Does it matter what women are taught?

Since I first began writing, one of my main concerns has been the effect false teaching has on the church, and particularly on women. It is a topic dear to my heart. Because of this, I was very pleased to have the opportunity to read and review Aimee Byrd’s latest book, No Little Women: Equipping All Women in the Household of God. Aimee also has a heart for the women in the church and what they’re being taught.

In No Little Women, Aimee addresses the need for women to be taught both solid doctrine and how to be discerning. The book is geared towards two audiences: pastors/elders and Christian women, although anyone would benefit from reading it.  Aimee wants pastors/elders to take an active role in teaching, equipping, and protecting women in the church. She asks, “[W]hat is your expectation for the women in your church? (271)” She also wants women to be competent allies and not “little women.”

The title comes from Paul’s warnings in 2 Timothy 3:6-7,

For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (NASB)

Aimee notes that “weak” women could be translated “little” or “small” women (23). This description does not mean that women are by nature “weak” and gullible, but it is a useful warning that godly women should heed. If we’re not going to be weak and easily led astray, we will need to be well grounded in the Scripture. We need to know what we believe.

Aimee warns that today the greatest danger for women is likely coming from books and materials marketed for women by Christian publishers and authors.

In many cases, women’s ministry becomes a back door for bad doctrine to seep into the church. Why are there still so many gullible women? … Why is it that so many women sit under good preaching and have all the best intentions, yet fall prey to the latest book marketed to them that is full of poor theology? And why do so many women in the church fail to see that theology has any practical impact on their everyday lives? (22)

For this reason, pastors/elders need to know what’s being taught in women’s books and studies, and women need to learn discernment. Aimee’s book seeks to encourage both. First, Aimee explains why it matters.

All Christians, both men and women, are theologians. We all have beliefs about God. In order to be good theologians, we must be taught good doctrine. Here Aimee emphasizes the importance of the ministry of Word and sacraments done by our ordained leaders. This cannot be replaced by study on our own or in small groups or by parachurch organizations. We need to hear the Word preached and have the sacraments administered in the church by our pastors and elders.

Because men and women together make up the body of Christ, the church, Aimee explains that we must work together. Aimee uses the imagery of the church as the household of God. “In a household that is set up properly, women should thrive alongside the men as they serve according to their giftedness and the needs of the church (87).” Only qualified men should be ordained leaders in the church, but we all have gifts that should be used in the work of the church:

While we do have male leadership in the ministerial office, we don’t want to promote a male culture in the church. Women are not only necessary allies to their husbands within their personal households but are also necessary allies to the men in carrying out the mission of the household of God. And in this way, women have distinct and diverse contributions to make alongside their brothers in Christ. Christ’s own ministry involved women as necessary allies. (106)

In order for women to be competent and to fulfill their roles as necessary allies, women must be taught sound doctrine.

Next Aimee explains why women’s ministry is so often a “back door for bad doctrine.” Many times the pastors/elders are unaware of what’s being taught:

Far too many motivated women are dealing with shallow women’s studies – or, worse, just plain false teaching – in their church. One of the biggest laments is that the elders are unaware of the harm that these studies are inflicting on the women in their congregation. And the message from silence is that the women don’t really matter. (31)

Even when pastors/elders are made aware of the dangerous teachings, many times nothing much is done:

It is often difficult to have an edifying, civil conversation with those who insist on teaching material that is being questioned by a discerning and concerned church member or pastor. The pastor often looks like the bad guy if he comes in, after a study has already been established, to gently correct the teaching and offer something to replace it. Families begin to take sides, and some even leave the church. Women have approached their pastors or elders because their group is studying a book with false teaching, only to be ignored as if it doesn’t matter because it’s just the women’s group. (51)

Two of the main reasons bad teaching in women’s ministry gets a pass is that the teachers are so friendly and likable:

Many Christians do not distinguish between a likable personality and the content of that person’s teaching. … [M]any of the women who teach troubling doctrines are very likable. Their books are well packaged, their talks are endearing, and they are exceptionally good at honing in on the common struggles that women are dealing with. They approach these topic with humor, self-disclosure, and warmth. And their lingo sounds pretty Christian. … [W]e think we can let our guard down. (48)

And many people are hesitant to critique women teachers:

So often, the theology of women such as these is not critiqued because we don’t want to hurt feelings. Somehow it comes off as not nice to critique a woman’s teaching. Well, that isn’t taking women seriously, either. It is not insulting to point out error. What is unloving is giving a teacher license to teach falsely because you like her personality, because you want to believe that it’s true, or worse, because you don’t want to engage critically with a woman. (149)

As Aimee says, it should not be this way. Because women matter, because women are necessary allies, because women need to be competent, we must hold all of the teaching, no matter who it’s geared to, to the same high standard. To do this, we need practical skills to learn how to discern whether a book or study is theologically healthy or not.

