Introduction
The role of sisters in Christadelphian ecclesias has been a vexed question from the very beginning. With no central hierarchy to give an authoritative pronouncement, each Ecclesia has the freedom to make arrangements that suit their own needs and circumstances. Thus, there have always been ecclesias, especially in remote areas or in the mission fields, where sisters have played a much more visible role than is common in more established urban areas. The issue of the role of sisters is complicated by its interaction with the cultural norms of a particular time and place. Behaviour that is necessary in one setting may be inappropriate in another. Disentangling timeless Biblical principles from cultural influences is a fraught task, but one that must be attempted if we are to fulfill our purpose of being a compelling witness for Christ in the world.
The role of sisters is part of a larger conversation about gender distinctions in the Bible and the ecclesia. Questions such as when and where sisters should be allowed to speak or teach, whether head coverings are required, and the meaning of Biblical “headship”, have been passionately debated for decades. However, let us set aside these more controversial topics for the moment and focus on the less vocal roles that sisters may be able to play in the ecclesia. Roles such as Doorkeeper, Steward, Treasurer, and member of the “Arranging” or “Managing” Committee have traditionally been assigned to brothers only. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss whether such a practice is Biblically or culturally based, and whether it serves the needs of today’s ecclesias.
Basic Principles
To start with it might be helpful to look at some of the basic principles set down in the Bible for the arrangement of Christian gatherings. We are instructed that everything must be done “in a fitting and orderly way” (1 Cor 14:40) and “so that the ecclesia may be built up” (v26). It must be recognised that all members must serve in the way they have been gifted by God (Rom 12:6) and no contribution is to be considered more or less critical than another (1 Cor 12:21-25). Most importantly, everything must be done in love (1 Cor 13).The Ecclesial Guide
While these are the overarching principles that must govern our ecclesial arrangements, there is little practical direction given in Scripture. Therefore discussion of the details must, of necessity, rely heavily on the suggestions given in the Ecclesial Guide, Robert Roberts’ comprehensive guide to the running of Christadelphian ecclesias, which is still influential in the organisation of ecclesial life today. It must be noted that the language of the document is particularly masculine, and all ecclesial roles (with the exception of “visiting sisters” and Sunday School teachers) are referred to as “serving brethren”. However, it is obvious that many situations which Roberts discusses in exclusively masculine terms must also apply to women. Examples include candidates for baptism, those who are newly baptised, and those who fall into sin or cause offense. So it is important not to read too much into the gendered language. In Roberts’ era, masculine language was often used to describe groups that included both men and women (e.g. “mankind”).In addition, in a time before women were allowed to run for public office, or in many cases even vote, it would have been surprising if Roberts had envisaged many women being elected to roles in the ecclesia. Nevertheless, he does not appear to have been against the idea in principle, as is obvious from the following quotes: “If a sister is an intelligent, active, useful, noble servant of Christ, her being a sister is no disqualification or barrier; it only precludes her from the act of public speaking and involves subjection to her husband.” (The Christadelphian, July 1874) And again: “If the Scriptures appoint man as her head, they do not exclude her from partnership in all that concerns their mutual well-being. They show us women “labouring with Paul in the gospel” (Phillip iv. 3): as official servants of an ecclesia with business in hand, which the ecclesia was called upon to promote (Rom. xvi.1-3): exercising the prophetic gift (Acts xxi. 9); prominently ministering to Christ himself (Luke viii. 2-3): sometimes leaders in Israel, like Deborah (Judg. iv. 4). The denial of public speech to women is as far as we are justified in repressing them.” (The Christadelphian, February 1897)
A word on authority
Many of the arguments regarding the role of sisters in the ecclesia centre around the concept of “power” or “authority” - who has it, and who is able to appropriately wield it? However, the mere presence of such arguments demonstrates that the debate has moved entirely away from its Biblical basis. The guiding principle for all Christ-followers must be the laying down of power, humbly taking the lowest position (Luke 14:10-11) in imitation of our Lord (Phil 2:5-8). The teaching of our Lord is quite clear that there is to be no hierarchy in the ecclesia, no titles, no wielding of authority, but “you are all brothers” (Matt 23:8-12). Bro Roberts states this unequivocally in section 17 of the Ecclesial guide (appropriately titled “Exercise of Authority Out of the Question”): “One principle ought to permeate all appointments in the house of Christ, and that is the one laid down by Christ, when speaking of the exercise of authority of one Gentile over another; he said, “IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU”. He that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he that is chief as he that doth serve.” The appointment of brethren to certain offices is not the appointment of men to exercise authority, but of men to serve.” (underline added)In the following section (18. “Serving Brethren, not Rulers) he is even more blunt: “There must be no authority, only service. The spirit of the appointments involves this. The ecclesia does not appoint masters, but servants. In principle, the ecclesia is the doer of everything; but, as it is impossible in its collective capacity to do the things that are to be done, it delegates to individual members the duty of doing them on its behalf.” (underline added)
So we can see that if all serving positions are approached with the correct frame of mind, not grasping for power or authority (1 Peter 5:3) but with a Christ-like attitude of service (Luke 22:25-27, Phil 2:5-8) then there will be no question of “usurping authority” (1 Tim 2:12). Some have suggested that the very request from sisters that they be able to serve in a wider capacity shows an unbecoming desire for power, and thus disqualifies them from service on character grounds. This objection clearly uncovers an unbiblical understanding of the role of servants in the ecclesia. As Bro Roberts put it: “If this question is treated in the spirit the Lord prescribes for all his brethren, there will be no danger or even question of the woman usurping authority over the man. If the last thing is for man to usurp authority over his brother—if, as Peter commands, “all are clothed with humility and all are subject one to another”—there will be no room for the usurpation of either man or woman to come in” (The Christadelphian, February 1887). Consequently, care should be taken that all brothers and sisters who are nominated for serving roles have an appropriately humble understanding of their position in the ecclesia.
