Tag: women preaching

How to Read the Bible — Reading the New Testament as (modern) Christians

This series of posts was first a series of sermons I preached at City South Presbyterian and Coorparoo Presbyterian in mid 2026. You can, if it is your preferred medium, watch the video recording of this sermon here (Vimeo), or listen to the audio recording here (Spotify link).

I want you to bring me a coat next week.  Or a cinnamon scroll. Scripture commands it. 

When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.

2 Timothy 4:13

You can tell this is stupid, right, but why? 

How are we reading the Bible to decide these words don’t apply to us —  while others do?

Skimming 2 Timothy 4, where Paul begins by picturing himself standing before God, and charging Timothy to preach the word — this “charge” was used in my ordination — we can see how that applies to modern church life, and we apply it (2 Timothy 4:1).

Paul has just said the Scriptures make people wise for salvation through faith in Jesus, and God-breathed; inspired; and useful for teaching, rebuking and correcting (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Now he’s telling Timothy to do this work, with the Scriptures by preaching — in season and out of season (2 Timothy 4:2). 

We can map this onto life in our community where we are also inspired and shaped by God’s word as people speak it…

And Paul says do this cause some people will do the opposite; finding false teachers for their own desires (2 Timothy 4:3). Who peddle myths that will turn people’s heads from the Gospel (2 Timothy 4:4-5). Timothy is to keep his head; even if it means suffering as he does his duties as a servant (2 Timothy 4:4-5). 

Again, we can see a throughline to our time; and our church.

Paul says look at me; my example — I am being poured out; almost exhausted — I have finished the race (2 Timothy 4:6-7). I have kept my eyes on the prize — the crown given by Jesus to everyone who sticks with him (2 Timothy 4:8)… 

We stick with Jesus. We get a crown. Timothy takes up the baton in the relay; and, generations later, we have joined the race.

But then this gear change. It all gets so human and specific.  Come quickly. I am alone (2 Timothy 4:9-10). Bring my coat (2 Timothy 4:13). This instruction about a coat — it’s this reminder this is a letter; we are reading someone else’s mail.

New Testament letters are called ‘epistles’ — this word is built on the Greek for sent; and it shares a root with ‘apostles’; this is a useful analogy, because ancient letters were understood as a kind of substitute for a person’s presence.

About a third of the New Testament comes to us in this form. And they have all got very ‘human’ bits like this; it’s clear these words about a coat are not to us. They are personal. They remind us we are outsiders to the situations and relationships these New Testament letters come from. But they are still part of our Scriptures; they were not dropped off as this letter was received and circulated as God’s word.

And these personal bits could make the text feel more distant and less applicable; but they can do the opposite if we use them as a lens to read the whole letter; to picture the shape of the community; the church, who are writing, receiving, reflecting on and circulating these letters along with the Old Testament Scriptures; imagining the 3D “incarnated” humanity of the inspired community through what these letters describe and do amongst that community.

Reading the letters through the lens of these human bits has a payoff for how we read the trickiest bits; we are going to take a look at where Paul says he doesn’t permit a woman to teach in 1 Timothy 2, after we look at some nuts and bolts.

We have stacks of letters from the Roman world, so know things about their structure — or genre — and New Testament epistles follow this formula. Picking up Andy Judd’s book on genre again… First, he points out this bit about the coat should make us pause and check our assumptions about how letters work ‘for us’…

“Extremely specific instructions like 2 Timothy 4:13 remind us to pause and consider our assumptions about how the genre of New Testament epistle works…”

Andrew Judd, Modern Genre Theory

Andy’s big point is that genres help us not just see what words say, but what they do when they are put in a form, and looking at the formula these letters follow is an important step before we apply them to our lives now.

…genres are about more than what’s written on the page; they’re about who is trying to achieve what with the piece of paper.

Andrew Judd, Modern Genre Theory

So. An ancient letter conventionally opens by establishing the relationship between sender and receiver. Paul — an apostle of Jesus — is writing to Timothy — his dear son (2 Timothy 1:1-2). This is followed — especially in Paul’s letters — by thanksgiving. In the epistles this looks like Paul bringing the other person, or church, ‘before God’s throne’ in prayer; so God is part of the relationship.

…Paul usually finds something distinctively Christian to thank God for…

Andrew Judd, Modern Genre Theory

Here he thanks God for Timothy, and longs to see him to be filled with joy (2 Timothy 1:3-4).

The body of the letter doesn’t have to be an essay with one big idea, it can cover all sorts of stuff ‘in the relationship’ — and can be like a kind of scrapbook holding other types of writing.

