Is Nancy Guthrie Teaching The Bible OK?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree that a maximalist position is wrong as it would preclude women from even so much as commenting on the Puritan Board or ever discussing spiritual matters in front of a man who is not her husband, which is manifestly unbiblical and absurd. Still, the other extreme of a minimalist position is in danger of overlooking "the general rules of the word", to use Westministerian language, when it comes to these issues. Given that women were ordinarily created to be wives and homemakers, is writing books and so forth by women something that we ought to ordinarily encourage? I am not convinced that it is. There may be exceptions to the rule, but surely the general rule of Christian women being wives and homemakers precludes them from doing a lot of things that minimalists think are fine.
 
jw said:
Some may find this perhaps related pastoral word edifying and helpful:

Pastoral Letter on Christian Conversation – Christ Covenant Reformed

www.christcovenantrpc.org www.christcovenantrpc.org
Click to expand...
A very helpful paper, and not focused on women per se but it does address the matter being discussed here: "To enforce this policy of male leadership in the Church, there are also injunctions given pertaining to women, and ecclesiastical teaching. These are found in 1 Corinthians 14.34-38; 1 Timothy 2.9-15. These passages are clear that there can be no such recognition in the Church of an ecclesiastical “woman-teacher”. These directions are given irrespective of perceived gifts, talents, or opportunities. There is no place, in the command of the inspired Apostles, for women to take the office of teacher in the Church."

It occurred to me in reading this thread, that anyone writing a theological book purporting to teach any doctrine has taken on the role of teacher to the church, but there is no such office for women. Surely you're either teaching doctrine or not teaching doctrine in writing a commentary, etc. It being the church we're concerned with here- if it were a woman writing a book teaching math or wood working skills, fine.
 
Just a personal note, since women commenting on the PB has come up: I would take back a lot of my stringent arguing over theological matters here in times past, if I could. :)
 
Jeri Tanner said:
Just a personal note, since women commenting on the PB has come up: I would take back a lot of my stringent arguing over theological matters here in times past, if I could. :)
Click to expand...
I’ve got plenty of too-big-for-my-britches posts on record here for the PB, m’self, dear Sister. Thankful for the LORD’s mercies, and His corrections, and reminders of past folly, to keep me sober.
 
I appreciate this thread to help clarify my thoughts on the subject
Here is my honest question:
How does the writing of a commentary by an unordained man compare to a commentary by a likewise (and rightly!) unordained woman?
 
John The Baptist said:
I appreciate this thread to help clarify my thoughts on the subject
Here is my honest question:
How does the writing of a commentary by an unordained man compare to a commentary by a likewise (and rightly!) unordained woman?
Click to expand...
I suppose how it compares is that the woman is precluded from ever doing that on account of their gender, whereas the man is not. Said more succinctly, the woman has no case whereas the man (depending on your view) might.

1 Peter 2:9 and other verses would be numbered in the arsenal of prooftexts for a layman's (emphasis on the word 'man') warrant. The gender-based exclusion, in contrast, hearkens back to creation. Much of how we do things today seems to be more of a product of scholasticism than anything else. Seminaries and MDiv's aren't featured in the text of Holy Scripture. Neither are ivory towers - at least not favorably.
 
Jeri Tanner said:
Just a personal note, since women commenting on the PB has come up: I would take back a lot of my stringent arguing over theological matters here in times past, if I could. :)
Click to expand...
The issue of authority is not generally in play here on the PB, except with regard to moderating, and even that is according to clear rules that have been laid out. I suppose it might depend a bit on what you mean by "stringent," as to the reason why you want to take some things back. Are you saying that you wish you could take out a bit of the heat of previous argumentation? I dare say many (including myself, most definitely) would wish that about themselves. I do not, however, believe for one second that you need to wish to take back argumentation because you are a woman. A woman is not allowed to disagree with a man on an interpretive issue of the Bible? I can't go there. The real question is whether you are going to agree or disagree with my argument. ;)
 
Charles Johnson said:
The essential distinction, which has always been observed in the Reformed Churches, is between public teaching, which is done with the authority of the church and before all the people, and private exhortation, in which one expresses one's own opinions, and which is done in a more private setting.
Women are not to teach publicly. In fact, according to Paul, they shouldn't even ask questions in the public assembly. Rather, they should ask their husbands at home.
Say what you will about women teaching sunday school, etc, and whether it equates to preaching and teaching before the congregation, but it most certainly involves more exercise of authority than asking a question.
Click to expand...
I agree with this view.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
Some people are really hard-core when taking St.Paul's admonition WRT women spiritually teaching, combining the apostolic directions in 1Cor.14:34 and 1TIm.2:12 toward a maximalist position. 1Cor14:34 calls for female silence "in the churches." 1Tim.2:12 forbids any woman "teaching" and "exercising authority" over a man; the most obvious context for application of this declaration is also the church.

