Rachel Miller’s Beyond Authority and Submission

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's great that there are books like this.

Alexander, did you learn anything from your mother? Could she still teach you anything today? It's wrong to take a text and apply it beyond its lawful bound.

RGM isn't taking a church office or rising to lead worship. Those are Paul's concerns, and not whether it was wrong for Priscilla to educate Apollos, Act.18:26--a necessary conclusion, if your interpretation of 1Tim.2:12 stands.

It is important to be strict and stringent upon the dictates of Scripture. It is also important not to encroach (esp. with threats of divine sanction) on Christian liberty.

Aquila and Priscilla counselled him privately ("took him unto them"). It was not a public correction or teaching, which is what this book is, but private as that was the only way it would have been proper for Priscilla to correct him. That is clear from the text and is the view of the godly interpreters of the past.

Scripture also speaks to the teaching mothers give their children so this example of yours also fails. Yes one can continue to learn (in private conversation) from one's mother and other women. But not in this public manner in which a woman seeks to teach the church at large.

There is nothing in 1 Timothy 2:12 about office bearers or leading worship. It is a general prohibition against women assuming teaching authority in the church and comes in the midst of a passage addressing how men and women are to conduct themselves in the church. Not just office bearers but men and women in general. This book is written by one in the church and its audience is the church at large.

It is not great that there are books like these. First because they teach error and second because they're written by women.

And you know people really need to start justifying their reference to "Christian liberty". Merely invoking it doesn't prove the point. I categorically reject this as a matter of Christian liberty. It is a clear violation of clear Biblical teaching. The disastrous consequences of women usurping male authority in the church are all around us.
 
Last edited:
I would be unwilling, barring strife and discord in the home as a result of her choice. If the husband came to me with a request to help them with the fallout from that choice, it would be appropriate to detect the origin there (if so be) and direct them to a solution grounded in biblical wisdom that helps one see plainly with corrective lenses.

But to assume that discord was certain to come--as if there was a single blueprint for domestic harmony in Scripture, and a key to the ideal marriage and home life--I could not know that. I can come up with variations on your proposed situation that reveal the wife-and-mother as something akin to the Prv.31 woman. Reality comes to expression on a bell-curve. I can warn people of the dangers of a course of action, and pray for God's will, and then wait for the results. Sometimes, stridently directing people where "most people have success" and against this couple's instincts is a terrible pastoral decision.

No doubt, there would be a range of potential outcomes, some better, some worse. I don't think it is possible to tell every woman that would fit in the case as described, that under a current set of social "givens," she must surely fail in her principal task of motherhood. Some women have made this work. Her children rise up today, and call her Blessed. Maybe it isn't quite the typical success story, but neither is prior restraint that won't allow people to make potentially bad but not sinful decisions typically a successful disciplinary strategy.

Simply the desire to have the "sense of accomplishment" and outside "fulfillment in the work place" isn't sinful; it isn't "rebellion against divine order" coming from a woman. Nor is it wrong for her to have the wherewithal to execute a plan to fulfill her desire in a way that does not evidently promote evil. But stubbornness and refusal to face honestly and with a biblical mind problems that could come up--resistance to a needful reevaluation--that is Proverbial, blameworthy folly. But it isn't unique to a woman's constitution. It is a human failing.
Brother, thank you for your candid response. I am currently taken up with preparations for this Lord's day, as I'm sure you are as well. But I do intend to engage with you further. Until, then have a blessed Lord's day!
 
How about a "house husband" or stay-at-home dad where the wife is the breadwinner? I'm not referring to cases of disability or where the husband can't find a job but to cases such as her being able to make more money.

I think I may have read something on her blog a while back that suggested that this wasn't necessarily wrong, but I couldn't find it when I checked earlier today.
 
Aquila and Priscilla counselled him privately
You're moving the goalposts. And you're proposing "private" in a way that makes the great majority of other business "public;" that's not even a sense of "privately" which is relevant. Was it "private" because just the three of them? Would four make it public? Neither do we know if there was only the three; but that the setting was removed from the synagogue--an instance of official space, where crowds assemble for human interactions under various rules. I.e, it was comparatively private, and that's all the notice testifies to.

But not in this public manner in which a woman seeks to teach the church at large.
So, your mother can still teach the adult you, but no other woman; and Mom better mind her speech to you on the street? Here you use "public" as a synonym for "wide open and indiscriminate." Priscilla is still indicted, since she wasn't Apollos' mother; as well as any book written by a woman, if it doesn't clearly advertise that men should steer clear.

Most business is private in nature even when large numbers are involved, except for official business which is public in nature. Reading a book is practically the definition of a private communication, one-on-one and repeated many times over. Moreover, the author cannot compel even one person to read his/her book. A typical book lacks intrinsic or imputed authority.

There is nothing in 1 Timothy 2:12 about office bearers or leading worship. It is a general prohibition against women assuming teaching authority in the church and comes in the midst of a passage addressing how men and women are to conduct themselves in the church. Not just office bearers but men and women in general. This book is written by one in the church and its audience is the church at large.
Actually, 1Timothy is named one of the Pastoral epistles because it is written to an office bearer, and according to Paul's programmatic statement in 3:15, his purpose is particularly so that Pastor Timothy will know how to conduct himself in the house of God. The matter before and after is geared toward Timothy's duties under several areas of oversight entrusted to him.

1Tim.2:12 is embedded in a chapter dealing with worship behaviors; and in this way the passage is not only linguistically parallel but thematically parallel to 1Cor.14 (N.B. v34). And 2:11-15 falls immediately prior to the the discussion of church office bearers. So, I believe I am on good ground (with numerous solid commentary on my side) when I reiterate that Paul's prohibition on women speaking/teaching in the church has specific reference to the official, authoritative proclamation of truth by the church, principally in worship.

A person does not have to be an officer bearer to know the truth or have skill to teach it where opportune. Nor is this gift exclusive to the male sex (as already noted) or its exercise by women stifled in general. But only restricted in a specific context; whereas, it seems you understand it is allowed only in a specific context. 1Cor.14:34, where (pace 1Tim.2:12) it is explicitly stated, "your women keep silent in the churches," helps inform the interpretation here (and vice versa) so we see the apostles do not prevent women's speech in "any setting that conceivably falls under the heading of church." But that they do not usurp the teaching office of the church in its official exercise--especially worship.

Publishing a Christian book is not usurping the teaching office of the church in its official exercise by any means; and it is especially not worship. Unless you believe it is the right of the church to suppress publication (i.e. censorship) or to own certain rights of lawful publications that purport to be Christian (akin to Rome's imprimatur), then authoring a book--even a Christian book--is a free act belonging to Christians in general, nor restricted to one sex or the other. A book's success is measured mostly by its sales and by cumulative judgment of its content. God will judge its worth.

I am not ashamed to thank God for all the women who have educated me in various ways--starting with my godly mother, continued by teachers in Sunday School and Christian grade school, especially carried on by my wife for longer time now than my mother; and since adulthood, one and another wise women (2Sam.20:16) in person and in print. None of them to my knowledge would ever admit themselves to ordination authority; so they demonstrated their respect of Scripture.

And you know people really need to start justifying their reference to "Christian liberty". Merely invoking it doesn't prove the point. I categorically reject this as a matter of Christian liberty. It is a clear violation of clear Biblical teaching. The disastrous consequences of women usurping male authority in the church are all around us.
Most challenges to Christian liberty are not baldfaced additions to divine prohibitions and prescriptions, but begin with selective appeal to particular Scripture texts. Hostility to alcohol consumption is one of the most well-known. Certain texts are chosen, and given a particular interpretation and weight; other interpretations are quashed, other texts ignored or minimized. We should regard such tendency as legalist, fundamentalist, or both.

Christian liberty is no minor category. Machen's dictum is true: "Those who begin by forbidding what the Scripture's permit, will end by permitting what the Scriptures forbid." Therefore, we should take seriously those who claim that our habits have taken the force of law, even if in the end we don't agree with them that those things are merely habits, and not law. We must prove once again that they are law, not habit; or else admit that we need reformation.
 
You're moving the goalposts. And you're proposing "private" in a way that makes the great majority of other business "public;" that's not even a sense of "privately" which is relevant. Was it "private" because just the three of them? Would four make it public? Neither do we know if there was only the three; but that the setting was removed from the synagogue--an instance of official space, where crowds assemble for human interactions under various rules. I.e, it was comparatively private, and that's all the notice testifies to.

So, your mother can still teach the adult you, but no other woman; and Mom better mind her speech to you on the street? Here you use "public" as a synonym for "wide open and indiscriminate." Priscilla is still indicted, since she wasn't Apollos' mother; as well as any book written by a woman, if it doesn't clearly advertise that men should steer clear.

Most business is private in nature even when large numbers are involved, except for official business which is public in nature. Reading a book is practically the definition of a private communication, one-on-one and repeated many times over. Moreover, the author cannot compel even one person to read his/her book. A typical book lacks intrinsic or imputed authority.

Actually, 1Timothy is named one of the Pastoral epistles because it is written to an office bearer, and according to Paul's programmatic statement in 3:15, his purpose is particularly so that Pastor Timothy will know how to conduct himself in the house of God. The matter before and after is geared toward Timothy's duties under several areas of oversight entrusted to him.

1Tim.2:12 is embedded in a chapter dealing with worship behaviors; and in this way the passage is not only linguistically parallel but thematically parallel to 1Cor.14 (N.B. v34). And 2:11-15 falls immediately prior to the the discussion of church office bearers. So, I believe I am on good ground (with numerous solid commentary on my side) when I reiterate that Paul's prohibition on women speaking/teaching in the church has specific reference to the official, authoritative proclamation of truth by the church, principally in worship.

A person does not have to be an officer bearer to know the truth or have skill to teach it where opportune. Nor is this gift exclusive to the male sex (as already noted) or its exercise by women stifled in general. But only restricted in a specific context; whereas, it seems you understand it is allowed only in a specific context. 1Cor.14:34, where (pace 1Tim.2:12) it is explicitly stated, "your women keep silent in the churches," helps inform the interpretation here (and vice versa) so we see the apostles do not prevent women's speech in "any setting that conceivably falls under the heading of church." But that they do not usurp the teaching office of the church in its official exercise--especially worship.

Publishing a Christian book is not usurping the teaching office of the church in its official exercise by any means; and it is especially not worship. Unless you believe it is the right of the church to suppress publication (i.e. censorship) or to own certain rights of lawful publications that purport to be Christian (akin to Rome's imprimatur), then authoring a book--even a Christian book--is a free act belonging to Christians in general, nor restricted to one sex or the other. A book's success is measured mostly by its sales and by cumulative judgment of its content. God will judge its worth.

I am not ashamed to thank God for all the women who have educated me in various ways--starting with my godly mother, continued by teachers in Sunday School and Christian grade school, especially carried on by my wife for longer time now than my mother; and since adulthood, one and another wise women (2Sam.20:16) in person and in print. None of them to my knowledge would ever admit themselves to ordination authority; so they demonstrated their respect of Scripture.

Most challenges to Christian liberty are not baldfaced additions to divine prohibitions and prescriptions, but begin with selective appeal to particular Scripture texts. Hostility to alcohol consumption is one of the most well-known. Certain texts are chosen, and given a particular interpretation and weight; other interpretations are quashed, other texts ignored or minimized. We should regard such tendency as legalist, fundamentalist, or both.

Christian liberty is no minor category. Machen's dictum is true: "Those who begin by forbidding what the Scripture's permit, will end by permitting what the Scriptures forbid." Therefore, we should take seriously those who claim that our habits have taken the force of law, even if in the end we don't agree with them that those things are merely habits, and not law. We must prove once again that they are law, not habit; or else admit that we need reformation.

You dodge the issue. The godly commentators of the past are quite clear on what occurred when Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos aside. Why should I follow your interpretation?

The rest of what you said is just obfuscation. You know full well the difference between public teaching and private counselling/conversation. You have already admitted in this thread that your view has moved from the conservative to the liberal position. This is evident.
 
Theology Gals: Are Women More Easily Deceived? https://strivingforeternity.org/theologygals-129/

It appears that Rachel will be the new co-host of theology gals, and they will be devoting some of the upcoming episodes on topics from the book. This episode is one of those. In deference to bookslover, it is not directly a review of the book itself, but I think can still provide insights on the orientation of the author towards topics that are addressed in the book.
 
You dodge the issue. The godly commentators of the past are quite clear on what occurred when Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos aside. Why should I follow your interpretation?

The rest of what you said is just obfuscation. You know full well the difference between public teaching and private counseling/conversation. You have already admitted in this thread that your view has moved from the conservative to the liberal position. This is evident.
You didn't like my exegetical response, so to you it's a "dodge." Fine, you are redefining and restricting terms all over the place to suit your own position. You could reject/accept my handling of the text for various reasons; I'm not that concerned about what you conclude. But there should be a sober reply to points you raised that allow godly readers to sift for gold.

You referenced no commentator in particular, so there's no exegesis good or bad to interact with. No one knows if you are reading whomever you think supports what you wrote in a neutral or a tendential manner. Vague claims to stalwart support don't fix bad or missing argumentation.

As for addressing your posts in partem and at some length, that you dismiss the effort as pretense is telling, but not surprising. It is an expected response to challenges given to what is "obviously true," whether it really is or not.

There is a difference between public teaching and private counseling, but you and I think that a certain species of thing fits in the opposite category.

You call my views "the liberal position," because you have reserved the term "the conservative position" to exactly describe what you think, subject I) subpoints a) b) c) and d). Doesn't work that way. There is no single "conservative" or "liberal" position.

A fundamentalist attitude identifies the very precise views to hold on that, this, and eventually many subjects; and renders every slight deviation from the current Very Important Topic "defection from the truth," and usually liberal.

My views on Scripture hermeneutics would probably be judged as more-or-less fundamentalist today by most interpreters across the spectrum, until arrival at my fellow Reformed-types. Only the Traditionalist Fundamentalist would regard me as a fellow-traveler with "the liberals."

I've admitted to never being as rigid as some others whose category-views I once was able to subscribe. And I admit that today I will not subscribe to them, because they are become a false litmus test for careful (conservative) handling of Scripture; and because I'm convinced that my older, comfortable views were more traditional than strictly exegetical.

I'm more constrained now by Scripture to my views than I was before.
 
The whole church is to Christ as female to male. Surely this is one of the most substantial reasons why ordained, representative-of-Christ offices should be filled by men. It's not about men being unable to learn anything valuable from women in spiritual matters so much as about how even men are part of 'the bride' when it comes to the head of the church, Christ.

I've mentioned elsewhere that there is an invitation to discipleship in John first by Jesus himself (1:38,39), then by one male disciple to one another (1:46), and then from a woman to men (4:28,29): 'come and see'. The first person besides the prophet John the baptist in his vision of the descending Spirit who says 'I have seen' in witness of Christ is Mary Magdalene (20:18) -- who has seen the risen Lord, and has been commissioned by him to go tell her brothers something from his mouth. Only the best news ever which they did not yet know.

Note that in Proverbs 8 and 9, wisdom is depicted as a woman outside of her home -- crying out to simple men on the streets. The foolish woman is doing the same (Proverbs 9:13-18). They've both prepared feasts. It's not in the public address to men or the fact they are offering wares that the difference lies. The difference is that the foolish woman's commodities are stolen and can only be eaten in secret. Certainly there is a symbolism to all of this. So I note especially that there was not anything in the female constitution that disqualified a female figure from being the symbol of sound instruction for men in OT times. In somewhat more recent days -- Boethius made Philosophy a woman.

I don't want to argue this or other points raised here which have already been discussed well by Pastor Bruce -- and I don't know much about Ms. Miller's writings in any case -- so will leave my observations there. But I increasingly think wise people would take truth gladly to heart anywhere they came across it, even if the creature relating it were not given the dignity of the image of God, but were only a talking donkey.
 
You didn't like my exegetical response, so to you it's a "dodge." Fine, you are redefining and restricting terms all over the place to suit your own position. You could reject/accept my handling of the text for various reasons; I'm not that concerned about what you conclude. But there should be a sober reply to points you raised that allow godly readers to sift for gold.

You referenced no commentator in particular, so there's no exegesis good or bad to interact with. No one knows if you are reading whomever you think supports what you wrote in a neutral or a tendential manner. Vague claims to stalwart support don't fix bad or missing argumentation.

The godly commentators I was referencing are Henry, Gill and Poole. A consistent interpretation across these three effectively makes such an interpretation the most trustworthy unless very good reasons are given against. I haven't heard such reasons. I have read vague reasoning such as:

"In my opinion, based on what I've learned, I don't think married women in general like "being in the workforce," when they would rather be with and raising their offspring unencumbered."

This is not reasoning from Scripture nor from Nature but from anecdotes which are disproven by society at large where many women are happy to work even when they have children. Or just kill their babies and save themselves any inconvenience whatsoever. Furthermore what women want isn't really relevant. The consistent example of godly women in Scripture is that they were submissive to their husband's rule, they were not "out in the world" working the way women and mothers are today and they did not teach. Obviously with the nature of society and the economy back then women were involved in "work" but women out working in the family's field isn't analogous to having a career outside the home today.

As for addressing your posts in partem and at some length, that you dismiss the effort as pretense is telling, but not surprising. It is an expected response to challenges given to what is "obviously true," whether it really is or not.

There is a difference between public teaching and private counseling, but you and I think that a certain species of thing fits in the opposite category.

I did not dismiss it as pretense but as "dodging" and "obfuscation" because of your reducing the argument down to silly examples such as my mother talking to me in the house or on the street. This is absurd because you know full well there is a difference between issuing to the public what one considers to be an authoritative teaching on religious matters on the one hand, and private conversation between Christians on the other. When Christians have a conversation together that is Christians speaking one with another about Christ and is very good. When I choose to publish a book in order to teach what Scripture says on a particular point, or to exegete Scripture that is assuming to myself a teaching authority. It is saying that my teaching will benefit the church and therefore it should be widely disseminated. One does not teach publicly, write a book, host a podcast if one does not think one has something to say to the Christian church at large. If one does not think one has a gift of teaching.

A difference between, say puritan board and a podcast is that there is interaction on puritan board. It's discussion, conversation. It's a two way system. On a podcast it is one way. There may be a discussion on podcast but that reinforces the point: these two or more people discussing the topic have something to say that you the listener should listen to and you're not part of the discussion because you don't have something to say. (James White is actually a very good example of this. He's quite explicit that his show and debates are teaching and that the random audience member doesn't have a right to interact or that their opinion is of the same worth as his. For example he has been very dismissive of questions from the audience at his debates and would happily forego them altogether.) A book is one way. What is said on a podcast or in a book is a statement, a declaration. When a theologian writers his systematic theology he's not putting it forward as an opinion to be argued over and edited or retracted. He's offering it as his definitive interpretation and exegesis of Scripture. Books on doctrine and theology are of that nature. (Blogs often have comments sections but a lot don't. A lot of Christian blogs, indeed, don't allow for comments or moderate the comments quite strictly.)

Modern discourse today has become very informal but that should not mean we begin to blur the lines. What is the difference between a woman hosting a podcast teaching doctrine, or writing a book teaching doctrine and a woman teaching systematic theology at a seminary? Take away all the window dressing of titles and an office it is the same fundamental activity: teaching the church. Or maybe you think we should have women teaching our ministers in seminary? Or to use the example mentioned in the podcast: would it be ok for a woman to be elected President of the SBC? It's not an office. (I don't know the specific rules here but certainly on the podcast they suggest that it would technically be possible for a woman to be elected.)

To clarify: I am talking about teaching specifically. The church has greatly benefited from biographies, autobiographies and diaries of godly women. But biographies are not teaching. If a minister stood up in the pulpit and told the life story of a godly Christian we would not think he had performed his duty of preaching. The book under consideration falls under the teaching category. It is concerned with doctrine and exegesis. These are not the realms for Christian women writers.

If Paul's prohibition of women teaching is restricted to not holding office in the local congregation does that mean Paul would have been happy for women to teach theology at a seminary (obviously being anachronistic)? To go around the churches instructing in doctrine to the men and women? Effectively performing the role of an Apostle just without the title? Does such a picture in any way harmonise with Paul's general teaching on women? Of course not.

What teaching of women do we have preserved in Scripture? We have Paul's epistles, Peter's, James', the Gospels, Moses' teaching, the Prophets'. Where is the teaching from the women? If women have so much to offer in this area and it is perfectly in keeping with Scripture for women to teach why don't we have any of it recorded? Why were all the writers of the Bible men? Why, indeed, are women so conspicuously silent throughout Scripture?

(There are obviously a few notable exceptions. But interestingly the books of the Bible most focused on women- Ruth and Esther- are biographical in nature. The lessons we learn from these books are from the lives and experiences of the women, which is in keeping with my earlier point. And then of course we have Deborah who said "I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." So hardly a rallying cry for more women teaching the church!)

The distinction between public and private is not so much whether or not no one else could possibly hear you but i) the nature of the conversation and ii) the intended audience. The conversation between Aquila, Priscilla and Apollos was to offer counsel to Apollos and he alone and was not intended for anyone else to hear, thus saving Apollos from any embarrassment. It may or may not have been in their home, but it was private and that is crucial. It's also worth pointing out that Priscilla did it with her husband, not on her own.

So private conversation is intended only for those involved in the conversation. Public teaching is intended for the church at large, indiscriminately. If Aquila and Priscilla had published a letter to the churches correcting Apollos' teaching would that have been just the same thing as what they actually did? Of course not. Private, spiritual conversation is encouraged for all Christians (though must be done carefully and tactfully); public teaching is restricted to men.

And you said in an earlier post that the success of a book is largely based on sales and God will judge its worth. So does that mean it's fine for any trash to be published under the heading Christianity and cast on the winds for any unsuspecting Christian to pick up and be lead astray? That we shouldn't criticise that? That we should just let it go? It is one of the great tragedies of the Christian world today that most Christian bookshops aren't deserving of the name Christian and have shelves full of the most heinous teaching. I'm not saying there should be a formal publishing house for "the church at large" but we should have Christian publishers we can trust. This book has been published by P&R. Their imprimatur carries weight, especially in our circles.



You call my views "the liberal position," because you have reserved the term "the conservative position" to exactly describe what you think, subject I) subpoints a) b) c) and d). Doesn't work that way. There is no single "conservative" or "liberal" position.

A fundamentalist attitude identifies the very precise views to hold on that, this, and eventually many subjects; and renders every slight deviation from the current Very Important Topic "defection from the truth," and usually liberal.

Terms are relative. There is here clearly a more and a less conservative position. You say it is fundamentalist to identify precise views on a myriad of subjects, and that this is a wrong thing to do. This assumes that there aren't precise views on a myriad of subjects; that holding to precise views on a myriad of subjects is de facto unScriptural or "legalistic". This is the same problem you have with your invoking Christian liberty: you leave it undefined. You didn't define the nature and limits of Christian liberty and you haven't stipulated what subjects we are and aren't allowed to have precise views on. You may say those subjects to which Scripture speaks. But then we would have a difference of opinion on what subjects Scripture speaks. Now some people argue that unless Scripture addresses a specific topic explicitly it is a matter of liberty. I certainly don't hold that view- because it's wrong- and I'm sure you don't. But I also don't think because Scripture does not mention a specific topic explicitly that we cannot have rules about it. So you need to tell me what subjects you have in mind.

But also I don't believe this topic comes under this category. Scripture is clear: women are not to teach in the church. Readers of books, listeners to podcasts are members of the visible chuch. They are joined to specific congregations. They are imbibing the teachings of those who are also members of the visible church and joined to specific congregations. The church is not the four walls around you on a Sabbath and midweek prayer meeting.
 
Last edited:
Mark Jones reviews the book here:

https://mereorthodoxy.com/book-review-beyond-authority-and-submission/

"She’s actually abandoning a lot of classical Reformed thought on male-female anthropology. Other than Miller affirming male ordination, the book comes across as arguing for a form of egalitarianism."

He’s trying to be nice but accuses her of being disingenuous in her handling of things he’s written along with mishandling the teaching of others as well. Keep in mind that Dr Jones was very critical of CBMW’s subordinationist teaching.

When the subordination controversy exploded several years ago, Dr Trueman said that if we end up with a bunch of evangelical Arians in the coming years, the teaching of Bruce Ware et al will be the reason.

The veteran PuritanBoard poster Pilgrim says that if evangelicalism (including some NAPARC denominations) soon becomes egalitarian by and large, including ordaining women to all church offices, the influence of writers like Byrd, Miller and evidently Goligher and Trueman themselves (given their endorsements of these books) will be to blame.

I can’t for the life of me see how their continued stance against the ordination of women is anything but arbitrary and ****horror of horrors**** the product of biblicist proof texting in order to maintain the absolute minimum necessary to be in compliance with their church’s teaching.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I actually have her book on my shelf. Don't know when I will read it, though. On one hand, I actually like much of what she has done. She did a great job exposing Wilson. She did a good job getting the material together so others could rebuke the ESS crowd. Good for her.

On the other hand she unfriended me on Facebook. I think it was because I support Trump.
 
Thanks so much for drawing attention to the Mark Jones review--very helpful. The questions he raises, about her historical account in particular, are concerns I've had based on what I've heard about the book. I'm still planning to read and discuss it with my husband eventually so we can evaluate for ourselves. I'd be interested in your review, Jacob, if and when you get around to it.
 
Thanks so much for drawing attention to the Mark Jones review--very helpful. The questions he raises, about her historical account in particular, are concerns I've had based on what I've heard about the book. I'm still planning to read and discuss it with my husband eventually so we can evaluate for ourselves. I'd be interested in your review, Jacob, if and when you get around to it.
The review seemed fair and balanced. I too would be interested in the thoughts of others who read the book, although I don’t care to buy it myself.
 
"The reader will note that she generally avoids speaking of men and women in unique ways based on their inherent nature because that could lead to certain emotional, physical, and spiritual traits that are unique to each sex – a problem found in pagan literature, according to Miller, but not in the Bible."—Mark Jones

:detective: :scratch:
 
Nailed it!

"Her stated aim is to show how the New Testament radically altered Greco-Roman views on male-female relationships (p. 58). Yet the book gives the impression that she really doesn’t want to discuss the positive aspect of what it means, for example, for a woman to submit to her husband in everything, as Paul commands in Ephesians. We are told what “subjection” passages don’t mean, but the reader is left wondering what they do mean. The book, ironically enough, lives up to its title."—Mark Jones​
 
This has been an interesting discussion.

I think the interesting thing about Bruce's remarks is an appeal to both prudence and liberty as well as a natural law argument about men and women.

By saying that I'm not arguing that this is all Bruce does but he does widen the aperture in a way I believe is Biblically faithful. What do I mean by that? I mean that the Scriptures (especially wisdom) appel to natural law and there is a lot of truth densely packed into wisdom where some people want to treat wisdom as if it can be boiled down to a few basic truths.

Need to know about what women can or can't do? Just quote 1 Tim 2 and that's all you need to know as a Christian. Of course, this kind of folly is not the way that Reformed people have thought through these things for centuries.

What I find fascinating is that Bruce sort of commends Rachel (if I'm not misreading) for a broader argument about not trying to shoehorn all of life into a few Scriptures but it appears (from Jones' and Masters' reviews) that she generalizes and doesn't really deal with natural law arguments and then leaves the key Biblical texts untouched from an exegetical standpoint.

Given the aiming point for her critiques, I can understand why she probably seems unbalanced to some. I remember years ago listening to pretty much all that Doug Wilson had to offer with respect to how he handled the Proverbs and male/female relationships. For those who want to have a cookbook for a happy family and Godly kids with a good vocation, DW offers an explanation on how to specifically apply Proverbs the way he sees them with lots of prescriptive "do's" and "don'ts". Wisdom literature becomes didactic teaching under his tutelage. You know exactly what a man or a woman should do.

The problem is that he manhandles the Scriptures and teaches people who follow this method that something as complicated as life can be solved by removing all the density of Proverbial wisdom into a few easy categories for life and living.

It reminds me years ago when I was learning a Biblical counseling book from a PCA Church and I was shocked at how shallow the answers were to people's problems. Everything and I mean everything, had to have a specific verse attached to it. It didn't matter how much you had to torture context to answer a life problem as long as the verse itself addressed the specific issue.

There's an awful lot of folk wisdom or "personal views" dressed up as "this is what the Bible definitively says about the roles of women."

To my thinking, the problem is the ignoring of natural law and the circumstances of life and living. I see that in the thread where someone is trying to "find the verse" that's going to answer all questions. They'll torture a text to ask whether a woman might be able to write a book about men and women and, if a man happens to read it who is a Christian, then she is bound not to write it. Her whole career (and presumably the careers of every person) are bound up in trying to find the "life verse" that speaks to that issue. This is not a "conservative" view of Scripture but it is a form of casuistry similar to what the Scribes and Pharisees engaged in. Don't worry about how to apply Scripture, there's a Rabbi somewhere who has figured out whether or not "this Book" crosses the line.

Life is way more complicated when you try to create rules from a handful of NT verses that govern Christian life. I'd invite some of you to travel to a market in Korea and ask yourself whether it is appropriate whether this or that Christian woman ought to be selling in the marketplace.

Should my daughter study Engineering? Some will have opinions but I can honestly tell some of you that I would never listen to your advice based on some of the folly spilled in this thread.

If, for instance, she increasingly finds herself in a culture filled with man-children who decide that 30-something is a good time to grow up (or never) ought she just avoid some sort of professional career?

Life is filled with questions that require a Biblical grounding so that we understand the "Body of Divinity" as the Puritans called it. We understand the nature of God, man, sin, salvation (justification, sanctification) and our duties to one another. Even the WLC (written for adults) is not a casuistic list answering whether Sally ought to help Bobby with his homework because (heaven forbid) she's a girl and is better at math than him. It gives the Biblical principle and then counts on the process of applying wisdom to the situation. A lot of life is a blend of these principles and the law of nature that we see all around us.

It sounds like Rachel's book could probably be improved by noting that there are natural law principles of ontology that she appears to be ignoring. While rightly taking aim at the "Rabbis" she could do a better job of more fully integrating a proper view of Scripture with the reality of the differences between men and women. The bottom line is that it what we all need to do. Boiling everything down to life verses demonstrate to men that a person does not have a very good grasp on the Scriptures or life.
 
http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-...Ci1jTiHldSInYOumovgUhpSmMYfYpsovlDFxkDfYhFyw8

Jonathan Master (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is professor of theology and dean of the School of Divinity at Cairn University. He will will assume the presidency of Greenville Seminary in July of 2020. Dr. Master also serves as the Alliance[ of Confessing Evangelicals]'s editorial director, as well as co-host of the Theology on the Go podcast.
“Beyond Authority and Submission spends a great deal of time explaining what, in the author's judgment, authority and submission does not entail. This is to be expected given the title. But almost no effort is given to explaining with any clarity what these biblical concepts actually do mean and what they ought to look like in practice. Once again, this is not to suggest that the author deserves to be criticized for writing a different kind of book. Rather it is to suggest that in failing to offer anything like a positive explanation for the biblical notions of authority and submission - the broad understanding of which she has termed Greco-Roman and Victorian - Miller's book fails to deliver on the promise of the project she did undertake. It would seem that getting beyond authority and submission leaves us with little guidance in our present age.—Jonathan Master
 
What I find fascinating is that Bruce sort of commends Rachel (if I'm not misreading) for a broader argument about not trying to shoehorn all of life into a few Scriptures but it appears (from Jones' and Masters' reviews) that she generalizes and doesn't really deal with natural law arguments and then leaves the key Biblical texts untouched from an exegetical standpoint.

Given the aiming point for her critiques, I can understand why she probably seems unbalanced to some. I remember years ago listening to pretty much all that Doug Wilson had to offer with respect to how he handled the Proverbs and male/female relationships. For those who want to have a cookbook for a happy family and Godly kids with a good vocation, DW offers an explanation on how to specifically apply Proverbs the way he sees them with lots of prescriptive "do's" and "don'ts". Wisdom literature becomes didactic teaching under his tutelage. You know exactly what a man or a woman should do.
Yep. I agree. I haven't read her book yet, its on my to do list. I initially listened because of some of the most bizarre thinking in books and blogs by those now fairly critical (and they are rarely if ever self critical of this point of their theology) of her.
I have found that they are absolutely unable to shake the presupposition that the main God given difference between the sexes is authority, based upon an extrapolation of 1 Tim. 2.
These people then try to ground it from extreme stereotypes that they then claim is essence of either sex and suddenly they become rules with a prooftext. Ex. "Women are emotional neurotic. *LEAP* Ergo, they aren't ever fit to lead." The vast majority of the inductive, while in some places might come from natural law, should have little basis for what a Christian man or woman ought to be as described in the Bible. It strikes me that Mark Driscoll's abhorrent theology of manhood and womanhood has had the last laugh in some sectors of evangelical and reformedom.
 
Need to know about what women can or can't do? Just quote 1 Tim 2 and that's all you need to know as a Christian. Of course, this kind of folly is not the way that Reformed people have thought through these things for centuries.
That's a straw-man. Those taking issue with Miller espouse no such nonsense. This issue is stated fairly by Master:

The result of all this is that Miller presents the Bible's teaching in such a way so as to suggest that the significant distinctions between males and females - apart from how the bodies of each are constructed - lie only in the roles they are given within marriage and especially the church. Even with respect to the family, Miller takes passages which hold up the goodness of the wife's special responsibilities and privileges and minimizes their distinctive home-ward orientation. The instruction in Titus 2:4, which points young women toward the end of loving their husbands and children, is placed next to the ideal of 1 Tim 3:4, which states that elders must "manage their households well." Miller's point in this close juxtaposition is to show, "the Scriptures indicate that both women and men should be inclined 'toward the home.'" In one sense, this is true, but it serves to obscure the proportionality of the instruction to each. Additionally, in this case, the fact remains that the word translated, "manage", given with respect to man's home-ward orientation, simply means, "to lead."

At a broader level, throughout the section on scripture, Miller does not engage with any notion of nature itself as it relates to ontology. In fact, she spends much of the book responding to the notion that there are actual ontological differences between men and women (beyond bodily composition). To be fair, she never promised to engage in natural theology in this book; and perhaps she is opposed to doing so. While it is tedious to criticize an author for failing to write the book she never set out to write, the Bible does appeal to nature at certain key junctures with respect to men and women. Scripture cites pre-Fall created realities when answering fundamental questions about the differences between males and females. These created differences are connected directly and explicitly to questions of authority and submission. Since this plays such a central role in Christian teaching on authority and submission, this might be an area where it would be good for Miller to write further and more clearly.

A think a fair-minded approach to the subject will avoid both the extreme of placing too much emphasis on the ontological differences between the sexes and that of pretending they are nonexistent or irrelevant to the subject of authority and submission.
 
That’s little Peggy March, who recorded the song at age 14. The song was an old French love song, not original to her or her time. I’m not sure why you posted it but it seems like a perfectly reasonable sentiment for a young woman very much in love.
 
These people then try to ground it from extreme stereotypes that they then claim is essence of either sex and suddenly they become rules with a prooftext. Ex. "Women are emotional neurotic. *LEAP* Ergo, they aren't ever fit to lead."
What or who are you reading Trent? I’ve never heard these extreme stereotypes expressed either in conversation or in print. I suppose these views must be out there somewhere if you’ve come across them but they certainly don’t represent the viewpoints held by most conservative Christians.
 
Doesn't the Apostle Paul affirm that women are more easily deceived, as part of his reasoning as to why they should not lead?

"And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became sinner."—1 Timothy 2:14

Paul gives 2 arguments for male headship: (1) Adam was created first, and (2) Eve was deceived.

Though folks in 2019 want to explain it away because it makes them uncomfortable, it seems Paul gives us a clear 2-point argument, and the 2nd point is that women are more easily deceived. I see no way around this interpretation. This statement by Paul appears to give an ontological difference between men and women and grounds male headship in the church as being due to Eve's nature of being more easily deceived.


A representative treatment of this text by one commentary admits that the Church for 2,000 years believed this. But then the writer feels he must contradict the text and church history to make it more palatable:

"Now, most commentators in the history of the church have taken this very simply to mean that women are more vulnerable to deception, and therefore should not be given the responsibility of leading and teaching the church. My guess is, from what I have read and experienced, that women are more vulnerable to deception in some kinds of situations and men are more vulnerable to deception in other kinds of situations."

Notice above how much the author is a slave to his modern Western culture. As are almost all women who write on these verses and try to twist them, saying, for example, that "helpmeet" doesn't really mean a helper at all but a fellow warrior, etc. You almost never hear some teachers mention the submission of wives without the tired reminder that, elsewhere, we are told to submit to one another as well (as if this nullifies the submission of wives to their husbands).

In real life, the tendency for women to be more easily deceived seems to play out in voting, women being bread-and-butter voters for many awful issues such as abortion on demand and open borders.

I fully support treating women well. And I abhor how women are treated in many countries. But I just don't trust writers in 2019 America to get this issue correct.

We may try to make the argument that the early Church's opinion on these verses is irrelevant because they were enslaved to Hellenistic and Roman conceptions of what it means to be male and female. But is America in 2019 any less a slave?

p..s I do support older women teaching younger women. This Biblical command seems largely ignored today.
 
Last edited:
Pergs, you raised in another thread whether 'the woman' being saved in childbearing means that all women have to bear children in order to be proper women, basically (sorry if I'm putting that over-bluntly). You concluded not, because that is not actually what this text or any other says.
No more does it follow that because 'the woman' was deceived all women are more easily deceived.
It would wind up in abuse if you tried to say that the text means all women have to bear children. It winds up in abuse if you try to say that the text means all women are more easily duped.
It says 'the woman' had this particular part in the entrance of sin. Then it goes on to speak about the woman having a particular part in redemption. These are reasons for order in the church that rely on creation (Adam first formed) and redemptive history. And we should not fudge about them.
But it would be fudging about them to say:
Every woman is more easily deceived.
Every woman must bear children in order to be saved.

That is not what the text says.

Jesus is the second Adam, and the church is His bride. I think we're probably supposed to understand things about the church's relation to Him through this teaching about order between male and female in the church.
 
Pergs, you raised in another thread whether 'the woman' being saved in childbearing means that all women have to bear children in order to be proper women, basically (sorry if I'm putting that over-bluntly). You concluded not, because that is not actually what this text or any other says.
No more does it follow that because 'the woman' was deceived all women are more easily deceived.
It would wind up in abuse if you tried to say that the text means all women have to bear children. It winds up in abuse if you try to say that the text means all women are more easily duped.
It says 'the woman' had this particular part in the entrance of sin. Then it goes on to speak about the woman having a particular part in redemption. These are reasons for order in the church that rely on creation (Adam first formed) and redemptive history. And we should not fudge about them.
But it would be fudging about them to say:
Every woman is more easily deceived.
Every woman must bear children in order to be saved.

That is not what the text says.

Jesus is the second Adam, and the church is His bride. I think we're probably supposed to understand things about the church's relation to Him through this teaching about order between male and female in the church.

But for there to be exceptions, doesn't there have to be a general rule?

In general, most women bear children, right? That is one of their roles on this earth, despite the exceptions.
 
Pergs I don't think the passage is giving us a rule of thumb or exceptions. It's giving us an overview of the woman in creation and redemptive history. These are big themes and they are hugely important for what authority means and points us to in the church.
 
I will add my tentative thought here -- throughout Paul's epistles he connects 'Adam' to Christ, and when he suddenly moves to OT female figures like Hagar and Sarah he is thinking in a way that ties into his whole theology and eschatology. I think his switching here to Eve, talking about the 'Woman' (taken from Man, first formed) and the part she played in sin and the promise of a Saviour to her, connects with his whole 'Adam' theology. Creation points us toward new creation.

I think C. S. Lewis says that we are all feminine to His masculinity in That Hideous Strength. The Woman (in the new creation, the church) does need protection from false teaching. The second Adam does that for her. Christ's masculinity is symbolised to his church in male office bearers.
This new creation significance of 'male and female' bears on how we live out male and female especially in those arenas (marriage, church) where we are showing these realities forth.

I understand how the questions of generalisations come in, and how obvious some of them are on the face of things. There is real biological created difference, and that often factors into psychological (for lack of a better word) difference. In general, women are more tender hearted than men and emotion is easier to manipulate. (Yet I can easily think of a number of men who are more emotional than their wives.) In general women are weaker in their physical frame than men, though some women are stronger than their husbands (and some women are very strong!). We have historically been more easily abused in that weakness and tender heartedness. Because of that one -- there should be such caution about false steps here. Leaps with texts can so easily come to making us *less human*, less capable of rational thought or judgment, less allowed to form or express an opinion, etc. These verses have been used that way by Christian men toward their wives and daughters. That is fudging what God has actually said. But it is also in real lives, endangering those that in general, men should care more specially to protect.

Paul can say in Galatians that in Christ, there is no male or female -- and call us not to compete but to love. I think that when we apprehend all that we are heirs of we're able to live out the roles we are called to more lovingly because the focus is not on us, or what we're able to scrape out of this world. It's on Jesus, and maleness we all have in Him (sons and heirs) and femaleness we all are to Him (his bride) and the world to come.

I have probably said much inadequate in all this, and don't wish to become argumentative about it so I won't. :) Just to give a positive explanation of some of what I think Paul is getting at in calling up creation and redemptive history.

Pergy you are a beloved brother and I try to pray for you daily. I hope I didn't sound snarky above -- forgive me if so. I know you how much you value your wife as a wife and mom and also in her insights and training and ability to do highly skilled work beside you in a hard field. Many men aren't treating their wives with that kind of respect, and misinterpreted verses seem to give them a 'right' to the *pride* of being male that one is called to lay aside in Christ. Pride is a root in all of us of so much evil -- definitely in me. Though from what has been said there is much I'd disagree with in Ms. Miller's book -- I can deeply appreciate her concern for that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top