…The letter genre allows for a rather wide-ranging and free-flowing discussion of a variety of topics…

Andrew Judd, Modern Genre Theory

They can also include mini-essays, or examples of ancient rhetoric or persuasion; there is evidence Paul occasionally structures his letters using these forms, and that he sometimes uses overarching metaphors to tie a bunch of ideas together.

Somewhere in the body, an ancient letter has this thing called the parenesis; this is where the writer gets to the point of why they are writing; and what they want the receiver to do.

…This is where the writer tells us what to do, attempting to influence how we think, feel, or act…

Andrew Judd, Modern Genre Theory

Working this out can unlock why a letter has been sent, and helps us make sense of the big picture; and of how to apply it.

So, in 2 Timothy, Paul — the spiritual dad — wants Timothy to follow in his footsteps; guarding the ‘good deposit,’ keeping the ‘pattern of sound teaching’ — that he learned (2 Timothy 1:13-14). Not following the false teachers (2 Timothy 3:14). He keeps coming back to this idea, before ‘charging’ him with doing it (2 Timothy 4:1-2).

And ancient letters close by reaffirming the relationship, and with a bit of situational small talk, or ‘family news’ — which is where we get the coat, and the visit, before winter (2 Timothy 4:9, 13, 21).

…a good closing reaffirms the interpersonal dynamic of the situation, often including a farewell or health wish…

Andrew Judd, Modern Genre Theory

So that is the form; and figuring out the ‘parenesis’ — the purpose of the letter — is helpful for how we weigh up bits of the content and their meaning and application then and now.

The other part of working out how to apply these letters is seeing what we can construct about the context or situation ‘behind’ the letter. At times the content will be specific about the context; winter coming is a straightfoward background situation behind Paul’s request for his coat (2 Timothy 4:9, 13, 21). Other times it’s harder.

Is there a specific situation Paul is addressing where he says a woman isn’t to teach or have authority?  Are these words like his specific timely request for a coat — particular to the relationship and circumstances… Or are they general and binding?

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

1 Timothy 2:11-12

How would we tell the difference?

I want to suggest neglecting the end bits of Paul’s letters — the human relationships and situation behind the text, and described in the text — has led to us projecting this verse onto any structure we create, or reading our structures back into these words; but bringing the ancient network of relationships from the end of the letter into 3D in our imaginations, as we engage with Paul’s letters as things written into a situation — might give us a different picture of what Paul is saying.

But we need to do a little more technical work first on how we recreate the ‘background’ situation. 

Reading any letter is like listening to one side of a conversation; there is a situation behind every letter where the author wants to be present in letter form. Sometimes — like with Corinthians — this is a conversation happening in correspondence (1 Corinthians 7:1). But often we are left trying to reconstruct the other half by looking at the side we have; which is called mirror reading. 

There are lots of scholarly rules for mirror reading, but it’s easy for us to fill in the blanks by making stuff up;  turning small historical facts into huge explanatory ideas, and this kind of speculation is great for PhDs or book deals… Or sermons… 

We do have some data though — whether that is information in the letters — like quotes, or when people or ideas are named — and we have got the book of Acts; but historical work can also be part of giving us a ‘3D’ lay of the land. 

But, our ‘mirror images’ can get in the way of carefully reading the text as ‘literature’ — paying attention to genre, and a good “boomerang test” of the genre (see the post on reading as literature) — where we recognise these letters are a type of writing that have a purpose ‘contained’ in the writing themselves, that might break what some people imagine in the mirror.

If the image doesn’t match with the purpose of the text, the image is probably wrong. 

This will all make a bit of sense if we look at how it works with Paul’s letters to Timothy. Let us reconstruct the world a bit using the data we have.

The ‘relational’ picture is pretty clear — in both letters, Paul calls Timothy his true and dear son (1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2).

They met in Acts 16 in Lystra, and from there he joins Paul’s team (Acts 16:1).

They travel together, and go from Corinth to Ephesus with Priscilla and Aquila. Timothy and Paul sail off, then, eventually, head back to Ephesus, where Paul hits some massive opposition over the economic impact of the Gospel (Acts 18:19, 21; Acts 19:1, 23-24). 

Ephesus is famous for its idol temples; its craftsmen get rich on making metal idols of the god Artemis. Paul says these gods are hollow, and a local silversmith named Demetrius realises Paul’s teaching — that idols are not real — will send them broke, and he leads a riot against Paul (Acts 19:26-29). A local Jewish guy, Alexander, is brought out to speak; probably to make a distinction between Paul’s Gospel and Judaism (Acts 19:33)… And people start chanting “great is Artemis of the Ephesians” for 2 hours (Acts 19:34). It’s a riot.

