This is not an article about the arguments in favor of instead of egalitarianism. That’s important, of course, but this article is for those who identify as complementary and wonder if their theology can allow, or should Allow women to preach.
This is the question I want to address:
Is there a Biblical justification, bearing in mind basic complementarianist convictions, for the practice of women preaching sermons at a Sunday service?
Most people reading this article understand the immediate relevance of this question. I am not going to list the cases in which this question has been raised or examine the recent answers on the Internet. Instead, I’m going to engage with what I think is the best argument, from a complementary perspective, for allowing women to preach. First, I will explain the argument for women preaching as fairly as possible. I will then explain why the argument—as plausible as it may seem at first—is not convincing.
listening to his voice
The best argument I have seen in favor of women preaching is the one put forward by Australian minister and apologist John Dickson in his book (Zondervan, 2014). With positive reviews from JI Packer, Craig Blomberg, Graham Cole, and Chris Wright, one can see why this has been an influential book. Even if you don’t know the book, I’m pretty sure it has influenced people you do know. In addition to praise from respected evangelical scholars, Dickson’s book is a beacon of clarity and accessibility. In just over a hundred pages, Dickson argues thoughtfully and directly—as someone who admits to “being a broad complementarian” (p. 88)—for the legitimacy of women preaching sermons at Sunday services.
No wonder Dickson focuses on 1 Timothy 2:12. Although the application seems obvious to many of us—women are not allowed to teach or exercise authority, so they should not preach sermons—Dickson argues that we have misunderstood what Paul meant by teaching. “In a nutshell,” Dickson writes, “there are numerous public speaking ministries mentioned in the New Testament—teaching, exhorting, evangelizing, prophesying, reading, etc.—and Paul restricts only one of these to qualified men: “teach”» (pp. 11-12).
At the heart of Dickson’s argument is a simple syllogism, which we can summarize as follows:
- The only thing women can’t do in worship is teach.
- Paul viewed teaching as a narrowly conceived and technical activity that is not the same as our modern sermon.
- Therefore, women can speak in almost any way in a church service, including preaching the sermon.
So if preaching a sermon doesn’t count as teaching, what did Paul mean by teaching? Dickson explains:
1 Timothy 2:12 does not refer to a general type of speech based on Scripture. Rather it refers to a specific activity found on every page of the New Testament, namely, preserve and pass on the tradition handed down by the apostles. This activity is different from the explanation and application of a Bible passage found in today’s typical expository sermon (p. 12).
Dickson argues for this preliminary conclusion in four parts.
First part. Different types of speech are mentioned in the Bible: prophesying, evangelizing, reading, exhorting, teaching, etc. We know from some texts (1 Cor 12:28, 1 Cor 14, Ro 12:4-8, 1 Ti 4:13) that Paul did not treat these oral ministries as identical. Only one of these types of oral expression—the activity of teaching—is limited to men (p. 27).
Second part. In the ancient world, and specifically for Paul, teaching (didasko) was a technical term for conveying a fixed oral tradition (pp. 34, 45). Teaching does not refer to exposing or explaining, but to transmitting the words without altering them (p. 33). With the closure of the biblical canon, there is not the same need to teach in this technical sense.
Third part. Teaching never means explaining or applying a biblical passage in the New Testament (pp. 50, 54). A teacher was someone who carefully transmitted the fixed traditions or set of apostolic words from their original source to a new community of faith (pp. 57, 59, 61). Some contemporary sermons they can contain elements of this transmission, but it is not the typical function of the weekly exhibition (p. 64). What we consider a sermon is rather called an exhortation (p. 65).
Fourth part. The apostolic deposit is now found in the pages of the New Testament. No individual is charged with preserving and transmitting the fixed oral traditions about Jesus (pp. 72, 74). Our preachers may be analogous to the ancient masters, but we do not preserve and transmit the apostolic deposit to the same degree, in the same manner, or with the same authority (pp. 73, 75). The typical sermon in which a preacher comments on the apostles’ teaching, exhorts us to follow that teaching, and then applies it, is not itself teaching. The modern sermon is, depending on its definition, more akin to prophecy or exhortation, both of which are permitted to women (p. 75).
from yes to no
Dickson includes scholarly footnotes to set out his arguments, as well as caveats and clarifications along the way. But the gist of his argument is surprisingly simple: Teaching is not what we do when we preach a sermon. Only teaching is prohibited to women. Therefore, women can preach sermons in our churches.
