# Bible commentaries written by women. Yea or nay?



## Gryphonette (Apr 14, 2008)

(I couldn't figure out where this topic would best fit, so dumped it here; if a moderator knows of a more applicable forum, please don't hesitate to move it.)

Lane has a post at his blog about a new commentary on Judges, and in passing he mentioned the author's female.

You know, this is something I poke and prod at, but cannot arrive at a firm opinion on. Is it appropriate for women to write commentaries on books of the Bible for a general audience, even though they'd not be permitted to teach from their book in a Bible study class for both men and women?

OTOH, that seems _awfully_ contradictory. I'm really fairly certain Paul would have blown a gasket at the very idea.

OTOH, it's not as if just penning a book gives one authority, and in any case, no one need read it unless they want to.

What do y'all think?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Apr 14, 2008)

Do you have a link to the book or the title so I could look it up on Amazon?


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 15, 2008)

*Don't know if Amazon has it or not.*



Southern Presbyterian said:


> Do you have a link to the book or the title so I could look it up on Amazon?



But here is the link Lane provided.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 15, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have a link to the book or the title so I could look it up on Amazon?
> ...



Well, being in the Old Testament Library series, it's probably going to be pretty liberal.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 15, 2008)

Richard, then what about this one?
Esther, NIV Application Commentary - By: Karen H. Jobes - Christianbook.com

I always found it interesting that the person who made the best *exegetical* case against feminism back in the early days of evangelical feminism was *Susan* Foh and her '75 article (*WTJ* 37:3 (Spr 75) p. 376-383.)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 15, 2008)

Was Priscilla right to instruct Apollos?


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 15, 2008)

If we say that women cannot write bible commentaries, then also on the PB - to be consistent - we would need to restrict women only to non-theological threads, lest they try to teach us anything.


----------



## Herald (Apr 15, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Was Priscilla right to instruct Apollos?



Brother Daniel, Priscilla did not instruct Apollos on her own. She was under the headship of her husband.



> Acts 18:25-26 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; 26 and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla *and Aquila* heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.



Bold text mine.


----------



## Herald (Apr 15, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> If we say that women cannot write bible commentaries, then also on the PB - to be consistent - we would need to restrict women only to non-theological threads, lest they try to teach us anything.



I think we have a conglomeration of ideas and conclusions here. First, what is the apostolic teaching concerning women?



> 1 Timothy 2:9-15 9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.



The Apostle was not commanding that a woman could not write. If that were the case we would have to prohibit women from keeping journals or teaching their children.



> 2 Timothy 1:5 5 For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well.





> 2 Timothy 3:15 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.



In 1 Timothy, Paul was writing about the relationship between men and women, _specifically_ the husband and wife relationship, within the church. Authority in the church and in the home resides in male leadership. This we know. But this God established authority does not prohibit women from writing. The real is issue is one of authority. Is a woman usurping authority from a man by writing? No. If a man uses the written material of a woman in the course of teaching the church or his family, is she usurping authority by proxy? No. 

We need to be careful about taking the apostolic command too far.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 15, 2008)

*Preaching, Prophesy and commentaries*

Surely there is a difference (in the reformed tradition) between ascending the steps of the pulpit on Sunday to expound scripture and writing a commentary?

If you a preaching and correctly expounding the word of God you drive home the application with the very authority of God behind you. Nobody should be attending a sermon witha take-it-or -leave it attitude! Correct exposition commands our attention!

Commentaries however explore the meaning, with reference to other passages - they are take-it-or-leave it 

Most liberal commentaries I leave. A sound sermon however commands respect always - wasn't prophesy an oft used puritan term for sermons??


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 15, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Was Priscilla right to instruct Apollos?
> ...




That is right, but she did still instruct him nonetheless.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 15, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



Well, I think we really don't know what she in fact did in the "instruction process", only that she and her husband were there together. The point is her instruction, whatever form it took, wasn't offered on her own and by herself.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 15, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > North Jersey Baptist said:
> ...



Yes but she still did offer him instruction; note that the text says *they* and even puts Priscilla before Aquilla. So I think there is some role for women exhorting men outside of public worship. Though whether or not this justifies them writing commentaries is a question I cannot presently answer.


