Sunday, December 30, 2012

Gender and Ministry: Why John Dickson is Wrong about Women and Preaching (part 1)


In my first post I stated that I believed that John Dickson’s exegetical approach in Hearing Her Voice was one that should be applauded by all sides of the debate on women in ministry.  The Scriptures use a wide lexical range to describe the ministry of Gospel proclamation and it is important to note that where differences between the sexes are encouraged they are restricted rather than general in scope.  To this extent, I believe that Dickson’s contribution has been a progressive rather than regressive step in the ongoing discussion.

Despite this, Dickson’s specific exegetical arguments must withstand close scrutiny if his position can prove acceptable to those who have previously held to a complementarian position.  Dickson is open about the limitations of this particular work – he does not set out to answer every question regarding prophecy, gender submission, and so forth.  He seeks to answer a very simple question: does the New Testament explicitly teach that it is improper for a woman to preach an expository sermon during a regular church service where men and women are present?  In his view it does not teach this and so women should be allowed to preach regularly in church meetings.  Before a fair critique of Dickson’s work can take place, it is necessary to briefly outline here the main points of his case (although I encourage all who are interested in this topic to obtain a copy of the pamphlet and read Dickson’s exegetical arguments in more detail).

Dickson argues that complementarian evangelicals have been too quick to equate “preaching sermons” with the verb “to teach” (Gk. didasko), particularly as they have tried to interpret Paul’s meaning in 1 Timothy 2:12 (pp.13–14).  He argues that nowhere in the New Testament is this verb used to apply to expository preaching from an authorised text.  Instead, it is the verb for “to exhort” (Gk. parakaleo) that is used to describe this activity.  Dickson relies on three key verses for his thesis – the invitation for Paul to address the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13:15, the mission of Judas and Silas to the Gentile churches in Acts 15:31–32, and Paul’s instructions to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:13 which Dickson argues shows a logical connection between “reading” and “exhorting”.  “Exhorting” is taken to mean heeding and applying God’s Word (p.15), a definition that would open the way for women to give sermons to a mixed congregation. 

“Teaching”, it is claimed, had a specific definition in the context of 1st Century Christianity that means it cannot be applied to sermons in the present age.  Dickson claims that Paul meant for the activity of teaching to refer to “preserving and laying down the fixed traditions of and about Jesus as handed on by the apostles.” (p.18)  The office of “teacher” in the early Church was necessary as no New Testament canon was yet formed to preserve the authoritative teaching.  While a particular church might have had some of the documents, it was necessary for particular people to be responsible for safeguarding the “true message” of Jesus for the benefit of the Church through oral tradition. (p.19)  As Paul and the other apostles had verbally delivered the message of Jesus to the world, so the “teachers” of the churches were responsible for holding on to this oral message and preserving it from corruption.  As such, the restrictions on women “teaching with authority” in 1 Timothy 2:12 was never intended to be applied to the giving of expository sermons, but only to “the specific task of preserving and laying down for churches what the apostles had said about Jesus and the new covenant.” (p.21)  Since this “apostolic deposit” has now been fixed in the documents of the New Testament, there is no longer any person in the modern Church who fulfils the same task that a 1st Century “teacher” was required to do. (p.22)  In fact, as Dickson surveys the New Testament, he concludes that all references to “teaching” refer more to safeguarding this oral tradition that exegetical preaching (pp.23–27).  Where written apostolic material comes into play it is always considered that it is itself doing the “teaching” and that any exposition involves commenting on such teaching and exhortation on the basis of its contents. (p.28)

Where does this leave the Church today?  In Dickson’s view, the Church no longer has a need for “teachers” as the New Testament contains the authorised apostolic deposit.  In other words, the Bible is the only “teacher” that Christians now need and the role of the modern preacher to expound the text and exhort the believers, activities that are not restricted to men only in the New Testament. (p.31)