A slippery slope?
Before we consider individual ecclesial roles, we must first address some of the common objections to an expansion of the role of sisters in the ecclesia. First among these is the ubiquitous “slippery slope” argument: that to allow sisters to fill non-speaking roles may not be explicitly wrong, but it could lead to them wanting to fill other, more controversial roles. There are three points that must be made in response to this suggestion.Firstly, we must always be wary of falling into the sin of the Pharisees. In their zeal to avoid breaking the Mosaic commandments, they created a myriad of extra laws designed to place a “hedge” around such behaviour. The result was “a yoke that neither we [first-century Jews] nor our ancestors have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). Our Lord himself spoke against such a practice (e.g. Mark 7:1-23, Luke 11:46), especially when observance of these unnecessary laws was elevated above the needs of the people (Matt 12:1-14).
Secondly, we must be wary of the message that this sort of argument sends to our sisters. It implies that they cannot be trusted with even a small amount of responsibility, lest it lead to a thirst for further power. As we have seen, this presupposition that there is an element of power involved in ecclesial serving roles goes explicitly counter to the intention of the Ecclesial Guide, not to mention the principles laid down by our Lord (Matt 20:25-28) and the apostles (1 Peter 5:3). In addition,, we must avoid the implication that women are more susceptible than men to the corrupting influence of power, which implies a moral inferiority that is indefensible from a Biblical or an experiential perspective.
Thirdly, the “slippery slope” argument, taken to its logical conclusion, implies that women should be removed from any sphere of influence. They should not be allowed to teach Sunday School, edit the ecclesial newsletter, participate in Bible studies or even teach other women. Not only is this a direct contradiction of Titus 2:3, but results in the conclusion that women are “only fit to nurse babies and look after the pudding”. Even in 1874, this idea was objectionable: “Such a boorish doctrine would destroy companionship, where brethren need it most, and unfit their wives to fulfil the highest function of motherhood, which is to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In fact it is a doctrine to be opposed and detested as much as any hurtful doctrine may be. The man who holds, and much more the man who preaches it, deserves to be deprived of every social advantage and be shut up in a cave” (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, July 1874). Today, with ability of women to succeed in every field of endeavour well established, this position is even more indefensible. In addition, it runs completely counter to the picture of ideal womanhood presented in Proverbs 31, where the “wife of noble character” is not only a real estate investor and small-business owner, but well qualified to offer “wisdom” and “instruction” (v26).
Reasons for change
It must be confessed that change is never easy. While some, like the Athenians, embrace novelty for its own sake (Acts 17:21), many struggle especially if they are not clear that there are good reasons to change. So let us consider some of the reasons why expanding the role of sisters in the ecclesia might have significant benefits for the body of Christ.- Firstly there is a major practical benefit. Across the western world ecclesias are shrinking, while at the same time our lives have never been busier. It can be argued that brothers and sisters need to give more priority to the things of God, and while this is undoubtedly true, it is equally true that it is largely impossible for us to recapture the slower pace of life enjoyed by previous generations. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics clearly shows that the current generation is working longer hours than our parents, whether in paid or unpaid work, and spending a larger proportion of our time commuting.
Cost-of-living pressures have made single-wage households the exception rather than the norm, resulting in weekends and evenings that are often consumed by household chores and other essential activities. As a result, many ecclesias are finding it increasingly difficult to find volunteers to fill all the available roles.