Paul makes his last visit to near Ephesus in Acts 20; and this is the last time Timothy is mentioned in Acts (Acts 20:4). It appears from 1 Timothy; this is where Paul leaves him to keep false teaching out of the church (1 Timothy 1:3).

The cult of Artemis had women as priests; and some people use this as an image in the mirror — their idea — not without reason — is that Ephesus was home to a first century feminist movement that was women led and anti-marriage, that that this has infiltrated the church, and this is what Paul is asking Timothy to correct.

Another bit of speculation — more ‘from the text’ — is Alexander from Acts is the Alexander who comes up twice in Timothy; that maybe he converted after the riot, but then became one of the false teachers; who Paul ‘hands over to Satan’ (1 Timothy 1:20), and who is a deceiving hypocrite (1 Timothy 4:1-2). And that this is the guy Alexander the metalworker in 2 Timothy (2 Timothy 4:14-15). I think it’s likely it’s the same guy in both letters, but it’s a guess that he is the guy from Acts (Acts 19:33). 

We know what metalworkers in Ephesus make; idols — so this false teaching that makes people rich could be folks in Ephesus trying to have a foot in both camps; and Alexander who was in the church is now like his fellow metalworker, Demetrius. Timothy is there because this false teaching — speculation — whatever it is, is preventing the advance of God’s work, which is by faith (1 Timothy 1:4).

Now — this ancient and translated text — this phrase is the οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ (oikonomian theou) — oiko means ‘household’ and ‘nomia’ means ‘rule,’ and this is the root of our English word “economy” (1 Timothy 1:4).

This false teaching that makes people rich is pulling people away from God’s new economy.

So here’s my thesis about the parenesis of the first letter which I reckon extends into the second — a boomerang to try out and see what comes back — Paul says he is writing so Timothy will know how people should live in God’s household; his ‘oikos’ — the church of the living God (1 Timothy 3:14-15). 

I am writing you these instructions so that,if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God

1 Timothy 3:14-15

He is writing to establish a pattern of relationships — not in church structures and leadership in an institution — but in a new kind of household (a household was more than a biological family); a household or ‘economy’ different to those in the first century Roman empire; and in Ephesus. And, ultimately, different to those in 21st century Australia…

This life together has a shape to relationships and a script that comes from the Scriptures.  Timothy has been entrusted with protecting it by preaching the Scriptures; bringing them to life in the community to shape a different economy; this new pattern of relationships. And we see this economy at work in the relationships Paul describes in his letters — and at the end of his letters.  Here is where I think we can project our picture of modern church life — an event on a Sunday where one bloke, ‘charged with preaching’ gives a sermon — back onto the text; but the text invites us to picture a network of people living as family, and speaking in quite different structures and dynamics.

Let’s do some work on 1 Timothy 2; these are translated words, and you need to know the Greek words for woman and wife are the same; same for man and husband, so context determines how we translate them; whether it’s “a woman” or “a wife” might not make heaps of difference if you are a woman, but I think it should say wife and husband (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

Some see one specific woman in the mirror here; an Artemis-emboldened female priestess causing trouble in the Ephesian church; so the Paul who wants ‘that coat’ wants ‘that woman’ not to teach.  I think that reconstruction has too much mirror, not enough letter — because Paul appeals to Genesis here, in a way that brings out some kind of general principle for the household of God (1 Timothy 2:13).

In the household of God, restored in Christ — the answer is not wives ruling and directing husbands, like priestesses of Artemis, but a new kind of pattern (Genesis 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:12).

The Greek word ‘authority’ here — αὐθεντεῖν (authentein) — is only used here; it’s never something permitted for men, husbands, or church leaders. Outside the New Testament it’s used for a kind of dominance that is consistent with its roots which mean ‘self-arm’; this pattern doesn’t fit God’s economy (1 Timothy 2:12).

Paul has already said — in the same chapter — the church should live “quiet lives” (1 Timothy 2:2), so, whether Paul has one woman in view, or is just talking about a pattern; this pattern, or the word ‘quiet’ is actually for everyone, and doesn’t mean silence (1 Timothy 2:12).

And in his second letter, Paul is going to name Timothy’s grandma Lois, and mother Eunice, as the origin of his faith; and he points out that Timothy learned the Gospel not just from him, but from infancy.

“I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also.

