Recently, this writer was given some material by a writer named Samuel G. Dawson. The Internet was consulted, since no previous contact had occurred between us. Dawson makes a statement about himself, in which he identifies his background as being a student of physics and mathematics; he graduated from Texas Tech and spent many years in the aerospace industry. He left this work two decades ago to begin teaching on religious topics, although he does not say why or what his religious training or preparation was for making the switch (http://30ce.com/jesusonhell.htm).
That Dawson is up a creek without a paddle is seen by the fact that, due to a caller comment on one of his radio shows, he made the determination that “hell is the invention of Roman Catholicism; and…most…of our popular concepts of hell can be found in the writings of Roman Catholic writers like the Italian poet Dante Alighieri (1265-1321), author of Dante’s Inferno. He also cites Milton, a non-Catholic, who borrowed from their teachings.
Apparently, it did not occur to him that Dante and Milton borrowed concepts from the Bible. Roman Catholicism did not invent the doctrine of hell; Jesus and the apostles taught it in the New Testament. The concept of hell fire was preached by John as early as Matthew 3:12 and by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:22). The New Testament mentions the concept several more times, and concludes with John describing the lake which burns with fire and brimstone in Revelation 20:14-15 and 21:8. The Roman Catholic Church had nothing to do with this concept. One of the terrible facets of hell is that the soul is separated from God for eternity (2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 20:14). Those who enter there should, as Dante said, abandon all hope. The Roman Catholic Church has probably taught these truths, but she did not originate them. Thus, Dawson has joined Fudge, Pickering, and Clayton in denying the Biblical doctrine of hell.
The Role of Women in the Church
However, this article does not concern itself with Dawson’s heresy on hell. Instead, it will discuss the material in chapter five of his book, Christians, Church-es, and Controversy: Navigating Doctrinal and Personal Clashes, written in accompaniment with his wife. Dawson leaves the current of the river on which so many brethren have been sailing for decades and opts for a stream of apostasy, on which others, especially women, will feel comfortable canoeing He shows evidence of once having been a member of the Lord’s church (by virtue of his familiarity with churches of Christ and various brotherhood writers), but he has gone out from among us, as so many have, for they were never truly of us (1 John 2:19). The form of the material being examined is in 33 unbound pages and will be designated by these throughout the study.
At the conclusion of Dawson’s introduction, he alerts the reader that he believes that “men-only business meetings” are “without scriptural foundation” (2). However, after arguing that society often influences the church, he then launches into an explanation of 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 that is quite good, demonstrating that women are to be in subjection to men. About the time one is convinced he must have misread the statement above and that Dawson is actually on the right track, he makes this bizarre assessment:
These regulations applied to all assemblies of the church, i.e., Bible classes, business meetings, preaching assemblies, or Lord’s supper assemblies (8).
He adds that any distinction between these four gatherings is “purely man made.” Why would that be the case, since the purpose for business meetings is not the same as that for worship? He makes an assertion here without any proof to substantiate it.
In the first place, there is no evidence that regular business meetings were conducted in the first century, although they may have been. Certainly, some procedure of decision-making must be followed when a church does not have elders. We also do not have anything stated with respect to Bible classes, such as what we conduct today, although having them complies with the principles and philosophy of the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 does imply special gatherings for women, but nothing is spoken of classes for children.
Second, Dawson has already made a proper distinction between the 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 passage and that of chapter 14; so why turn right around and say that all assemblies are the same? Bible classes have one purpose (and only contain a certain segment of the congregation), business meetings have an entirely different function, and worship assemblies are dif-ferent yet in design. It is obvious that in 1 Corinthians 11:18 and 1 Corinthians 14 Paul is discussing worship and not Bible classes or business meetings. To insist that Paul included every kind of Christian meeting in those statements lacks any kind of foundation or proof.
Silence
The writer of this chapter next brings the element of silence into the mix by rightly pointing out that in 1 Corinthians 14:34 the women are to keep absolute silence—with respect to the exercising of her spiritual gift in the assembly. He then points out that the word silent is not the same as the word attend and that women should be allowed to attend business meetings (9). The implication of this statement would seem to be that he is arguing that women can attend such meetings but not speak at them. While the reader is pondering that idea, however, Dawson turns right around and says that she can speak, so long as she is in subjection. (10)!
He provides an example of contrasting attitudes: in one instance, a woman simply asks a harmless question such as, “What was that passage again?”; in the other, a woman challenges the teacher concerning the material he has presented (11). Of course, these two differences are easy to see, but what about all of the comments that lie between the two extremes? Who decides whether the woman’s comments are innocuous or out of line? Furthermore, if all gatherings are the same, then why would it not be just as proper for a woman to interrupt a preacher while he is speaking and ask, “What was that passage again?”
The daughters of Zelophehad are cited as an example of women speaking before the whole congregation under the Law of Moses (12), which they did do (Num. 27:2). However, there are two things wrong with using this example to authorize women speaking in gatherings in the Old Testament. First, the assembly under question was not a worship assembly; it was one designed to resolve judicial problems. These women had a problem that the Law had not dealt with.
Their father had died, and they, the five daughters, wanted to keep the inheritance of their father. Moses brought the case to the Lord (which shows that the assembly was for problem resolution, not worship), and He agreed with their petition. As a result of this case, God made a law for Israel to follow, whenever this situation should occur (Num. 27: 7-11).
The second problem with this example is that these women made a demand rather than speaking submissively, which undermines Dawson’s whole point. They said: “Why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no sons? Therefore give us a possession among the brothers of our father” (Num. 27:4). Is this the submissive behavior we can expect in business meetings: “Why must we use a refrigerator that is fifty years old? Therefore give us a brand new, super-deluxe model if you ever hope to have another potluck here.” Hmm.