Allowing sisters to serve in some of these roles increases the pool of willing helpers, spreads the load more evenly throughout the ecclesia, and could also free up men to fill other critical roles. This problem, and solution, has been recognised for nearly a century at least: “Our religious contemporaries overcome the difficulty of lack of time by appointing a paid minister, who gives the whole of his training, time and energy to the work of his Church. This may appear to be a satisfactory solution of the problem, but it has its drawbacks, and we prefer not to adopt it. What have we in its place? A system by which practically all ecclesial work is done by a few selected from just two-fifths of the community—the male section. We attempt so much and achieve so little, probably because we curtail the number of our workers. Surely when we attempt so much, and are so handicapped for time, it behoves us to use all the workers available. Our assembly consists of two brethren to every three sisters, and of these, the one brother does practically all the work of any moment, the other four-fifths are, to a large extent, inactive. How can we expect to achieve the best which is possible?” (Sister E Blackmore, The Fraternal Visitor, November 1929). - Secondly, expanding the role of sisters would allow the ecclesia to more effectively utilise the God-given gifts of the majority of our community. (According to the 2016 Australian census 52% of Christadelphians are female). While charismatic spiritual gifts may not be evident today in the same way as in the first century, it is obvious that God has created each of us with different talents, which we are instructed to use in the service of our Lord (Rom 12:3-8). The last half-century has given sisters the chance to show that many are blessed with gifts beyond the traditional spheres of hospitality and child-rearing, but these sisters have often found that there is no place for the exercise of these gifts in the ecclesia. We must remember that our Father himself has designed the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:18) and each member’s function depends solely on the gifts He has bestowed on them (v28). A body with more than half its organs functioning well below capacity is seriously ill! How much richer our communities would be, and how much more we might grow, if we fully utilised the gifts God has given our sisters for the building up of the ecclesia (Eph 4:16)!
- Finally, allowing sisters a more visible role in the ecclesia, and potentially a seat on the “arranging committee”, would send a strong signal to our sisters, young people and the world at large that women are valued just as as highly as the male members of the Body of Christ. Christadelphians (with a few exceptions) have always valued sisters as “a partner, a helper and a fellow-heir in all things pertaining to Christ” (Brother Roberts, The Christadelphian, July 1874). However, as societal norms change, our loyalty to the customs of a bygone era has resulted in a perception that women are “second-class citizens” who are not considered worthy of “a seat at the table”. Now obviously societal pressure should never take priority over a clear Scriptural command, and we will attempt to assess below if this is the case. But if we should discover that Scriptures contain, in fact, no restriction on the service of sisters in a non-speaking role, then we must consider how our ecclesial arrangements impact our witness to the world.
The Apostle Paul repeatedly advised that we should “in every way... make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” (Titus 2:10, see also v5, v8, 1 Tim 5:14, 6:1, 1 Pet 3:16). It is customary when doing mission work to adapt our arrangements to the culture in which we find ourselves (within the bounds of Biblical ethics). Why should we treat the culture of our local neighbourhood mission field with any less respect?
Doorkeepers
Having considered some broad principles relevant to the discussion, we now come to a consideration of individual ecclesial roles. In most ecclesias the Doorkeeper’s role is to greet brethren and sisters as they arrive for the service, welcome visitors, and record visitor details. (Often this role is combined with that of Steward, see below.) Is there any part of this role that cannot appropriately be performed by a sister?The Scriptures include repeated instructions to “greet one another with a holy kiss” (1 Cor 16:20, 2 Cor 13:12, 1 Thess 5:26, 1 Pet 5:14). While such a display of affection is no longer appropriate in our culture, it is clear that all believers should greet each other warmly. There is no gender distinction. In addition, greeting and welcoming are functions of hospitality, which all believers are instructed to practice without regard to gender (Rom 12:13, Heb 13:2, 1 Pet 4:9). In fact, 1 Tim 3:2 and 5:10 make it explicit that both men and women are expected to be hospitable.
Finally, we find a number of Biblical examples of women acting as doorkeepers in a religious setting. Most obviously we have Rhoda, who answered the door while the Jerusalem ecclesia was engaged in a prayer meeting (Acts 12:13). In addition, we have the women who served at the entrance to the Tabernacle (Ex 38:8, 1 Sam 2:22), not to mention a woman keeping the door of the High Priest’s residence in John 18:16. The fact that most of these women are explicitly identified as servants reminds us that there is no authority associated with this role. Therefore, it seems clear that there should be no prohibition on sisters fulfilling the role of Doorkeeper in Christadelphian ecclesias.