In the last third of the book, Aimee sets out to teach us how to do be discerning. She gives a great illustration of the nature of the problem, equating false teaching in women’s books to an autoimmune disease in the church:

While there is a lot of heresy being sold by the Christian book industry, books marketed for and popular with Christian women could often be diagnosed as having autoimmune diseases. Without a thorough inspection, they seem to have some good points and experiences that women can relate to. But the authors tend not to have a sound theological immune system. … Inevitably what happens is that they being attacking healthy teaching in a subversive kind of way, causing all kinds of inflammation and various chronic conditions that weaken the church. For some reason, they do not react well to attempts to correct them, and they want to continue overactively spreading their messages. (234)

It’s crucial that we learn to assess the theological health of a book. To this end, Aimee lists four essential questions to ask about the theology of a book.

  1. What does the author say about God’s Word? (223)
  2. What does the author say about who man is? (224)
  3. What does the author say about God? (226)
  4. What does the author say about what God has done and is doing? (228)

Aimee also explains that not all theological “illnesses” in a book are equally dangerous. She describes the process of determining how dangerous it is as theological triage. She divides the theological differences into three categories: first-order, second-order, and third-order:

[T]he essentials, such as the authority of Scripture, the Trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, and justification by faith, are what Mohler calls “first-order” doctrines that are necessary for a Christian to believe. Any teaching that contradict first-order doctrines are heretical. (231)

Examples of second-order doctrines would be mode of baptism and church government. These are important, but not essential for faith. Third-order doctrines would be something like eschatology. On these we can often agree to disagree.

Aimee then uses several examples from popular Christian books to demonstrate how to go about implementing these discernment skills. The examples are very helpful. I thought for my purposes here, I would use a quote from a new book as a practical demonstration of the essential questions and triage that Aimee recommends.

Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth is a popular author and speaker. She and Mary Kassian have written many books as part of the True Woman movement. I’ve written before about my concerns with the doctrine in True Woman 101. One of my main concerns was that Kassian and DeMoss taught the Eternal Subordination of the Son. After this summer’s Trinity debate, I wondered if the new books coming out would continue to teach ESS.

Adorned: Living Out the Beauty of the Gospel was released this week and is the first book written since Nancy DeMoss married and became Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth. What follows is a quote from Adorned:

But Paul himself, writing under the inspiration of the Spirit, specifically sets forth the divine order of headship and submission as being timeless and transcultural – the husband-wife relationship patterned after the God-Son relationship and the Christ-man relationship.

I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor. 11:3)

For a wife, submission means accepting God’s good order for her life, just as a husband submits himself to God in accepting God’s order for his life. And it gives her the privilege of representing the mystery and the beauty of the Son’s submission to the Father. For even within the Trinity, we see this paradoxical arrangement — seamless unity with separate roles and different identities, perfect equality with pure submission.

The Father and the Son, we know, are both equally God. And yet the Son chooses to submit Himself to the will of the Father:

For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will by the will of him who sent me. (John 6:38)

The submission of Christian wives to their husbands is a powerful and beautiful picture of the Son’s submission to His Father and of the church’s submission to Christ. These wives, together with husbands who love them selflessly and sacrificially, put the gospel story on vivid and compelling display. (264-265)

Using Aimee’s criteria, we can assess the theological health of Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth’s book, Adorned. What I first noticed in reading the quote is that it teaches the Eternal Subordination of the Son. This answers question 3 above, “what does the author say about God?”

Teaching ESS, in turn, indicates a misuse of Scripture for both the passages quotes, which answers question 1, “what does the author say about God’s Word?” Both 1 Corinthians 11:3 and John 6:38 are speaking about Christ as the God-man. When Christ submits to God, it is His humanity that is submitting, not His divinity. The submission is not within the Trinity.

By applying this wrong view of the Trinity to the relationship of husband and wife, the quote illustrates a faulty anthropology. That answers question 2, “what does the author say about  who man is?”