----------



## turmeric (Apr 15, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...


 
At least they can participate in theological discusssions with men, it seems like.


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 15, 2008)

This is a good question and one I have pondered a lot myself, especially considering the amount of writing I do which usually contains some instruction or at least application of the Scripture. For the record, when I set out to write, it is genearlly not with the intent of instructing or teaching, but rather adding a perspective or sharing what the Lord has taught me in His Word and through years of walking with Him. Do I consider that to be authoritative? No. 

Would I write a commentary? If I had a better grasp of Greek and command of Hebrew (which I don't) it would be a possibility. Here's why I don't have a problem with that. A commentary, though authoritative, is not the same as preaching. Preaching and teaching from pulpit carry with it a weight that books simply do not have. Preaching and teaching God's Word from the pulpit is the Word of God for the people. 

A commentary is scholarly work which tries to accurately determine exactly what the Scriptures say based on the original languages. Can that scholarly work be done by a woman? I believe so. Is it the final word? Absolutely not, just as the work of some of the best commentators is not the final word. The truth is, we should take EVERY commentary, even the best, with a slight question in our minds. It doesn't mean that we don't seriously weigh what they have to say and compare it Scriptures and with other godly men, but we have to remember that they are just men (and women if that is the case) who write. Their personal lives, their theological viewpoint, the authority they have (or had in the church) should also be taken into consideration when scrutinizing their work and using it as a support for the teaching and preaching of God's Word.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 15, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> A commentary, though authoritative, is not the same as preaching. Preaching and teaching from pulpit carry with it a weight that books simply do not have. Preaching and teaching God's Word from the pulpit is the Word of God for the people.
> 
> The truth is, we should take EVERY commentary, even the best, with a slight question in our minds. It doesn't mean that we don't seriously weigh what they have to say and compare it Scriptures and with other godly men, but we have to remember that they are just men (and women if that is the case) who write. Their personal lives, their theological viewpoint, the authority they have (or had in the church) should also be taken into consideration when scrutinizing their work and using it as a support for the teaching and preaching of God's Word.



That's the nub of it


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 15, 2008)

*I really do lean toward saying it's acceptable.*



JBaldwin said:


> This is a good question and one I have pondered a lot myself, especially considering the amount of writing I do which usually contains some instruction or at least application of the Scripture. For the record, when I set out to write, it is genearlly not with the intent of instructing or teaching, but rather adding a perspective or sharing what the Lord has taught me in His Word and through years of walking with Him. Do I consider that to be authoritative? No.
> 
> Would I write a commentary? If I had a better grasp of Greek and command of Hebrew (which I don't) it would be a possibility. Here's why I don't have a problem with that. A commentary, though authoritative, is not the same as preaching. Preaching and teaching from pulpit carry with it a weight that books simply do not have. Preaching and teaching God's Word from the pulpit is the Word of God for the people.
> 
> A commentary is scholarly work which tries to accurately determine exactly what the Scriptures say based on the original languages. Can that scholarly work be done by a woman? I believe so. Is it the final word? Absolutely not, just as the work of some of the best commentators is not the final word. The truth is, we should take EVERY commentary, even the best, with a slight question in our minds. It doesn't mean that we don't seriously weigh what they have to say and compare it Scriptures and with other godly men, but we have to remember that they are just men (and women if that is the case) who write. Their personal lives, their theological viewpoint, the authority they have (or had in the church) should also be taken into consideration when scrutinizing their work and using it as a support for the teaching and preaching of God's Word.



It's just rather baffling to consider that you or I could write a serious commentary on, say, the book of Micah, and our respective churches think enough of it to recommend it as the basis for a bible study class on that book, but the author wouldn't be allowed to actually teach the class if there are men in it. Even though the information being taught in the class came from us.

Perhaps the only true Scriptural injunction is against women preaching from the pulpit, and we're being unduly restrictive by not allowing women to teach bible study classes to groups with men in them?

It simply is illogical to say women may write commentaries, and men may read them and recommend them to be used for bible study, but the authors may not teach a class that includes men.


