A Response to John Dickson's Hearing Her Voice (3 of 7)

Critique | Does teaching really mean ‘preserving and laying down’?

The heart of John’s argument in Hearing Her Voice is that what we do in contemporary sermons is a different activity to the teaching that Paul forbids to women in 1 Tim 2:12.  

I don’t think the first stage of his argument is really in dispute.  He simply shows that there are numerous speaking ministries mentioned in the Bible.  They may have significant areas of overlap.  But the fact that different words are used to describe them means that they are clearly distinguishable from each other.  Only one of them – teaching (Greek didaskō) – is forbidden to women in 1 Tim 2:12.  So far, nothing too radical.

Source: iStockphoto.com

From here, John questions the easy assumption which is often made, that what we do in contemporary sermons is the same activity of teaching that Paul talks about in 1 Tim 2:12.  He says that it's not.  Rather, for Paul, teaching referred to a very specific activity found within the writings, and the historical context, of the New Testament.  Therefore, women today should be allowed to give sermons.  Rather than viewing them as New Testament teaching, John suggests they may be closest to the New Testament ministry of exhorting (Greek paraklēsis).  In support of this he pays particular attention to Acts 13:15, 15:31-32, and 1 Tim 4:13.

What then is the ministry of teaching that Paul forbids to women in 1 Tim 2:12?  John begins his answer by distinguishing between a general type of ‘teaching’ and a specific or technical meaning of the term.  This seems plausible, given that Paul’s instruction in 1 Tim 2:12 can’t really contradict his instruction in Col 3:16 that everyone in the congregation to be involved in teaching one another.  And so the word-ministry of teaching that Paul prohibits to women in 1 Tim 2:12 should be understood with this specific, or technical, meaning, which John describes as preserving and laying down the fixed traditions of and about Jesus as handed on by the apostles.

Where does this definition of teaching come from?

John says that this definition of teaching comes from historically informed exegesis: from thinking through the historical situation that existed at the time Paul gave this instruction, and then considering the exegetical implications that flow from this.  1 Tim 2:12 was written at a time when the apostolic letters and the gospels had not yet been collected into what we now have as the New Testament.  Therefore churches were highly dependant on oral transmission to pass on the teaching of and about Jesus that was given by the apostles.

The idea of fixed oral transmission is not controversial, and John gives several examples of New Testament texts that indicate its use: 1 Cor 11:2; 11:23-24; 15:1-5; Gal 1:6-9; 1 Thess 4:1-2.[1]  He also gives several texts that show this body of traditions was fixed not flexible:[2] the reference to the apostolic ‘deposit’ (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14), the ‘faith that was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3), and the ‘traditions delivered/received’ (1 Cor 11:2; 15:1-3; 2 Thess 3:6).  Then crucially, the final step in John's section on oral transmission is to say that this fixed body of tradition is frequently called ‘the teaching’ (citing Rom 6:17; 16:17; 1 Tim 6:1; Titus 1:9; 2:10 etc.).  He says that in these references, ‘the teaching’ is not Bible exposition but recently transmitted apostolic traditions.[3]

Having laid this groundwork, John goes on to argue that teaching is Paul’s preferred word, in the Pastorals at least, for this preserving and laying down process.  I don’t think John ties himself down to any one particular ‘proof text’.  He is trying to observe the general, consistent pattern of Paul’s usage.  Nevertheless, some passages occupy a more prominent place in his thinking, such as Gal 1:12, where Paul declares with synonymous parallelism, ‘I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it’, and 2 Tim 2:2, where Paul instructs Timothy, ‘what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also’.

For me, it’s in amongst all these details that John’s argument doesn’t work.  

As a first observation, for example, earlier on in his argument when he explains that teaching isn’t everything, John repeatedly insists that different words are used to describe different word ministries, and that despite whatever overlap they share they are also clearly distinguished one from another.  But this insistence seems to virtually disappear in his discussion of fixed oral transmission.  As a result, we’re told that four very different words, or sets of words, can all now refer to the same process – the apostolic deposit, the faith once for all delivered, the traditions delivered/received, and the teaching.

In addition, John’s explanation of the meaning of teaching is of specific and technical process already described by other New Testament words.  These are the ‘traditions delivered/received’ words, words like paradosis (tradition), paralambanō (receive), and paradidōmi (deliver over).  These words are widely understood with the technical meaning of preserving and laying down, which is why in the majority of references in John’s section on oral transmission, it’s these words that are used, not teach words. 

