Dawson continues in his stream of apostasy, which is designed to create a broader role for women in the church than the Bible authorizes. He sets forth his position in his book, Christians, Churches, and Controversies. Having discussed the rationale for his views, we come to the heading, “How Should These Concepts Affect Congregational Action?” His basic advice is that, if everyone would agree with him, then no problems will result from women speaking in a business meeting.
He begins by saying that if someone did not want women to sing in the assembly, we would ignore the protest and allow them to sing anyway (25). First of all, has anyone ever taken such a position? Second, the Bible does authorize women to sing in or out of the assembly (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Third, almost every objection he provides in this section (and later ones) is related to example, which is only one means of authorization. We do not expect an example of every practice; implication or direct statement will also serve.
In addition to singing, Dawson adds that we must reject objections to a woman confessing Christ or confessing sin in the assembly, along with women making comments in Bible classes, teaching children’s classes, or speaking in a congregational meeting (25). All of these (but the last one) are things that most brethren will agree with him on. Attending and speaking in the business meetings, however, is not on a par with the others; it deserves more scrutiny.
Personal Experiences
On the way to his destination, Dawson makes some observations about business meetings. He mentions that in seventeen years of attending congregational meetings, he could only remember two or three occasions when women came close to crossing the line of subjection, and then other women got them back in line (28). Such is fine, but what does it prove?
This writer, as a young college student, began attending a church in a college town that was not only friendly—it contained as members four college professors. As a young Christian who had never heard of liberalism, he wondered about certain practices, one of which was allowing the women to attend the business meetings. A couple of them chaired committees, and one may have been treasurer; she read the financial report each month. There was obviously no being in subjection, and no one seemed to care. These events occurred in 1966-67, before most had even heard of “Women’s Liberation.”
Personal experiences like these may add insight into certain situations, but they cannot be used as proof that something works or does not work. Two things bear on the issue of business meetings: the first is the consideration of whether they are authorized, and the Scriptures indicate that they are. The second matter is expediency: each individual congregation makes that determination. The meeting in Acts 6 occurred because of a specific problem. But even if a congregation determines to have one today, there remains no indication that, contrary to Dawson, the women were involved in the decision-making process.
The Seven Reasons
Near the end of his chapter Dawson provides seven “arguments” for congregational meetings. The first one is that “men-only business meetings are without foundation in the New Testament” (31). This is simply not true. Being without foundation is not the same as lacking a specific example of one. What has Dawson shown his reader? He mentioned Acts 6, which was far from an ordinary business meeting. An issue needed to be resolved; the twelve called the multitude together to ask them to find seven men to care of the problem. We are not given the specific way the decision was made. This event does not establish Dawson’s claim.
In fact, on one level, all it really authorizes is the apostles calling a special meeting of the church to select seven men to serve tables. Probably our problems are not going to be resolved by the apostles, and most congregations do not have this particular difficulty to deal with today.
Is it true that no “male only” meetings are authorized? The apostles and elders met in Acts 15; that was a “male only” meeting. Jesus called a “male only” meeting to appoint apostles in Luke 6:12-16. Regardless of any Biblical examples, however, since God determined that males provide the leadership in the church, He therefore authorized males to meet with each other to accomplish what God wants done.
Second, Dawson said congregational meetings were the norm (31), yet he does not have enough instances to establish a norm. This point fails utterly for lack of genuine support for it.
Third, he says that nearly all churches have congregational meetings “when they’re considering building a new building or hiring a new preacher or selecting elders” (31). Really? Nearly all? This writer cannot name a single instance of a time when women were part of a meeting in which a preacher was hired. (A few have something to do with one being fired! But even that was usually done through her husband.) Dawson must have an entirely different experience than some of the rest of us.
Fourth, Dawson says that it is “dangerous for women to support something financially when they don’t know what’s going on….” (31). Amen! And that goes for every member, male or female. How many men do not attend business meetings? People too often support local congregations and other works without finding out adequate information. Especially as it relates to para-church organizations, how many people have demanded an accounting of the funds they receive? How many works have a false teacher associated with them or believe a false doctrine (even on their Website)? Brethren are far too trusting; some local congregations do not print reports of their own spending.
However, Dawson assumes that the only way a woman can find out anything is by attending a congregational meeting, by which he has created a false dichotomy (a contrived either-or situation). It is not the case that either women must attend business meetings and speak in them or they will not know anything about the budget. Any person with minimal communication skills can be an informed individual.
Fifth, it is dangerous for her to have to rely on her husband for information, since his view of the decisions might be skewed (32). Surely, Dawson has become desperate here. What if elders call in the preacher and fire him (not an unusual occurrence)? How many different versions is his wife going to receive of it? Published minutes of the business meeting should resolve this quibble, and women are free to ask questions.
Sixth, Dawson argues that “it is hurtful to a local church to exclude the talents, resources, energy, intellect, insights, and ingenuity of the women” (32). This is another false dichotomy. How does Dawson think that congregations with “male only” meetings have survived all these years? Obviously, the numerous talents of the ladies have contributed greatly to the well-being of the church—and without doing things the way he thinks we must do it.
