Estimated Reading Time: 18 Minutes
My Beginnings
I come from a strongly complementarian ecclesia in North West England. Sisters were not allowed to speak at all in any mixed meeting. They weren't permitted to discuss at Bible Class or at business meetings. Though they could write questions and comments for brothers to read out - this never really happened in my experience. I occasionally passed questions or comments to my brother to read out - but he didn't always understand what was written in haste, and by then the conversation had moved on.
Sisters could also write a Bible Class paper and have it read by a brother - but I have only heard of one sister who did this. Apparently, sisters had always contributed to business meetings until the c. 1950s, when a blanket ruling banning sisters from participating at business meetings was voted in. This was because one outspoken sister allegedly spoke harshly - and the blanket ruling silenced her - and every other woman - in one fell swoop. This remained the case for the next 70 years, long after the “offender” had fallen asleep.
At the time I accepted all of this as a right and proper interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, 14 and 1 Timothy 2: 11-15. Though looking back it was a real disenfranchisement of sisters - especially single sisters, who had no husbands to speak for them and were excluded from the decision making of the ecclesia.
Not only this, there was no real opportunity for sisters to discuss the Bible in a mixed group. Neither was a sisters’ class provided to encourage the spiritual development of women. The rules of the ecclesia had nullified the will of God:
“Then those who revered the Lord spoke with one another. The Lord took note and listened, and a book of remembrance was written before him of those who revered the Lord and thought on his name. They shall be mine, says the Lord of hosts, my special possession on the day when I act, and I will spare them as parents spare their children who serve them” (Malachi 3:16-17).
How can women join in speaking with men about the Lord if they are silenced? We need to provide these opportunities in our ecclesial lives.
Headcoverings
We also wore head coverings for pretty much ALL events held at the hall: breaking of bread, Bible Class, Sunday School, Sunday School parties and preaching meetings held at different venues. Even most of the unbaptised girls wore head coverings. Again, I accepted this as a sound interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.
I was baptised at 17 and had a good Christadelphian friend from Scotland. Together, we went on campaigns and a range of Youth Weekends, some of which had a different ethos from what I was used to. In the late 1980s and 1990s, We also went on the German youth holiday at Steibis - which I absolutely loved.
On one of these holidays, we were discussing head coverings with a Dutch brother, who pointed out: “Our sisters don’t pray or prophesy in the ecclesia, so how are head coverings relevant to us?” This simple question really rocked me, and I remember being in tears, as it challenged my black and white world of certainty.
It made me realise that I had been reading into the text my own preconceived ideas - as per the square brackets (1) : “any woman who [listens to a brother praying] or [listens to a brother who] prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head. ” It was suddenly abundantly clear to me that women had themselves, vocally, prophesied and led prayer in the first century church.
Potentially two great ironies now presented themselves: I belonged to a community which, in the main, did not believe that anyone currently had the spirit gift of prophecy - so there was no chance of women prophesying in the ecclesia. Further, it is also largely believed that sisters should not offer prayer on behalf of a mixed congregation. So on that basis alone (without going into whether this instruction was purely cultural or had a universal theological application) head coverings seemed irrelevant in our present day context.
Nonetheless, I continued to wear head coverings for most ecclesial activities, as I felt it taught a beautiful lesson in typology concerning creation and salvation (again not explicit in the text) and I didn’t want to distract anyone from their remembrance of Christ. In 2000, I found an article by Michael Ashton to be very compelling. He argued:
“Lest we misunderstand what this action portrays, it is necessary to state categorically that it does not show woman’s inferiority to man. This has been a serious and mischievous mishandling of the passage. When sisters wear a headcovering its primary function is to show the ecclesia’s submission to Christ. For this reason it has been the practice amongst us for sisters to wear head coverings whenever the ecclesia meets together to worship, so that the submission of the whole congregation to Christ can be plainly manifested… If the principle of Headship is accepted—that male and female believers together represent the Christ-body and its subjection to the word of God—it will be perceived that wearing a head covering is a great privilege, for it symbolises the righteous covering for sin provided by our Lord.” (2)For a long time after this, I wore a head covering at ALL meetings, being keen to show “the ecclesia’s submission to Christ” and the “righteous covering for sin provided by our Lord.”
