In reviewing chapter five of Samuel G. Dawson’s book, Christians, Churches, and Controversy, we have already examined his false claim that women were in on the decision-making process, along with the apostles and elders, regarding a doctrinal problem in Acts 15. That text does not indicate that anyone but the apostles and elders made the decision, although the whole church approved of the decision.
The author of said book also argues that the women participated in the decision in Acts 6 with respect to the distribution of food among the widows (19). He has a much better case here than in Acts 15, but he still cannot prove his point. The text says that the twelve apostles summoned the multitude of the disciples and told them to seek out from among themselves seven men who possessed certain qualifications (Acts 6:2-3). The saying pleased the whole multitude, and they made their choices (Acts 6:5-6).
What the text does not tell us is the way that the multitude arrived at their decision. Apparently, Dawson thinks that they took a vote, as in a business meeting, but we do not know if anyone voted on anything. If a vote was called for, who actually participated? Were there requirements to be of a certain age or gender? Or did they cast lots? Perhaps there was an overseeing committee to whom the brethren submitted names; did that group, then, make the final decision? Were the elders of Jerusalem placed in charge of the process? Or was it a benevolent committee? No one can say how it was done because the text does not provide any details of the selection process.
It may be that the women suggested several of the names of those who were chosen (which would not violate any passage of Scripture). There is a difference between giving input (an idea that Dawson is so fond of championing) and actually making the decision. The former notion does not necessitate the latter.
Withdrawal of Fellowship
Another example of the entire congregation acting together is in the withdrawing of fellowship of a wayward member (20). How this helps the author’s case is unknown. We would expect the whole congregation to participate in the withdrawal of fellowship from an impenitent member just as we would expect both men and women to participate in worship together. Neither of these actions is an infringement on male leadership, however. It would not appear that Dawson is arguing that the women of the congregation would take the lead in this matter; so why does he bother to bring it up? This was not a decision for the congregation to make; Paul gave them the commandment to do it.
Evangelism
In addition to Acts 15, Acts 6, and 1 Corinthians 5 being used to authorize women attending business meetings, the writer of this material also throws in Acts 14:27, commenting that “an entire local church met to deliberate about a matter of evangelism in the New Testament…” (20). Wow! What must this verse say? The event referenced occurs at the conclusion of the first missionary journey of Paul—the one on which he and Barnabas labored together. They arrived in Antioch, and the verse quite innocently states:
And when they had come and gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done with them, and that He had opened the door of truth to the Gentiles.
How is this different from missionaries coming to report to congregations today? The church gathered together to hear the results of this evangelistic sojourn; we do the same thing today with reports of evangelistic work. No decision was made; how does this passage authorize sisters participating in business meetings?
Paul and Barnabas also made reports in Acts 15:3-4. The church was excited to hear of the great successes that they had. The way that Dawson cites this passage, one would think that there was an evangelism committee, half of whose members were women, and that they had made the decision as to what cities Paul and Barnabas would go to preach in. Of course, no Scripture describes such a process. The church was not deliberating about evangelism in Acts 14:27.
Private Meetings?
Having mentioned these four passages, Dawson, declares the matter proved (20). He does allow that elders can hold private meetings and cites Acts 15:6, the very passage he uses for a congregational meeting. He apparently does not see his contradiction. After also citing Acts 20:17-35 and Galatians 2:2 as examples of Paul meeting with elders only, he then challenges someone to find a Scripture where only the men of a church met (20). But if only certain men met on those two occasions, why would we not think that only men met on other occasions? And if women had a special meeting in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, why is it so difficult to believe that the men may have met by themselves, also?
But Dawson goes even further in insisting that, if we cannot find any passage that describes “men only” business meetings, then they must be unscriptural, since there is no New Testament authority for them (20). Apparently, he does not understand the way authority works in the Bible. We do not need an example for every possible situation that might occur. For example, are men authorized to use buses, cars, trains, airplanes, or helicopters to travel somewhere to preach the gospel? After all, there is not a single example of any of those being used in the New Testament.
We can use such methods because they are all subordinate means of achieving the general command: “Go.” Similarly, men have been give roles of leadership in the home and in the church. We know that elders make decisions, since that idea is present in the word bishop, which means “overseer.” How they make their decisions is up to them. They may have several ways of getting information from the congregation before they decide something. In the absence of elders (and we know that some congregations did not at various times have them), the responsibility to make decisions remains the same. We have, therefore, authority for making them, and each congregation is free to do so the way they think is most effective.
Most churches think that it is appropriate for the men (the spiritual leaders of the congregation) to make the decisions as part of their leadership role. This determination and practice is not in defiance of New Testament authority; it is in compliance with it. The men have the responsibility to lead—the way that they do so is up to their judgment. No verse of Scripture requires women to be present in those meetings, yet they can still be pleased with the results without being present.
Serving
Dawson’s creek diverges from the main stream in several ways. Whereas he is careful to analyze some things at length before making pronouncements, at other times his assessments appear to be shallow and without foundation. For example, he includes one paragraph right before the attempted proof that women can attend congregational meetings and take part in the decision-making process, in which he advocates that women can serve the Lord’s Supper but not lead the prayer of thanksgiving for it.
What is the justification for this practice? Sit down; this one is bizarre: “Women serve men in restaurants and at home, and men think nothing of it” (17). Does this argument really need a reply? An assembly of the saints meets to offer up worship to God; eating a common meal has nothing to do with worship. How do people get by with making such lame arguments?
Rubel Shelly once made the statement that women pass communion down the row; why can they pass the bread and the fruit of the vine horizontally but not vertically? His is such a silly argument that one would think that anyone might ask: “If an atheist passes it horizontally down the row, can he also pass it vertically?” Why do some go to such great lengths to hide their brains?
