John Dickson, Hearing Her Voice: A Case for Women Giving Sermons

Reviewed by Martin A. Shields

John Dickson, a senior minister in an Anglican Church in Sydney, founding Director of the Centre for Public Christianity and also a Senior Research Fellow of the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, has caused quite a stir in Sydney Anglican circles with the publication of a brief e-book entitled Hearing Her Voice: A Case for Women Giving Sermons (Zondervan, 2012). The role of women in the church is, at least in conservative evangelical circles, a source of ongoing contention. Many individuals and organisations have invested a great deal in their support for one particular form of complementarianism which opposes preaching by women. Certainly the quick condemnation of Dicksons book by Mark Thompson and Peter Bolt from Moore Theological College in Sydney in blog posts shortly after its release did nothing to dispel the notion that Dickson was not going to get a fair hearingparticularly when the initial salvo failed to engage with the primary argument in Dicksons work but nonetheless made their opposition plain.1 The issue of the role of women in the church is, at least in Sydney Anglican circles, such a hot potato subject that there is much pressure for people to conform to the approved position that it is di cult to see how anyone in the diocese can easily break ranks and support Dickson without endangering their standing in that community. The decision of the Katoomba Christian Convention to disinvite Dickson from a speaking role at their Womens Convention and then subsequently to cancel the Convention altogether re ects something of this situation.2 What is the cause of all the turmoil? Dickson questions the connection between teaching as used by Paul in the Pastoral Epistles and the modern sermon. If this teaching refers to something distinct from a modern sermon, then the controversial prohibition of 1Tim 2:12 may not automatically exclude women from delivering sermons today. Dickson claims that the appropriate de nition of teach in the Pastoral Epistles is preserving and laying down

1.

2.

See: http://markdthompson.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/the-preaching-question.html, http://markdthompson.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/something-old-something-new-something.html, http://markdthompson.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/rescuing-baby-from-bilgewater.html. Numerous other reviews have appeared on blogs elsewhere. See: http://www.wkc.kcc.org.au/wkc13-update, http://www.wkc.kcc.org.au/news/n/a-statement-from-thekcc-board-130221.

Martin A. Shields Review of John Dickson, Hearing Her Voice

the traditions handed on by the apostles (64), something which, he argues, does not normally take place in modern sermons.3 The e-book itself is brief and not overly technical although it is apparent that Dickson has spent considerable time working through his thesis. He begins by demonstrating that there are distinct types of speaking ministries in the NT: prophecy, teaching, exhorting, evangelising, etc. with a view to showing that the teaching referred to in 1Tim 2:12 does not closely resemble the modern sermon which, he suggests, has more in common with prophecy and, more particularly, exhortation in the NT. Dickson next examines prophecy and exhortation to demonstrate that they have a closer a nity with most modern sermons than teaching. He appeals to 1Cor 14:3 to de ne prophecy: the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation from which Dickson argues that [t]his is as close to a de nition of prophecy as we nd in the New Testament. Paul says it is comprehensible speech that builds, encourages, and/or consoles members of the church (205206). This is to de ne prophecy not by what it is, but by what it does, and on that basis it could be said that almost all speaking in the NT is prophetic. The faulty logic runs like this: prophetic utterances are edifying speech, therefore all edifying speech is prophetic! This re ects an understanding of prophecy common within Sydney Anglicanism where there has long been a tendency to equate prophecy with proclamation of Jesus and to downplay the immediate, revelatory, component.4 Dicksons interpretation is thus somewhat ironic given that he is keen to argue for distinctions between types of speaking in the NT! Pauls audience in Corinth knew what prophecy was (there was no need for Paul to de ne it), and Paul in his argument in chapter 14 is not seeking to de ne it but to distinguish it from tongue speaking among those eager to have a manifestation of the Spirit. Rather, the distinctive feature of biblical prophecy is that it is always formed around a spontaneous revelatory component. Veri cation of this is not di cult to nd. First, when Moses o fers directions for assessing a prophet, the criteria include determining if the words of the prophet come true. This presumes that the prophets prophecy is revelatory and even precognitive (cf. Deut 13 and Deut 18). Furthermore, the term prophet is synonymous with dreamer of dreams ( .) &Dreams were, in the OT, held to be revelatory, and certainly not expository nor merely encouraging. A prophet could also be described as a seer ( or ,)a description that re ected their dependence upon visions

3. 4.

