A Response to John Dickson's Hearing Her Voice (7 of 7)

Conclusion | Where to from here?

In the conclusion of Hearing Her Voice, John offers a suggestion as to the only way he thinks his broad argument could be invalidated, and then gives three or four possible responses.  

Source: iStockphoto.com

I won't engage with his suggestion about how to invalidate his argument, because I think he wrongly brings together what are actually two separate tasks: showing the faults with his argument and defending the view that he's trying to argue against.  
But what about the three or four possible responses he talks about?  They are:

1.     outright rejection

2.     acceptance of the various speaking activities that the New Testament expects both men and women to be engaged in, along with a fresh decision to give women more of a voice in the church service, inviting them to give ‘talks’

3.     embracing the entire argument, thus opening all sermons to suitable men and women

4.     agreeing that contemporary sermons are not wholly the same as teaching in 1 Tim 2:2, but fearing that they are close enough that to have women give sermons today would be disobedient to 1 Tim 2:2; John seems to accept this possible response, but then taint its validity by associating it with a non-gospel legalism

There will always be different ways to describe people’s responses to a book like this, of course.  It’s interesting, though, that the three main possibilities John suggests are all couched in ways that align the reader into ‘agreement’ with his broad argument.  More than that, they also align the reader into a position of having women preach, whichever words are used to describe this activity.  I simply note that this is fair way on from the goal he identified at the beginning, ‘to invite friends and colleagues to reassess (again) the biblical basis of their own reticence to invite women into the pulpit.’[1] 

But here’s another way of thinking about the different responses people might make to Hearing Her Voice:

1.     some people will agree with it for purely pragmatic reasons.  Some will have been in favour of women preaching for a while, but without having an argument to base it on.  It’s not hard to imagine some of them swinging in behind John and saying, ‘there, that’s my argument’, even though they themselves had never come up with these ideas!  Others will have wanted to have women preach, but not known how to justify it.  Again, it’s not hard to imagine some of them, likewise, swinging in behind John and using Hearing Her Voice as their theological justification.  It is, after all, a much more palatable position to hold.

2.     others will agree with it with good conscience.  That is, they will have tried to work through argument - testing it, weighing it, and ultimately, approving of it.  I don’t think it’s the right conclusion to make, but I’ve no doubt some will make it, and they will do so on the basis of principle

3.     some people will disagree with it for purely reactionary reasons.  In other words, they’ll be sure that it’s wrong, but they won’t be able to explain why they think it’s wrong.  It’s just wrong because it’s wrong, because it’s wrong.  Or it’s wrong because it’s coming from ‘that camp over there’, or something like that.

4.     others will disagree with it on the basis of testing the argument, and finding that it doesn’t work.  Whether or not people think my arguments are sound or persuasive, this is the approach I have tried to take.  I know others who have done, and who continue to do, the same.

It goes without saying (I think!) that we ought to work hard together so that everyone fits into either the second or the fourth category.  The first and the third don't really help anyone.  But if we can land in the second and fourth, then we ought to be able to keep talking about it together, going back to the Scriptures in humility to learn obedience, both together and with God’s help.

In the meantime, though, I think there are some sad but (almost) inevitable consequences of John’s work. 

The most troubling for me is that very quickly among our Sydney Anglican Diocese we may well end up with two streams of churches, two streams of ministers, two streams of staff teams, two streams of congregational expectation ...  One will be in favour of women preaching; the other not.  Again, (almost) inevitably, one group will be endlessly on the front foot and significantly more popular and well received; the other endlessly on the back foot and significantly more unpopular and less well received.  One will sound and look ‘fresh’, ‘relevant’, and sophisticated; the other will sound and look ‘stale’, ‘old-fashioned’, and simple.

Of course, as Christians, we’re not in the game of looking ‘fresh’ and ‘relevant’ and popular or well received.  In and of itself, that's not an argument against John's book.  It’s simply a reminder of something that we all need to take to heart  again and again and again, because our instinct is nearly always to go in the opposite direction.  Our glorious task is to learn the obedience of faith together, so as to bring glory to God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.

But the problem of developing two streams means it may get harder and harder for some of us to work together, because one group has shifted in its thinking and practice of ministry.  And yet again, (almost) inevitably it will be those who haven’t moved anywhere who cop the criticism of causing disunity!

Only slightly less troubling for me is the fact that this one ministry – preaching – has potentially become the litmus test for whether a church is encouraging a wide variety of speaking ministries from both men and women.  This is a subtle shift that happens towards the end of Hearing Her Voice.  Having rightly argued for a wide variety of speaking ministries being open in the New Testament to both men and women – and John isn’t saying anything new with this; I don’t know anyone who ever seriously disputed it – his concluding challenge is that suitable women ought to now be able to preach sermons.  But hang on.  Isn’t preaching only one form of speaking ministry?

In our church, for example, speaking ministry takes place in all manner of ways, from both men and women, all throughout the week.  And I take seriously my duty of continuing to train and encourage this ministry to keep happening, not just from men, but from women also.  Our whole staff team takes this seriously.  In fact, if I was to stop and write them all down, there are a great more ministries that are open to both men and women than those that aren’t.  Sure, preaching sermons in our Sunday services is one of those that isn’t open to both men and women.  But that is just one 25-minute ministry every week!  Is John seriously suggesting that the task of engaging and encouraging Christian sisters in word ministry can be properly reduced to this one activity?  That we can ‘tick it off the list’ as long as somewhere on that preaching roster we have a woman’s name?  I hope that’s not what he’s suggesting.  The idea is absurd.  And it runs completely counter to the variety of ministries that the New Testament speaks of.

---

[1] p10.