On reflection though, this interpretation is in no way explicit in the text. Paul does not expressly say that a woman’s head covering is a symbol of the covering for sin provided by our Lord. Moreover, Paul does not instruct women to cover their heads for “worship” but when they, themselves, are praying and prophesying in the congregation.
So my position on head coverings has now changed, and I believe that sisters should be free to exercise their conscience either way as to whether they cover their own heads. It isn’t right to wield power over each other to force our opinions on others (Romans 14, Luke 22:25-27).
I feel strongly that gatherings which stipulate that head coverings must be worn are overstepping the mark in a community where there is no central power or priesthood and all are equal. For some sisters, they’re being asked to violate their conscience and intellectual honesty in wearing a head covering - which for them would be sinful (James 4:17). And if they persist in not wearing a covering, after being asked to do so, they may be regarded as rebellious or having a “bad attitude”... bad HATtitude… (sorry, I couldn’t resist…).
I am not saying that sisters should not wear head coverings and I am not saying that sisters should wear head coverings. I am suggesting that women should be allowed to choose for themselves either way and that their decisions are respected.
Whether one wears a covering or not, everything must be done to honour our Lord. Is it possible to transfer Paul’s arguments about holy days and meat offered to idols? Could we say: “Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who... [wear a head covering, wear] it in honor of the Lord...while those who [do not wear a head covering] abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God” (Romans 14:5-6).
Reevaluating Key Texts
For many years, I’ve read bits and pieces on complementarian and egalitarian (3) arguments about a woman’s role in the church, but never thought about it seriously. I was afraid to think about it seriously. I didn’t want to come to a conclusion which might be at odds with the status quo. I don’t like confrontation. So I buried my head in the sand. After all, what harm could it do just to accept “it is what it is”? Wasn't that the loving and harmonious thing to do - or was I just being a coward?
But, then, something happened which kind of took me by surprise. Several years ago now a delightful young chap, aged about 17, was baptised. I’d taught him English Language / Literature for a year or so in a small home education group. His baptism was a truly joyful occasion for me. A few weeks later, he was asked to read at the breaking of bread from the lectern. A few months later, he was leading discussion groups at Bible Class. I felt really pleased for him and thanked God for his involvement in our ecclesia.
I also felt something else. Something unexpected. I felt: anger and frustration! Not good things to feel. I felt as if my nose was being rubbed in something that I really didn’t like the smell of. It suddenly seemed ridiculous to me that there were capable, seasoned sisters, who could read the scriptures aloud with wonderful expression, who had to remain silent, whilst male novices (though rightly so) were encouraged to share their thoughts and skills - whether they liked it or not.
The feeling of anger surprised me - it was a subconscious reaction to something that I didn’t think was an issue for me. After all, I’d been able to share my skills by: teaching in Sunday School and Youth Events; organising preaching activities, editing the CIL magazine, serving as Welfare Secretary, helping to set up a Bible Learning Education Centre and giving one-to-one seminars etc. I really didn’t need, or want, anything to add to that list. But somewhere along the line, I’d started to question the traditional implementation of 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14: 33-36 etc. and now it was something that made me angry, even if I didn’t want to feel this way and wished that I could ignore it.
1 Timothy 2
You see, even if the traditional interpretation of : “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent” (1 Timothy 2:12) was correct, then the implementation of correct principles had been taken to stifling and irrational extremes, resulting in questionable practices in some (most?) ecclesias.
For the sake of argument, if we were to accept the conventional view of 1 Timothy 2:12, one could argue that exhorting, lecturing and giving Bible Class papers to a mixed audience could be classed as teaching. (We know that women are instructed to teach other women and children (Titus 2:4, Deuteronomy 4:9).