2 Timothy 1:4

…continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures…

2 Timothy 3:14-15

This is how the household of God works. Mums, and in Timothy’s case, his spiritual dad, teaching the household the Gospel in this new economy of every day life. Now Timothy has a role to play passing this on; standing against false teaching (1 Timothy 1:3-4), and teaching the word the way it was taught to him (2 Timothy 4:2).

Having the purpose — that Paul is giving instructions for the shape of the household of God (1 Timothy 3:14-15), and the context — both the opposition and idolatry of Ephesus — and the relational context described in the letters — in view as we picture these instructions and functions, and see how they are embedded in Paul’s purpose is quite helpful.

Paul’s example is a contrast to self-interested lovers of the world who live in other economies; he has faithfully run the race; been poured out as a living sacrifice (2 Timothy 4:6-7), because he is keeping his eyes on what is valuable in God’s economy; not worldly rewards, and he is passing on responsibility in the ‘family business’ to his ‘son in the faith’ (2 Timothy 4:8).

Paul wants to see Timothy again; but these words will sit with Timothy — and then the church — to say ‘hanging on is worth it.’ Do not sell out. Paul is ready for Timothy to come see him — winter is coming; he feels alone — deserted — he is leaning in to the reality of Timothy’s love for him as part of God’s family (2 Timothy 4:9-10). And also giving an update on where other people in the family are at — Luke is there, Mark should come too… Bring my coat, and scrolls (2 Timothy 4:11-13). Paul might have been alone in his first trial in Rome (2 Timothy 4:16), but he is like Daniel — protected form the mouth of the lion of this empire; his 4D view of reality is guiding him — and he trusts his church family will give flesh to this spiritual reality of God’s family by being there; even being there to bring him his warm coat for winter (2 Timothy 4:17).

These bits at the end — we can picture them in 3D; but they also create a web of connections, a kind of social map of life together in the household of God — that overlays the letters of the New Testament and the story of the church in Acts; which, as we see it, helps us imagine how we are connected to this family tree and the shape of its life… As we read their mail.

This helps us picture a new household where husbands and wives — men and women — all the members are invited into this new economy; gospeling each other in these new relationships ‘beside’ one another, rather than ruling or dominating; to advance God’s family not their bank balance.

We have maybe focused too much on what women can’t do in our structures; and not enough on how our structures; out community — might look like this one, the household in Ephesus, and the network in the early church…

Paul says greet Priscilla and Aquila — a couple of parents of the church who are presently based in Ephesus, and mentions Erastus, who is in Corinth (2 Timothy 4:19-20). Erastus is a high ranking public servant in Corinth; who was there with Timothy and Paul while Romans was being written (Romans 16:21, 23)… That’s where Paul first met Priscilla and Aquilla; they had come from Rome when Claudius kicked them out (Acts 18:1-2). We saw how they went to Ephesus with Paul and Timothy; and they are there hosting a church in their house when Paul writes 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 16:19). They are back home in Rome, presumably hosting the church there by the time Paul writes Romans from Corinth (Romans 16:3-4).

When Paul names them here; these are folks Timothy knows — husband and wife — who model leading the household of God together.

We read badly if we rob these letters of their humanity; these words of their life; and we can build all sorts of structures on top of this picture, obscuring the shape of life behind the words.

We read well by keeping their humanity; reading right to the end, so the relationships in this new economy frame the way we understand these words; and that they are written to make us wise for salvation as those brought into this family to hold on to these words and be shaped by them together (2 Timothy 3:15).

They remind us that the New Testament — God’s word — emerges from and shapes loving, connected, communities — an economy — God’s household brought to life and inspired by God’s word as we are made wise for salvation in Jesus; creating the kind of community where a son in the faith will travel across an empire to bring his spiritual dad his cloak for the winter (2 Timothy 4:13, 21). And face death with him, as they serve Jesus together eyes fixed on the prize (2 Timothy 4:8).

September 3, 2026 Add Comment

On Church gathering: preaching, rights, the sacraments, and authority

Hopefully this is the last in a series of long posts responding to John Dickson’s book “Hearing Her Voice.”

The other posts include:

If none of this interests you – have you watched this lip reading of NFL players? It’s funny.

A tl:dr;* introduction/summary of what follows

*too long, didn’t read

In what follows I argue that if the sermon is preaching (not teaching), and preaching, in the context of the gathering (not preaching outside the gathering – essentially to non-believers), is:

  • a piece of cross-shaped persuasion proclaiming the crucified Lord Jesus and the message of the gospel,
  • something of greater magnitude than the sacraments, in that the sacraments support the preaching,
  • where God speaks through those he provides with gifts,
  • so long as they too submit to the authority of Scripture, and their sermon is based on the authority of God’s revealed word.