In answer to question 4, “what does the author say about what God has done and is doing?”,  the quote equates the gospel with the relationship of a husband and wife which presents a severely truncated version of the gospel. Husbands and wives do reflect one aspect of the gospel in illustrating part of the relationship between Christ and the church.

However, there is no way for husbands and wives to tell the full story of the gospel, that Christ was incarnate and made man, that He lived a sinless life fulfilling the law for us, that He died a sacrificial death on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, that He was raised on the third day overcoming death and hell, that His righteousness has been applied to us, and that He will come again in glory and we will be with Him forever. That is the full gospel and no marriage, as godly as is might be, could possibly demonstrate all of it. And we shouldn’t settle for less than the full story.

As far as triage goes, the Trinity is a first-order doctrine. By teaching Eternal Subordination of the Son, Adorned is teaching a false view of the Trinity. That is a serious problem. As Aimee says in No Little Women,

If an author is not in line with what God says about himself, then you should have serious doubts about what she is teaching you. (227)

Because of this, I would not recommend Adorned to others without seriously cautioning them.

I am very thankful for Aimee’s work in No Little Women. I hope everyone will read it. With Aimee, I hope that pastors and elders are encouraged to get involved with the women of their church in order to teach, equip, protect, and utilize them in the work of the church. I also hope women especially will be spurred to greater faithfulness and discernment. Our churches need us to be competent women in our roles as necessary allies. May we be “little women” no longer.

 

 

32 thoughts on “Does it matter what women are taught?

  1. Donna says:

    “Only qualified men should be ordained leaders in the church, but we all have gifts that should be used in the work of the church:”
    What???? Is she saying only QUALIFIED men should be ordained leaders in the church OR only qualified MEN should be ordained leaders in the church?
    Otherwise, I like this article.

      • Donna says:

        So why do you believe that only men should be ordained leaders? Just wondering as I have changed my mind recently on this issue. Even though I don’t want to be a pastor or deacon, I now believe it is not restricted to men only. I am reading The Equality Workbook by Helga and Bob Edwards. They say that Phoebe was probably either a deacon or minister as the same word is used for her that is translated deacon and ministers everywhere else except in Romans 16. This book explains the Platoism and Asecticism that was prevalent in Paul’s time and how the translators of the Greek and Latin Bibles of the time were biased toward adding male gender vowels and words to the text and translating words about women differently.

      • SarahD says:

        My husband and I are reading an excellent book that presents 4 different discussions on women in ministry. It’s called Two Views on Women in Ministry, by Blomberg and others. Each of the 4 essays presents a well-researched Biblical argument for their viewpoints (some arguments more compelling than others) and each author has a chance to comment on the other essays for a well-rounded discussion. I’m still prayin and reading through it to determine my thoughts on it. But it’s a great resource if you need some discussion points. I’m not saying I agree fully with any of the arguments; it’s just nice to have some research to consider.

        Two Views on Women in Ministry (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0039W58GM/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_COlNybQS7VFK1

      • SarahD says:

        Rachel, I was thinking this would be a good resource for Donna to look into. However, I am glad you are confident of your opinion! Some of us are still less confident and seeking clarity, which I feel this book provides, if for no other reason than that someone else has done the hard, detailed work of investigating cultural, historical, and contextual perspective so that I can then make an educated and prayerful decision about where I stand. I am attempting to hold this topic loosely as it’s not central to my faith (although it may deeply inform my participation and focus when it comes to church participation).

      • Persis says:

        FYI, in “Two Views on Women in Ministry” pg. 318, Tom Schreiner writes this in regard to 1 Cor. 11:3 (italics in original) –

        “God is the head of Christ, which signifies that God is the authority over the Christ.” and “The parallel between Christ’s submission to the Father and the deference of women to men is important.”

        Dr. Schreiner is on the faculty at SBTS.