But (and it’s a rather big but) “I permit no woman to teach” has generally been taken to mean:
- She cannot serve the emblems, even though this is not teaching and is a silent role
- She cannot be a door steward to welcome visitors, even though this is not teaching and there is scriptural precedent for female door keepers (Acts 12:13)
- She cannot pray, even though this is not teaching and appears to have happened in the early church (1 Corinthians 11:5)
- She cannot read the Bible from the lectern at the breaking of bread, even though this is not her own teaching
- She cannot be the ecclesial treasurer, even though this is not teaching
- She cannot be part of the arranging committee (which is generally concerned with the “administrative” running of an ecclesia, fulfilling the office of deacons (4) rather than elders), even though this is not teaching - and we do not have leaders, only servants
- She cannot be involved in baptismal interviews, even though this is not teaching
- She cannot baptise new members, even though this is not teaching
- She cannot join in discussions at Bible Class or Business Meetings - even though she is not teaching
“Ah,” you might say, “but aren’t some of the jobs on the above list leadership roles? Wouldn’t a woman be ‘usurping authority’ if she fulfilled these tasks? Surely, a sister would not be usurping authority (accepting the conventional view, for argument’s sake) if any task was done with the blessing of her ecclesia? (5) And wouldn’t this greater involvement relieve some of the burden on brothers?
I know of one ecclesia, where only one reading from the Bible Companion is taken on Sundays, as there aren’t enough brothers to read - whilst there are some very competent sisters in the audience. Surely a Deborah-Jael situation if ever there was one. Other ecclesias are closing, due to a lack of brothers to serve - yet the obvious solution of sisters serving seems to be overlooked.
So, again, for the sake of argument, even if our traditional interpretation of these verses is correct - the practice is seemingly way off the mark and inconsistent.
(For some considered interpretations of what 1 Timothy 2:12 most likely means, please see Wrested Scriptures by Brother John Launchbury and Saved in Childbearing by Brother Mark Seagoe).
1 Corinthians 14
I also realized that my traditional understanding of 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 simply didn’t hold water. Paul, through the spirit, writes:
“As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?” (1 Corinthians 14: 33b-36, NRSV).
I had taken this text as proof that all women, for all time, must be silent in ecclesial meetings, apart from joining the singing of hymns, and reading the scriptures aloud - but only if reading around - (not very consistent I know!).
But when I started reading from the NRSV - which rightly translates the Greek word "adelphoi" as "brothers and sisters" - I spotted some things in the text that made this reading impossible. (Perhaps using versions like the KJV and ESV for years had hidden this from me.):
- v6 Paul is addressing both men and women who spoke in tongues and prophesied. Why would Paul silence women who God had ordained to speak?
- v26 “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation” this includes the sisters who were participating in the service;
- v39 Paul encourages brothers and sisters to be eager to prophesy and speak in tongues - but one at a time. (For more on this read endnote 6.)
These realisations sent me on further investigations into traditional interpretations of Genesis 1-3 and the Christadelphian theology of gender, all of which I’ve weighed in the balances and found wanting - but that’s another story, too long to tell here.
Even so, I didn’t think it was worth voicing these concerns as it would just have caused contention. I’m prone to anxiety and depression, and having to debate and argue makes me ill. So self-preservation also comes into it. I also didn’t want to be demonised and labelled as a “rebellious woman”. Sadly, this kind of “ad hominem” argument is sometimes used when a sister raises genuine concerns; namely the person is attacked, labelled (“feminist”, “humanist”, “forked tongue”) dehumanized and dismissed. Their arguments and scriptural reasoning are never fairly tackled. What are we frightened of? "We are not really searching for truth if we do not put even our most cherished beliefs to the test" (Jim Rigby).
Cliffhanger: But then another change happened that made me think that our community does need to reassess how it implements gender roles. Maybe it’s time to bite the bullet in opening up this topic for general discussion, rather than allowing our fears to close down any serious debate.
Burdened with Baggage
I have always brought people along to the meeting. Probably scores of folk over the years - not bragging, just building a picture for you. A few of my friends were subsequently baptised. At some point though, I was no longer comfortable bringing friends along.
How did this happen? I felt as though there was too much “Christadelphian baggage” which had now become an obstacle for some in accessing the Lord Jesus Christ. Amongst this baggage, I would include women sitting in silence, with their heads covered, in our churches. In this age of equality, many of my friends would have taken one look and run a mile.
