# Women teaching...



## Laura (Sep 4, 2005)

I've only recently started to delve into Reformed teaching on a woman's role in the Church, and though having grown up SBC I've always been conservative in that regard, I still don't understand some of the implications involved in the most conservative stances. I'll just ask one question for now: is it ever right for a woman to publish a book on theological matters? (I'm obviously looking for a little more than a "yes" or a "no," but you choose how much you want to expound on it.)

I know you guys talk about this a lot, and I've learned much by observing such discussion, but I would appreciate your patience if you'd articulate this yet again for an ignorant sister.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2005)

All the women hate me now-- I'm a chauvinist... you don't want to listen to what I say... well, here it goes...

Maybe -- depending on what she is speaking to and the audience. 

Don't you like guys who cannot give simple yes or no answers?


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

Well, mine is not a particularly educated opinion, but I feel that for a woman to publish a book of straight theological teaching would be to assume a role as a teacher in the church. The entire purpose of such a book would be to inform (i.e. teach), and I believe that it is the role of specially trained men in the church to teach doctrines.

However, I don't at the moment see a problem with women writing academic books that apply these teachings. For instance, a woman might write a book that interprets literature from a theologically sound perspective, or she might write a book on history that utilizes a Christian philosophy of history. In fact, if a Christian woman is going to write any kind of scholarly book it needs to be informed by her faith... A Christian historian, male or female, ought not to be able to help writing history that fits with biblical truths, whether this is expressed explicitly or implicitly. I guess there might be some question as to how explicitly the female author might discuss the doctrinal significance of the subject she is writing about, but as I said, I don't think it is a problem unless she writes _for the purpose of teaching doctrine._

One "exception" of sorts would be women writing books for other women on how to be a godly wife and mother, etc. However, this is more of an issue of practice; that is, it is concerned with the application of proper doctrines as they have been taught by men, so this isn't really an exception at all.


----------



## crhoades (Sep 4, 2005)

Could always use pen names like Bob or something. But of course that brings up bearing false witness...


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2005)

There is _female_ stuff related to Christian living with all kinds of hot topics that theological chics can write on... hmmmm.... this sorta stuff...

_The Art of Being a Pastor's Wife_
_The Godly Daughter: Raising Maiden's of Virtue_
_The Christian Woman's Guide to Being Submissive_


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2005)

I don't know maybe -- I could get some attractive, theological know-it-all wife to write my sermons for me-- so I can take a break and be lazy. I'll just refine the gold and give it "authority."


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 4, 2005)

The only role of "teaching" women have in the church is a non-authoritative role prescribed in Titus 2 where they mentor the younger women of the church on how to be Godly women/wives and other matters. Women should never be teaching in the Church building in any capacity, in my opinion. I am all for women's bible studies, etc., but outside of the context of Lord's Day worship.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The only role of "teaching" women have in the church is a non-authoritative role prescribed in Titus 2 where they mentor the younger women of the church on how to be Godly women/wives and other matters. Women should never be teaching in the Church building in any capacity, in my opinion. I am all for women's bible studies, etc., but outside of the context of Lord's Day worship.


----------



## Laura (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> However, I don't at the moment see a problem with women writing academic books that apply these teachings. For instance, a woman might write a book that interprets literature from a theologically sound perspective, or she might write a book on history that utilizes a Christian philosophy of history. In fact, if a Christian woman is going to write any kind of scholarly book it needs to be informed by her faith... A Christian historian, male or female, ought not to be able to help writing history that fits with biblical truths, whether this is expressed explicitly or implicitly. I guess there might be some question as to how explicitly the female author might discuss the doctrinal significance of the subject she is writing about, but as I said, I don't think it is a problem unless she writes _for the purpose of teaching doctrine._


Agreed. Yours sounds like a sufficiently educated opinion to me, but then I suppose you have to take into account my _really_ insufficienty educated opinion...








> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Could always use pen names like Bob or something. But of course that brings up bearing false witness...










> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I don't know maybe -- I could get some attractive, theological know-it-all wife to write my sermons for me-- so I can take a break and be lazy. I'll just refine the gold and give it "authority."


Hahaha. 



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The only role of "teaching" women have in the church is a non-authoritative role prescribed in Titus 2 where they mentor the younger women of the church on how to be Godly women/wives and other matters. Women should never be teaching in the Church building in any capacity, in my opinion. I am all for women's bible studies, etc., but outside of the context of Lord's Day worship.



So you'd agree with Evie that scholarly works written by women from a perspective of faith are okay?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 4, 2005)

I have no problem with learned, wise women of churches writing things for younger women to read. I wouldn't read it, though.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I have no problem with learned, wise women of churches writing things for younger women to read. I wouldn't read it, though.



Of course it would be appropriate for older women to write Christian living advice for women, but what about the examples I used above of applied theology in other scholarly fields?

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 4, 2005)

As long as the women are writing specifically for other women. (Joycie needs to hand her breeches back to her hubby!)

I take a bit of an issue with Kay Arthur (I did enjoy her book Israel, My Beloved though). She writes as an authority in general.

But there are others that write specifically for women. Beth Moore, Elizabeth George, Elizabeth Elliot, Debi Pearl, Martha Peace, Denise Glenn, Genevieve White, Bernadine Bigner Cantrell, Hannah Hunard, Hannah Whithall Smith (I haven't fully read hers yet...so don't quote me!), Catherine Marshall, Mrs. Norman Vincent Peale, and Marjorie Holmes.

(I will admit, I have read most of these women, but a couple are still waiting for me to get to them. However, from what I've seen so far they seem like they will be decent.)

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 5, 2005)

The office of teacher in the Church is a ministerial position. It is not for women, period. See the Westminster Divines on Church government and ministerial positions.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 5, 2005)

Beth Moore teaches from the pulpit in her church.


----------



## Peter (Sep 5, 2005)

1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 

Why can't women teach? Is teaching the right of primogeniture? Is it punishment b/c Eve was deceived? Eve was the federal head of females? possible meaning of gen 3:16? but her submission pre-dates the fall.

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Peter]


----------



## pastorway (Sep 5, 2005)

Aquilla *and Priscilla* taught Apollos........in their home.

*Acts 18*
24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. *When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately*. 

Phillip

[Edited on 9-5-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The office of teacher in the Church is a ministerial position. It is not for women, period. See the Westminster Divines on Church government and ministerial positions.



Yes, of course, but writing an academic book is not holding an office in the Church at all. So is it acceptable?

For example, if something like Peter Leithart's _Miniatures and Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austen_ had been written by a woman, would it be just as valuable for Christian instruction in non-theological areas? Is it acceptable for women to write and publish books in areas that are influenced by theology (as everything is) but outside the scope (subjectwise) of what is taught officially by the church?


----------



## blhowes (Sep 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
> 
> Why can't women teach? Is teaching the right of primogeniture? Is it punishment b/c Eve was deceived? Eve was the federal head of females? possible meaning of gen 3:16? but her submission pre-dates the fall.



Peter,
You ask questions that I've sometimes wondered about, particularly regarding those verses. I figure, as far as teaching in the church goes, its Christ's church and He can choose who He wants in the leadership positions. If He says men should teach (or if he had said women, for that matter) then that's how it should be.

With that in mind, I then have wondered why. It sounds like, in reading the verses, you could conclude that they shouldn't be teaching in the church because, just as Eve was deceived, so women are more inclined to be deceived, and that deception could be reflected in the things they teach or decisions they make. I've heard preaching along those lines. 

That hasn't necessarily been my observation (that women are generally more apt to be deceived then men), but I wonder why Paul linked the idea of Eve's deception with women not teaching in the church.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Beth Moore teaches from the pulpit in her church.



I did not know this. 