I realise that none of this is unknown to John.  His explanation is that the ‘traditions delivered/received’ words are typically used to refer to the evangelistic process, whereas Paul typically uses ‘teach’ to refer to the ongoing process of preserving and laying down the apostolic traditions.  But given the synonymous parallelism of receive and taught in Gal 1:12, it means another layer must now be added to our understanding of the meaning of these different words:

·       paradosis, paralambanō, and paradidōmi are specific technical words that denote the initial evangelistic passing on of apostolic traditions of and about Jesus

·       teaching also has this specific technical meaning, although it can also have the more general meaning of a passage like Col 3:16; but in addition to all this, when it carries the specific technical meaning, teaching can refer either to the initial evangelistic passing on of apostolic traditions, or the ongoing process of passing on apostolic traditions

Perhaps this is what the words actually mean.  Just as a ‘gut feel’, though, it’s not the way I naturally read the word.  Although maybe I have been too shaped by the evangelical ‘plain reading’ that John is trying to challenge, which simply assumes what needs to be shown.

Most problematic for me, though, is the suggestion that teach has two distinct meanings: the general one found in a place like Col 3:16, and the specific and technical one found in 1 Tim 2:12.  This begs the question, of course, about how you know when Paul has the general meaning in mind and when he has the specific and technical meaning in mind, to which the obvious answer is that you can only know by looking at the particular context.  And I think this issue of particular context is a much better explanation of the different ways that Paul uses the word teach, than anything inherent in the word itself which says it has either the general meaning or the specific and technical meaning. 

For example, in 2 Tim 2:2, isn’t it the combined effect of all the other words in Paul’s instruction that lead us to the preserving and laying down process?  Consider what the verse looks like even when the word teach is blanked out:

and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to _____ others also.

In other words, it’s not anything inherent in the meaning of the ‘_____’ word that tells us it means preserving and laying down the apostolic traditions for future generations.  It’s the particular context of the whole sentence that gives this meaning.

Or, to think of it a different way, consider what the verse would mean if instead of the word teach, Paul had used exhort:

and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to exhort others also.

If Paul had written such a statement, would that now mean that the word exhort carried the meaning of preserving and laying down that John gives to teach?  It would if this you could track the word through the New Testament and show that this is consistently what it means.  But probably not, if in its other uses the word was left without qualification by the particular context.  In such a situation, it would simply mean that here in 2 Tim 2:2, the content of the faithful men’s exhortation of others is whatever Timothy had heard Paul say in the presence of many witnesses and entrusted to them?

I think it’s more accurate, therefore, to say that the word teach can carry a range of meanings.  In some particular contexts, such as Col 3:16 or 2 Tim 2:2, the surrounding words dictate the manner, or the content, of teaching, so that we understand Paul is talking about something specific.  But when we come to passages where Paul uses the word teach, and there’s nothing in the particular context which means we should narrow our understanding of what he means by the word, why would we take the narrower understanding of the word from a different passage, where there are all sorts of clues to say we must narrow our understanding of what Paul means, and overlay that narrower meaning onto the passage we are working on? 

In other words, Paul’s usage of teach could be represented like this:

general		passages where clues in the particular context mean Paul is using teach very generally				e.g. Col 3:16
		passages where there are no clues in the particular context that focus our understanding of how Paul uses teach				e.g., Rom 12:7
specific		passages where clues in the particular context mean Paul is using teach more narrowly				e.g., 2 Tim 2:2

I think John sees a passage like Col 3:16 as the exception, and passages like 2 Tim 2:2 as the precedent by which passages like Rom 12:7 should be understood.  (I realise John’s argument is not based on 2 Tim 2:2 alone, which is why I’ve listed it as an example, and why I just used the plural: passages like 2 Tim 2:2.) 

Isn’t it better, though, given that historically teaching has typically been understood more generally, and without the specific technical meaning of words like paradosis, paralambanō, and paradidōmi, to say that it has not narrowing of meaning, unless the context demands it, as in the case of Col 3:16 or 2 Tim 2:2?

Conclusions about the meaning of teach

I’m sure some people will think I'm just splitting hairs.  I hope, at the very least though, that I’ve fairly represented John’s argument!  

More posts will follow.  At this point, though, my main goal has simply been to explain why I don’t think the specific and technical definition that John gives to teaching really works.  The word has a range of meanings, and has normally been understood quite generally.  Occasionally, such as in Col 3:16 or 2 Tim 2:2, the particular context that we narrow our understanding of what Paul is talking about.  But where the context makes no such demand – and I would argue 1 Tim 2:12 is an example of such a passage – I don’t think there are good reasons for narrowing our understanding of what Paul is talking about.