I define the maximalist position as: The interpretation of apostolic restriction on women spiritually teaching to be absolute, excepting explicit allowances like Tit.2:3-5; restrictions include any and all mixed gatherings of adults, and any book or broadcast that does not make plain the intention to direct the teaching therein exclusively to other women. An extreme position I would define to including restrictions on instructing boys as well as men. A quasi-maximalist position I would define to allow private instruction (ala Act.18:26) by a woman to a man, provided there was male "supervision" of some sort.

In any case, this interpretation must adopt an understanding of "the church" that is also maximal. At issue is whether St.Paul intends his admonitions to apply particularly to the visible church as institution; or if he means the church as constituted by the membership, and covering all their lives all of the time. If he means the latter, this concept necessitates an extension of the disciplinary power of the institutional church--its enforcement or policing engagements--for closely managing the spiritual conduct of its members in all their stations. A law is no law if it has no enforcement.

For my part, I don't think the maximalist position is correct. I also don't think a casual or cultural dismissal of Paul is correct, but that the conservative position is correct. This position could also be called the institutional position. I define the conservative position thus: The interpretation of apostolic restriction on women spiritually teaching is bound to the church institute--where worship and government are most immediately and strictly supervised by Christ through his ordained agents--and outside of the institution there is considerable liberty.

For this alternative interpretation, contextually "the church" (per 1Cor.14:34) does not begin at the concept of the whole membership (the bottom-up idea); but rather is, in Paul's mind as he writes: the institutional kingdom, beginning with Christ at the Head in the top-down perspective. The kingdom is firstly entirely found in the King himself. It spreads down into his administration where the principal business of the church (his body) is conducted, where his ministers function, his people are gathered in for participation, and where activity is minutely governed (ala the RPW and jus divinum rule).

At last, the kingdom is expressed in the body more generally, through its members as they live in a foreign country representing (as citizens of their homeland) their King and his kingdom. Their King does call them individually to account for their errors, if their sins fall within the moral jurisdiction of his ministry. For the purpose of this interpretation, the question is not if the church may at any time be conceived beginning at this lower level before ascending to higher conceptions; but whether Paul writes these particular admonitions to govern all Christian conduct at the lowest level.

Why should this concept be called conservative? I call it so, first because it does not assume proper total (we might say despotic) institutional control over every aspect of Christian life; rather it assumes a primary value in maximal liberty at the lowest possible level, something we might call "Christian liberty." Scripture then imposes certain limits and demands constraining the Christian to give up that liberty in spaces where God makes additional demands.

Secondly, this concept is conservative when it comes to the actual interpretation of the relevant texts. Instead of assuming the inspired language makes sweeping demands that allow only for whatever exceptions may be shoehorned in here or there by necessity or special dispensation, the inspired language is regarded as applying directly within the closest bounds; if there are reasons why the terms should be expanded more generally and broadly from the narrow context to which they were originally addressed, that path of deduction should be clearly identifiable.

I think Paul in both 1Cor.14:34 and 1Tim.2:12 is speaking against institutional rebellion that might overturn apostolic church order, which he himself had clearly taught, and which was universal in Christ's church (Paul's ongoing concern, see 1Cor.11:16; cf. 1Cor.14:33-40). When he writes in 1Tim.2:12 and specifically references "teaching" and "exercising authority," he writes with reference to the two principal labors of the institutional church: worship with proclamation of the word at its core; and government, the exercise of discipline in the church in both rule and supervision, in formal and informal aspects.

These two texts are like keystones in the arch of biblically legitimate ordained service in the church. They are clear, and they are a straightforward challenge to everyone (in any age of the church) who wishes that women were authorized to be ordained. They are not. They are not, and this fact is most offensive to the natural man. The issue is so clear that it is obvious whenever it is attacked the ultimate goal is the overturn of scriptural, i.e. Christ's authority. Either we will obey the Lord here, or we are on the slippery slope to abandoning his express will as law in the church.

Having said that, the question originally raised may finally be addressed: namely, does the limit on women's ordination mean there should be wholesale limits on women spiritually teaching Christian men? If the example of Priscilla (Act.18:26) may be regarded as an approved biblical example of such teaching, then the obvious answer is, no, there is no such wholesale limit. There were also the prophesying daughters of Philip, Act.21:9; were their prophesies for none but various other women to whom they spoke? There is no limit alluded to in or around that text; but true prophecy is the property of the whole church and all its members, a principle that holds from Genesis to Revelation.

I myself invoked the "slippery slope" argument above, speaking to the matter of the ordination of women. I recognize that others desire to invoke it further, to insist that if women are recognized as legitimate spiritual counselors to men (if men allow themselves) in any forum whatever, or in anything other than private conversation, then "the church" is resisting the will of Christ and denying biblical authority; and will soon slip away from even more of the plain will of God. I regard that invocation as fallacious.

It is an impossible and impractical rule to enforce, not simply difficult. The exceptions soon overwhelm the so-called principle, which was arrived at with a superficial and simplistic reading of Paul's admonitions. The NT has approved examples of women prophets and teachers, along with its prohibition on women speaking/teaching and exercising authority in the church. Mothers are natural teachers, and the book of Proverbs includes many directions to sons that they listen to mothers (and to the female Wisdom personified). Older women are commanded to teach (younger women). Sons and daughters prophesying (without sex distinction) is declared a mark of the NT age, Act.2:17.

If you attempt to build a fence around the law prohibiting female ordination--for to make it "stronger" in order to defend what the Bible defines as the limit--you will lose the war of defending biblical authority. To paraphrase the great JGMachen: if you begin by restricting what the Bible permits, you will end up allowing or even enforcing what the Bible forbids.

Whoever you are, man or woman, if you find value in NancyGuthrie's or any other woman's teaching--outside of the church institute, outside the pulpit and ordination--well, judge that lesson according to the Bible and the teaching of many others. Don't receive it or reject it because the teacher is a woman. It would be just as dangerous to respect a man's teaching simply because he has "Rev." attached to his name. But it is not wrong to recognize the truth where it is presented.

I do not know anything about the NancyGuthrie mentioned in the OP; but LigonDuncan is a respected voice in confessional Presbyterianism. I am not recommending the teaching of anyone (man or woman) I do not know to be submissive to biblical authority. But rejection of God's law is not somehow self-evident by an author or public speaker on spiritual matters being female, assuming she is indifferent or indiscriminate about her audience.
Click to expand...
An excellent and edifying response. I think as usual Rev. Bruce has done an excellent job of articulating something others of us were thinking in a way that is clarifying and helpful for all.
 
Charles Johnson said:
The essential distinction, which has always been observed in the Reformed Churches, is between public teaching, which is done with the authority of the church and before all the people, and private exhortation, in which one expresses one's own opinions, and which is done in a more private setting.
Women are not to teach publicly. In fact, according to Paul, they shouldn't even ask questions in the public assembly. Rather, they should ask their husbands at home.
Say what you will about women teaching sunday school, etc, and whether it equates to preaching and teaching before the congregation, but it most certainly involves more exercise of authority than asking a question.
Click to expand...
I think an important point being forgotten here, however, is that historically “public teaching” has always been essentially churchly, thus this position is in line with what Bruce and Lane are saying. In our modern era there are many non-churchly opportunities to teach in a way that reaches more people, but they do not fall into the same kind of category as public teaching within the church.
 
Blood-Bought Pilgrim said:
In our modern era there are many non-churchly opportunities to teach in a way that reaches more people, but they do not fall into the same kind of category as public teaching within the church.
Click to expand...

It is true that there are many opportunities to teach in a way that reaches more people. This is one of many reasons that I think they really should fall into the category of public teaching. In our day and age it isn't uncommon for folks to be listening to podcasts more than they listen to their own Pastor.