If these points are true, then the sermon is the ultimate act of authority in the church, and at the center of preaching – which is a corporate activity of the church (not an individual act).

So if one is a complementarian the sermon should be:

  • a clear proclamation of the gospel,
  • based on the authority of God’s revealed word,
  • given by a man who meets the Biblical ethos guidelines for a preacher (assuming they’re the same as those for an elder),
  • who is appropriately gifted to carry out the logos and pathos elements of the delivery of a sermon,
  • which sits in the context of a church gathering where all the members sacrificially exercise their gifts, as one body,
  • to preach the gospel, corporately (in an act of worship).

And therefore, those who preach should be:

  • Sacrificial in their approach to preaching,
  • not speaking as an ego exercise, but a genuine act of service to others,

which means being mindful of who they are preaching to, and how their preaching style and content relates to and serves those in the gathering.

While the structure of the gathering, and the life of the church outside the gathering, should be such that all members of the church can function as part of the body and use their gifts in the preaching of the gospel (outside of the context of the gathering).

If you disagree with any of that, and want to tell me about it – feel free to jump to the comments and tell me why – this is another pretty big post. I feel like I can justify most of these positions from the Bible, and from various “authorities” throughout church history – but I haven’t always done this because some of the points assume things I’ve argued previously, and other times it’s just too hard to list all the proof texts, and I prefer proof vibe, and theological coherence and cogency, anyway.

Thinking about this issue has been fun because it has forced me to consider some things that appear to be contradictory in my thinking about church and ministry. I’m trying to reconcile the beliefs that all people are equal, but genders are inherently different, and all believers are “priests,” while some specific roles exist, and some of these roles aren’t available to sets of equal people.

On a simplistic level – if you’re comfortable with the idea that somebody who is tone deaf but passionate about singing shouldn’t be leading the singing at church, and that they might willingly forgo this role because they understand it’s for the good of others without losing any sense of their own value or the value of their singing to God, you’ve already started reconciling these tension.

Want to read more. Like 5,000 words more… then click the “read more” link…

(more…)

January 19, 2013

Hearing her voice: teaching, preaching, and a complementarian ethos

If you haven’t been following along on the interwebs, a hornets nest has been kicked and then ignited with the release of three Zondervan e-books about women and preaching, and whether or not they should do it.

I’ve read one of these, Hearing Her Voice, by John Dickson, the following review should come with the same caveats I included when I reviewed Promoting the Gospel: the best kept secret of Christian mission – I think John Dickson is excellent, I love his published body of work, and have found him helpful at just about every step of the way on my journey from Christian kid to theological student.

In this book we get more of Dickson’s very solid hermeneutical model applied to a pretty tricky question, and particularly applied to a verse that creates quite a few difficulties for the modern church. Seriously, he is, I think, the model of what being a careful interpreter of Scripture looks like, there’s a great para in the book that outlines his approach to using history as a tool for exegesis, and I commend it to you.

I was going to include quotes from the book – but this post is already almost 6,000 words long.

The question at the heart of this book – well, there are two questions, I think – and perhaps three – is what is “teaching?” Is preaching teaching? And if not, can women preach in church?

What’s not up for grabs for Dickson is the real strength of his work – he’s big on the authority of Scripture, big on consistently reading and exegeting it with the original readers and meaning in mind, and big on the principle that while male and female are equal in God’s sight, we are different.

I feel like I should throw in a few disclaimers at the start so you know where I’m coming from…

