One Woman's Journey | A Call To Reflect, part 2: teaching and serving
In this new blog series, our first anonymous contributor describes how her Bible studies, conversations and personal experiences lead her to re-evaluate women's roles in the church.
One Woman’s Journey
A Call to Reflect
part 2: teaching and serving
For many years, I’ve read bits and pieces on complementarian and egalitarian[1] 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. A year or two ago, 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, frustration and jealousy! 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 a widely-distributed 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 14:34-35, 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.
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; see 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 that she cannot:
I am sure that there are other things that could be added to the list, and, due to our most-welcome ecclesial autonomy, the list will rightly vary from one ecclesia to the next: some ecclesias will have a female treasurer, but this would be anathema to others.
“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[3]? 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.
Also, with some of our Christadelphian organisations, sisters do not (cannot???):
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.
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 rather than their arguments and scriptural reasoning.
Cliffhanger: But then another change happened that is making 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.
[1] For definitions of complementarian and egalitarian, see the chart below.
[2]“Phoebe 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 Phoebe 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, p105. Birmingham: 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).
[3] “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 (Acts 15:22–23; Acts 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” (1 Cor. 2:16).” (Belleville, Blomberg, Keener & Schreiner, Two Views on Women in Ministry (Counterpoints), p65. Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition).
 |
| Chart by the author. |
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. A year or two ago, 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, frustration and jealousy! 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 a widely-distributed 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 14:34-35, 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.
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; see 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 that she cannot:
- serve the emblems, even though this is not teaching and is a silent role
- 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)
- pray, even though this is not teaching and appears to have happened in the early church (1 Corinthians 11:5)
- read the Bible from the lectern at the breaking of bread, even though this is not her own teaching
- be the ecclesial treasurer, even though this is not teaching
- be part of the arranging committee (which is generally concerned with the “administrative” running of an ecclesia, fulfilling the office of deacons[2] rather than elders), even though this is not teaching - and we do not have leaders, only servants
- be involved in baptismal interviews, even though this is not teaching
- baptise new members, even though this is not teaching
I am sure that there are other things that could be added to the list, and, due to our most-welcome ecclesial autonomy, the list will rightly vary from one ecclesia to the next: some ecclesias will have a female treasurer, but this would be anathema to others.
“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[3]? 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.
Also, with some of our Christadelphian organisations, sisters do not (cannot???):
- sit on various committees such as the CMPA and the Military Service committee - even though this would not be teaching
- act as a CBM linkman (even though there is a short supply and there is strong scriptural precedent for women preachers)
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.
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 rather than their arguments and scriptural reasoning.
Cliffhanger: But then another change happened that is making 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.
[2]“Phoebe 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 Phoebe 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, p105. Birmingham: 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).
[3] “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 (Acts 15:22–23; Acts 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” (1 Cor. 2:16).” (Belleville, Blomberg, Keener & Schreiner, Two Views on Women in Ministry (Counterpoints), p65. Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition).
No Comment to " One Woman's Journey | A Call To Reflect, part 2: teaching and serving "
Comments are not moderated, but will all be reviewed. Exercise grace, friends.