[Fitzpatrick tweet about male-led institutions having sexual abuse problems]
Does she want to argue that public schools are male-led, or that there’s not a serious child sexual abuse problem in public schools?
When and how did “1950s” turn into a period that is so far beyond the pale that everyone takes it for granted that the 1950s were horrible? I wasn’t alive in the 1950s, but it sounds like they were awesome. Problems? Certainly. But what era doesn’t have problems? Wouldn’t it seem relevant to compare and contrast our era with the 1950s rather than just accepting “1950s” as a slur?
The problem with the idea of returning to the 1950s, or the 1700s, or the 1980s, etc., is the assumption that there is some golden era of Christianity. There wasn’t, and never has been. The more I study church history, the more I find this to be true. The only golden era of Christianity is that which comes about with Christ’s return. To look to any other age as some perfect embodiment of Christianity is to idolize it or turn it into full-fledged idolatry. God has given us that opportunity. We are to live in our age faithfully to His word.
Miller Green seems to think that because we believe in father-rule, or patriarchy, that we are trying to return to the 1950s. We are not. We know enough about the 1950s to know that they led to the 1960s, which was pointed out above, is the era of feminism that Green Miller wants to return to. Both options are sinful.
Is there no difference between recognizing a culture as superior to my own in many ways and idolizing it as perfect? Is there nothing that can be learned from my fathers’ successes and failures?
I’m not saying we cannot learn from the past, especially among those men whom God has raised up for the church and its edification. And we can learn from those who have gone before us. What I’m trying to say is that there is no golden age of Christianity that we are to look to as a model of how things are to be. But there is a fine line even with that, for we know that God moved during periods of our history in which greater light was given, and we want to use that and learn. But even during those periods where the greater light was given, it was not enough to make it a golden age, as seems to be implied with someone talks of a period, like the 1950s in some sort of wishful way.
It was written by Bennie Castle. (He’s in Genevan Commons with us on FB, Timothy)
He says he planned this to be for pastors and scholars, and has already been asked to consider writing something shorter and more accessible for laymen. Hopefully he’ll be able to do that!
His review presents a simplistic explanation of the controversy surrounding the historic understanding of the ad intra and ad extra relations within the Trinity. Specifically, his summary of those who speak of “subordination” in the Trinity is a straw man:
Eternal subordination teaches that there is composition in the divine essence with two wills at work, that of the Father and of the Son. For, submission is an act of the will and requires two separate wills to be proper. But, if the Son submits to the Father, then there are two wills in God, the superior will of the Father and the inferior will of the Son. But, if there are two wills in God, then God is no longer simple and hence no longer God.
This two wills charge is a canard.
It’s also false to charge complementarians with fiddling with Trinitarian theism in order to provide a crutch for their defense of Adam’s federal headship. I’m no fan of complementariansim, but it is wrong to say they began this battle. In fact it was Evangelical feminists like my prof, Roger Nicole, who began charging complementarians with being guilty of the “subordinationist heresy.” Complementarians picked up the cudgel second, not first.
But who speaks of the 1950s in any kind of positive way in 2019? That’s my original point: Why is it just accepted that the 1950s are a byword for a dystopian hellscape rather than actually examining the period for good things and bad things?
It’s interesting that he invoked the chivalric code when almost nobody followed it. Nobility could, not really commoners. Additionally, chivalry produced the notion of what we eventually termed courtly love (De Amore, anyone?)…which typically entailed secret liasons between unmarrieds (or marrieds, but not to each other).
Perhaps Mrs. Miller’s history needs correcting (dunno, I haven’t read the book), but this fellow doesn’t know what he’s talking about here.
Besides this, he spends a lot of space criticizing her for what he thinks she should have included. That can be a valid criticism, but he mostly spoke from a soap box, so readers don’t get a sense of what is in the book to know if the criticism is valid.
Has anyone here purchased Mrs. Miller’s book or plan to read it?
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.
