Monday, September 7, 2015

The Bayly Boys' Sex Problem

They're Obsessed*

Receptionist in Law Office: May I get you a cup of coffee?
My Dad: I didn't think y'all did that kind of stuff anymore.
And you wonder why the man is my hero.

To say that Tim and David Bayly are obsessed with sex is an understatement. No, I don't accuse them of being obsessed with the erotic in a teenage boy or arrested development way. But I do mean they are obsessed with sex and have a sex problem because that is their chosen word for talking about all that it means to be male and female. They talk about sex all the time. They hate the word "gender." They love the word "sex." (Some other words they love: "sodomy", "sodomite", "effeminate", "authority", "rule" "rebellion", "precious", "mincing and prancing".) A few quotes: 
The craziness started when sex morphed into gender and the distinctions between men and women went from the hard reality of body parts to the soft fiction of social constructs. Back in the old days, a baby was born and the doctor or nurse took a quick look and said either "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!"
'Sex' was out and 'gender' was in. Sex was binary and hard, while gender was a continuum and infinitely plastic, submitting to each man doing what was right in his own eyes. Everyone was free to choose the point on the continuum where he, she, or it felt most comfortable.
It's not "gender." It's sex! God-ordained psychological, physiological, and spiritual bifurcation.Gender roles are social constructs, but God's order of the sexes is perpetual and binding.
We also need to teach everyone in our congregations the difference between sex and gender; and that sex trumps gender and is fixed by God—not man. Such teaching is the first step of repentance and faith in our perverse generation, and thus the first step of loving the souls of our perverse generation. And such teaching will be needed as much or more by those souls coming into our congregations from Reformed churches as those coming in from rank paganism.
("Sex" and "gender" used to be exchangeable words, with gender the more euphemistic way of referring to sex. Now "sex" is about chromosomes and body parts, while "gender" is about social constructs such as identity and roles. Of course, "sex" as in "having sex" has to do sexual acts. In an older and better world "gender" had to do with grammar. When it came to Greek I sometimes experienced gender confusion.)

For the Baylys sex and sex-based roles are absolutely fundamental teaching of Scripture:
As many have pointed out above, this order of God's creation of the sexes is a central theme of Scripture.
Turning from God to man, the postmodern's attack on sex is a mishmash. The enemy can breach the wall as well by stealth and confusion and radar jamming as a ramrod smashing against the gates. Postmoderns are furious that God made Adam first, then Eve; that He decreed Adam to be our federal head; and that He named our race "adam" rather than "adam-eve" or "eve," and this fury has led to changes in English usage which, in turn, have motivated thousands of deletions of the original Hebrew and Greek in our latest Bible products.
The Baylys do not think the word "complementarian" is strong enough to refer to male and female roles. They prefer the word "patriarchy" or "father rule." Patriarchy is more than a very rigorous and somewhat odd view of male headship and female submission in the home and in the church. Patriarchy is God's design for the ways men and women relate to one another in all of life:
When we deny that sex and authority have any connection outside the home and the Church, we are limiting God's Order of Creation to the private spheres where the doctrinal commitments of Christians may remain hidden from the sight of unbelievers. Thus we change our Lord's command to "you are the salt of the Church, so don't be ashamed of my commands, but let your light shine before other believers."
After denying that every woman is subordinate to every male, Tim seems to deny what he just wrote:
But to say there is no authority-subordinate relationship between every man and every woman is not to say there's no universal standard of relationship between men and women. In other words, the relationship between man and woman is never asexual. 
Every man made in the image of God is either a man or a woman; and every man or woman testifies to his sexual nature in every contact with a member of the opposite sex--either by faithfully confessing the Order of Creation or by rebelling against it. In fact, this distinction God blessed us with is so basic--so fundamental and foundational--that we never stop testifying to our faithfulness or rebellion...

A woman relating to a man should relate to him in a way that is womanly just as a man relating to a woman should relate to her in a way that is manly.

Teach your daughters the nature of feminine deference and your sons the nature of masculine responsibility and leadership.
They say of the PCA (David's present connection and Tim's former):
...they have lost any understanding of the nature of femininity, other than that the husband is the head of the wife and men are the only ones allowed to be elders. After all, most men still want to be king of their castle. 
Men like this have absolutely no doctrine of sexuality, other than the bare-bones of adhering to the explicit rules of Scripture (where those rules don't cut too deeply into their lifestyle of libertinism, that is).