  • I’m aware of the dangers of being a “privileged” and unoppressed class speaking out on this issue – a white, anglo-saxon, male, protestant voice in this debate needs to be pretty mindful of his cultural background and relative freedom to make proclamations that appear to come at a cost to others. (UPDATE: If you’re reading this post in the present day, post 2014, I’m also a guy who occupies a pulpit — even more ‘privilege’ to account for in this conversation).
  • I love the concept of a priesthood of all believers – it goes without saying that this includes men and women – I think it’s biblical, I think we’re all called to be on mission together, and equipped by God to serve as part of the body of believers as we serve and love one another and try to reach people together.
  • I think there are lots of women who are gifted preachers, teachers, and evangelists. I don’t see any gender specific traits that make being able to show someone else that Jesus is the Christ a particularly male act. This isn’t an “innate” issue, or a “masculinity” issue, men are not innately more competent in this area than women.
  • I’m also a complementarian – I think our different genders are a good and necessary part of what it means to be human. I think we’re different but equal.
  • I agree that there are lots of roles open to women that we’ve essentially closed because we’re scared of transgressing in this area – including prophecy, exhortation, partnering as “gospel workers,” etc.
  • I think the gender stuff at the fall is pretty interesting, and is certainly something Paul has in mind in this verse. While this is pretty absent in Dickson’s book, it is something Mike Bird, who wrote a second book in the series, spends some time considering – but I haven’t read that yet.
  • I’m wary about tossing out 2,000 years of church tradition, particularly the interpretive traditions from people who took the Bible seriously – though I’m also aware that all interpreters are fallible, and texts, and interpretations of those texts are the product of different cultures. I’m interested in a tendency, beyond Dickson’s book, to pit current movements of the Spirit through female preachers against historic movements, through tradition. I’m also pretty sure the Spirit of God is able to speak, and point to Jesus, through all sorts of wrong things we might, as humans, adopt. Our fallibility has never been an obstacle to the Spirit moving people to faith.
  • I’ll also presuppose that how we do church – including who preaches – is part of our ethos, so that the decision about who preaches is, in part, a decision we make about our presentation of the gospel.

What is a sermon? Teaching? Exhortation? Preaching?

I have some reservations about how Dickson approaches the Greek language (and how others do too) – but this is probably because they are experts at Greek and I am not. I think word studies have some merit, but I think assume too much about the deliberation that goes into the use of particular words, rather than paying heed to the vibe of a paragraph, or whole letter. I think words often have a broad semantic range that overlaps with other words, and you kind of use those ranges together to create new concepts – Dickson thinks this happens with “teaching” and “authority” in the verse in question… So I don’t really like arguments based on word studies – and most of my response won’t really engage with the question of whether or not “teaching” or in the Greek, didaskein, is a technical word for a particular act, or a general word for the passing on of knowledge – this is where the debate is being fought out on the interwebs by Lionel Windsor, and Dickson himself (in a great model of how you can disagree with people without calling their character into question…

Like I say – I’m not an expert on Greek, and don’t pretend to be, and I’m fairly sure that words can also be used technically to mean very narrow things – but I do think literary context guides interpretation… and I think one of the concerns of Paul’s letter to Timothy is to help Timothy, and the church, think rightly about questions of pastoral leadership – including the establishment of a role that seems to be for men and includes carrying the responsibility of preaching and teaching, within the church.

I don’t think Dickson necessarily disagrees with this approach to language – though his treatment of “teaching” here is very similar to his treatment of “evangelism” in Promoting the Gospel. He allows for general  use of words, while suggesting we need to pay heed to the technical meanings that may have been in operation in the first century.

He spends significant time making the case that “teaching” isn’t directly transferrable to what we do in the pulpit of a modern church each Sunday – and his argument seems to have some merit. I don’t think preaching is the teaching, in the technical sense, that Dickson identifies. So I’m almost happy to cede his whole argument, on one level – if the Sunday sermon is exhortation, as he suggests, or prophecy as the Puritans suggest, and not teaching (as Lionel Windsor suggests it is) – then I think he’s right – women should be able to exhort, prophecy, and do all the things that Paul specifically or implicitly allows, and even all the things he doesn’t forbid.

Anyway – here’s the passage in question, with a bit of context. From 1 Timothy 2…

5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

In 1 Timothy 3, when he’s establishing the qualifications of a deacon, and an overseer he gives a set of ethos heavy principles, like being “above reproach” – which presumably has something to do with not undermining his leadership of others, and “be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.” It is assumed in these verses that the person in question is a man – building off his argument in chapter 2.

In 1 Timothy 5 it appears he assumes these elders will be the people doing the “preaching and teaching”…

17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Then, in 2 Timothy 4, he kind of spells out what Timothy is called to do, under the umbrella of “preaching”…

4 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 5 As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Ultimately, I’m not convinced by the way Dickson groups “teaching” and “authority” into one command, rather than two separate but related commands based on the same Old Testament/created order principle… and I think there’s another reason, an ethos reason, when it comes to how we persuade people about the message of the gospel that means we should think carefully about how we use, or emphasise, gender and authority in church gatherings… which I’ll get to below. Somewhere. I think what is done from the pulpit is an act of authority – and listening is an act of submission.

Where I think Windsor is right to go (but slightly wrong in where he lands – I think), and where I think Dickson is wrong – is on what the sermon actually is. In sum, Windsor thinks it’s teaching, and Dickson sells teaching short, Dickson thinks the sermon is exhortation, or something analogous to that – and thus thinks women can give sermons.