References are to the locations in the Kindle edition of the book although they are approximate. This is despite Dicksons note that [i]n evangelical circles, too much has been made of the supposedly impromptu and Spirit-led character of prophecy, as if these two qualities are what distinguish the activity from preaching, teaching, exhorting, and so on (193). This may be true in broader evangelical circles, but it certainly doesnt re ect the understanding commonly espoused among Sydney Anglicans. As an example of the latter, see this discussion between Kel Richards and Philip Jensen: http://phillipjensen.com/video/reformedcharismatics/ (and cf. http://blog.shields-online.net/?p=152). 2

Martin A. Shields Review of John Dickson, Hearing Her Voice

(e.g. 1Sam 9:9; cf. Jer 23:16). This observation is reinforced in the NT. While there are not many examples of actual prophecy, the words of Agabus are clearly based on immediate information received directly by the prophet (either in some verbal form or through a vision, cf. Acts 11:28; 13:13; 21:1011). The words are not simply an insightful exposition of an OT text or some impromptu words of encouragement!5 While Dickson is wrong here, it is not ultimately a signi cant problem for his thesis because it does not exhaust the various speaking ministries described in the NT. Indeed, Dickson argues that exhorting (/) is closer to contemporary preaching than /, a case he builds from Rom 12:48; Acts 13:15; 15:3132; 1Tim 4:13; and for which he nds some support from I. H. Marshall.6 It should further be noted that Heb 13:22 also lends support to this idea, given that scholars often categorise Hebrews as a homily which describes itself as a message of exhortation ( ), a message that includes substantial exposition of OT Scripture.7 It is di cult to fault the logic

5.

6.

7.

Others who understand the revelatory aspect as fundamental to prophecy include D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 1214 (Homebush West: Lancer, 1988) 91100; Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Washington D.C.: University of America Press, 1982) 139143. Lester Grabbe o fers the following de nition: the common denominator is that the prophet is a mediator who claims to receive messages direct from a divinity, by various means, and communicates these messages to recipients, see Lester Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1995) 107. See also Martti Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (Writings from the Ancient World 12; SBL: Atlanta, 2003), 1; Manfred Weippert, Prophetie im Alten Orient, in Manfred Grg and Bernhard Lang (ed.), Neues Bibel-Lexikon (3 volumes; Patmos, 1997) vol. 3, 197; David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 338. Dickson refers to David Petersons article Prophetic Preaching in the Book of Acts in Serving Gods Words (IVP, 2011) 5374 in support of the idea that modern preaching may have some similarities to NT prophecy. However, Petersons primary evidence for this is found in only one passage, Acts 15:32, which identi es Judas and Silas as prophets (pp. 5658). Yet although they are identi ed as prophets, their speech is not identi ed as prophecy (and it is not valid to say that everything a prophet says is a prophecy). Peterson makes other connections which beg the question, such as describing Peters Pentecost address as prophetic-type speech despite Luke never using that language to describe it (p. 59). The remainder of Petersons case follows this methodology, de ning as in some sense prophetic, speeches which are not so described in Acts. Although Dickson doesnt note it, a number of scholars have suggested that is an expression which refers to the sermon given in the synagogue following the Bible reading and that this was also used in early Christianity; cf. William Lane, Hebrews (2 vols; WBC 47; Dallas: Word, 1991) vol 1., lxx; Lawrence Wills, "The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity," HTR 77/34 (1984), 280; C. Clifton Black II, "The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills," HTR 81/1 (1988) 118; David E. Aune, "Homily" in Aune, The Westminster Dictionary of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003) 219; Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (2nd Ed; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005) 157. There are a number of di culties verifying this and determining the precise nature of such a sermon, but it is clear that Dicksons suggestion has some support. Hebrews, however, does not appear exclusively to use the narrow sense of the word teach, see Heb 6:2. 3

Martin A. Shields Review of John Dickson, Hearing Her Voice

in this portion of Dicksons argument. Too easily modern readers forget that translations domesticate texts with the result that we make assumptions about the meaning of words and forget that were dealing with words written in a foreign language to an audience in a far-o f time and culture. Even if Dickson is wrong at this pointand I dont think he is the implicit association modern readers make between teaching and sermons deserves to be questioned rather than simply assumed to be valid. This is the inherent problem with all appeals to a plain reading. In the second chapter Dickson moves to explain precisely what means in 1Tim 2:12 in order to determine what is being prohibited. He notes that is used in di ferent ways in the NT and that it does include a broad and non-speci c meaning in passages such as Col 3:16. This, however, cannot apply in 1Tim 2:12, argues Dickson, because the reference is to a speci c word ministry and because this verse speci cally associates the teaching with authority.8 Dickson identi es these terms as an instance of hendiadys (endnote 10), although this is not strictly accurate. Hendiadys normally occurs where the terms are separated only by a conjunction, clearly not the case here.9 Thus I suspect the better understanding of the verse is that Paul is imposing two distinct, although probably not unrelated, prohibitions.10 Thus Dickson is partially correct given that the context does provide some constraint over the referent for teaching in the verse. Dickson turns to historical considerations external to the text in order to further elucidate the referent for teaching in the Pastoral Epistles. The question is, as it is with all appeals to external data, is the information accurate? It is notoriously di cult to be able to precisely reconstruct historical contexts for biblical texts (although far easier for NT scholars than for OT scholars). So, for example, Im not sure how Dickson is certain that the Thessalonian and Corinthian churches had not shared copies of Pauls letters (many scholars believe, for instance, that Ephesians did the rounds of a number of churches). This, however, is a relatively minor quibble and the overall strategy is valid and, I think, most of the conclusions Dickson reaches are soundalthough it is possible to exaggerate the dependence on oral tradition (there was also a strong scribal tradition in second-temple Judaism which pre-

8.