Stewards
In some Christian churches there is a prohibition on women serving communion, either because this is a role reserved for pastors, or because it involves speaking an audible blessing over the recipient. However Christadelphian ecclesias do not equate the role of Steward with any speaking or teaching role, nor is there an audible blessing pronounced. The practice of excluding women from this role appears to be entirely based on a vague instinct to keep women invisible to the congregation, although interestingly there is no similar prohibition on women standing up to walk to and from the organ or piano.Is this Biblical? There is no indication that women’s service must be any less visible than men’s - on the contrary, Paul specifically draws attention to the work done by women (e.g. Rom 16). In addition, there are many Biblical examples of women serving food (e.g. Martha in John 12:2 and Peter’s mother-in-law in Mark 1:31). Finally, it should be noted that the early ecclesias would have met in homes, where the meals (which originally included the emblems) would have been presided over by the lady of the house (e.g. Chloe 1 Cor 1:11, Lydia Acts 16:40). Taken together, this suggests that there is no Biblical mandate for prohibiting sisters from filling the role of Steward in the ecclesia.
Treasurer
According to the Ecclesial Guide, the qualifications required for this position include trustworthiness, care, forethought, accuracy, the ability to ensure all money is kept safe, and an avoidance of both parsimony and extravagance. In addition, a Treasurer should possess the mind of Christ, have the enthusiasm of a servant of Christ, and be “an ardent sympathiser with all objects of an ecclesia’s existence”. The role involves keeping a clear and full record of all receipts and payments, and giving an intelligible report at business meetings. It is described as “an essential, honourable, serviceable, though humble, part”. Do any of these qualifications inherently exclude sisters?All members of the ecclesia should be developing the “mind of Christ” (Rom 15:5). It may be true that not all members will have the same gift when it comes to the ability to work with numbers, but in an age of equal education for men and women this difference in ability is no longer likely to fall along gender lines. Finally, Roberts’ own assessment of the role as a “humble” one, under the direction of the ecclesia and the “arranging” committee, precludes objection on the grounds that a female treasurer is “usurping authority” over a man (1 Tim 2:12).
Arranging/Managing “Brethren”
Finally, we come to the roles of “Arranging” or “Managing” brethren (and sisters?). These roles have historically been denied to women, presumably on the assumption that such members have an authoritative role in the ecclesia. However, as we have seen above, the Ecclesial Guide makes it clear that there is to be no exercise of authority involved in fulfilling the role of the Arranging/Managing Committee. They are under the direction of the ecclesia (both brothers and sisters) and must report to them every three months. All meetings are open to any members of the ecclesia, and minutes must be circulated.The explicit denial of authority to the Arranging Committee expressly negates an objection based on 1 Tim 2:12. The sisters voting in the business meetings technically have more authority than the Arranging Committee. To invoke 1 Tim 2:12 in order to deny sisters the ability to serve on the Arranging Committee, one would similarly have to deny them the ability to vote, a privilege explicitly granted to them in the Ecclesial Guide.
There is, in fact, a history of sisters serving as part of an Arranging or Managing Committee. Brother Roberts wrote the following about an ecclesia he visited in New Zealand: “I was also introduced to sister Dexter, whose characteristics are described in many a Scripture specification of womanly excellence, and whose serving capacities are so highly appreciated that she has been appointed “a managing brother!” Deborah, the wife of Lapidoth, was an excellent managing brother, to whom Barak naturally took the second place” (The Christadelphian, November 1896).
Later in his tour of New Zealand Brother Roberts was specifically applied to in order to settle a dispute on a similar matter. Here was his verdict: “The question really was whether in the non-public working or management of things, woman’s voice might be allowed a place. The question seems an extraordinary one… To object to such on the score of “ruling the ecclesia,” is to evince either a shameful misconception of duty or an itch for headship which disqualifies for the true service of the ecclesia. No man who wants to be head is fit to be head. The headship that comes from service is the only headship that is either useful or tolerable, or, in the long run, possible. Where the spirit of exalting each other, instead of exalting ourselves prevails (as Christ commands) there is little danger of difficulty arising, and an easy settlement of them when they do arise” (The Christadelphian, February 1887).
Finally, in 1929 the following was published in The Fraternal Visitor: “In visiting various ecclesias I have learned of many duties undertaken by sisters which are usually performed by brethren. In one ecclesia the Managing Committee consists of both brethren and sisters. Two ecclesias have a sister for secretary... Evidently these ecclesias considered that the work was of more account than the worker. And so it should always be. The work is the thing that matters. Where a sister can do a particular piece of work better than a brother, it cannot be wrong for her to do it. Where an ecclesia has three sisters to every two brethren, would it not be an advantage to have the sisters’ help and their point of view represented on the committee which manages that ecclesia?” (E. L. Blackmore, The Fraternal Visitor, November 1929). Sister Blackmore raises the very relevant point that it can only be to the advantage of an ecclesia for its Arranging Committee to include representation of the unique perspective that sisters can provide.