If I were attending a church with 25 people in attendance but have a 1,000 people following my blog, I’m going to be able to reach exponentially more people than I would preaching behind that particular pulpit. So I think the reality and subsequent dangers are too great to ignore.

Then again, I see a lot of aspects of RPW that I believe do apply outside of the four walls of a church, or the church as an institution.

That might really be at the heart of some of these differences in perspective on this issue: are we defining the church by its members (bottom-up) or by its buildings or institution (top-down)?

For my family, we take the broader view and so the ladies will head cover at home when praying, etc. The time we spend inside of a church building gathered as a congregation is a fraction of our lives. We strive to be Christians seven days a week. We read a verse like Isaiah 3:12-15 and say to ourselves, 'a woman ought not be President of the United States of America', as opposed to 'a woman ought not teach inside the four walls of a church from behind a pulpit'.

I think God has historically honored the folks that held themselves to a broader standard also. Consider Jeremiah 35:6, for example, in the context of total abstinence from alcohol. Is it commanded? No. Is it prudent? I think so. Did God honor it? Well, He certainly didn't condemn it as pharasaical legalism. I know that's not chiefly related to the subject at hand, but to be quite honest I think there's a great deal of overlap. I think it comes down to where we draw the line. For us, we want to draw as big a box as possible and regulate things in accordance with God's Word for His glory. Others want to draw a very small box and just regulate what's done on the Lord's Day or inside the four walls of a church in some respects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Challer said:
For us, we want to draw as big a box as possible and regulate things in accordance with God's Word for His glory. Others want to draw a very small box and just regulate what's done on the Lord's Day or inside the four walls of a church in some respects.
Click to expand...

As I said before though, to "draw the box" larger than God's Word does is also dangerous.

Here is Poole on 1 Cor 14:34:
"This rule must be restrained to ordinary prophesyings; for certainly, if the Spirit of prophecy came upon a woman in the church, she might speak...But setting aside that extraordinary case of a special afflatus, it was, doubtless, unlawful for a woman to speak in the church."

and on 1 Tim 2:11:
"That is, in the public assemblies of worship, it is the woman's part silently to learn, showing thereby a subjection to the man, who is the head of the woman."

Trapp on 1 Tim 2:11:
"Not to teach, to wit, in the public assemblies, be she never so learned or godly."

Calvin on 1 Cor 14:34:
"I answer, that the office of teaching is a superiority in the Church."

Calvin on 1 Tim 2:12:
"but only excludes them from the office of teaching, which God has committed to men only"

Henry on 1 Cor 14:34
"Here the apostle enjoins silence on their women in public assemblies"

Henry on 2 Tim 2:11,12
"According to Paul, women must be learners, and are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority"

Calvin would probably be closest to the "maximalist" view, Poole and Henry are much more "feminist" in their comments, but all of them restricted their comments to offices or roles in the church, in the public assembly. There is much wisdom in not going beyond what God has actually said. If you do, then opinion starts becoming law and it becomes exceedingly hard to draw boundaries.
 
Logan said:
As I said before though, to "draw the box" larger than God's Word does is also dangerous.

Here is Poole on 1 Cor 14:34:
"This rule must be restrained to ordinary prophesyings; for certainly, if the Spirit of prophecy came upon a woman in the church, she might speak...But setting aside that extraordinary case of a special afflatus, it was, doubtless, unlawful for a woman to speak in the church."

and on 1 Tim 2:11:
"That is, in the public assemblies of worship, it is the woman's part silently to learn, showing thereby a subjection to the man, who is the head of the woman."

Trapp on 1 Tim 2:11:
"Not to teach, to wit, in the public assemblies, be she never so learned or godly."

Calvin on 1 Cor 14:34:
"I answer, that the office of teaching is a superiority in the Church."

Calvin on 1 Tim 2:12:
"but only excludes them from the office of teaching, which God has committed to men only"

Henry on 1 Cor 14:34
"Here the apostle enjoins silence on their women in public assemblies"

Henry on 2 Tim 2:11,12
"According to Paul, women must be learners, and are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority"

Calvin would probably be closest to the "maximalist" view, Poole and Henry are much more "feminist" in their comments, but all of them restricted their comments to offices or roles in the church, in the public assembly. There is much wisdom in not going beyond what God has actually said. If you do, then opinion starts becoming law and it becomes exceedingly hard to draw boundaries.
Click to expand...