----------



## Herald (Apr 15, 2008)

Anne, I'm not recommending that a woman write a commentary. I just think we should be careful not to take the apostolic command too far by preventing women from other methods of expression.


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 15, 2008)

*Do you think perhaps a woman ought to make sure she has an Apollos?*



North Jersey Baptist said:


> Anne, I'm not recommending that a woman write a commentary. I just think we should be careful not to take the apostolic command too far by preventing women from other methods of expression.



Perhaps were she to co-author it with a man, much like Priscilla and Aquila? 

Obviously she may study and write whatever she jolly well pleases, BTW. But were I the owner of a Reformed publishing house and such a commentary came over the transom, I'd be more comfortable were there a man's name listed as a co-author.


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 15, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> > This is a good question and one I have pondered a lot myself, especially considering the amount of writing I do which usually contains some instruction or at least application of the Scripture. For the record, when I set out to write, it is genearlly not with the intent of instructing or teaching, but rather adding a perspective or sharing what the Lord has taught me in His Word and through years of walking with Him. Do I consider that to be authoritative? No.
> ...



You have a good point, and I see more clearly why you are grappling with it. It's a fuzzy area for me, too. Frankly, my pastor often asks me for my opinion in open mixed Bible study, and I am not afraid to give it, but I would not be comfortable teaching the Bible study myself. 

I suppose I get around this issue by saying that I don't see commentaries as books we teach from, but rather reference books which a teacher can accept or reject as authoritative, the same as the pastor asking me for my opinion knowing that he is free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 15, 2008)

My apologies for the error in the subject line. Couldn't figure out how to edit that.

Why one of those men couldn't have been named Walter, I can't imagine.


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 15, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Anne, I'm not recommending that a woman write a commentary. I just think we should be careful not to take the apostolic command too far by preventing women from other methods of expression.
> ...



I really agree with you here, and I have thought about this issue of co-authorship as well. I picked up a book in a Christian bookstore not too long ago, and it was written by a woman from a PCA church and co-authored by her pastor. I was much more quick to see what it had to say, than I would have been had it only been written by her.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 15, 2008)

This question came up on my blog also when I recommended Karen Jobes's outstanding commentary on 1 Peter. In my view, commentaries follow the grand old tradition of debating the meaning of the text of Scripture. Any woman can engage in that debate, in my opinion. I have benefitted much from Joyce Baldwin's commentaries, and also Karen Jobes. They are conservative, careful scholars. But if a woman could not write a commentary, then neither should she engage in that very same discussion here on the PB. Personally, I don't have a problem using a woman's materials, and then turning around and saying that she cannot teach authoritatively in the church (I am very uncomfortable with women teaching men in Sunday School). To my mind, a commentary is a discussion with all the other interpretive voices throughout the history of interpretation. Are we to assume that even the men who wrote commentaries don't have any ideas from women? That's ludicrous. But commentaries are the opinions of men and women. They are not authoritative.


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 15, 2008)

*That's a good way of looking at it...as a long-term discussion.*



Gryphonette said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Anne, I'm not recommending that a woman write a commentary. I just think we should be careful not to take the apostolic command too far by preventing women from other methods of expression.
> ...





greenbaggins said:


> This question came up on my blog also when I recommended Karen Jobes's outstanding commentary on 1 Peter. In my view, commentaries follow the grand old tradition of debating the meaning of the text of Scripture. Any woman can engage in that debate, in my opinion. I have benefitted much from Joyce Baldwin's commentaries, and also Karen Jobes. They are conservative, careful scholars. But if a woman could not write a commentary, then neither should she engage in that very same discussion here on the PB. Personally, I don't have a problem using a woman's materials, and then turning around and saying that she cannot teach authoritatively in the church (I am very uncomfortable with women teaching men in Sunday School). To my mind, a commentary is a discussion with all the other interpretive voices throughout the history of interpretation. Are we to assume that even the men who wrote commentaries don't have any ideas from women? That's ludicrous. But commentaries are the opinions of men and women. They are not authoritative.


Never thought of it quite like_ that_ before.