Let’s be clear about what this proposal entails.  If Dickson is correct and the task of preaching the Word is equivalent to the biblical task of “exhorting” rather than “teaching”, then (as our American friends would say) that’s the ballgame!  The key proof-text of the complementarian position (1 Timothy 2:12) is eliminated as a barrier to women entering the pulpit.  But there is far more to it than this.  A large portion of the Protestant understanding of the Doctrine Of Church would be considered incompatible with Scripture given that for centuries theologians had interpreted the language badly wrong.  Much of the pastoral training, which has assumed those in charge of leading the flock exercise a “teaching” role, would have to be reconsidered.  Parish and denomination structures would need to reflect this.  Ordination vows would need to be rewritten to eliminate any reference to “teaching”.  This is not a small change to our understanding of Scripture which is being proposed.

Therefore, the pertinent question remains: is John Dickson’s analysis of the biblical language correct?

In my mind it is not.  Dickson makes a number of exegetical and doctrinal errors through his argument.  In particular, his specific reading of parakaleo is ambitious in his key texts and ignores how the lexeme is used quite differently in other key New Testament passages.  This leads him to be overly restrictive with his reading of didasko and thereby failing to account how its application might easily shift in a post-apostolic age. 

I will be presenting a more detailed critique over the next two posts.  Stay tuned...

19 comments:

  1. Hi Luke - I like the way you are going about this - it is helpful, thanks! I do think you overstate John's case and what it entails. I think he is saying women can address the congregation from the pulpit SOME of the time , because 1 Tim 2:2 is not prohibitive of that. I don't think it is quite as dramatic as you make it sound. Still, keep pushing it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Luke,
    Thanks for engaging with this. I am enjoying your thoughts so far. Of course, I will be especially interested to read about my "exegetical and doctrinal errors" :-)
    I have a few quibbles about the above - stuff I don't quite recognise as my view - but I understand this is a work in progress (aren't we all?!) and so I'll happily leave them to one side and just ponder the things you say. Feel free to pose any questions you might have. I'll do my best to answer them. I'm pleased to see you interacting with my ebook or 'pamphlet', as you say.
    God bless,
    John Dickson

    ReplyDelete
  3. Luke,
    Oh, and by the way, I am very definitely in the complementarian camp (Your definition fits me well: "men and women have equal but different spiritual roles in Church life"). I say so in the book, don't I?
    Blessings,
    John

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Michael,

    It is important to stress that John's tone is very measured throughout this work, as I'm sure everyone who reads it fairly will agree. He describes his position as "soft complementarian" in the endnotes and presumably sees the most godly application of his conclusions as a shared teaching role for men and women in the congregation. However, it is difficult to ascertain the limits to which he is prepared to push his position in practice. "Some of the time" could be anything from 1 to 51 Sundays a year. And, if there is no New Testament injuncture, why not have a woman as the main preacher for a certain congregation? There are many follow-up questions from what John has proposed in this work, and hopefully in time he may outline the practical implications that flow from this exegetical work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi John,

    In this exercise I am doing my best not to misrepresent your position, so if I inadvertently put up something that is obviously wrong please let me know and I'll correct it. The only way we can move forward in fellowship is if we have clarity.

    I also didn't mean, in my efforts to be concise, that you held to a full egalitarian position. As I said in my first post, in this work you claim a "middle ground" that embraces complementarity in some form (I'd like to hear more about what that would look like in practice). I have used the term "complementarian" in this post in the sense in which it is broadly understood with respect to the preaching issue, rather than perhaps you would prefer to see it. I will try to be more nuanced in future.

    Luke

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey Luke, well done in helping us with this disvussion. As you can see I have no life on new years eve! There is certainly a need for robust duscussion. Thanks to Michael and John for their graciousness through the conversation here and on FB. I must say this a breath of fresh air after the recent many quite ungracious comments by some on FB last week.
    Leaves me a bit disheartened when discussions denegrate into sides....