    • Rhaven Lynn says:

      This article was just really disappointing. The word head when describing God as the head of Christ means nourisher not boss. Therefore no, the man is not the boss of the woman. I would encourage a little further study on women in the church and in marriage. When studying the Word, one must always take these things into consideration: What was the culture like at that time? Who was the author and what message was he trying to convey to the original audience? How was the original audience understanding the message? As far as Paul saying that he doesn’t permit women to teach or have authority over a man, the original manuscripts had small marks which are equivalent to quotation marks. In other words, Paul was quoting what the leaders of the church was communicating to him, He was NOT saying, I Paul do not allow women to teach. The culture in Paul’s day-yeah it was miraculous if a woman could even join the men folk at church! This headship doctrine needs to end. It is a tradition of men. and a serious misuse of Scripture. Both Jesus and Paul were working on giving woman a new role. That of prophesying-because if Paul really meant women could not SPEAK in the church, that would include prophesying. Jesus appeared first to a woman after his resurrection. That in itself was radical! She then left the tomb PROCLAIMING he had risen. I personally believe our churches and our marriages are a mess because we have taken this headship doctrine as gospel and many have suffered because of it. It was only AFTER the curse, that now the husband would rule over the woman. In the garden they BOTH ruled. God did not tell Eve, “Now listen here little lady, I provided a “covering” in your husband and he is your ruler.” Ive always wondered why some people will take SOME Scripture literally but not all. Why is there this picking and choosing when people are trying to CORRECT others.

  2. Grace says:

    My problem is that ESS language so often sounds so close; in fact, it’s so close to the truth that I think, “oh, that person misspoke and meant to say…” it’s not like they’re flat out denying Christ’s divinity, it’s way more subtle than that, and it makes it difficult to see, at least for me.

    • Dominic Stockford says:

      ESS is very dangerous for precisely that reason. It is not dissimilar to Arminianism, which has eventually wrested the true gospel out of most of Methodism. Whitefield was right to oppose Wesley on this matter. Subtlety in ‘heresy’ makes it worse than obvious heresy.

  3. NJ says:

    Sadly, I’m not surprised about Mrs. Wolgemuth’s new book. I have to wonder if there will end up being a split in reformed/evangelical denominations and churches over the ESS doctrine. This thing has some serious potential for division, and last summer may have been just the first battle.

    • Donna says:

      My nephew completed seminary in Jax Florida and he seems to believe in ESS. Bruce Ware came and spoke. I am heart broken. They are getting to our new young pastors. He is only 28 years old! He does not think it is heresy, or “new” or even “old revived”.

    • Dominic Stockford says:

      Yes. There will be. Just as there was division over Arminianism. After all, any Reformed church that agrees with the Athanasian Creed has already been divided from by those who follow ESS.

  4. Ron Maness says:

    Rachel:

    Thanks for your article and especially for pointing out the ESS teaching contained in the book, Adorned. I had ordered the book for our library based on Melissa Kruger’s review at TGC.

    https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/melissakruger/2017/02/07/sneak-peek-author-interview-with-nancy-demoss-wolgemuth/#comment-633

    However, after reading your article, I posted the following comment to that article.

    Comment by Ron Maness:

    I ordered this book for our church library based on your review. However, after reading the new article and review by Rachel Miller, which said that Adorned presents the erroneous teaching about the Trinity known as ESS, I will be returning the book to Amazon. After all the intense debate since June on the problems with that teaching, I would have hoped that TGC would be careful about the books recommended on their website. The article by Rachel Miller can be found on her blog at https://ADAUGHTEROFTHEREFORMATION.WORDPRESS.COM/2017/02/08/DOES-IT-MATTER-WHAT-WOMEN-ARE-TAUGHT/

    Thanks for the good work.

    Ron

  5. Dee says:

    Rachel
    I appreciate your thoughtful post. I stopped going to women’s Bible studies because I either found them simplistic (fill in the blanks and only discuss the actual question) or they featured studies by women like Joyce Meyer.

    I am older and have been involved in many churches, most of which would be considered conservative. I have watched and dialogues with a few pastors along the way who have indulged in some concerning doctrine. I have come to the conclusion that many pastors, even in the Calvinist camp, are not free from off beat teachings at times.

    For example, there are a number of Reformed churches, of the TGC variety, which are now asking the women to study Wolgemuth or Kassian’s books. Some of those churches are featuring Kassian, etc, at their Women’s Day conferences. Did you know that the Nancy Wolgemuth also has disturbing views on domestic violence, for example?

    https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2013/01/04/bad-news-for-victims-from-nancy-leigh-demoss-and-holly-elliff-by-katy/

    By not allowing women into ordained leadership, roughly 60% of the church is sidelined. Some of those on the fringes are often more astute or sensitive than some pastors on a number of subjects.

    So, I have a question. I have heard it said from some people in the Reformed camp that if the Bible does not specifically prohibit something, it might be allowable. Why not have women who are official advisors to the ordained staff? I do not buy the line “our wives advise us.” I have met one too many pastors’ wives who are theologically weak.