Dickson’s thesis seems unconvincing to me for two basic reasons. I think your view of ancient teaching is too narrow and your view of contemporary preaching is too poor.. Let me develop this conclusion by examining the teaching from various angles.
Teaching in the early church
The strength of Dickson’s approach is that it accurately points out the different words used in the New Testament. It is true that teaching, exhorting, prophesying, and reading are not identical. However, his overly technical definition of “teach” does not fit the evidence or, in some cases, does not even agree with basic common sense. If “I do not allow a woman to teach” can mean “I allow a woman to preach because preaching does not imply teaching” we must be using very restrictive definitions of preaching and teaching.
Furthermore, we have to ask why such a detailed reading has been lost on almost all commentators for two millennia. In a revealing endnote on the book’s last page, Dickson acknowledges: “I have no doubt that in time the word ‘teaching’ in the early church came to mean the explanation and application of the written words of the New Testament.” (and the entire Bible). That would be an interesting line of inquiry, but I’m not sure it would nullify the evidence that in 1 Timothy 2:12 Paul had a different meaning of this important term” (104). It’s a revealing admission. But he invites the question: “If” teaching “in the ancient world clearly had a meaning limited to repeating oral traditions, why doesn’t anyone seem to pick up on this exclusively technical definition?” The Bible is certainly our final authority, but when an argument relies so heavily on a first-century context, one might expect the early church centuries to strengthen the argument, not weaken it.
For example, the didache. This late first century document has much to say about the masters. They are supposed to “teach everything that has just been mentioned” (11:1). They must teach what is in accordance with the ecclesiastical order established in the didache (11:2). It is important to highlight that the didache assumes the existence of itinerant teachers, apostles and prophets, who are said to teach (didaskon) (11:10-11). Tellingly, “teach” is a broad enough term to include what prophets and other speakers do, not to mention the didache same.
Although “teaching” can certainly include the passing on of oral traditions about Jesus, it cannot be limited to just that. As Hughes Oliphant Old explains: “the didache supposes a fairly large body of prophets, teachers, bishops, and deacons who dedicate themselves full time to its preaching and teaching” ( , 1:256). With full-time teachers and “a daily assembly of the saints, in which the Word was preached,” it is hard to imagine these various “teaching” ministers steadfastly omitting the explanation of all Biblical texts.
Of course, the true teachers transmitted the apostolic deposit, but this does not mean that they limited themselves to repeating the sayings of Jesus. In the didacheparents are told to teach (didaxeis) the fear of the Lord to his children (4:9). Apparently, the author does not believe that teaching is limited to a very technical definition. He also does not believe that preaching is little more than running commentary plus application. “My son, you will remember the one who speaks the Word of God to you day and night, and you will honor him as in the Lord, for wherever the majesty of the Lord is spoken of, there is the Lord” (4:1). According to didacheteaching is broader than the transmission of oral traditions, and preaching involves more than a few words of exhortation.
teaching in the synagogue
One of the key points in Dickson’s argument is that the Pauline conception of teaching has its roots in the practice of the Pharisees, who passed down the oral traditions of their fathers (Mr 7:7). Just as the Pharisees could repeat the sayings of Hillel, the New Testament teacher could repeat the sayings of Jesus. According to Dickson, the closest parallel to the “teaching” of the New Testament is the transmission of rabbinical traditions that we find repeated and piled up in the Mishna (p. 39).
This is an important line of reasoning for Dickson, one that he repeats several times (pp. 39, 73, 100-2). The problem of the argument is twofold.
First of all, although the Mishna collects the sayings of the rabbis of the first and second century, these rabbis saw themselves explaining and applying the Torah. In other words, although the Mishna Whatever our example of “teaching,” there is no clear line between “oral tradition” and “explanation of texts.”
Second, the Jewish synagogue service offers a much better parallel to early Christian worship services than does the Mishna. After all, Paul is talking about corporate worship in 1 Timothy 2. During the centuries before the Christian era, the Jews had cultivated the art of preaching and gave it pride of place in synagogue worship. According to Old, “there was a large body of dedicated men who had devoted their lives to the study of…