To be quite honest, I don't believe I am drawing the box too largely. Albeit, I acknowledge I'm quite biased in that assessment, as we all are. Proverbs 18:17 comes to mind.

How do we interpret these verses in light of the technology by which we now communicate? No woman, let alone a man, ever had the ability to reach countless people from the comfort of their own home. This would have been impossible in Paul's day. Are we really to turn a blind eye to it and not regulate it as best we can in light of God's Word?

If you replace all of the instances where the word 'church' occurs in your reply with 'assembly of believers', I think you can get a better sense for my view on this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder how many who defend so-called female Bible Teachers bristle at laymen who have public "Bible Teaching Ministries." If it's a "ministry," is he not playing the minister? If it's concerned with Bible-teaching, is he not usurping the Teaching Office?

God has appointed the office of the Ministry for the instruction of his people unto edification (see Eph 4:11-14 KJV). When we seek to augment God's institution, presuming to get some spiritual benefit from our own inventions, we count ourselves wiser than God. Do we not believe that God is able to make his own ordinance effectual to the ends for which he established it?
 
TylerRay said:
Any self-proclaimed Bible Teacher or Theologian is a usurper of the ministerial office. Full stop.
Click to expand...

While I’m not in agreement with your position (but holding my opinion very loosely at this time), I appreciate this post. I think this is the only consistent position on this ‘side’ of the debate.

I’m not convinced of any position which allows for unordained men to write the commentaries and participate in other ‘non-church’ teaching opportunities, while not allowing women those same things. Seems inconsistent.
 
TylerRay said:
I wonder how many who defend so-called female Bible Teachers bristle at laymen who have public "Bible Teaching Ministries." If it's a "ministry," is he not playing the minister? If it's concerned with Bible-teaching, is he not usurping the Teaching Office?

God has appointed the office of the Ministry for the instruction of his people unto edification (see Eph 4:11-14 KJV). When we seek to augment God's institution, presuming to get some spiritual benefit from our own inventions, we count ourselves wiser than God. Do we not believe that God is able to make his own ordinance effectual to the ends for which he established it?
Click to expand...
Brother,
I must return to the definition of the church, and what its concept is on different levels, and to which level or levels the apostle directs his inspired counsel. There is much to turn away from in regard to so-called (self-appointed) "ministry" today, which by appropriating the term (and making no differentiation) waters down the ministry Christ appointed for the functioning and wellbeing of his church. So let us not attribute the very idea of "ministry" to anyone--male or female--who in the first place has not taken the attribute; then second, let us challenge with a call to clarity and distinction anyone or any church that mistakenly labels as ministry some "spiritual labor" that falls out from under the direct oversight of the church.

Not all issues are resolved, however, with care for terms and definitions. For there is that which Holy Scripture itself has used the term "minister" (the biblical sense is varied depending on the context) which includes or is exclusive to women; see texts like Mt.27:55, Rom.16:1; 1Tim.5:3-10. Christ's ordained ministry, with its special concern for the teaching office (again, something distinct from the general office of the believer and teaching in general), exercises oversight over the labor of all--male and female--who provide their service with the name of the church formally attached to it.

We must take care not to assert: something cannot be ministry at some level, of some kind, without labeling the person a "minister" (no allowances for variety in meaning)--when the Bible itself has used that language of services rendered that do not call for an official label. Furthermore, we should not claim that the disembodied paper page and its lettering makes its human author a minister, if the presentation is set forth as a spiritual good, or actually or seemingly does spiritual good; when one vital element of Christ's ministry is its embodied (in human flesh) character. I think this single fact--that the page is an impersonal medium--proves that authoring a spiritual book is not an exhibit of ministry per se. This is certainly true, no matter who the author is or claims to be.

The modest importance that might come from attaching our human name to our works, including book writing, does not deserve the passion by which "intellectual property" is defended today. There have been days when authors of spiritual works did so in obscurity, often on purpose, attaching initials instead of names (if not anonymous); and neither the readers then or now can be completely sure if the writer was a man or a woman. The sex of the writer was/is of no moment. At most, when it benefited the church (as the institutional church) to spread around a valuable teacher's work by name, the better to vouch for its quality, such human judgment is left to history to validate, and finally the day of Judgment to vindicate.