However, I don't think participating in an informal discussion board like this is _really_ akin to publishing a commentary on Scripture. ;^)

In other words,, a case could be made that the former is acceptable, while the latter isn't so much. Not saying that's true, mind! Your point about long-term debate is apt. But still, an internet discussion forum isn't the same thing, I don't believe.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 15, 2008)

Lane,

Thanks for mentioning Baldwin. Her OT commentaries are some of the best I own (albeit brief). 

While we never want to err, there is no virtue in being "stricter" than the Word. Balancing our understanding of the rightful prescriptions of Scripture with a sensitivity to our own proclivities for reading into the text can make it tricky at times. While the true teaching of Paul must be honored, denying biblically legitimate roles to women is both foolish and sinful. At this stage, it will take a bit more to convince me that woman may not contribute to theological discussion through message boards OR the writing of commentaries.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 15, 2008)

Of course, the above comments assume that these folk are actually being "stricter than the Word", and that a denial of this role to women constitutes a foolish sin. in my opinion, and contra to Lane, debating the meaning of Scripture is not a "grand old tradition" that is open to the general public, but a privilege of the scholars and theologians of the Church, which would necessarily exclude women commentators. Notice that Jobes not only writes commentaries, but obtained an M.Div. instead of an M.A. at WTS, a degree traditionally limited to ordained ministers. I do not think that is an insignificant point. 

I do not limit Paul's instruction regarding the roles of women strictly to the public and instruction (nor do I believe would he), but extend them to all relationships and functions among believers, wherever they are to meet. I do not approve of having women moderators correct men in theological discussion, and have mentioned this in the past. So call me a Neanderthal, but I do believe that even in relatively conservative Presbyterian circles, the culture has exerted its influence in ways that many of us have failed to perceive. I am hard pressed to find any significant commentaries written by women prior to this century, and I do not think that it was because they were too busy at home nursing their babies, it was because the Church had no place for women seeking to instruct the Church. That is what the writers of commentaries are engaged in, whether it is in an indirect manner or not, and that is why I am opposed to women such as Jobes and others taking that role upon themselves, whether it is claimed that they have written stellar commentaries or not. I know some women who can give a rousing sermon, but that doesn't mean that they are justified in doing so, nor that they should be given ear.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 15, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Was Priscilla right to instruct Apollos?



Which leads to a related question: this passage in Acts is descriptive; does that make it prescriptive? Are historically descriptive biblical passages normative for doctrine just as are more obviously didactive ones?


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 15, 2008)

*Surely not.*



bookslover said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Was Priscilla right to instruct Apollos?
> ...


Not unless we're going to believe that men rushing out to grab a wife like the Benjaminites (sp?) did in Judges 21 is an acceptable thing to do. ;^)

One must tread warily when basing doctrinal upon descriptive passages. That's what polygamists do, after all.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 15, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Of course, the above comments assume that these folk are actually being "stricter than the Word", and that a denial of this role to women constitutes a foolish sin.



Quite the contrary, Adam. My comments do not "assume" that anyone is being "stricter than the Word." And, I only said that denying someone a "biblically legitimate" role was "foolish and sinful." That is almost definitionally true (i.e., if it is truly "biblically legitimate).

In the discussion over what constitutes a biblically legitimate role for men and women, you can find both legalists and latitudinarians. I want to be neither. May a woman be superintendent of the children's ministry at church? If no, then we ought to oppose it regardless of the cultural pressures. If yes, then we would be "foolish and sinful" to prohibit such use of gifts. Lane and I seem to feel that there is no abuse of biblical roles for a woman to write a book. Since the Bible does not address this issue directly, we are all forced to extrapolate from prescriptions and principles. In doing so, we will disagree.

As to your point about the M.A. vs. the M.Div., many students are counseled to take the M.Div. track EVEN if their goal is a Ph.D. In my own family, my wife and a daughter took the M.A. from seminary while I took the M.Div. track. And, btw, neither has expressed any interest in exercising authority over a man.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 16, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, the above comments assume that these folk are actually being "stricter than the Word", and that a denial of this role to women constitutes a foolish sin.
> ...




Sorry, I don't really think that it is quite the contrary, having understood your basic position from other posts.