9.

10.

Dickson writes (without expansion) that [i]t is no doubt the same sort of teaching he mentions in Romans 12:68; 1 Corinthians 12:2829; and 1 Timothy 4:13, where he distinguishes the activity from exhorting, prophesying, and reading. Note the de nition of hendiadys from Murray J. Harris: [e]xpression of a single idea through two separate words coordinated by (Col 1:19). See Murray J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament; B&H Publishing Group, 2010) 262. William D. Mounce argues for two prohibitions, although I suspect there are not entirely unrelatedit could be, for example, that Paul is proscribing teaching and [other] authority or it may qualify teaching as a form of teaching which is implicitly authoritative and so not subject to judgment. What is more, the use of an unusual term for authority ( rather than, for example, ) may justify the case that the authority on view here is not simply any form of authority but some particular form. 4

Martin A. Shields Review of John Dickson, Hearing Her Voice

served important writings, but it is unlikely that the earliest Christians had the resources available to the Jewish scribal communities). In the third chapter, Dickson examines uses of teaching language in the NT, beginning with passages which appear to refer to the exposition of Scripture (Acts 8; 1Tim 4:13; 2Tim 3:16). He argues that where these are clear examples of exposition they are not described as teaching. Perhaps the most di cult of these for Dickson is 1Tim 4:13 where we nd the words , , (give attention to the reading, the exhortation, the teaching). Dickson argues that the presence of the article implies these are distinct activities: the reading of the Old Testament Scriptures, exhortation arising from those Scriptures, and teaching (verbally lay down the apostolic deposit entrusted to Timothy, 490). It is di cult to see that this notion of teaching is required in this context, and it may be that all three activities (reading, exhortation, and teaching) are to be applied to the (Old Testament) Scripture. If that is the case, teaching here is not explicitly a reference to the laying down of the apostolic deposit. Indeed, it could be argued that Dicksons case would be strengthened had the word order been altered to give attention to the reading, the teaching, the exhortation since the reading of the OT Scripture parallels the teaching (using Dicksons de nition) of the apostolic deposit, both of which then form the foundation of the exhortation. Nonetheless, I think the ambiguities inherent in this verse mean that its di cult to be conclusive about the nal signi cance. Dickson next looks at 2Tim 3:16 which again links Scripture and teaching, but claims there are good reasons not to think of teaching here as exposition: in context, Paul is not encouraging Timothy to read Scripture publicly and then teach it publicly but rather to study Scripture personally to prepare for the various public ministry activities listed (490). Second, Paul says Scripture is useful for teaching, not that teaching amounts to exposition of Scripture. While Dickson is probably correct to say that [t]his would be an odd way to express the relationship between Scripture and teaching if Paul believed that teaching was in fact the exposition of Scripture (491, emphasis his), it goes beyond the text to then conclude that teaching must be equated with laying down the apostolic record. It is conceivable (at least to me) that other forms of instruction could be aided by the God-breathed Scriptures.11 In section 3.2, Dickson focuses his attention on the use of teaching language in the Pastoral Epistles. He makes a solid case for his understanding of teaching in a number of passages including 2Tim 1:1314; 2:2; Titus 1:9 which he expands to include some other examples from Pauls letters (Rom 6:17; 16:17; Col 2:7).12 This analysis leads him to conclude that there

11.

12.

Dickson typically identi es two options for teaching: exposition or laying down the apostolic foundation. Teaching terms outside the NT re ect a broad range of meanings and it is thus possible that there are more options than the two identi ed. Dickson notes that I. H. Marshall comments regarding the term in the Pastorals is a technical term for the approved, apostolic doctrine (562). Marshall doesnt, however, appear to designate the word 5