What Preaching is not…

I’d argue, along with Dickson, that preaching is not teaching, we’ve hastily drawn an analogous line from the Bible’s use of teaching to our modern equivalent, and that’s come at a cost.

  • Preaching is not simply teaching – though it may involve the transmission of information from someone with knowledge to someone without.
  • Preaching is not strictly exhortation though it may encourage.
  • Preaching is not simply prophecy, though it may speak God’s word to people at a particular time… though in a sense a good sermon is all of these things. 

This is one of the areas I think Dickson’s argument breaks down – you don’t have to look much past Paul to find someone who exercises more than one of the “offices” of word ministry that Dickson seems to suggest are in operation… Paul also suggests all of these things are part of Timothy’s job as a preacher (2 Tim 4).

It’s quite possible that there’ll be an overlap of different styles of speaking in any particular speech, much as there was in just about any form of first century oratory. Where Cicero, in Brutus, bags out some orators for being too specialised in one area, because the idea was that public speakers could adopt a wide range of styles, from the boring didactic history lecture, to the witty declamation of an opponent on the election trail.

What a sermon (preaching) is…

Preaching is preaching. It has a New Testament equivalent – and an Old Testament equivalent. It has a Greek word – kerusso – which had a pre-existing technical meaning, and a meaning that developed through Christian usage, and it appears to be something like being a herald and proclaiming good news, with authority.

I’d argue that if one:

then our sermons are not “teaching” in the sense identified by Dickson – but “preaching”… in the sense that the word is used throughout the New Testament.

Our sermons should point people to Jesus and the kingdom of God, attempt to persuade people to accept the message, and declare that, Jesus is Lord – This essentially does nothing for the gender question but move the goalposts, so the question is not “can women teach?” but “can women preach?” – so Dickson’s insights, while useful, are potentially irrelevant to the question.

I would say that I think preaching is an act of authority – but the ultimate authority rests in the same person it rests in when Jesus is challenged about the authority behind his preaching – God and his Christ. When we preach faithfully we are simply pointing to the authority of Jesus. The way authority is exercised over the church is ultimately in the preaching of the word (and the faithful passing on of the apostolic traditions) as they relate to Jesus, not the appointment of humans who have particular gifts in particular areas. We judge a preacher’s authority on their adherence to the divine logos, Christ-made-flesh and Christ-crucified — the message of the Bible, not on their particular ability as a speaker. And I want to make the case below that we should ultimately profoundly be assessing a preacher on their ethos — their willingness to have the truth of this logos shape who they are and how they preach. I want to make the case that this isn’t a new way of thinking about what preaching is – first from the Reformers, and then, after a little ethos excursus from the New Testament (though the order should be reversed – the NT stuff is pretty long).

Preaching in the Reformed world

Both Luther and Calvin (Institutes, 4.1.5) put a pretty high value on preaching , if preaching involved the gospel – so much that preaching was more important than the sacraments in terms of constituting Christ’s presence in the gathering of the body – this was a big deal in a time where people were killed over what they thought happened at communion.

Calvin says:

“We see that God, who might perfect his people in a moment, chooses not to bring them to manhood in any other way than by the education of the Church. We see the mode of doing it expressed; the preaching of celestial doctrine is committed to pastors. We see that all without exception are brought into the same order, that they may with meek and docile spirit allow themselves to be governed by teachers appointed for this purpose… Hence it follows, that all who reject the spiritual food of the soul divinely offered to them by the hands of the Church, deserve to perish of hunger and famine. God inspires us with faith, but it is by the instrumentality of his gospel, as Paul reminds us, “Faith cometh by hearing” (Rom. 10:17). God reserves to himself the power of maintaining it, but it is by the preaching of the gospel, as Paul also declares, that he brings it forth and unfolds it.”

Both (Luther Large Catechism (PDF, p 72), Calvin Institutes 4.1.1, 4)  saw the church as the “mother” of believers – responsible, ordinarily and under God, for giving birth to new believers and nurturing the faith of existing believers – and it did this, for both groups, in the same way – by preaching the gospel of Jesus. Not legalism. Not morals. Not ethics. Not just words of encouragement. But the gospel.

The gospel will have necessary implications for our morality and ethics – and it will necessarily be encouraging as we consider that the creator of the universe sent his son to earth to buy us, for a relationship, to make us his children. But our sermons that do all these things do these things because they first declare the truths of the gospel, and these things are part of the persuasive case the gospel makes for those who hear it.

