Authority Figure: Rachel Green Miller?

Just some questions for perspective. Who really is RMG? What authority does she have? The end of all this is that her book, is merely her opinion. Yes, it’s a strong opinion and anyone who challenges her will feel her wrath, as well as the wrath of her feminist following. But in the end, she has no authority. Her book is not authoritative in any way and can be easily shown to be out of accord with male headship in the family, church and society.

Another set of questions: does this book build up the body of Christ, or tear it down? Whenever we see feminist getting together, they never build up, they always tear down and when we disagree with what they are doing, they try to shut down the conversation. It’s really quite odd that RMG is seeking to play the role of the man, but when we dispute with her, as was seen in this thread, we are told we are being bullies and our motives are impugned. So what is the end game of RMG? What is she accomplishing to help build up the body of Christ? Is she unifying believers, or stroking the goats? I would say the latter given that she often finds more agreement among those who are atheists and hard-core feminist than she does among those who are truly regenerate.

Just some thoughts to help keep her in perspective.

3 Likes

Sword and shield have I not, but keyboard and unearned feelings of expertise give I thee.

8 Likes

I for one am grateful for the analysis and even the word battle over this topic. I welcome the counsel of learned men, and whether we think this women should have such a platform or not, the fact remains that she is being given a platform despite our opinions.

My wife used to attend a women’s conference Women4Truth that a number of local reformed women organized and had prominent Christian women authors come speak.

Last year my wife asked if she could attend, but when I heard the speaker was Aimee Byrd, I said no. She was disappointed but after we look up her feminist antics online, she agreed it was not wise. She had to personally respond to the even organizers, whom we knew, that she had concerns about the speaker and would not be attending.

This year the speaker is Elyse Fitzpatrick. This year I made my concerns known publicly and am warning people away from this conference as a whole. My concerns on their public post were of course deleted.

Frankly the church is in the dark and the deceiver is still enticing women with forbidden fruit, while church fathers stand by and say nothing. So i am grateful for the discussion, silence would be disappointing.

4 Likes

And when men speak up against their false doctrines, what happens? The men get called effeminate. Do you see how mean these big mean men are being to these poor helpless women who are just trying to do theology?

A man must quietly receive instruction with all submissiveness, it now seems.

4 Likes

No, he didn’t argue with a woman. He actually failed to argue with a woman.

He misrepresented Rachel Miller and preened and postured for all to admire his form. The image was manly affect betrayed by the reality. That’s a form of effeminacy.

1 Like

Perhaps I will with time. We shall see.

Sincerely

The normal term for misrepresenting someone else’s argument is “straw man,” not “effeminacy.” I just reread the review in question (we are talking about the one above, on the “Calvinist Ruminant” site, right?), and did not see much preening and posturing. He used the pronoun “I” 12 times in a relatively lengthy article. What am I missing here?

John,
Constructing a straw man then prattling on as if one has a mastery of all subjects (which he clearly doesn’t as highlighted earlier) is an immodest display.

Some construct straw men out of deception, others from misunderstanding, some to demonstrate their self-perceived prowess. I perceive for that author, it’s much of the latter, though I’m sure there can be a combo.

Sincerely

Blockquote He misrepresented Rachel Miller and preened and postured for all to admire his form. The image was manly affect betrayed by the reality. That’s a form of effeminacy.

Can you please be specific in your accusations? You are failing to prove your point that the writer preened and postured at all. You have yet to prove your point, so your accusations are empty.

@petermcgowen , the reviewer has solicited pushback regarding his review on his Facebook page, which has been linked to above: Authority Figure: Rachel Green Miller? - #37 by per.ardua

I think all involved would be edified to see you reproduce the criticisms you’ve expressed here to the reviewer himself. Though I doubt his mind would be changed, it would be a great opportunity for you to demonstrate his ignorance and misrepresentation to others, would it not?

And since you are in possession of direct correspondence from RGM, stating that he made a false claim about her book, perhaps the reviewer would issue a correction if brought to his attention?

1 Like

Let me state more clearly what I implied earlier: I see a well-reasoned argument, not a preening display. If you care to convince me that the author was immodest, I’d like to see some quotes with an explanation of their immodesty.

2 Likes

This is in response to OP; I am not familiar with RGM . But a Carl Trueman review, unfortunately, is carrying ever less weight for me these days. His recent defense of Keller over the Marxist label was hand-waving, arrogant, dismissive; and I’d struggle to call it honest.

I am trying to sort out where Trueman sits because he has claimed in at least one book to be something of a redistributionist (e.g., fiscal leftist and social conservative… which seems incongruous to me), while writing an admiring review of Melvin Tinker’s excellent “That Hideous Strength: How the West was Lost to Cultural Marxism” - in which Tinker investigates and assaults the foundations of the modern political leftist infiltration of the evangelical Church.

I have a growing suspicion that book reviews in the Evangelical scene is a bunch of horse-trading. It’s built around a culture of celebrity that has no place in the Church. The endorsement aim seems to be to move units off the shelves instead of moving hearts closer to their Creator.

8 Likes

This. A hundred times.

5 Likes

Maybe it’s just voodoo, but whenever a woman publicizes herself under three names… watch out. :slight_smile:

Jackie Hill Perry
Rachel Held Evans
Nadia Bolz Weber
Karen Swallow Prior

…just sayin’

6 Likes

I assume her husband’s surname is not Green Miller. So she is advertising herself as an androgynist from the get-go. She doesn’t believe in federal headship, or she would take the name of her federal head without wanting to keep her own. Imagine if we applied her strategy to the gospel…

3 Likes

I think she tries to explain away her choice of surnames on her blog. Looking for a link.

If it’s something like, “I already had my surname established as a writer so I didn’t want to lose that,” I get $20.

3 Likes

https://rachelgreenmiller.com/2019/06/17/book-update-and-an-explanation-of-southern-naming-customs/

Does seem to be a southern tradition. Conveniently so, perhaps.

1 Like

She admits that she knows it makes her look like a feminist, and that she considered Rachel Miller and Rachel G. Miller, which would both have been fine alternatives. What are we supposed to conclude? I mean, I’m glad she took her husband’s name and that I was wrong on that, but I think I’m owed at least half of that $20.

3 Likes