---

[1] p27.

[2] p29.

[3] p29.

A Response to John Dickson's Hearing Her Voice (2 of 7)

Critique | A shift story?

One of the first responses to John Dickson’s Hearing Her Voice involved the observation that it was a ‘shift story’. 

Source: iStockphoto.com

A ‘shift story’ is a form of argument in which an author describes his or her journey from ‘Point A’ to ‘Point B’, with the natural implication being that the reader should embark on a similar journey.  Rhetorically, it’s a powerful way to argue, because what it can do is leave the reader who disagrees with the argument feeling old-fashioned and conservative, quaint, even naïve and immature.  In our current context, it’s especially effective because we live at a time when what is new and fresh is nearly always better than what seems old and stale. 

As far as I could tell, this response to Hearing Her Voice was galling to John.  It was galling mainly because in his view, the ‘shift story’ aspect of his argument was so small as to be virtually non-existent, and also because it did nothing to address the substance of his argument.  It seemed to feel like a rhetorical ‘slap on the wrist’.

Several points can be made in response to all this:

·       Hearing Her Voice is definitely a shift story.  In fact, John expressly states at the start of the book (p9) that there was a process of changing his mind about what 1 Tim 2:12 means.  Therefore, it's a shift story.  I don’t think John disputes this, which is why in one facebook thread he expressly identified what he thought was the sum total of shift story elements in his argument.  I personally don’t think he got them all.  But I don’t think there were very many he missed out.  And in any case, the ones he missed weren’t as substantial as the ones he got, so there's no real advantage to be gained from quibbling over this detail.  If we all recognise that it's a shift story, let's move on.

·       one important consequence of it being a shift story, though, is that it does have a very strong rhetorical force.  For me, the overall effect was that I left the book feeling old-fashioned and not-yet-mature in the way that John is now mature, simply because I haven’t yet made the same journey from Point A to Point B that John has made.  As a result, it’s hard not to feel like I enter the conversation, even half a year later, in a negative and defensive position.  I don’t think this is what John was trying to achieve by writing it this way.  I think he was just writing personally.  And perhaps I've been an over-sensitive reader.  I’m just trying to articulate my own responses to the book, especially as it relates to the issue of it being a shift story.

·       most importantly, though, we should all be clear that recognising it as a shift story does nothing to engage with the substance of John’s argument.  More than that, to be fair, it’s very hard to think of another way that John could have written the book, given that this is, in fact, a shift that he has made.  Perhaps he could have written it without any personal elements whatsoever.  I have tried to imagine how such an argument would read.  It’s probably not an impossible task.  But it's certainly not the natural way to write it.  Therefore a different, and (I think) more charitable, way of reading the shift story elements of Hearing Her Voice is to say that by identifying what he used to think, John is simply inviting his fellow gospel workers into a conversation with him.  On a purely practical level, many of these fellow gospel workers are Sydney Anglicans, like myself.  They can, therefore, be assumed to still think the way that he used to.  Identifying this (old) common ground simply makes it more likely that we will engage with the argument.  As an example of how this works, if I am honest, there are many Christian books that I don’t even bother to buy or read, because I make a quick ‘gut call’ that the author is probably coming from a very different theological background to the one that I come from.  Therefore we will speak a different theological language, and have little common ground.  In the case of Hearing Her Voice, however, apart from our own personal knowledge of John’s theological background (if we have it), describing what he used to think is a valid way to overcome this kind of ‘gut call’ dismissal, so that those who share the same background will feel like it’s safe and worthwhile to enter the conversation.

What I think we need to do, therefore, is simply recognise that it is a shift story, and that it can’t really help but be a shift story, and then leave those observations to the side.  Those who have made a similar journey to John on this issue should not feel any inherent superiority because of it, and nor should they use it to put illegitimate rhetorical pressure on their ‘opponents’.  At the same time, those who have not yet made the journey should not feel any inherent inferiority because of it, and nor should they use it to illegitimately dismiss John’s argument.

Again, then, all we can do is engage in the substance of what John writes, and contend with each other for a right understanding of the text.

A Response to John Dickson's Hearing Her Voice (1 of 7)

A word of appreciation

At the end of 2012, John Dickson released an eBook called Hearing Her Voice: A Case for Women Giving Sermons.  It was one of three books released at the same time, which all deal with broadly the same set of issues.  The other two were Mike Bird’s Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives, and Bobby Haircuts, and Kathy Keller’s Jesus, Justice and Gender.

