But, on Mrs. Miller assumptions, all cultures prior to ours devalued women and saw them only as sexual objects to be abused or treated as children. But this was not the case with the ancient Germans. And it was this German influence, baptized by Boniface, that gave us the medieval picture of society.
Seems to me that whether anyone actually followed the chivalric code or not doesn’t make a difference to his argument. The code existed as an ideal, regardless of whether anyone actually lived up to that ideal. The point is that it’s not true that “all cultures prior to ours devalued women and saw them only as sexual objects to be abused or treated as children.” Not having read the book, I take it at face value that the reviewer has accurately paraphrased one of the author’s claims. If it turns out this paraphrase is not accurate, then I agree that this criticism doesn’t work.
But why were they secret liaisons? Does not the secrecy indicate a degree of shame? A tacit acknowledgement of deviation from an ideal?
I just DM’d Mrs. Miller. She rejected the reviewer’s summation. Contrary to what the reviewer says, she argued Christianity and the Reformation greatly improved how women were treated.
I’m calling BS on that entire review. A man (a pastor, no less!) shadow boxing a woman from a soap box. Effeminacy on display. Embarrassing.
I’d encourage you to listen to the interview posted above, if you’d like to get a clear picture of what Mrs. Miller herself says about her book and its contents.
It might also be helpful to round out the picture if you read what @jtbayly wrote about her plagiarism accusations (also linked above).
The only other point I offer is that it’s possible for a paraphrase such as the reviewer made to be the logical consequence of an author’s position, even if the author rejects it when stated as a proposition. This might not be a matter of conscious deception, but the result of inconsistency, which we are all prone to. I think many a theological controversy has stemmed from either failing to see the logical consequences of an argument or else seeing ones that aren’t actually there.
I’ll leave my comments at that. Feel free to have the last word on this (at least from me). I don’t want to be responsible for @jtbayly having to shut down another thread.
For anyone who would like to discuss or ask questions of the review author:
It’s interesting to me that she says she wrote about the Reformation improving how women were treated when 1- she spends so much time elsewhere hammering on how badly women have been treated throughout all of history, never mentioning the Reformation at all, and 2- what she teaches is directly contradictory to what the Reformers actually said and taught about women.
@petermcgowen I mentioned the plagiarism frenzy because it gives an idea of her character which, in my opinion, is questionable.
Reliability and character of the witness, your honor.
Which completely sidesteps the point of the review in that section. It is claiming that non-Christian, pre-reformation treatment of women is actually quite different to what she claims. I don’t need to read her book to know he’s right. That’s what they always do.
Here’s the thing: Mrs. Miller really did catch plagiarism. The plagiarism was so evident that Canon Press couldn’t defend it. They (and Doug Wilson) even thanked Mrs. Miller:
Collapsed by Joseph Bayly
Canon Press has investigated the charges of plagiarism and improper citation in A Justice Primer , and it is abundantly clear that the editor and co-author, Randy Booth, plagiarized material in multiple instances from a number of different sources. Such negligence and editorial incompetence is a gross breach of contract and obviously does not meet Canon Press’s publishing standards. As such, we have discontinued the book, effective immediately. Refer to the author statements below for more information. We would like to specifically thank Rachel Miller for bringing this to our attention so we could take the necessary steps to immediately correct such a serious error.
There are obviously varying levels of plagiarism, and some of it is debatable. So Joseph may have shared some fairly debatable examples, but there were undeniable examples as well. Perhaps Joseph disagrees with some of Mrs. Miller’s examples. That’s fine. Doug Wilson and Canon Press happens to agree with Mrs. Miller on a number of highly significant ones. And Mrs. Miller shared some others as well.
In summary, there was true plagiarism. Wilson and Canon Press acknowledge it. There may be other examples that are debatable. While potentially debatable, it is a major stretch to then say this reveals something nefarious regarding Mrs. Miller’s character. Disagree with some of her examples, that’s fine. Fact is, she found uncontested examples of plagiarism.
I’m not here to defend everything Mrs. Miller writes or says. I’m highlighting that a review shared in discussion here is representing (without quoting) a position Mrs. Miller told me she doesn’t hold. Further, that the “review” lacks the elements that would make a review an actual review. It is pontificating. Some of it I think is good stuff…but not necessarily reflective of the book, instead, it’s more reflective of the reviewer’s convictions.
No, no, no. Your comment mixes everything up, and I don’t appreciate it at all.
Collapsed by Joseph Bayly
I didn’t look at “some fairly debatable examples.” I looked at the first 6 examples she produced for the book in question—Omnibus.
Note that the book in question was not A Justice Primer, which is what all of your material references.
Even if you look at A Justice Primer, you’re hiding the most pertinent point, which is that Wilson did not write the things in question.
Mrs. Miller’s character in the process was atrocious, going after Doug Wilson like a rabid dog for things he didn’t do, but that she actually did herself, as I demonstrated in my post linked above.
I will not allow any further dragging of Wilson’s name through the mud with accusations of plagiarism. The whole thing was an attempt at character assassination, and you are either hoodwinked or continuing to do the same. The fact that Rod Dreher linked to the Southern Poverty Law Center as he jumped on the bandwagon attempting to smear Wilson shows everybody what he was doing.
Dreher appealed to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Let that sink in. His credibility is what is gone.
I will not have this kind of stuff happening here. Let’s get back on topic.