Martin A. Shields Review of John Dickson, Hearing Her Voice

is no way to avoid the conclusion that teaching throughout these passages refers to laying down for congregations the material the apostles had passed on (mostly by word-ofmouth) (575). This conclusion is hard to refutefor these passages. Section 3.3 (571) examines references to teaching related to written information such as 1Tim 4:11; 6:2b where Paul instructs Timothy to teach the material preserved in his epistle. This, argues Dickson, is not equivalent to exegeting and applying, but instead Timothy is simply to relay to the churches in his care the instructions Paul has just given (596). If this is the case, however, and simply relaying the written information quali es as teaching in this narrow sense, then it is di cult to see why simply reading the Bible in the modern world doesnt bear some similarity to the teaching Paul enjoins upon Timothy based upon material in the epistle!13 Dickson does concede that there are a few instances of teaching language which do not correspond closely to his understanding (endnote 24). In addition to the references he cites are other instances which also re ect a far broader semantic eld for the terms such as Matt 5:19; Acts 15:1 (both ); and a number of other debatable occurrences. Of course most of the references to teaching in the NT relate to teaching about Jesus, and so the data is somewhat skewed. This, however, does not mean that the semantic range of the terminology is shifted so that its unmarked meaning denotes the laying down of the apostolic deposit. Consequently, speaking about technical language with respect to teaching overstates the case. There certainly are terms in the NT which have undergone a semantic shift such that they truly have become technical terms (the obvious ones are which always refers to Scripture in the NT, and ). The specialised meaning of these terms is evident in later Christian writings as well. Yet outside the NT words such as and remain in common usage without the special sense Dickson identi es in Pauls writings.14 It should be noted, however, that this alone does not signi cantly damage Dicksons case if it can be shown that the context of 1Tim 2:12 requires that has the narrow meaning appropriate in other places in the Pastorals.15 To this end, Dicksons argument has primarily

13. 14.

15.

a technical term and I think the use of this description is problematic (see further discussion above). It clearly does not convey this meaning in 1Tim 4:1 and it only conveys this meaning in passages where this meaning is clearly inferred from the context. The term itself occurs elsewhere in Pauls writings without this meaning (e.g. Eph 4:14) This impression is strengthened by Dicksons comment in 648 where he argues that modern sermons are not examples of teaching as he de nes it, except when the NT is quoted. The verb appears thousands of times in ancient Greek literature. From literature roughly contemporary with Pauls writings, it appears numerous times in Plutarchs works (e.g. in Alcibiades at least 7 times including, in chapter 7, for teaching boys to read. The verb can also be found in Aristides at least 5 times). There is no sign of signi cant semantic shift away from the broad range evident in classical usage toward a narrow sense in the Greek texts I consulted. If only Paul had written something like 6

Martin A. Shields Review of John Dickson, Hearing Her Voice

been that the term is constrained by its association with authority in this verse, that it cannot broadly apply to all forms of speaking in church (in light of 1Cor 11:45), and that later in 1 Timothy this speci c type of teaching is explicitly referred to. He bolsters this with historical contextual considerations relating to preservation of oral instruction. Dicksons case would, however, be strengthened with the inclusion of more exegetical detail on 1Tim 2 to show why this speci c notion of teaching is appropriate. When it comes to 1Tim 2:12, Dickson concludes that Pauls proscription excludes women from the authoritative laying down of the apostolic deposit, a speci c ministry which does not correspond to the giving of sermons in the modern church.16 This last idea is the subject of his fourth chapter. To illustrate the point, he notes that in the early church, the truthfulness of any speech in the church was judged by those entrusted with the apostolic deposit. Today such judgments are made on the basis of the written record of Scripture. Dickson also argues that a modern sermon is dissimilar to the narrow sense of teaching he identi es in the Pastoral Epistles on the basis that [m]odern expositors comment on the teaching, exhort us to heed the teaching, and apply the teaching to modern life No doubt these ministries carry some authority and should be performed by trustworthy people, but it is not the same authority that was invested in the rst-century teacher, without whom there was no reliable access to the apostolic deposit (680). Overall, then, Dickson presents an argument that deserves considered attention. While his understanding of prophecy is inadequate and his classi cation of teaching language in the Pastoral Epistles as technical language is not compelling, these objections do not ultimately invalidate his overall argument. He has made it clear that the prohibition against women teaching in 1Tim 2:12 should not be allowed to exclude women from ever speaking in a public assembly, and that modern sermons should not automatically be labelled teaching in the sense Paul uses in 1Tim 2:12. There are areas where his arguments could be clari ed (why, for example, does his interpretation not mean women should not be reading the Bible in public?). Nonetheless, he is probably correct to conclude that modern sermons are closer to than to and that there are no good biblical reasons not to hear more from women in the pulpit than we do. In the end, however, it will take time for the rami cations of Dicksons reading to penetrate into conservative evangelical thinking. Until that happens, it is to be hoped that readers at least give his book the careful attention it deserves.

16.

then Dicksons argument would have been far stronger! Nonetheless, Mounce (for example) agrees that in this verse relates to a speci c type of teaching (pp. 125126). Dicksons understanding of the passage largely follows standard complementarian interpretation (which itself has a number of problems) and is explained in endnote 26. Many egalitarians will take issue with his interpretation at this point. 7