The WCF states that "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture. What this means is that God's counsel on this particular aspect of our faith and life in the Church may certainly be decided upon by a deduction of the relevant Biblical data by the Church; it should be able to be clearly answered from examining Scripture, and for nearly 2000 years in the life of the Church it has been decided as such. I really don't care that you disagree with me, you should take that up with the rest of the saints from the vast bulk of our history before the 20th century.

My point about the M.Div. was, again, addressing the issue from a churchly standpoint, and not a pragmatic one, as you have done. Does the university set the agenda, or the Church? If the Church says that the M.Div. is for ordinands, then I really don't care what the university may desire, and I'm sure that Jobes could have gotten her Ph.D at WTS w/o being pressured to take the M.Div. for it anyway. Of course, since Baptist fellowships have a pretty blatant disregard for the broader church as a judicial body, I guess that this may pass some by.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 16, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Sorry, I don't really think that it is quite the contrary, *having understood your basic position from other posts*.
> 
> I *really don't care that you disagree with me*, you should take that up with the rest of the saints from the vast bulk of our history before the 20th century.
> 
> ...






Fair enough. Being part of a group having a "pretty blatant disregard for the broader church" so that these finer points just "pass some by," I yield.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 16, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I don't really think that it is quite the contrary, *having understood your basic position from other posts*.
> ...



Yet another victory chalked up to the fine art of gentle persuasion


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 16, 2008)

bookslover said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Was Priscilla right to instruct Apollos?
> ...



The context seems to indicate it was a positive thing.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 16, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



Yes, but they interpret the Bible in such a way that it contradicts itself.


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 16, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The context seems to indicate it was a positive thing.



In these matters we need to proceed conservatively, it is not clear what her role was and so we need to refrain from deducing and constructing an argument from such a minor comment. 

I do not use commentaries written by women because they are, in my use, a teaching aid.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 16, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > The context seems to indicate it was a positive thing.
> ...



"He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, *they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately*." (Acts 18:26)

It is difficult to read that and say that Priscilla was not, in some sense, instructing him, and that this was not a good thing in the context.


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 16, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> It is difficult to read that and say that Priscilla was not, *in some sense*, instructing him, and that this was not a good thing in the context.



You have illustrated my point for me, we are unable to know for sure what that "in some sense" is. Is my mother allowed to instruct me and teach me? Of course. Does that therefore mean she is allowed to write commentaries to teach academics, pastors, seminary students and the laity? It does not follow.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 16, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > It is difficult to read that and say that Priscilla was not, *in some sense*, instructing him, and that this was not a good thing in the context.
> ...



So would it be wrong for your mother to write down her instruction and publish it so that others could read it?

Having said that, I am not 100% keen on women writing commentaries myself, but find it difficult to argue that it is totally unbiblical.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Apr 16, 2008)

As far as the question being "yay" or "nay", the answer is "nay" from this corner.


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 16, 2008)

*Well, yes, but everyone thinks that about everyone else.*



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Yes, but they interpret the Bible in such a way that it contradicts itself.


Egalitarians are convinced complementarians are doing that WRT Galatians 3:28, for instance. Arminians believe Calvinists do this, Calvinists say no, it's the Arminians who are doing it, and so on.

Paedobaptists say credobaptists are interpreting the Bible in a contradictory manner, and credobaptists hit that ball right back at them.

In other words,, you're technically correct, but since it applies to every one of us, one way or the other, as a distinguishing mark it's not very helpful. ;^)


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 16, 2008)

*Actually, I doubt anyone would argue against her right to WRITE one.*



AV1611 said:


> Is my mother allowed to instruct me and teach me? Of course. Does that therefore mean she is allowed to write commentaries to teach academics, pastors, seminary students and the laity? It does not follow.


Assembling one's thoughts on a book of Scripture in a cogent manner and writing them down is surely an excellent exercise.

It's not the writing that is a potential problem, I wouldn't think, no matter how conservative one is, but rather the publishing of the work aimed at a particular target market.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 16, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but they interpret the Bible in such a way that it contradicts itself.
> ...



Well I suppose that is why we need good exegetical commentaries in order to refute them?


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 16, 2008)

*LOL!!! Good point.*



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Gryphonette said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...


Ya got me there. Good return.


