West Port Experiment

In the present debate over Aimee Byrd (et al.) and her book Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, I have been forced to re-evaluate how and when naming names is appropriate in the Christian ‘public square.’ While it saddens me that rancor has developed among those with serious if not grave concerns over Byrd and company, it has at least helped me sharpen in my own mind a distinction that is vital.

For starters, I think the case is rather easily made that naming names in public matters involving public persons and opinions is unavoidable. To be sure, in private matters and where opinions are not openly set forth for public consumption, the order of the day is to deal with the brother privately to reclaim him. No one else need know, as it is a private affair. But there is only so much obfuscation possible with a big white elephant plopped down in the middle of the room.

But further, open confrontation in public offenses is often more than just unavoidable, but a clear duty. Paul withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed (Gal. 2:11). His rebuke was public (v. 13). There was no doubt that “Peter” was at fault and needed some open Gospel scolding. And while it strikes me the following appeal was more of a public ‘time out, and go to the corner,’ if you will, clearly Paul felt obliged to openly settle an open squabble. “I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord” (Phil. 4:2). While I’m mostly ignorant of persons surrounding Byrd – besides Trueman and Pruitt, that is – I certainly think it is the duty especially of confessionally Reformed leaders publicly to counter and even challenge the egalitarian sentiments she espouses. And while the ‘slippery slope’ is classed as a logical fallacy, let’s face it. We’ve seen all this before, and warnings at the very least are necessary.

But here’s where I think we get into trouble when naming names in public debate. It’s not that we do it, but how and when. Yes, Paul named names. He called out Alexander the coppersmith and Demas, who loved this present world. And he went gloves-off with Hymenaeus and Philetus, whose word would “eat as doth a canker … who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:17-18). But would we put Peter, or even Euodias and Synteche, in the same category with this apostate crew? Would Paul have named Peter, notwithstanding his serious compromise, “dogs … evil workers … the concision” (Phil. 3:2), whom he would sooner have “cut off” (Gal. 5:2)? Would our Lord have ever made the category confusion of putting his often backward, thick-headed, and vainglorious disciples in the same category as the “wolves in sheeps’ clothing” or “that fox” Herod? Or the Pharisees and hyprocrites who were but whitewashed tombs?

There is a distinction to be made between error and heresy. And between minor error and serious or even gross error. But to collapse all distinctions and to hasten to label folks like Aimee Byrd ‘godless Jezebels’ strikes me as seriously failing to distinguish between things that differ. And while – again – I support every good minister’s right to critique and even challenge Mrs. Byrd, we need to steer clear of the cliff. There is also a process for transitioning an offender out of the Visible Church, where he not only may but must be named “a heathen man and a publican.”

Let us applaud all righteous zeal. Feminism is a cancer. Let us not be time-serving yes men. But let us also let not our “good be evil spoken of” (Rom. 14:16).