But if this is how God wants it, then so be it. It isn’t because of women’s lack of ability that we are not allowed to speak. Indeed, our community would be better off if women were heard as we often have a refreshingly different perspective. But if this is how God wants it, then so be it.
But if it isn’t what God wants… If it isn’t what God wants, we are actually in a position where we are discrediting Him, and putting stumbling blocks in the way of potential believers. I know of three people who will not attend my current ecclesia because of our position on gender rôles - and we are much more moderate in our complementarianism than conventional ecclesias.
I’ve heard of young people who have never been baptised, because of, amongst other things, the general Christadelphian position of a strict brand of complementarianism.
So we really have to be sure that what we’re doing is right, because we are hemorrhaging potential and actual members. People who might be on the fringe, or are bruised reeds and smoking flaxes, can be immediately crushed and extinguished by the perception that women are discriminated against in ways which cannot be adequately evidenced by scripture.
Paul was at pains to insist that the first century church acted in a way that would gain members - according to the culture of those times:
- Titus 2:3-6 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 3 Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.
- 1 Timothy 6:1-3 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 6 Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.
Does this principle apply to us in our day? Is spiritual salvation more important than being counter-cultural in our stance on gender roles?
When it aided Paul’s preaching he had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). When it would have harmed the preaching of the gospel, he refused to have Titus circumcised (Galatians 2:3). Paul became all things to all people that he might bring them to Christ.
Is there a principle here that if head coverings and the silence of women have now formed an obstacle for some in following Christ, then such things need to be re-evaluated so that: “the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed?”
In our Western Culture, potential believers are refusing to pursue a relationship with Christadelphians further because of our implementation of gender rôles. More than this, many members of my ecclesia feel that they cannot bring along interested friends to our meetings because they would throw the baby out with the bath water upon seeing any appearance of inequality.
The status quo is losing eternal lives.
And so, we need to look as impartially as we can at what God really wants and make sure that:
“our practices are firmly based on the principles of God’s word, and not on the traditions and precepts of men—either those of past generations or those of the modern world.” (7)
The Final Nail in the Coffin
The ultimate nail in the coffin, however, was the realisation that if I kept silent about the silencing of women - then I would be complicit in going against the very trajectory set by the Lord Jesus Christ himself (see endnote 8).
If our Christadelphian practice is mostly wrong, then we are:
- rejecting the choices Jesus makes in apportioning skills (1Cor. 12:5-11, 1Cor. 12:27-28, Eph. 4:11-13);
- requiring sisters to bury some of their talents in the ground (Matt. 25:24-25, Romans 12: 3-8);
- nullifying the principle of unity in Christ (Galatians 3: 25-29, Ephesians 4); and
- incurring the condemnation of Jesus (Mark 7:5-13). (9)
A Time to Speak
And so all of this - not humanism, not modernism, not feminism, but my experience of the Lord Jesus and the scriptures - is what has made me think that the “time to keep silence” must now give way to the “time to speak” (Ecclesiastes 3:7). I am frightened at the response that my changed perspective might bring from some quarters - but I need to focus on what God wants, and not what others might demand from me. We are called to follow a person - the Lord Jesus - not a system.
As a community, or even as individual ecclesias, are we able to discuss these things in gentleness and a Christ-like spirit, speaking the truth in love, without “othering” those with a different interpretation of scripture? Are we able to trust other ecclesias who do things differently from the way we do, that they too have prayerfully studied the scriptures to form the practices in their church?
If, as a community, we are serious about the importance of such a discussion, both sides of the debate need to be fairly represented. If, as individuals, we are serious about these issues, we need to read literature from complementarians and egalitarians alike. I suggest that a good starting point would be to read: Men and Women in Christ by Andrew Bartlett (IVP, 2019). As the publisher's blurb explains: "Andrew Bartlett draws on his theological learning and his skills as a judge and arbitrator to offer an even-handed assessment of the debate. His analysis is thorough but accessible. He engages with advocates of each view and all the key biblical texts, weighing the available evidence and offering fresh insights. He invites the reader to move beyond complementarian and egalitarian labels and seeks progress towards healing the division."