Can Women Teach Men?
1 Timothy 2:11-12 is the next passage to which Dawson devotes himself. He correctly points out that the word silence here is not the same word that is used in 1 Corinthians 14. It does not mean “silent, period.” He also correctly points out that this passage is not associated with a worship assembly, as the other passage is.
So, what does Paul mean when he writes: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence”? Dawson goes into an extraordinary explanation of the verse, the upshot of which is:
Paul didn’t say that a woman cannot teach at all (as absolute prohibition), for she can teach women and children (Tit. 2:2-5) and men (14).
Paul says she is not to teach or have authority over men; Dawson says that does not mean that she cannot teach men. This argument seems similar to those who quote Matthew 19:9 but then argue that it does not apply to non-Christians, Christians, or the guilty party. To whom, then, was Jesus speaking?
Aquila and Priscilla
Invariably, those pushing for an expansion of the role of women in the church get around to Aquila and Priscilla, although citing the situation with Apollos never establishes what they think it does. Acts 18:26 says:
So he [Apollos, gws] began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God more accurately.
It is interesting how many conclusions brethren have drawn from what the passage does not say. How much of the explaining in private did Aquila do? How much did Priscilla do? The text does not say.
We know about as much of the answer to that question as we do to this one: “What did Jesus write on the ground in John 8?” Dawson, however, “knows” that Priscilla didn’t sit passively while the expounding occurred (15). Really? In the Bible, two people are frequently said to do something even though only one of them takes the lead. Neither Dawson nor anyone else knows if Priscilla said anything after, “Hello,” although she was obviously in agreement with all that her husband taught. After insisting that Priscilla was not passive in the explaining, the author then confidently asserts that “Paul prohibited women from exercising authority over men in a teaching situation which is private or public, whether or not it’s in the assembly of a local church” (15). So, was she passive or not, and if she taught Apollos privately, was that wrong? Dawson leaves the reader in a state of confusion.
Furthermore, the author already pointed out that 1 Timothy 2 did not refer to the assembly. So, if Priscilla expounded the word to Apollos privately while being in subjection, then why can she not teach men publicly and still be in submission? Did not Dawson already insist she could not do so in the exercising of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14)? Are we to believe that, in the absence of spiritual gifts (our situation today), women do not need to remain silent in the assembly?
The Example of Public Correction
Actually, Dawson so affirms. He provides his readers with an illustration which actually occurred in a preaching assembly. A preacher misspoke, and an elderly man stood up and raised his hand and was recognized. He told the preacher that he was certain that he had just said something he did not believe and that he might want to make the correction, which he did. Dawson thought that the man pointing out the error did so in a kind and humble way. However, the example he had just cited concerning Aquila and Priscilla found them correcting Apollos after he had finished speaking. Many people might feel uncomfortable being interrupted while speaking. What if the person disrupting the preacher misunderstood the point or did not hear correctly what was said? It is not necessarily orderly to do things in such a fashion.
But, incredibly, Dawson argues that it would be all right for a woman to do the same thing the man had done (15)! Our assemblies will be lively soon—with men and women interrupting in order to correct misstatements and inaccurate Scripture references. Well, at least some people might pay more attention so that they can raise their hand to tell the preacher he said Proverbs 30:5 when he meant Proverbs 30:6.
Who is Deceived?
Intermixed with some of the erroneous statements is a lot of truth, which means that the reader must read closely what Dawson communicates. He does an excellent job of explaining that the husband has the leadership role in the home but then concludes a paragraph by saying: “While Adam sinned and was deceived, he did not go to the limit that Eve did in her sin” (16). One wonders if he is in the Twilight Zone when reading these words, for surely Dawson is too good of a scholar to have made this statement.
First, Adam was not deceived, as 1 Timothy 2:14 explicitly teaches. The woman was deceived; Adam was not deceived; this point could not be clearer. Second, how is it that he did not go to the limit in the sin that Eve did? They both ate the forbidden fruit. They both transgressed God’s law; they both received various punishments for their wrongdoing. Third, if anything, since he was not deceived, Adam’s sin may have been worse. He was not fooled by Satan; he committed the sin with full knowledge that it was wrong. The reason that women do not have the leadership role in the home is that the woman led the man into sin.
Congregational Meetings
Mr. Dawson next asserts that women were part of the congregational meeting in Acts 15:22 and were “involved in the decision to send a letter to Gentile churches (17). What is the truth of the matter? Some of the Pharisees claimed it was necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and “to command them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). We read that “the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter” (v. 6). Peter then spoke to those assembled (vv. 7-11).
We next read that “all the multitude kept silent” (v. 12), which may indicate that other were present besides the apostles and elders, but since we do not know the number of the elders (could it have been 500?), multitude just might fit the number of the total group gathered. James speaks (vv. 13-21), and afterward we see: “Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men…” (v. 22).
What this verse does not say was that anyone else besides the apostles and elders participated in making the decision. All were pleased by what was decided, but that does not imply that everyone had a voice in the decision. Nor does the passage in any way indicate that the leaders called for a vote. How do we not know that all agreed with what was said and that no one raised any objections?
Not only were no women said to be involved in this decision; we have no evidence that anyone besides the apostles and elders were involved in the process. People can be completely happy with the results of a judgment without having given their input. God did not consult any human being on the plan of salvation that He had from the foundation of the world, yet we are pleased that He had one and that we are saved by it.
It is just as inappropriate to use Acts 15:22 to authorize women being part of the decision-making process in the church as it is to use Acts 18:26 to establish that they can teach and exercise authority over men. These verses cannot be used as proof for what they do not say.