    Garry

    ReplyDelete
  7. Luke,
    thank you for your thoughts on John's position. I don't think I'm wrong in saying, however, that your argument depends on John not distinguishing what we call 'teaching' today from what he believes is the NT meaning implicit in didasko.
    cf "In Dickson’s view, the Church no longer has a need for “teachers” as the New Testament contains the authorised apostolic deposit." But we need "teachers" according to a variety of other current meanings.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Rob,

    As I understand John's argument, he believes that what we call "teaching" today (i.e. the sermon) is really not what the New Testament calls "teaching". He believes that the role of the "teacher" was one particular to the period in the Church where the authentic message of the Gospel had to be safeguarded by oral tradition. In our current age, however, "the 'apostolic deposit' is found only in the pages of the New Testament and no individual is charged with preserving and transmitting that information". (p.31) The true "teacher" therefore is the New Testament canon rather than any human figure. Modern preachers, according to Dixon, do not "teach" but instead "comment on the teaching, exhort us to heed the teaching, and apply the teaching to modern life." (p.33) If this is so then the Church doesn't need any individual to be called a "teacher" and we should stop using the label altogether. However, this depends on Dickson's translation of both didasko and parakaleo being accurate, which I will comment on at length in the next two posts. Stick with me, I'm going somewhere!

    Luke

    ReplyDelete
  9. Guys,
    My view is a little less cut and dry. I think it is clear that 'teaching' in the Pastorals and in the wider Pauline corpus (and elsewhere) refers to preserving and passing on the apostolic deposit. But what this means today can be interpreted in two ways: (1) there is no teaching today in the strict sense; all sermons are exhortation or prophesying, etc; (2) while not identical to the teaching of 1 Tim 2:12, some/many sermons today are a strong analogy to ancient teaching and should be done by men only. You'll notice in the conclusion that I waver between these two options. In other words, I think it is clear that a modern expository sermon is not identical to teaching but each of us needs to decide how close an analogy the sermon is. The closer the analogy, the more the restriction of 1 Tim 2:12 will apply, and vice versa. I don't have the answers to these questions - I think they are a matter of judgment and conscience.
    Cheers,
    John

    ReplyDelete
  10. John,

    I acknowledge that you present both options in your conclusion and that there are many other questions that remain. However, it would be fair to say that in this work it is Option 1 above which is the focus of your exegesis and Option 2 is presented as a 'possible outcome' which would need to be argued fully in a separate work. In these posts I am attempting to engage with the exegetical argument as presented while sympathising with the fact that a lot more could be said.

    Luke

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Luke,
    Nope. I honestly waver between the two, and think that either is a viable application of the exegesis.
    The thing is: I reckon it's clear that 'teaching' for Paul in 1 Tim 2:12 refers to laying down the apostolic deposit; it's also clear that that apostolic deposit is now found completely in the New Testament. I regard these as facts. However, neither fact necessarily means that there is no activity today that emulates teaching to a high degree. In my Conclusion I listed the three responses in a particular order: (1) teaching still exists but women should do other types of speaking; (2) there is no teaching today so all sermons are open to women; (3) some sermons are close analogues of teaching and should be done by men, while other sermons are open to men and women. Without coming out and saying so, I was trying to lay emphasis on the third option by placing it last.
    I feel our tribe is going to gravitate unconsciously toward the harshest reading of my work rather than the most generous. I haven't read any of your arguments yet, so I don't know if this will be true of you.
    Blessings,
    John