    Mostly, I would be interested in hearing if you believe the Bible prohibits such an advisory group?

    • Rachel Miller says:

      Dee- thanks for commenting. I am aware of NLDW’s dangerous teaching on abuse.

      I believe that wise pastors will seek the advice of women, and not just their wives. In the PCA, deacons are encouraged to utilize help from men and women in the congregation.

    • Lea says:

      “I stopped going to women’s Bible studies because I either found them simplistic”

      I am testing the waters with one right now, but I may end up bailing for that reason. The lady leading it keeps saying we shouldn’t do such and such study because there is nothing we can ‘discuss’. I don’t know what she means by that but a friend said maybe she doesn’t feel qualified to lead such a discussion, which I’m mulling over (especially since she went to seminary so she ought to be qualified!). At least we’re talking about God in mine, not a bunch of how to be a woman nonsense.

      I think the fencing of the sexes is a huge part of the problem here.

  6. Bridget Sprau Morales says:

    Thank you for this, Rachel! We are grateful for you and for Aimee! In the interest of not always thinking that giving the benefit to doubt is beneficial, I would say that there are congregations where Pastors and elders DO know what books are being offered to women, would never allow said book to be read by men-which do contain heresy or errant theology/doctrine, but simply do not care or do not deem the issue valuable enough to address. Getting along is more important. Keep the women shallow and foolish. It is a persistent pain in my soul that such men in positions of power- “keep” power through stratification, and their ‘word’– “Oh it is fine for you to read this together’ means ipso facto all material is now made “acceptable”, because they have said so. And conversely, there are women who DO know that what they are offering by way of book selections are errant and not in conformity to Scripture or our secondary standards. What do we do when these are working in concert?

    • Barbara Roberts says:

      NJ, the link you gave http://apprising.org/2012/06/28/nancy-demoss-turns-listeners-to-richard-foster-for-guidance/ is very interesting. Thanks!

      It gives detailed documentation proving that Nancy DeMoss (now Wolgemuth) was recommending prayer circles and was praying within prayer circles drawn on the ground, and she was honouring the man named Rodney “Gipsy” Smith, who taught prayer circles being drawn in the ground — he taught this to Christians as a method of protection while he was fully aware that the method derived from gypsy witchcraft.

      The article also had a link to another article documenting a further problem with Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth. That article, http://apprising.org/2012/06/28/nancy-demoss-turns-listeners-to-richard-foster-for-guidance/ demonstrates that Nancy was approvingly quoting from Richard Foster, who is gnostic teaching the heretical doctrines of ‘contemplative Christianity’ and who is strongly influence by eastern pagan religions and Roman Catholicism,

      I followed the links given in that article about Nancy endorsing Richard Foster. I found that on Nancy’s website, she had later removed the bit where she approvingly quoted from Richard Foster. But from reading the comments thread on her article, it’s clear that she had originally quoted Foster: some of the commenters were reproving her for having quoted Foster. But there was no admission of fault or apology from Nancy. She or her minders just scrubbed the quote from Foster.

      It is typical of false teachers to just scrub their ‘mistakes’ but never admit fault or publicly apologise….

      I am so thankful that I was in the New Age before I came to Christ. It made me hyper-vigilant to pagan ideas infecting in the church. I did a lot of research into many branches of paganism and satanic and gnostic teaching, after I became a Christian. It has helped me recognise the red flags. So many Christian are very ignorant about these red flags.

  7. Barbara Roberts says:

    Thanks Rachel. Excellent review of Aimee’s book. And I’m so glad that Aimee is explaining to pastors what the dangers are in the books that written for women… and that she’s explaining to women that they need to be more discerning. Both things are greatly needed.

    I really like the idea of women being necessary allies to men in the church as well as the home. On A Cry For Justice, I think that’s how Jeff Crippen and I work together. I was doing the work before him — my book was published well before his first book and before the blog A Cry For Justice began. Jeff contacted me when his book was in MS form, asking permission to reproduce one of my paragraphs in his book. ….one thing led to another and I ended up helping edit his book and eventually co-leading the blog.

    I find we very much complement each other’s skills on the blog. And we help each other keep in balance… sometimes he corrects me on a point, and sometimes I correct him on a point, and we both benefit from this. And we quite often add ideas to each other’s posts. I am not sure that he is more of a leader on the blog than I am, but he is an ordained pastor and I am not. And even if I were convinced it was biblical for women to be ordained (which I’m not) — I have no desire to be ordained.