You fault the reviewer for not including enough of the book to see that something is missing. But you can’t prove something is missing without quoting the entirety of the book. Either you trust the reviewer or you don’t. For myself, I see no reason to doubt him, given the fact that he is right that every book by an evangelical on sex refuses to address the why of the Apostle Paul’s instructions.
I tried responding to issues others put toward me for consideration. I at least wanted to give those individuals the respect of showing consideration of these issues.
Joseph,
I’ve been fair in my consideration of what others have said, including acknowledging validity for criticism of what a work leaves out, especially when that review provides a clear look into the work. I don’t think the reviewer provided a window into the work, rather, he pontificated about his own beliefs. Those beliefs are fine and dandy, but that’s not a review. One need not quote an entire book to fairly represent an author’s work. Based on his post I don’t trust he’s carefully read the book.
Regarding other issues that annoyed you, I won’t belabor you. Yes, I quoted Rachel Miller. Her post provided further context. Since her book (and now her character) are being questioned, it seemed fair to link others to her own words.
Sadly, I don’t believe my saying anything further will foster understanding. I’m bowing out of this discussion.
Yes, Joseph’s my son, so there’s that. Nevertheless, the attack on Doug was scurrilous. I examined the issue carefully at the time and am in a position to know what does and does not constitute plagiarism, and by whom. Joseph’s post is superb. I wish you would simply acknowledge that fact and admit it presents the criticisms of Doug on this point as, at least, unmerited. I have often differed with Doug on a number of matters of substance, but anyone promoting or repeating plagiarism charges fomented against him doesn’t have a clue about Doug or plagiarism. We are not discussing Randy. We are discussing the character of a woman who made false charges against a man for whom my son and I, as well as many men of God, hold in the highest esteem. With love,
Dear Tim,
I acknowledged your son’s post. I am happy to further acknowledge he knows more about this subject than me. He’s splendid.
I’m simply not willing to question Rachel Miller’s character based on a subject MANY people disagree about. She floated the examples past professors, they said it’s plagiarism. Some of it surprises me, TBH, but I’m not in an academic field nor am I a publisher. Doug Wilson is not only a pastor, but someone who is involved with Classical Education, started New Saint Andrews, Grey Friars, and Canon Press. Regardless of who did the plagiarizing, it was done (knowingly or not) under Doug Wilson’s watch. He owns responsibility for it (which he acknowledges).
If you follow the link from Rachel Miller that I shared earlier, she provides another clear example of plagiarism, this time from Doug Wilson. Others have spotted additional examples since, but I’m not interested in digging these up. I know many love Doug Wilson, so digging up more will only provoke further agitation.
I’m not the one who brought up allegations of plagiarism. I entered this discussion because I was interested in the accuracy of a particular review that was shared. Somehow I allowed others to take advantage of my squirrel-like attention span.
Yes, and the difference between him and Mrs. Miller is that when I pointed out places where she did the same thing she accused Pastor Wilson of she did not acknowledge them. Character issue.
Another character issue? Leveling dozens of false accusations against Pastor Wilson. This is indisputable. A cursory examination of the so-called “evidence” she brought with her accusations revealed them to be false. This is basic bearing false witness. It’s a character issue. Nor was there any apology. Character issue. Being right on one accusation doesn’t mean you aren’t on a witch-hunt. Nor does it absolve you of making 99 false accusations.
So my understanding of the ESS controversy, though perhaps a highly deficient understanding, was that the son may have been subordinate during his earthly ministry but not since his ascension. Essentially the problem was over the qualifier of ‘eternal’ not with the position of subordinate. Maybe I’m wrong…but if the issue is over the eternal and not the subordinate, then this argument about the presence of two wills undermining Christ’s deity would be true of his earthly ministry too, would it not?
So was Christ subordinate during his earthly ministry and was he truly God? I want to answer yes to both, where am I going wrong on this? I truly don’t understand the trinitarian basis of argument against complimentarianism.
I believe that those against ESS would say that Christ (The second person incarnate) did have two wills: a divine will and a human one. It was his human will that was subordinate to the Father, which was necessary in order for him to be a sinless man. What they reject is that the 2nd person of the Trinity could have a will distinct from the first or third persons prior to the incarnation. The argument goes that the will belongs to being/nature, not personhood. So the Godhead cannot have more than one will without having more than one nature. But Jesus, who was one person with two natures, can have two wills.
I think that would be the argument, though I’m really on the fence as to whether I find this persuasive. What I’m realizing is that I’m not well grounded enough in Trinitarian theology to evaluate the consistency and implications of each side.
There is one will in the Trinity. That is agreed upon by all, which is why the reviewer’s summary of ESS is absurd. (And might be a reason to suspect his accuracy regarding the book, I must admit.)
I don’t want to actually engage the issue of the Trinity on this topic more deeply than that.
I think you’re blowing this out of proportion. The sentiment seems to be that Rachel Miller has an axe to grind so you grind your axe in response.
Neither of these necessarily reveal deep seeded character flaws. It can reveal blinders. I think that’s what I keep bumping against, at least. That’s why I’m not terribly interested in going further on this thread.
I trust that in time you will see that I am banging a different drum than Mrs. Miller. In particular, the axe she has to grind is against biblical sexuality. And very shrewdly. That’s my judgment after reading her for years and watching her leadership of the Aquila Report, engaging with her and her followers, etc. Very shrewdly.
I will not stop warning people about that, though I sound like a resounding gong. Hopefully with love both of those I’m warning and of Mrs. Miller.