In her videos (that go with her Bible Studies) she points out that her studies are for women, that she is not permitted by scripture to teach men, and that if any man if watching her video he is not to take her as having authority over him-instead he is choosing to sit in on her teaching of women.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 6, 2005)

I don't think writing a book should be considered teaching. I think in the context that Paul was speaking, he was explicitly referring to teaching in the form of having a congregation present.

Writing a book while it gives instruction, in no way meets the requirements of the explicit nature of teaching that involves a congregation and a classroom.


----------



## kceaster (Sep 6, 2005)

*Gabriel...*



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I have no problem with learned, wise women of churches writing things for younger women to read. I wouldn't read it, though.



You might want to read it in order to recommend it. My wife is always looking for something good to read. I want to make sure I give her something worthwhile.

Further, we want to ensure that the pulpit is being upheld in the life of the church. If so, while not being too heavy handed, we wouldn't want our ladies or our children reading things that, while they may be permissible, are not beneficial and perhaps teach things contrary to the pulpit. For that matter, we don't want our men reading things like that either.

Mortimer Adler in his book, _How to Read a Book_ states that there are two ways to learn. One is by way of instruction, the other is by way of self-discovery. If books are put into this mix, they can, indeed, teach, because the author is aiding the discovery of the reader. All that to say that many things are teachers. To exclude women from ever teaching a man anything theologically, either experimental or academic is impossible. We have much to learn from everyone. As long as we are clear on the offices and the centrality of the Word preached from which women are excluded, I believe we can learn from anyone and everyone.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Aquilla *and Priscilla* taught Apollos........in their home.
> 
> *Acts 18*
> ...



It is important to note that this teaching took place in the home with her husband actively involved, not in public ("private and personal, nonofficial and nonpublic," OPC _Report of the Committee on Women in Church Office_, 1988). 

Calvin:


> 26. Whom, when Priscilla. By this it appeareth how far Priscilla and Aquila were from the love of themselves, and from envying another man's virtue, in that they deliver those things familiarly and privately to an eloquent man, which he may afterward utter publicly. They excelled not in the same grace wherein he did excel, and, peradventure, they might have been despised in the congregation. Moreover, they most diligently help him, whom they see better furnished as well with eloquence as the use of the Scripture; so that they keep silence, and he alone is heard.
> 
> Again, this was no small modesty which was in Apollos, in that he doth suffer himself to be taught and instructed not only in [by] an handy-craftsman, but also by a woman. He was mighty in the Scripture, and did surpass 10 them; but as touching the accomplishment of the kingdom of Christ, those do polish and trim him who might seem to be scarce fit ministers. Also, we see that at that time women were not so ignorant of the word of God as the Papists will have them; forasmuch as we see that one of. the chief teachers of the Church was instructed by a woman. *Notwithstanding, we must remember that Priscilla did execute this function of teaching at home in her own house, that she might not overthrow the order prescribed by God and nature.*



[Edited on 9-6-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 6, 2005)




----------



## Laura (Sep 6, 2005)

This has been quite helpful - thanks to all who have contributed. I may come back later with more questions. But for now...


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Sep 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Sep 6, 2005)

It seems to me that the whole discussion pivots on the idea that it is all right to do theology outside of the church, apart from its jurisdiction and without the collective concurrence of the whole. Consequently, women are allowed under this set of conditions to do theology apart from the oversight of the church, which gives them the liberty to write anything they want to write and write about anything they want to write about. When men do so they are under a controlling authority that has the power discipline them (I realize this is only generally true in the context of a Reformed Church Government with elders) if what they teach is outside of a confessional stance, which I also understand is increasingly loose. Of course, the seriousness of being published is exponentially enlarged because the reading public then has access to what has been written. This means that the written word has a greater potential to damage the church and its witness. So, how is it any more permissible for a woman to publish a work on a doctrine (teaching) or a theological topic and not be in a position of authority?


----------

