In May 2021, Bro. and Sis. McHaffie wrote an Open Letter to the Christadelphian Magazine expressing their concerns with a recent series of articles by Bro. Peter Anderton about the roles of sisters in the ecclesia. In June Bro. Peter provided his response to their concerns.
I’d like to offer a few observations on Bro. Peter’s response, in the hope they will further clarify the important issues involved.
Will the articles and the Christadelphian magazine’s publishing of them lead to division? Bro. Peter says that was not his intention. I believe him. Nonetheless his and the magazine’s inability to see and accept the possibility that there can be valid understandings of I Cor. 14 and I Tim. 2 other than their own may, as the McHaffie’s were concerned, lead in that direction. This uncompromising opinion will embolden highly conservative brothers and sisters to resist any change in how we do things. What might happen, as a consequence of this resistance when and if an entire ecclesia agrees to let the sisters read the Bible to the ecclesia during a memorial service? When and if an ecclesia decides it is proper for sisters to lead the prayers out loud or preside at the memorial service? When and if an ecclesia chooses to have sisters deliver a word of exhortation? Will a nearby ecclesia or even the CMPA decide this ecclesia is no longer “in fellowship”? Seems quite possible.
Somehow, such an outcome must be avoided. I lack the wisdom to know how. Perhaps Paul’s teaching to the Romans in chapters 14 and 15 can help. Somehow the community must find ways to both respect the views of those who think sisters ‘leading’ is wrong and the views of those who think sisters fully participating is important, so important that they sometimes choose to abandon our community for some other. I can only wonder how many young women have already left or never joined. It is not at all obvious how both views could co-exist within one ecclesia, short of one view or the other surrendering. I also remain puzzled why conservative brothers think that the various roles denied to sisters on Sunday mornings constitute ‘leadership’? It would be more proper to see them as servantship.Bro. Peter seems to find the open letter method unacceptable. I would ask how else can topics of concern, views that are (to some) ‘outside-the-box’, be publicly discussed when the leadership of our community refuses to publish such alternative views. Paul had no issues with publishing negative comments when needed in epistles that he would surely have known would become widely circulated (I Cor. 5:1-5, I Tim. 1:19-20, II Tim. 4:14-15). Given the community’s sad history in the 19th and early 20th century of frequent divisions, I can actually understand why the more official publications like the Christadelphian would not want to air potentially divisive issues. Given that, open letters are one of the few viable alternatives, as official magazines will not publish alternative views and many Bible schools choose to prohibit discussion of such matters.
Bro. Peter’s discussion of the translation of adelphoi is incomplete. He doesn’t cite the well-established ancient history of using the word in a gender-inclusive way. He argues against consistently translating it that way, but no one is arguing for a 100% consistent translation, rather that both textual and cultural context should determine the translation. His citation of I Cor. 14:34 as proof that I Cor. 14:26 refers to brothers alone only works if one has already decided what vs. 33-36 are saying. Circular logic. His review of a wide range of Bible translations to argue that ‘brother’ is the best translation grants far too much authority and credibility to translators – these are, after all, people who also affirm heaven-going and Trinitarian formulations. A much deeper study is needed to clarify how adelphoi should be translated in any given text.
Differences in understanding the Bible’s teachings on the service of sisters in the ecclesia may really be a manifestation of a difference in how one reads the Bible.
Christadelphians have long realized that not everything the Bible says is true and authoritative at face value. One prominent example would be the story of Lazarus and the rich man. We have always understood that the view of life after death it presents is not a true view. The New Testament’s use of ‘Satan’ may be another example. Similarly, we have long recognized that some admonitions/commands to first century ecclesias in the epistles are not binding on us, but reflect customs and popular understandings of those days and cultures. I will cite I Thess.5:26 (‘greet the brethren with a holy kiss’ – maybe in France but not in the US or UK!); I Tim. 2:8 (‘men should pray lifting up holy hands’ – does anyone do this?); and Jas. 5:14 (‘call for the elders…. let them pray over him, anointing him with oil’ - do any Arranging Boards routinely visit the sick and anoint with oil?).
I might argue Christadelphians have not been consistent in these approaches. Some see the relevant texts about sisters as binding in every age. Some of us would instead propose that in I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2 Paul is advising, perhaps we should say commanding, the brothers and sisters how to behave in their situations back then and these verses have no relevance to their roles in our times. It is hard to know, maybe even impossible, what was going on in Corinth with the women present in meeting that made Paul’s admonition in I Cor. 14:34 necessary. The situation in Ephesus is more obvious.
One manifestation of reading the Bible without consideration of cultural context is Bro. Peter’s citation of the apparent exclusivity of males in positions of leadership throughout the Bible. He calls this the Bible’s ‘general understanding’. He seems unaware and/or unopen to the possibility that this is not at all a teaching of the Lord but only a reality necessitated by the patriarchy of the cultures of those times. The question is not whether women often became leaders. Nor is the question whether equal numbers of men and women are gifted for leadership. The question is whether women’s leadership and exercise of authority, on the rare occasions where we see it, had God’s approval or disapproval. It had God’s approval. He apparently discounts that sisters were the first to learn of Jesus’ resurrection and were sent by him to be leaders/witnesses to that new reality. He seems unable to imagine that the many sisters mentioned in Romans 16 might be there because they were leaders in the ecclesia in Rome. Has he forgotten Deborah’s leadership of Israel in Judges 4-6? These examples of women’s leadership with God’s approval are inconsistent with there being a principle that women may never lead men or exercise authority over them. His mistaken view that the Bible authoritatively teaches that leadership should be the role of only males in the ecclesia then determines his mis-understanding of I Cor. 14 and I Tim. 2.
The way forward for our community is found in Romans 15:7: "Welcome and receive [to your hearts] one another, then, even as Christ has welcomed and received you, for the glory of God" (AMPC).
Jesus, himself, prays for the unity of those who will follow him (John 17:11, 20–23), so that the world will know that he was sent by the Father. In a Christ-centred view of the world, this is a vitally important objective. The apostolic instruction to make every effort to maintain unity requires a fresh conversation on a basis of mutual respect. Meanwhile we are to receive one another as the Lord has received all of us (Rom. 15:7).