Source: iStockphoto

Hearing Her Voice is the only one of these I’ve read.  The main reason for this is the circles of connection.  John is a fellow-worker in the Sydney Anglican Diocese.  I’ve appreciated some of the stuff he has written especially in defending the historicity of the gospels.  He comes from the same theological ‘stable’ as me, and therefore my assumption is that we share the same sort of commitments in our reading of Scripture. 

Although in the end, I disagree with John’s reading of 1 Tim 2:12, I appreciated the stated modesty of his argument: he’s not calling for a revolution of all things to do with women in ministry; he’s not arguing for women’s ordination to the priesthood, or as senior pastors.  He says that in some ways it might seem to some people that he should simply go the whole way and become a ‘card-carrying “egalitarian”’ (a term that John admits to not liking very much).  But he doesn't think God's Word allows him to do this.  And I agree with him!  

The net result, though, is that for me, he is someone I want to consider.  He is someone I want to engage with.  He is someone who makes me think.  

Another way of saying all this is that in the end, John’s argument is based on the text of Scripture.  It’s an argument based on his considered reading of a specific text.  I don't think his reading is right, but at least, broadly speaking, we're trying to 'play the same game'.  Of course, there are all sorts of trends ‘out there’ today with regard to roles for women in public Christian ministry.  And at one level, it's never a bad thing to try and 'locate' arguments, whether they are our own or the arguments of others, into broader patterns of thinking.  But I don't think that's really what John's argument is about.  And therefore it's not what my disagreement is about.  It has to be based on Scripture.

What is John’s argument?

In the weeks immediately after Hearing Her Voice was published, numerous responses were given in the blogosphere and on social media.  I'm sure that most of these were well-intended, and simply wanted to publicly contend for a right understanding of Scripture.  It seemed to me, though, that some of them clearly failed 'the listening test'.  That is, they hadn’t really understood John’s argument.  Therefore they either rebutted things that John didn’t say, or they didn’t rebut the things he did say! 

This seemed to be as frustrating for John as it was counter-productive to the early ‘conversation’ about what John had written, especially in and around Sydney.  (I realise, of course, that John’s book will reach well beyond the Sydney Anglican diocese.  But since this is the main (only?) sphere in which I move personally, it’s the main one in which I’ve seen people try to come to grips with what John has written.)

My first step, then, is simply to try and express John’s argument in my own words.  If I can’t do this in a way that he would nod along to, then I guess I haven’t understood it yet.  And if I haven’t understood it yet, anything else I say won’t be a very effective response to his book!  
If I had to summarise John’s argument in point form, it would go something like this:

·       there are numerous public speaking ministries mentioned in the New Testament

·       only one of these – teaching – is forbidden to women; this happens in 1 Tim 2:12

·       since Paul emphasises elsewhere that the various public speaking ministries differ from each other, we need to know what was meant by the ministry of teaching in 1 Tim 2:12, so that we know what Paul is forbidding to women

o   if teaching in 1 Tim 2:12 is what happens in a contemporary sermon, clearly women should not be permitted to preach sermons

o   if teaching in 1 Tim 2:12 is different from what happens in a contemporary sermon, godly and mature women should be permitted to preach sermons

·       the specific activity that Paul forbids to women in 1 Tim 2:12 – teaching – is not a general type of speaking based on Scripture, but rather a specific activity found through the New Testament, and necessitated by an as-yet unwritten and unformed New Testament canon: preserving and laying down the traditions handed on by the apostles

·       contemporary sermons cannot easily be equated to this specific task of preserving and laying down the traditions handed on by the apostles

·       therefore godly and mature women should be permitted to preach sermons

In the following posts I will try to show where I think John’s argument doesn’t work.  But for now I’m going to finish this post with three things I’ve appreciated from reading Hearing Her Voice.

1. It’s been good to have my assumptions challenged. 

It’s so easy on issues like this to ‘rest on your laurels’, and to not keep testing either your understanding of Scripture or your actual behaviour.  John’s book has made me think hard again about an issue of considerable importance, especially in our modern setting.  

Perhaps not everyone thinks this way, but I don't thing disagreements between us are necessarily a bad thing.  They are certainly inevitable.  But they can also be good, as long as they drive us back to the Scriptures to contend with each other through reasonable argument, and to learn obedience together. 