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 16, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> > This is a good question and one I have pondered a lot myself, especially considering the amount of writing I do which usually contains some instruction or at least application of the Scripture. For the record, when I set out to write, it is genearlly not with the intent of instructing or teaching, but rather adding a perspective or sharing what the Lord has taught me in His Word and through years of walking with Him. Do I consider that to be authoritative? No.
> ...



Well, what if a non-Merarite Hebrew wrote an instruction manual on the proper assembly and disassembly of the tabernacle, and yet was not allowed to participate in the use of that manual? Would that be analogous?


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 16, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> It's not the writing that is a potential problem...but rather the publishing of the work aimed at a particular target market.



Exactly.


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 16, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> So would it be wrong for your mother to write down her instruction and publish it so that others could read it?



If it was to be used within the SPHERE of the home then it would be ok but commentaries of the variety we are speaking of are not written for that but are rather tools for teaching the Church and that women are not allowed to do.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 16, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Of course, the above comments assume that these folk are actually being "stricter than the Word", and that a denial of this role to women constitutes a foolish sin. in my opinion, and contra to Lane, debating the meaning of Scripture is not a "grand old tradition" that is open to the general public, but a privilege of the scholars and theologians of the Church, which would necessarily exclude women commentators. Notice that Jobes not only writes commentaries, but obtained an M.Div. instead of an M.A. at WTS, a degree traditionally limited to ordained ministers. I do not think that is an insignificant point.
> 
> I do not limit Paul's instruction regarding the roles of women strictly to the public and instruction (nor do I believe would he), but extend them to all relationships and functions among believers, wherever they are to meet. I do not approve of having women moderators correct men in theological discussion, and have mentioned this in the past. So call me a Neanderthal, but I do believe that even in relatively conservative Presbyterian circles, the culture has exerted its influence in ways that many of us have failed to perceive. I am hard pressed to find any significant commentaries written by women prior to this century, and I do not think that it was because they were too busy at home nursing their babies, it was because the Church had no place for women seeking to instruct the Church. That is what the writers of commentaries are engaged in, whether it is in an indirect manner or not, and that is why I am opposed to women such as Jobes and others taking that role upon themselves, whether it is claimed that they have written stellar commentaries or not. I know some women who can give a rousing sermon, but that doesn't mean that they are justified in doing so, nor that they should be given ear.



I can certainly understand where you are coming from, and I have thought of these issues myself in wondering about this issue. What eventually decided me in favor of using commentaries written by women is that I am not obliged to believe one word of anything that they write. What they write is an opinion. That is certainly how commentaries are viewed today by almost all scholars. By your argument, if women are not allowed to write, then neither should they discuss theology with men, lest men get some ideas from women, and use those ideas. The structure is precisely the same. By your argument, a pastor's wife should never read and critique her husband's sermon, lest she be exercising authority over him. I have my wife read every single sermon before I preach it, in order to know what might be potentially confusing. She catches typos, and asks me about certain theological questions, and suggests lines of practical application, all extremely helpful to me. She sees that role as her way of helping me do my job. I don't have to take her suggestions (and sometimes I don't). I see that as precisely parallel to what a commentary is doing. A commentary is a help. I do not believe that a woman belongs in the pulpit or in teaching Sunday School to men, or in the office of elder (or deacon, for that matter). I hope that we can see that both these positions respect the male leadership role in the church.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 16, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, the above comments assume that these folk are actually being "stricter than the Word", and that a denial of this role to women constitutes a foolish sin. in my opinion, and contra to Lane, debating the meaning of Scripture is not a "grand old tradition" that is open to the general public, but a privilege of the scholars and theologians of the Church, which would necessarily exclude women commentators. Notice that Jobes not only writes commentaries, but obtained an M.Div. instead of an M.A. at WTS, a degree traditionally limited to ordained ministers. I do not think that is an insignificant point.
> ...




I appreciate your thoughts, and would agree with you regarding general theological conversation, or having one's wife provide feedback on a sermon, as both of those are solicited and informal. I'm less inclined to discuss theology with a woman who is being assertive and attempting to "school" me on a particular point, but that may still be the Neanderthal coming out in me.

