Skip to main content

An Open Letter to Aimee Byrd

Dear Aimee,
I don't really know you.  I know of you, but I can't say that we are even really acquaintances.  We're friends on Facebook, but that doesn't really mean much when you have as many Facebook friends as we do.  I don't know that we have ever really interacted online.  Though I am aware of them, I have never read your books or listened to your podcasts.

I suspect you are wondering who I am.  I am a member of Genevan Commons.  I am not an admin.  I am not a founding member.  I am not a pastor or an elder in a local church.  I am just a guy who found his face and name, and even the name of my employer, on a website created for the purpose of displaying screenshots from this private Facebook group.  I can only assume that you participated in and/or approved of the creation of this website.  Forgive me if I am incorrect in my assumption.  Furthermore, my name is also featured one of the threads shown in your recent blogpost.  I don't know if my sincere question, a question I asked in a blogpost shortly thereafter, was being implicated in the charge of arrogance, but my name was found in that section, which means that I'm involved.  Because my name is found on the site and in the blogpost, but because I have less of a horse in this race than some of the others, I felt that I might be the right person to pen this open letter to you.

You may wonder why I have chosen an open letter.  Why not message you privately?  Why not shoot you an email?  Well, I think you'll agree that the issue has become public and should be dealt with publicly.  I expect there will be other public responses, as well.  I hope your church and/or denomination will get involved to mediate the situation.

I simply have five things to say to/ask you.

Firstly, I want to apologize if I have ever said anything disrespectful about you.  One of my many faults is saying things without thinking them through thoroughly enough.  The Internet, I must admit, has generally not helped to curtail this.  I don't remember saying anything specifically, but if you are aware of anything that I have said about you that was derogatory or disrespectful, I am sorry.

Secondly, do you understand what it means to be a Christian celebrity in the Age of the Internet?  Watching you react to the Genevan Commons, it seems that you have yet to come to peace with this.  I do not use that term (Christian celebrity) in a derogatory way.  It simply means that you have written and spoken about certain issues and have developed somewhat of a following.  Strangers know your name, and with that comes certain consequences.  If you are going to state your beliefs on the Internet, especially when those beliefs are controversial, you must be prepared for the Internet to react.  I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but it is the price you pay for putting yourself out there.  People are going to say things about you, and it won't always be nice.  Especially when you put your beliefs in print, people are going to react.  Everybody famous has critics.

Thirdly, your brethren in Christ, especially those in your own denomination and within the Reformed world, are genuinely concerned about the direction that you are headed.  I am not here to defend everything that has been said about you in Genevan Commons.  I am sure there have been some juvenile, insensitive, and unloving things said about you, and good humor is not an adequate defense.   Broadly speaking, however, most of the interaction I witnessed came from a place of genuine concern.  I can't speak for everyone, but in Genevan Commons we're generally not male chauvinists who are threatened by well-read, well-spoken females.  We're brethren in Christ who are concerned for your soul and for the souls of those who follow you.  When we see the authors you're referencing and the beliefs you're espousing, we're worried where you'll be in 10 or 20 years.  We have seen this story before, and it usually doesn't have a happy ending.  More than that, we're worried where the OPC, PCA, ACNA, and SBC will be in 10 or 20 years.  We see the tenets of feminism beginning to creep into conservative denominations, and we fear the gradual descent into liberalism.  I know that you have tried to distance yourself from Feminism, so I hope you can appreciate the concern that we have as gender issues begin to take center stage in our denominations.

Fourthly, what is your goal here?  What is your endgame?  Are you trying to gain leverage in some way?  Do you really believe that sharing these screenshots is a productive way to deal with this issue?  More importantly, does this website glorify Christ or edify His body?  I would advise you to examine your motives in this situation.  I ask this question because I'm genuinely curious.  What is the goal?  Frankly, it seems a little bizarre.

Fifthly, and finally, how do you think that Matthew 18 applies in 2020 on the Internet?  I'm sure this question is worthy of more attention than you and I can give it (somebody should really write a book on this topic!), but I think that this situation requires that we ask it.  Have you attempted to pursue the steps outlined in Matthew 18 towards the admins of Genevan Commons?  Are there obstacles in the way?  Have you asked your elders to help you address the men involved?  How does this website fit into the Matthew 18 paradigm?  The Internet has made our world a very complicated place, and that calls for a fresh examination of how we apply Biblical principles to our interaction with others, Christians and nonchristians alike.  The members of Genevan Commons would do well to examine themselves in this regard, as well.

I hope that this letter has been respectful and I pray that it will prove to be productive.  A conversation needs to be had.  What started out as a casual spat now threatens to defame the name of our Savior.  My involvement has been mostly incidental, so I hope that you will reach out to the admins of our group and do your best to make peace with them.  Now more than ever the Reformed community needs to be united as we face a world hellbent on tearing down all that we hold dear.

May the grace of God be with you,
Josiah Luke Spencer

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...