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth (2 Timothy 2:24-25).
Footnotes
- Reading into the text ideas that are not there is a hazard we all face. For example: “If they worship with head uncovered they dishonour God’s ordained order by displaying their own glory (their hair), and dishonour the rôle of men” (Sid Levett, http://testimonymagazine.com/issues/2011/09/view). Here the same trap is fallen into by substituting the preconceived idea of silent “worship” for the vocal praying and prophesying.
- Michael Ashton, “Recognising the Headship of Christ” (The Christadelphian, January 2000).
- Complementarians believe that men and women should have different roles, whereas egalitarians believe that people should be assigned roles according to ability rather than gender.
- “Phebe was a deacon (servant) of the ecclesia at Cenchrea, certainly in a general sense, and probably in the particular meaning of the term ...The apostle’s choice of Phebe for this responsible duty... is worthy of reflection by any who still think that the role of sisters is to sit in the meeting and live in the kitchen” (Norris, J. B. (1951), The First Century Ecclesia, p. 105, CMPA). “As far as we can tell, some roles (prophets, deacons) were filled by both men and women, but the role of elder/overseer was just filled by men. Whilst it’s tricky to know whether we can assume uniformity across the early church, or whether the absence of female elders (for example) is a prohibition on female elders, it seems that at the very least the majority of elders were men” (Jon Davies, Watford Bible Class, 2019).
- “A look at the relevant NT texts shows it is the church that possesses authority and not particular individuals (or positions, for that matter). It is to the church that Jesus gives the “keys of the kingdom” and the authority to “bind” (i.e., enforce) and “loose” (i.e., waive [Matt. 16:19]). It then becomes the church’s responsibility to test and weigh prophetic utterances (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:19–22), to choose missionaries (Acts 13:1–3) and church delegates (15:22–23; 20:4–5), to discipline (Matt. 18:18; 1 Cor. 5:4– 5), and to reinstate (2 Cor. 2:7–8; cf. Matt. 18:10–14). The church’s authority comes from the power of the Lord Jesus present with believers gathered in his name (Matt. 18:20; 1 Cor. 5:4) and from corporate possession of “the mind of Christ” (2:16)” (Zondervan,. Two Views on Women in Ministry (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) (p. 65). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition).
- Although the Greek here is “brothers” this word is used throughout the letter to include men and women. It helps to read a version which translates this accurately like the NIV or NRSV because otherwise we might fail to understand the important point that men and women are being addressed. For further reading see: https://moreperfectly.blogspot.com/2020/05/gender-inclusive-language-dear-brothers.html
- Michael Ashton, “Recognising the Headship of Christ” (The Christadelphian, January 2000).
- Jesus set a trajectory which honored women, made them visible in his ministry and gave them a voice. For example, he:
- Used women as positive examples in his parables and teaching (Matthew 12:42, 13:33, 24:41; Luke 13:21, 15:8-10);
- Defended women when they were attacked, disparaged or abused by men (Matthew 26:10; Luke 7:36-50; John 8:1-10);
- Included women as part of his missionary team and accepted their patronage (Mark 15:41, Luke 8:1-3);
- Spoke compassionately with women, honouring them by calling them daughters (Luke 13:16, 23:28);
- Counter-culturally spoke with women in public, as equals, praising them for their faith (Matthew 9:20-22, 15:21-28);
- Counter-culturally taught women as the rabbis taught their male disciples (Luke 10: 38-42, cf. Acts 22:3);
- First revealed himself as Messiah to a Samaritan Woman and turned her into a preacher (John 4);
- Significantly chose Mary Magdalene, and other women, as the first witnesses and preachers of his resurrection to his male disciples, at a time when female witnesses were not permitted in a court of law (Luke 24:1-12; John 20). This is why the early believers gave Mary Magdalene the title, "Apostle to the Apostles".
The ultimate goal of Jesus' trajectory appears to be his vision of the kingdom, when gender will be a thing of the past and God will be all in all (Mark 12:24-26, John 17:20-23).