What has them all hot and bothered right now is an article by Valerie Hobbs and Rachel Miller in which they criticize the views of John Piper and Doug Wilson about whether women may be police officers. Piper, responding to a question by a woman who feels drawn to police work (but who would quit if, when she marries, her husband objects), nuances his view (in ways the absolutist Baylys would not) and stops short of saying "no", but leads his questioner toward the negative answer. Wilson writes with with his characteristic humor (one thing I like about his writing, and something the Baylys sometimes attempt but don't pull off), but criticizes not only the housewife theologian Aimee Byrd but also the always male and almost always sane Carl Trueman. Wilson is a definite "no" on women as cops: 

"So, no. A Christian complementarian woman should not become a cop, especially when it involves riot gear. No."
Tim had earlier thought this one out:

Let me be clear, here: I am not saying that Christian men should rebel against authority when, contrary to God’s Creation order, it is
exercised by woman. If a female police officer pulls me over and tickets me, I’ll respect and submit to her, not because she has a gun
and a radio, but because she has been placed over me by God, bearing the sword in His behalf.

Still, I will recognize that her authority is contrary to God’s creation order in the matter of sexuality, and it will grieve me causing me, like Lot, to gnash my teeth. And this is how every biblical Christian should view the exercise of authority by woman over man no matter where it occurs. As the Holy Spirit said, woman is not to teachor exercise authority over man because Adam was created first, and then Eve.
I have read the Hobbs-Miller article. It is largely a linguistic analysis of Doug Wilson's writings which, I suppose, proves that he is a chauvinist who has some idiosyncratic views of marriage, roles, and sexual relations. Though I found their article ponderous (what else could statistical linguistic analysis be?), lacking in humor, and failing to spell what  submission in home and church means, I share some of the concerns of Hobbs-Miller about Wilson. 

Not so Tim and David. Tim, especially, is apoplectic. These women are in rebellion against God and his creation. The fact of their being women disqualifies them from criticizing Piper and Wilson. They are excluded from the kingdom of God:
Currently, there are several pieces out there on the web that display the depth of rebellion against God's Order of Creation that has taken over the Reformed church today. Let's start with two women who have gone to the internet to correct and rebuke a number of church officers including Pastors John Piper and Doug Wilson.
The first thing to note is that they are women. Of course my pointing this out will elicit howls from the Joni Rebel side. "Our being women has absolutely nothing to do with it," they'll protest. But of course, it has everything to do with it. When women such as Dr. Valerie Hobbs and Ms. Rachel Miller publicly admonish and rebuke men, particularly men who are ordained officers of Christ's Church, it would be hard to imagine any clearer rebellion against their sex. To say these women are immodest or that the viewing of their public exercise is unseemly is a gross understatement, Scripturally. This is sexual rebellion on the order of the male effeminacy that Scripture tells us disbars a man from the Kingdom of God...
Christians, who ought to see the evil of Hobbs-Miller, do not because they have been conformed to the wicked world:
Yes, there will be protests against such a severe condemnation of these women's rebellion, but only because we live in a decadent age when almost no one recognizes, let alone feels, the depth of this violation of God's Order of Creation. "How can something be so evil that seems so unremarkable—almost normal—to me?" you may ask.
Because pastors today have stopped guarding the good deposit in any way analogous to the Apostle Paul's guarding of the souls under his care as recorded in the New Testament. When the Apostle Paul was faced with women rebels in the New Testament churches, how did he respond?
He taught to the issue and his teaching was simple and straightforward: God created Adam first and Eve second, and this act of God, combined with Eve being the one who was deceived, condemns women teaching and exercising authority over men...
Following the quotation of 1 Timothy 2:12-15, Tim delivers the final condemnation:
Read Dr. Hobbs and Ms. Miller's corrections and rebukes of these men who are church officers set apart to the work of shepherding God's sheep and it's hard to imagine women doing anything more directly contrary to the command of God above. Their correction and rebuke of Pastors Piper and Wilson is a public act flaunting their disobedience of God and the worst response we could have would be to avoid pointing out that rebellion, and condemning it.
If Pastors John Piper and Doug Wilson have betrayed the Word of God in their teaching on sexuality, they both are surrounded by pastors and elders whose duty it is to watch over their teaching and correct them when they are in error. This is not women's work.
So says the Word of God. So says God's Order of Creation.
My counsel to Baylys: Boys, try to think about something else. Sublimate. Distract yourselves. Get some vigorous exercise. Take a cold shower.

If that doesn't work, we can send Priscilla and Aquila over to take you aside and explain to you the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).  

*I have not submitted this for approval to the management here. 

No comments: