had never heard of her before that.

2 Likes

You listened to THAT? Oof. I didn’t listen, but I read some of her (long) comments about it, and that was enough for me!

2 Likes