Today, the observation of Ecc.12:12 is more true than ever: "Of making many books there is no end." The making and publishing of a book is no guarantee of quality, as is also the quality of ideas and even whole books that were left unwritten and never distributed. We should distinguish between ministry in general and the ministry, between the uncounted church militant and the church institute. How Christ may provide for his people--especially in an age like ours when so many are like sheep without true shepherds--we should be thankful even for less-than-ideal presentations, if only they contain some real nourishment. Jesus indicated as much, when he said (Mk.9:40), "He who is not against us is on our side." The blessing does not entirely sanctify all that is offered in Jesus name, but it shows us there are levels of such offering that no matter how low it be, yet we may recognize it in some way.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
Brother,
I must return to the definition of the church, and what its concept is on different levels, and to which level or levels the apostle directs his inspired counsel. There is much to turn away from in regard to so-called (self-appointed) "ministry" today, which by appropriating the term (and making no differentiation) waters down the ministry Christ appointed for the functioning and wellbeing of his church. So let us not attribute the very idea of "ministry" to anyone--male or female--who in the first place has not taken the attribute; then second, let us challenge with a call to clarity and distinction anyone or any church that mistakenly labels as ministry some "spiritual labor" that falls out from under the direct oversight of the church.

Not all issues are resolved, however, with care for terms and definitions. For there is that which Holy Scripture itself has used the term "minister" (the biblical sense is varied depending on the context) which includes or is exclusive to women; see texts like Mt.27:55, Rom.16:1; 1Tim.5:3-10. Christ's ordained ministry, with its special concern for the teaching office (again, something distinct from the general office of the believer and teaching in general), exercises oversight over the labor of all--male and female--who provide their service with the name of the church formally attached to it.

We must take care not to assert: something cannot be ministry at some level, of some kind, without labeling the person a "minister" (no allowances for variety in meaning)--when the Bible itself has used that language of services rendered that do not call for an official label. Furthermore, we should not claim that the disembodied paper page and its lettering makes its human author a minister, if the presentation is set forth as a spiritual good, or actually or seemingly does spiritual good; when one vital element of Christ's ministry is its embodied (in human flesh) character. I think this single fact--that the page is an impersonal medium--proves that authoring a spiritual book is not an exhibit of ministry per se. This is certainly true, no matter who the author is or claims to be.

The modest importance that might come from attaching our human name to our works, including book writing, does not deserve the passion by which "intellectual property" is defended today. There have been days when authors of spiritual works did so in obscurity, often on purpose, attaching initials instead of names (if not anonymous); and neither the readers then or now can be completely sure if the writer was a man or a woman. The sex of the writer was/is of no moment. At most, when it benefited the church (as the institutional church) to spread around a valuable teacher's work by name, the better to vouch for its quality, such human judgment is left to history to validate, and finally the day of Judgment to vindicate.

Today, the observation of Ecc.12:12 is more true than ever: "Of making many books there is no end." The making and publishing of a book is no guarantee of quality, as is also the quality of ideas and even whole books that were left unwritten and never distributed. We should distinguish between ministry in general and the ministry, between the uncounted church militant and the church institute. How Christ may provide for his people--especially in an age like ours when so many are like sheep without true shepherds--we should be thankful even for less-than-ideal presentations, if only they contain some real nourishment. Jesus indicated as much, when he said (Mk.9:40), "He who is not against us is on our side." The blessing does not entirely sanctify all that is offered in Jesus name, but it shows us there are levels of such offering that no matter how low it be, yet we may recognize it in some way.
Click to expand...
Pastor Buchanan,

I acknowledge that there are different uses of the terms minister and ministry. I am talking about public Bible teaching, which I understand to be the focus of this thread.

Are the books of public Bible teachers not extensions of their preaching ministries? Most of the Puritan volumes on our shelves are made up of sermons or repackaged sermonic material, or else materials written in lieu of preaching after the great ejection.

Finally--may God use whatever means he chooses in his most wise providence for the upbuilding of his saints--amen. But what means has he told us to use? God may use Balaam as his mouthpiece, but does that mean we should sanction pagan prophets? God overruling the folly and sin of men doesn't justify the sin and folly.
 