I think where we differ is in regards to how we view the nature of a commentary. I have a difficult time, when defining some of the boundaries of this issue, regarding them as anything other than teaching authorities. They are works put out by "authorities" (since not just anyone will be published w/o proper credentials) to be used by the community of the Church for the purpose of teaching those within the Church. I wouldn't disregard them as authorities just because we are free to disregard faulty conclusions that may be found therein, since I have no problem with anyone disregarding a foolish statement that their pastor may make from the pulpit as well! 

Now I realize that with some of the more left leaning academic works that their authors probably would not see their role as such, and I also make a slight distinction between one who is an "academic authority" and one who is an authority within the body of Christ, although the two roles will often overlap. However, coming from the position that these works are meant to teach the Church and that they are a teaching authority of sorts, I have a hard time using them. I also think that my hesitance in using them comes from a reluctance to see this practice continued to be recognized from within the Church. I do not want it passed by as a normal and continuing practice within Christendom (although I am sure that in our current age of pragmatism within both the Church and the academy that my boycott will have minimal effect). I actually have an easier time employing a commentary written by an unbelieving Jewish scholar who is a man, than I do by a believing Christian scholar who is a woman. At least he is writing in unbelief, while I feel that as a sister in Christ, the woman should have a little better understanding of what she is doing. 

So in the end, I think our difference comes down to how we view the role of commentaries in the life of the Church, and not our position, in practice, regarding the conversational role of women in the Church. Feel free to correct me if I've missed something though.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 16, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > So would it be wrong for your mother to write down her instruction and publish it so that others could read it?
> ...



But is writing a commentary - which no one is forced to read - in the same league as a women preaching, which is definitely usurping the role of a man.

For instance, if Anne Ivy (sorry Anne, you were the first name came into my head ) writes about what she thinks a Bible verse teaches on this board, she is giving us a commentary on the verse, however, it is a bit of a stretch to say that she is usurping the role of a man in teaching.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 16, 2008)

Archlute said:


> I appreciate your thoughts, and would agree with you regarding general theological conversation, or having one's wife provide feedback on a sermon, as both of those are solicited and informal. I'm less inclined to discuss theology with a woman who is being assertive and attempting to "school" me on a particular point, but that may still be the Neanderthal coming out in me.
> 
> I think where we differ is in regards to how we view the nature of a commentary. I have a difficult time, when defining some of the boundaries of this issue, regarding them as anything other than teaching authorities. They are works put out by "authorities" (since not just anyone will be published w/o proper credentials) to be used by the community of the Church for the purpose of teaching those within the Church. I wouldn't disregard them as authorities just because we are free to disregard faulty conclusions that may be found therein, since I have no problem with anyone disregarding a foolish statement that their pastor may make from the pulpit as well!
> 
> ...



Very interesting thoughts. We seem to agree that women are not to exercise authority in the church over men, but disagree as to whether commentaries constitute churchly authority. I think we can get at this question from a logical standpoint by using the argument of the beard: how many hairs does a man have to have before he has a beard? This fits right in with other PB discussions.  If we say 1000, then is 999 a beard? Similarly with regard to a woman's "authority." How much authority does she have to have before it is too much? I would argue that the dividing line is in church office, and exercising the offices of church office. But this implies, does it not, that the woman is actually in the physical church, exercising these forbidden activities? 

Now, I fully grant that a commentary written by a woman could be used in an inappropriate manner. But then, so could any commentary. You seem to see a commentary's authority as at least somewhat overlapping with churchly authority (though you clearly distinguish between them). I am not convinced of that point. What do we mean when we say "churchly authority?" Does it not have to be actual in-the-church authority being exercised? If it is in the home, it is not the same as the church (though there are many parallels). If it is in the workplace, it is not in the church. If it is in the academy, it is not the same as the church.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 16, 2008)

I've got to head out for the day, so I'll just leave you with this - if a woman has even one hair on her chin I think that she has an obligation to shave, regardless of what one wants to call it 

On a more serious note, I do recognize that I prefer a broader view of church authority than some Protestants, and see it extending throughout the relationships and interaction of believers and governing their teaching materials/conversations/etc outside of the worship service, as well as within. I may flesh that out later if desired, but I'm off for now.


----------