Although Dawson did not make this application, it is interesting that this argument is precisely the same one used by liberals to authorize women preaching, leading in prayers, leading songs, or reading Scripture. He did not take this view; he specifically says otherwise, and he should not be charged with believing it. Still, it is interesting that liberals make the exact same point.
Seventh, “it is foolish for the men not to have the input of the women” (32). Probably, just about all men would agree with that statement, but it does not prove his case, since it is already being done in congregations that have “male only” business meetings. Dawson’s use of the Scriptures was not enhanced by his citing of Proverbs 18:13 to prove that women must be consulted before making decisions in the home and in the church. The verse says: “He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him.” The point of the verse is that one must listen to a full explanation from someone before giving a reply. Even if there is an application to decision-making in the home or the church, it would not require a congregational meeting to get the desired result.
The Final Plea
The chapter closes with a plea for brethren to be open-minded and willing to study this (or any other issue). Well, of course, that is the right attitude—the one we have been encouraging for centuries (1 Thess. 5:21-22). We wish that all who are in denominations would adopt this attitude and study the Bible rather than what some catechism says.
On the other hand, just because we are willing to study a subject does not mean we will thereby be convinced to adopt the argumentation that is presented. In this instance, for example, it was good to rethink the matter—even if we found Dawson’s thesis unsubstantiated and ended up disagreeing with him. Whatever positive benefits we might have from his chapter do not offset the damage that it might do in influencing some. He should rethink his position and his proof, since it is woefully lacking.
The rationale for the author’s conclusion is not valid. He obviously is dedicated to his position, but the passages did not say what he concluded they taught, and his applications fell short. As always, there is no ill-will toward him personally; he may have sincerely put this material together, but he is sincerely wrong if he thinks it justifies women speaking in business meetings and participating in the decision-making process.
JOSIAH’S DISCOVERY OF THE LAW
Marvin L. Weir
The prophet Jeremiah lived during a period of time in which God’s law had been ignored. A failure to stud-y, teach, and practice the law of Jehovah resulted in the Israelites sinking into the depths of apostasy. The people did not desire to listen to law that condemned their sinful lifestyles. Neither did folks desire to be condemned for rejecting God and worshipping idols. The kings had no intention of insisting that God’s law be read or followed. It is said that history repeats itself, and who can argue that we are not walking in Israel’s footsteps today? What lessons are ours to learn?
First, Josiah’s parents failed to teach him the Word of God! The last good king before Josiah was Hezekiah. Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son, introduced idols in the temple, allowed human sacrifices, encouraged wizards and soothsayers, and shed innocent blood. Manasseh’s son, Amon, followed in the steps of his father and “trespassed more and more” until finally killed (2 Chron. 33:23). Josiah was the son of Amon. This explains Josiah’s ignorance of the law; he had not been taught to respect God’s Word! Moses made clear the responsibility of parents in teaching their children in saying:
“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates” (Deut. 6:6-9).
Josiah’s parents will give an account to God for their failure to correctly teach their son, but Josiah shows that one can overcome lack of teaching and bad influence if he so desires. When but sixteen years of age, Josiah makes a choice to follow the God of David (2 Chron. 34:3). The young boy king was tempted in every way to follow the path of evil but instead rejected sin’s beckoning call. Every person today of the age of accountability and of sound mind is responsible for his actions and decisions!
Second, there is always the opportunity to do what is godly and right. God allows this world to stand and life to continue. Each day is another opportunity for one to choose to obey and follow the Creator of all that is good (Gen. 1:31; Jam. 1:17). Josiah could not have been reared in more unfavorable conditions. He could have used the excuse that he was a product of his environment and that because of such he was due understanding, special considerations, and an exemption from God’s laws. But Josiah did not harden his sense of right and wrong, and he chose to follow the true and living God who has made Himself known to all (Rom. 1:19-20).
Third, Josiah is proof that one does not inherit the sins of his parents and can choose to have either a humble or haughty heart! One could have no more wicked parents and grandparents than did Josiah! Neither could one live in a more wicked environment! But Josiah refused to be corrupted by evil people and worldly things. His ego was not overly inflated, and neither did he have an arrogant and haughty heart. In the Scriptures Josiah is told that,
because thy heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before Jehovah, when thou heardest what I spake against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard thee, saith Jehovah (2 Kings 22:19).
A hardened heart opposed to the will of God will always lead to the loss of the soul. Josiah knew that two ways stood before him—the way of the world and the way of God! Millions today are faced with the same choice. Our prayer is for tender hearts that will respond to the Lord’s will.
Fourth, the determination of one devoted to doing God’s will is a powerful force. Josiah knew that all things pertaining to spiritual matters had to be done with the proper spirit and in the right way (cf. John 4:24)! He gathered all the people at Jerusalem, publicly read from the book of the law, and demanded that all submit to God’s will. The Divine commentary says:
Surely there was not kept such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah; but in the eighteenth year of king Josiah was this passover kept to Jehovah in Jerusalem. Moreover them that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the teraphim, and the idols, and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might confirm the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of Jehovah. And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to Jehovah with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him (2 Kings 23:22-25).
The greatest need today is for one to find and obey the Word of God and turn to Jehovah with his whole heart!
—The Bonham Street Beacon (Paris, TX)
June 11, 2009