TylerRay said:
Pastor Buchanan,

I acknowledge that there are different uses of the terms minister and ministry. I am talking about public Bible teaching, which I understand to be the focus of this thread.

Are the books of public Bible teachers not extensions of their preaching ministries? Most of the Puritan volumes on our shelves are made up of sermons or repackaged sermonic material, or else materials written in lieu of preaching after the great ejection.

Finally--may God use whatever means he chooses in his most wise providence for the upbuilding of his saints--amen. But what means has he told us to use? God may use Balaam as his mouthpiece, but does that mean we should sanction pagan prophets? God overruling the folly and sin of men doesn't justify the sin and folly.
Click to expand...
So, are we agreed that an ordained man's publication of his sermons, and the publication of another spiritual work by someone not-ordained, are not equivalent, even if they have things in common or seem to target a similar demographic? We can't help it when swathes of the reading population ignore the qualifications and claims of authors, or the identity and reputation of publishers.

My ultimate point is: not every woman (or male) author is seeking to usurp the ordained ministry by publishing a spiritual work in order to benefit Christians, with a narrow or a special (or primary) audience. Teaching per se isn't exclusive to the church institute; but formally authoritative teaching is. And people need to know, comprehend, and mind the difference. That they cannot is a tragedy. That they refuse to is rebellion. It falls to the faithful in our day to overcome those obstacles by the grace of God.

Priscilla is not comparable to Balaam or his ass. It wasn't a sin for Priscilla to teach (if one wants, he can emphasize Aquila's participation). It wasn't a sin for Apollos to learn, to take spiritual profit from their (including her) instruction. Given her association with St.Paul, if (hypothetically) there had been a book written by her and I was alive at the time and knew of the connection and Paul's respect, I would be inclined to get and read it.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
So, are we agreed that an ordained man's publication of his sermons, and the publication of another spiritual work by someone not-ordained, are not equivalent, even if they have things in common or seem to target a similar demographic? We can't help it when swathes of the reading population ignore the qualifications and claims of authors, or the identity and reputation of publishers.

My ultimate point is: not every woman (or male) author is seeking to usurp the ordained ministry by publishing a spiritual work in order to benefit Christians, with a narrow or a special (or primary) audience. Teaching per se isn't exclusive to the church institute; but formally authoritative teaching is. And people need to know, comprehend, and mind the difference. That they cannot is a tragedy. That they refuse to is rebellion. It falls to the faithful in our day to overcome those obstacles by the grace of God.

Priscilla is not comparable to Balaam or his ass. It wasn't a sin for Priscilla to teach (if one wants, he can emphasize Aquila's participation). It wasn't a sin for Apollos to learn, to take spiritual profit from their (including her) instruction. Given her association with St.Paul, if (hypothetically) there had been a book written by her and I was alive at the time and knew of the connection and Paul's respect, I would be inclined to get and read it.
Click to expand...
Brother, I agree that not everyone who sets themselves up as a public bible teacher or theologian is seeking to usurp the ministry, but whether they are seeking to do so or doing it inadvertently, that's what they're doing.

Priscilla wasn't assembling the masses to come and hear her teach the Bible. She wasn't even assembling masses of women to do it. She was having a private conversation. I have no problem with a woman, in private conversation, clearing up the mistaken notions of another person. Even if the other person is a man. Even if her husband is present (indeed, I know women who are more theologically astute than their husbands).
 
I honestly wish that Godly, older women would take aspiring female Bible teachers and theologians aside and teach them to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Backwoods Presbyterian
  • Locked
Sermons/Teaching on the Heidelberg Catechism
Replies
7
Views
3K
Guido's Brother
Guido's Brother
Backwoods Presbyterian
  • Locked
  • Poll
What is Your Pulpit Bible?
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
ericknowsChrist
E
Martin
  • Locked
Preaching/Teaching Authenticity
Replies
15
Views
3K
ObligatoryFate
O
Notthemama1984
  • Locked
Teaching vs Preaching
Replies
11
Views
5K
Notthemama1984
Notthemama1984
RoderickE
  • Locked
Studying about the Bible before studying the Bible
Replies
0
Views
2K
RoderickE
RoderickE
Back
Top