John’s book should be part of this process.  It has made me re-think again how it is that we read the New Testament, and how we understand passages in it: how we work out what words mean, and what sentences mean, and what paragraphs mean …  Whether on this issue or any other issue, these are always good things for us to re-examine.

2. It’s been good to think through the importance of preaching again.

The importance of sermons is not quite what John’s book is about.  But it’s probably what his book assumes.  And sermons are important.  Preaching is important.  They’re important because of the nature of the gospel.  The gospel is an announced thing more than an analysed thing.  It’s a proclaimed thing more than a discussed thing.  Sermons reinforce these truths, even by their very form.  They place us under the authoritative sound of God's Word, and therefore they will always be vitally important as a means by which God’s people are built up into maturity.

To have so people wrestling with the meaning of a passage like 1 Tim 2:12 has reinforced these convictions.  After all, we would only get into the debate in the first place if it's something we actually care about!

3. It’s been good to remember how unimportant preaching is.

OK, ‘unimportant’ is probably not quite the right word.  But it’s good to remember that a sermon is just one instance of the ministry-of-the-Word that should happen among God’s people every week.  As an ordained minister, it’s a constant danger to place more importance on the sermon than I should.  Or maybe to place importance on the sermon for the wrong reasons.  After all, the sermon is my time to shine: to strut my stuff and to flex my exegetical and pastoral muscles.  Perhaps others don't struggle against such delusions of grandeur.  But for me, preacher's pride is a constant danger.  I don't mean to accuse John, or anyone else, of thinking this way.  But it's certainly something I've struggled with.

But if I stop and think about it for a moment, at our church, in each congregation, the sermon is just one weekly block of 25 minutes.  There is so much more ministry-of-the-Word that should be happening each week – from both men and women!  What we need to be committed to, then, and what we need to encourage in each other, is a steadfast dedication to Word-centred ministry, not sermon-centred ministry. 

This needs to be said clearly from the outset, so that when I say I don't think women should preach sermons in mixed congregations, I am not misheard to say women not be engaged in ministry-of-the Word.  But as well it reminds me that when I say I don't think women should preach sermons in mixed congregations, I've then got to have have some genuine answers in store for my Christian sisters, about what it can look like to use their God-given gifts to serve the glorious gospel of God's grace.

In 'the deep end': the safety of God's Word

I’ve been preaching through Romans 9-11 recently.  They are hard chapters.  Important chapters, but hard.  And they demand the very best thinking we’re capable of.

The first week was Romans 9, probably the hardest of the three.  That night at church we had some guests with us at church.  Some were not Christians.  Some were young Christians.  And here they were, listening to a sermon on Romans 9.  Talk about being thrown in the deep end!

In the wash up during the week that followed, some people actually asked whether church was the place for dealing with passages like Romans 9.  After all, most weeks we want to expect that there might be guests there.  Perhaps difficult chapters like this should be dealt with elsewhere, so that on Sundays we can just concentrate on teaching people the basics of the faith.

In some ways, it makes sense.  I understand the instinct.  In the end, though, I am concerned that to make such decisions would be to not trust in the goodness of God’s Word.

The idea that Romans 9-11 is ‘the deep end’, though, got me thinking about the image of God’s Word as a swimming pool.  And if we think of it that way, what we need to remember is that the whole pool is safe for us to swim in!  It’s safe because it’s God’s Word to us, and God’s Word is truth.  Which means we won’t come to harm by ‘swimming’ in it.

Yes, there might be a deep end, like Romans 9-11: places where we have genuine questions, and where it’s hard to work out the answers.  Even so, we still won’t come to harm.

As I kept working through the chapters, though, I realised we could use the image another way.  Because right in the middle of these very challenging chapters we find Romans 10:9-13, where Paul explains in unmistakably clear detail what we must do to be saved.  And therefore, even at the deep end, the water is clear for us to see through.  This is very important for us to remember.  And so Paul teaches:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

I have found this image of God’s Word as a swimming pool a useful one to carry in my head.  Those who heard it in one of the sermons seem to have found it useful as well.  As a church it’s given us a shorthand way to talk together about the depths of God’s Word, and the depths of God’s wisdom in salvation.  This is a good thing, because after all, it’s where Paul ends up in Romans 11:33-36! 

And yet this image has also allowed us to maintain alongside these truths a clear sense of the goodness, as well as the safety, of God’s Word.  This is the really critical thing if we are to continue in the ministry of the gospel.  And it is the critical commitment we must maintain if we are to see God continue to call people to himself through the gospel of his Son.