Returning to Dawson, however, we note that it is true that some serving the Lord’s Supper do not lead in prayer and are silent. But they are still in a position of leadership. They are before the congregation in a serving capacity, but they are also leading in that aspect of worship. Most types of service do not require being before the church.
In fact, Acts 6 is one of those. That first church problem began with a complaint that certain widows were being neglected in the daily distribution (v. 1). The apostles could not leave a work more vital than that of serving tables (v. 2). For that reason they prescribed to the selection of seven men to take care of this work (3). Why did the apostles require men for this act of service? If widows were being served, why not appoint seven women over it? After all, if these women went to a restaurant, they might have been served by women. And, so far as we know, this service had nothing to do with the assembly! Is it the case that women cannot be servants? They absolutely can, but their place of service is not before the assembly of the saints in worship.
“Women could operate an overhead projector in a debate…” (17). She might, but how does that relate to being before the assembly in a leadership role? Dawson then adds that she might debate another woman before an audience of women. Okay, but how does this idea relate to the subject under discussion? He also avers that women could write articles for bulletins or even Bible commentaries. Yes, they can, but here is the difference. No man would be forced to read them, but he is forced to see her if she leads the church.
As Dawson continues this list of mixed and unrelated items, he argues that she might be treasurer for a local congregation. He points out that many wives write checks and take care of the household finances, “and their husbands don’t consider it an unsubmissive act” (17). Isn’t that how Inspector Clousseau got in trouble? Seriously, however, are we now going to base what happens in the church upon what happens in the home? Some men’s wives may have an aptitude and efficiency in handling finances, it is true, but this is a personal matter—not one which involves the church. Even though overseeing finances is not a public matter or done in the assembly, it is still a matter of leadership. Dawson offers no proof for the idea of a female treasurer, and the little rationale he does offer is not valid.
Can Women Speak in the Assembly?
Anyone who thought these arguments were lacking in merit will likely not think too highly of this next one. Throughout this chapter, Dawson has pointed out that most brethren can accept three practices. Most brethren acknowledge that women are authorized to sing. We also do not object if a woman confesses Christ before the assembly. To make the good confession is not an attempt to teach or to usurp authority over men in a public assembly. The confession of faith is something that is expected of everyone. He also includes confession of sin, although various congregations handle that in different ways. Most of the time someone hands a preacher or elder a written statement—or tells someone verbally while the invitation song is being sung.
He argues that the Scriptures authorize a woman to do these things in a barn, a tree, a Bible class, or an assembly (23). While the cows might enjoy the singing, how does this practice relate to the issue? Some orioles might be impressed with a confession of faith, but it is doubtful they would make reliable witnesses of the good confession. Confessing one’s sins in a Bible class would probably take everyone’s mind off the topic for that day. The point is: God designed some things for the assembly for a reason.
Singing, for example, is designed to be an activity in which Christians praise God and encourage and exhort each another (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Doing so in a barn or a tree will not have quite the same impact. Again, the confession of faith or sin works best when other people are present. It is a strange argument, however, that bases worship in the assembly upon what one might do in a barn or a tree.
The Bible Class
Some may wonder, however, why women are allowed to speak or read a Scripture in a Bible class. The answer is not intended to be frivolous—the reason is that it is not the assembly. The purpose of a class is so that students will learn. In such cases, all students are encouraged to ask questions and sometimes to give an answer or make comments. Even in that situation a woman is not allowed to teach over the man.
Jesus conducted a personal Bible study with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. She asked questions and made comments. They were not, however, engaged in worship. Perhaps people are confused because the class is conducted in the same place where brethren assemble for worship. The confusion is understandable, but all need to see that, regardless of the location, each meeting has a different purpose.
Applications
All of us must be careful in handling Biblical authority properly. Remarkably, Dawson gets most of his applications correct, despite using the wrong standard. He does not think a woman ought to read Scripture in a mixed assembly of worshipers, but he does allow for them to sing, confess Christ, confess sin, or comment in Bible class. Then he comes to her speaking in the assembly. He argues that there is generic authority for a woman to speak, period (Eph. 4:29). Then he says that there is no specific prohibition for her doing so in a congregational meeting, as long as she remains in subjection (24). Does this argument make sense to anyone?
The fact that she can speak, period, means she can speak in the assembly. Wouldn’t this be tantamount to Jesus saying to the woman at the well: “I notice that you can speak, period, perhaps you would like to come and say a few words when I present My Sermon on the Mount; remember to stay in subjection, however”? The fact that a woman is authorized to speak, period, does not grant her authority to speak in the assembly. Dawson adds that she may speak as long as there is no specific prohibition against it. What happened to needing authority? The fact that women are authorized to speak in general does not in any way authorize them to speak in the assembly. The two acts are not related with any meaningful connection.
Nevertheless, Dawson insists that “the above examples show that every collective activity that a woman engages in with the brethren is authorized through general authority” (24). Broomsticks and hockey pucks! Whoever heard of such a thing? What is the difference between this misapplication and arguing that, since we are authorized to eat meat, period, we can grill hamburgers and eat them in the assembly? Is there a prohibition against it? We are authorized to walk (in a general sense); should we bring treadmills to worship so that we can improve our physical and spiritual health at the same time?
This is a gross misapplication of Biblical hermeneutics. Women are included in the command to sing—that is what authorizes them to sing—not the fact that they can speak, period. All are required to confess their faith in obeying the gospel—that is the authority. Speaking in a Bible class is authorized on the basis of the fundamental definition of being a student. If Bible classes are authorized at all (and they are), then it presumes that students speak in order to ask questions so as to learn. All of these are authorized in other ways than just speaking (in a general sense). Dawson’s argument is invalid.