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.
3 Likes
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.
But it’s your board.
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.
Dear Peter,
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,
8 Likes
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.
Sincerely
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.
5 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
4 Likes
Correct.
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.
4 Likes
Joseph,
I’m afraid we’re simply at an impasse.
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.
Sincerely
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.
God bless.
7 Likes
She’s awful and it’s been clear for years. Years. It’s been so depressing to see her being discussed here. Chesterton talked about the mania over what is latest being a giggling excitement over fashion.
3 Likes
May I ask what you find effeminate about arguments with women on the Internet?
I wonder what would happen if we ran “Beyond Authority…” through the plagiarism software?
Woke up this morning realizing this is what it means for God to give us over to being oppressed by children and led by women. This thread. Even my posting this on this thread. Like our nation and the Western world, the conservative Reformed church is now ruled by women. We have our men up there in the pulpit and voting in session and presbytery meetings. For appearances, but the éminence grise is always woman.
Reformed men today spend their time listening to women and trying to please them—or at least keep from offending them. Women that aren’t their wives, daughters, sisters, or mothers even. Love,
6 Likes
Sorry, I didn’t mean to stop the discussion. Just wanted to pipe up my sort of different thoughts.
1 Like
I had to look that up.
Meaning Mrs. Miller writes a book and we find ourselves talking about it, demonstrating the real power she holds in the church today?
2 Likes
Maybe Mrs. Miller specifically, but also women in general.
And we have Aimee Byrd’s book release in May to look forward to as well…
1 Like
Precisely. Non-feminine women set the agenda today which is oppressive to feminine women, but feminine women will not rebuke and silence non-feminine women. It’s the responsibility of men to defend real women from their oppressors. Love,
7 Likes
Aye, there’s the rub. Where are the dragon slayers?