The preaching of the gospel is one of the “marks of the church” for Reformed people.

The Westminster Confession of Faith essentially follows both Calvin and Luther on this point – it says the church is responsible for the “gathering and perfecting of saints” (WCF VII, XXV), and that the preaching of the word is one of the two marks of the church (along with the administration of the sacraments).

“And particular Churches, which are members thereof [the universal, visible, church], are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.”

In XV the Confession says ministers are to preach: “Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ,” and in XXI it says faithful preaching is part of worship. This preaching is conducted by these “ministers of the gospel”…

I like this quote from Calvin that Justin Taylor shared last week:

“This is what we should in short seek in the whole of Scripture: truly to know Jesus Christ, and the infinite riches that are comprised in him and are offered to us by him from God the Father. If one were to sift thoroughly the Law and the Prophets, he would not find a single word which would not draw and bring us to him. . . . Therefore, rightly does Saint Paul say in another passage that he would know nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”

Biblical, expository, sermons will point people to Jesus Christ in a way that declares his kingdom has come at the cross. It is preaching, not teaching.

An argument from “authority” – an ethos consideration

I think a case can be made that Paul’s prohibition on women exercising authority in the 1 Timothy 2 passage refers to what is going on in the gathering, and works a bit with the similar prohibition in 1 Corinthians, to establish a principle, rooted in creation and the fall, for what happens when the church meets and the gospel is preached… as an authoritative act.

But even if that case is weak – I wonder if there’s an ethos driven, cross-shaped, argument for women letting men preach, if sermons are preaching, and preaching is an act of persuasion where both pathos and ethos are as relevant as what we say… even if they are more gifted than their male counterparts, which is surely often the case.

A willingness to submit is part of the testimony of the gospel of the cross – as is a willingness to sacrificially not use our gifts for the sake of others… I’d argue Paul is essentially doing this in Corinth when he avoids using his full rhetorical prowess, that he demonstrates in Acts, in order to “know nothing but Christ and him crucified” as he teaches them, knowing what he does about their culture and context – and the sinful desires they have to place value in their abilities or flashy man made idols. I reckon its possible that gender equality is a bit of an idol in our culture – I’m not arguing that it’s a bad thing, idols are good things turned into ultimate things… but I wonder if a refusal to give in to cultural pressure on the gender front, voluntarily, might be a hugely important part of our testimony.

This is where a little bit of trepidation kicks in on my part – because I recognise that I’m a guy telling gifted women they can’t do what they’re gifted to do.

But, I think it’s possible that If we believe that:

  • genders are different, but that people are equal in value,
  • that the gospel does away with inequalities that people might establish on the basis of differences (Gal 3:28),
  • that submission isn’t a statement of inequality, this is where some smart egalitarians like Miroslav Volf depart, but it must be true because if we believe that the Trinity is made up of three parties who are equally God, we need to be able to say that Jesus can submit to the father without calling this equality into question (in academic terms this is a question of whether you can have functional subordination alongside ontological equality, I think the answer has to be yes, if the submission is voluntary, an act of love, offered without coercion),

then we should be able to sacrificially let men do the preaching… even if there are women out there who are better equipped to do the job… because this is part of our testimony, and our act of testifying – to the sacrifice of Jesus, for his church – just as it is in marriage (Ephesians 5).

The act of preaching is an act of authority – but this authority isn’t establishing an inequality – and if it does create such an inequality, then questions have to be asked about whether or not the guy is doing his job – just like in a marriage. Because a cruciform preacher who humbly uses the gifts God has given to build up the church and point people to Jesus through the persuasive preaching of the gospel won’t, if logos, pathos, and ethos stack up, be in a position to create any inequality except the inequality created by considering everybody else better than yourself…

Our value to God isn’t caught up in our ability to serve him – with the gifts that he has given us, nor is our testimony – I would argue our testimony is caught up in our ability to live cross-shaped lives where we imitate Jesus, who despite having all authority and abilities in his grasp, and being equipped to do otherwise gave himself up for us, as an example, here’s Philippians 2:

2 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, anyparticipation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Perhaps the way we testify to our unity, our like mindedness, and avoid promoting our gifts, interests, and selves, is to be prepared to not do things we could do, as part of our testimony to Jesus, and to the creator who sent him, and made men and women different.

Communicating why we’re doing this, and valuing, affirming, and giving avenues for gifted women to be effective members of the body and servants of the mission of God is obviously pretty tricky – and one of the great strengths of Dickson’s work is that it’s motivated by exactly this concern.

(more…)

January 13, 2013