    ReplyDelete
  13. Luke,
    If I may, I think you overstate things when you say that, if Dickson is correct, church tradition would have to be changed and ordination vows rewritten, and so on. Not at all. It doesn't matter that we continue to use the English word 'teach' in the ordination vow. When we use the term we mean faithfully expounding and applying the written Scripture, do we not? The vow is therefore true, even though there's no way that's what Paul meant by didaskein in 1 Tim. So, I reckon we just happily keep things the same and offer some nuance when we come to 'teaching' about 'teaching' in 1 Tim 2:12. Works fine at St Andrew's Roseville :-)
    There are so many parallels. When we use the words 'New Testament', we mean something quite different from when Paul uses the expression, right? What about 'tradition'? We use this to mean church practices through the centuries, and it mostly has a negative connotation amongst our mob. But Paul used the word to refer to the most foundational oral traditions he had given to the churches (1 Cor 11, 15, etc). Finally, Paul would never have described sharing your testimony, for example, or inviting someone to church, as 'evangelism' (euaggelizesthai). This word for Paul only meant articulating the saving life, death and resurrection of the Messiah and Judge of the world. But I'm not going to ask my congregation to stop talking about evangelism in this broader sense. I teach the Bible every week. That's a perfectly legitimate use of the English word. No problem. The only difference is that women should be able to 'teach' in this English sense.
    Bless you. I'm looking forward to your next instalment.
    John

    ReplyDelete
  14. John,

    While you might have been trying to lay emphasis on Response 3, this is not the conclusion I believe that a person would naturally draw from a fair reading of the work. If anything, Response 2 seems closer to the case that you were actually arguing, but when it came to the conclusion you seemed to hedge your bets. I didn't find any criteria in your work by which to determine what sort of sermons are "close analogues of teaching" and therefore more appropriate to men, so I'm not sure how you would expect people to reach that conclusion. Your work would need to go into more detail to make Response 3 more acceptable.

    With respect to our use of language, at the very least our language on what constitutes a "teacher" in the Church would have to be revisited. And yes, while our language might not always be the same as is found in Scripture, as a general rule I like to aim for consistency rather than inconsistency (less misunderstandings that way) so I'd probably like Scripture to tell me what "teaching" is rather than let culture dictate (given that this is what Scripture does itself). Otherwise we end up with a Humpty-Dumpty situation. At the very least, using "teacher" and "exhorter" in a Scriptural sense (as you would understand them) may help calm the consciences of the laity who may not be up on all the nuances. The truth is I'm still processing your argument and going back to my textbooks. I still haven't worked out what your exegesis might mean for the Doctrine of Scripture, but given that you put it forward as the primary "teacher" for the Church today I'm reasonably convinced that is another area that would be affected. By the way, for a great treatment of Scripture and "tradition", I'd recommend "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" by Keith Mathison. Cracking read!

    Finally, I have no intention of gravitating (unconsciously or otherwise) towards a harsh reading. I do, however, intend to treat your analysis with great seriousness, not only because that's what your work deserves but also because this is a topic that is capable of causing great division amongst Brothers and Sisters.

    Luke

    ReplyDelete
  15. Luke,
    In cases like this, you must take an author's word for it - what he intended is what he intended. I waver between responses 2 and 3, because either is a reasonable application of the argument.
    I have read your next instalment now and will be commenting shortly. Thanks again.
    Regards,
    John

    ReplyDelete
  16. John,

    I'll take your word for it. I look forward to your comments.

    Luke

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Luke

    Thanks for your work on this - I'm just catching up so yet to read your further posts. I think I would agree with John that you haven't quite represented his arguments accurately; I wouldn't say 'misrepresented' but perhaps over-simplified somewhat.

    However I am inclined to agree with you that without John's clarification above as to his intentions in the conclusion - I don't dispute them, of course, but they are not in the monograph itself - a natural reading would suggest that option 2 is favoured. It's the opening words that led me down that path: "Others may embrace my entire argument and conclude that . . ." As I say, I don't dispute John's subsequent clarification, but others who read the monograph and don't have the benefit of that clarification may reach the same conclusion that you did.

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi luke,
    coming late to the party.
    I'm surprised you hadn't heard this line of argument before!
    It's fairly common I would think. It's incredibly difficult to map our practices onto new testament words. I've been rambling on this line for years, nice to see a real scholar take it up!
    I haven't read the pamphlet yet, so can't comment too much, just remember that when it comes to linguistics BDAG and your textbooks are just a guess, an educated guess, but no better than someone elses educated guess.
    To be precise, if you want to use new testament words consistently today, you shouldn't use the english at all, just greek.

    ReplyDelete