    I am hoping that Aimee’s book No Little Women will help pastors and elders to see that they have much to learn from listening to women, paying attention to what is happening in women’s bible studies, and being open to constructive feedback and criticism from women. If that happens, I trust it would lead to more male leaders in the church becoming better educated about the issue of domestic abuse. Of course, that is the issue closest to my heart, so naturally I say that. But while the issue of domestic abuse is very important to me, sound teaching about the essential Christian doctrines (as you outlined in your review) the most important thing of all.

    In my observation, if people have unsound ideas about God, the Trinity, the nature of man, the plan of redemption and other First Order doctrines, they will end up having unsound teaching about how to respond to domestic abuse.

  8. Barbara Roberts says:

    From the quote Rachel gave of the book “Adorned” by Nancy (DeMoss) Wolgemuth —

    “… the husband-wife relationship patterned after the God-Son relationship and the Christ-man relationship. … For a wife, submission … gives her the privilege of representing the mystery and the beauty of the Son’s submission to the Father. …The submission of Christian wives to their husbands is a powerful and beautiful picture of the Son’s submission to His Father and of the church’s submission to Christ. These wives, together with husbands who love them selflessly and sacrificially, put the gospel story on vivid and compelling display.”

    Note the key idea: “marriage displays the gospel’. Put it in your memory bank; its a red flag for dangerous teaching on marriage

    Taken to their logical conclusion, these words by Nancy Wolgemuth can imply that an abused wife, to faithfully display the gospel, needs to let herself be put through unspeakable suffering/ have her life destroyed emotionally mentally or physically/be crucified by her husband. And that if an abused wife does that, she is putting on display the gospel story!

    The current evangelical church needs to do a major re-think about this.

    WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE?
    The traditional (1662) Anglican marriage service said that marriage is “an honourable estate, instituted of God, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church” and it gives three purposes for marriage – three reasons why it was ordained by God – “First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”

    I believe it was John Piper who in modern times has spearheaded the notion that there is another purpose of marriage which is even more important than procreation, prevention of sin, and companionship. Piper says that the foremost purpose of marriage is illustrative: to illustrate to the world the covenant love of God. He morphed the notion that marriage “signifies unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church” and turned this signifying quality into one of the purposes of marriage.

    Piper’s notion is now very widespread and being disseminated by countless other teachers. And it is causing victims of abuse to stay in dreadful marriages out of a desire to not besmirch the name of God. It is doing immense harm to victims of domestic abuse.

  9. Jay R. Walker says:

    I’m not so sure that the quotes you’ve provided from Wolgemuth’s book are a clear example of ESS. She seems to be describing the relationship in Christological terms, which are not inconsistent with the eternal covenant of redemption. Yes, “the Son” refers to the second person of the Trinity, but Jesus Christ is the Son of God, so the two ideas – Christ and Son – are not mutually exclusive ideas. Certainly, Wolgemuth is not employing Grudem’s categories, so I’m pretty sure that the case here may be overstated. I’m not saying that I would recommend her book, but based on the quote you provided, I do not think we can declare “anathema” just yet.
    Just a few thoughts.

    God bless your continued work for His kingdom.

    • Rachel Miller says:

      I understand your concern. However, the statements here are consistent with her earlier statements on the Trinity both in True Woman 101 and on her Revive Our Hearts website. Because she has not revised, clarified, or made any statement renouncing those earlier very clear ESS statements, then I believe it reasonable to read these words in light of that background.

      Especially her statement here about the relationship between Father and Son as the foundation of the husband and wife relationship.

  10. NJ says:

    Barbara, the thing I don’t get is, when an abused wife is told to stay and allow herself to be sacrificed (metaphorically) by her unregenerate husband, isn’t she suddenly being called to take on the salvific role of Christ, instead of the Church? The Church does not submit to being sacrificed by her divine Husband; it was the Son who laid down His life for her. Jesus’ submission to the cross is not the same thing as Ephesians 5, yet so many church leaders and teachers seem to conflate the two when facing a domestic violence situation.

    • Barbara Roberts says:

      HI Irene, no I haven’t yet read Aimee’s book. I am relying on Rachel’s review of it at this stage because I’m so busy with all the other work I have to do on ACFJ.

      Do you believe there is something in Aimee’s book that has particular relevance to what we do at ACFJ? If so, please point me to it. Thanks. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s