Recorder/Secretary
With that in mind, we come to the final role from which women have hitherto been excluded, that of Recorder (or Secretary). In many ecclesias this role is seen as the highest office available, and in some cases acts as a de facto leader, as it is human nature to grasp for power. For this reason, Brother Roberts specifically subjugates the role of Recorder to the Arranging Committee (who are subject to the ecclesia as a whole): “The brother so appointed has no authority by reason of his office. He is simply the organ of the ecclesia, by which the ecclesia officially sees and hears, and, when necessary, acts. He becomes the hand of the ecclesia only when the ecclesia, as represented by the arranging brethren, imparts its volition to him by special or general direction. He is in all things subject to the arranging brethren, without whose direction he has no power to act. He may have a standing direction from them in matters of routine, in virtue of which he performs acts without coming before them, such as arranging for conversational interviews with a view to immersion, reminding brethren of their appointments, etc., but in all specific matters coming under his cognisance, his duty is to lay the matter before them, and ask their direction before acting one way or other” (underline added). This is important, as even ecclesias of a more egalitarian persuasion often still insist that the position of Recorder be filled by a brother. However, when the position is approached with a Christ-like spirit, and an understanding of the intention of the role, there can be no objection to it being filled by either a brother or a sister.Business Meetings
It should be noted that some may object to the appointment of sisters to a number of these roles due to the requirement to present reports of their activities to the ecclesia at quarterly business meetings. The issues around sisters speaking will be discussed elsewhere, suffice to say here that business meetings are highly unlikely to be the sort of situation that Paul is addressing in 1 Cor 14:34 or 1 Tim 2:12. In addition, the Ecclesial Guide specifically allows sisters to attend Arranging Committee meetings and “take part in the deliberations that take place”. The quarterly business meetings are expressly not an ecclesial worship service, as demonstrated by the prohibition on combining them with the Sunday morning meeting (section 28 of the Ecclesial Guide). They are much more similar to the Arranging Committee meetings (during which sisters are specifically allowed to speak) as neither context involves any form of teaching. This suggests the requirement of presenting reports to the ecclesia in the context of a business meeting should be no barrier to sisters’ service.Conclusion
In this paper, we have considered the basic principles of ecclesial arrangement, as set out in both the Scriptures and The Ecclesial Guide. We gave particular attention to the humble and Christ-like spirit required by any servant of the ecclesia, and the prohibition on exercising authority in any form. We have mentioned some of the objections often raised to the expansion of ecclesial roles for sisters, and offered for consideration a few points that are relevant to each objection. We have also discussed the benefits to the Body of Christ that might follow from a decision to allow sisters to serve in non-traditional roles. Finally, we considered a number of individual roles that have historically been denied to our sisters, assessing each of their responsibilities in an attempt to divine if any Biblical prohibition exists. We also considered the teaching and experience of previous generations, with special reference to Brother Robert Roberts given his pivotal role in creating the particular form of Christadelphianism most commonly seen in the western world today.In the end, the specifics of ecclesial arrangement fall squarely within the purview of each individual ecclesia. Ecclesial autonomy is an essential element of our denominational structure, and each ecclesia must be free to make the arrangements that best suit their situation and membership without fear of interference from other ecclesias. That said, it is important to consider, when making such a decision, the following from the Ecclesial Guide: “The objects of ecclesial operations are two-fold: 1.—the edification (or refreshment, encouragement, strengthening, or building up) of its individual constituents in the faith, “the edifying of itself in love”(Ephesians 4:16); and 2.—the exhibition of the light of truth to “those that are without”. In this two-fold capacity, the ecclesia is “the pillar (that which upholds) and ground (that which gives standing room) of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). These two objects will always be carefully pursued by enlightened and earnest men. Neither is to be lost sight of, and neither sacrificed to the other.”
Note that our witness to the world is given equal weight alongside the edification of the current ecclesial membership. We must therefore seriously consider the consequences if we refuse, without a clear Biblical mandate, to make changes that could help make the gospel more attractive to the world, or to our own children. Our Lord himself gave us the sternest of warnings about placing a stumbling block in the way of those who might come to him: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. So watch yourselves” (Luke 17:1-3).
With this in mind, may we prayerfully consider our next steps.
“The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.” (Matt 9:37-38)
