Truth Magazine

By Tom M. Roberts

To set the issue of women in business meetings clearly and precisely before us, there first must be a basic understanding about what we mean by our terms. Some might jump to unwarranted conclusions anytime it is suggested that women participate at any level in a “decision-making” process (whether business meeting or not), assuming that any activity of women in such a capacity is radical feminism. On the other hand, others might be as quick to assume that a denial of women in any kind of participation relegates women to second class citizenship in the kingdom and degrades them as compared to men of the church.

In order to avoid this pendulum swing of extremes, we should be very sure that we understand our terms and that they have a firm foundation on the word of God. What we believe and practice must not be either a position based on ancient cultural traditions or a reaction against a more modem, liberalizing culture. Contrary to what some teach, the Lord’s people can establish a scriptural practice outside the constraints of time and tradition, solely upon a “thus saith the Lord,” independent of and separate from any other consideration. The question is, “What does God authorize?”, not “What is cultural at the moment?”, or, “What was cultural in New Testament times?” Women’s Liberation concepts must not be allowed to influence us; male chauvinism has no place in our deliberations. It is inspiration from God alone that guides our thinking.

Subjection: A Place of Service

One misconception that must be destroyed is that subjection equates with value. Many object to the subjection of women to men, suggesting that this diminishes the value of women. Patently, this is not true and the Scriptures teach otherwise. Jesus Christ voluntarily subjected himself to the Father, thereby elevating subjection as a means of service (Phil. 2:5-11). Men are “a little lower than the angels,” Christ himself becoming a man; but in manhood is found a place of service and none should rail against angels simply because we are “lower” than they (Deb. 2:6-11). Likewise, women are to be in subjection to men and find their place of service in that role (1 Cor. 11:3;1 Tim. 2:11; 1 Pet. 3:1). Each in his or her place, though all are in subjection, are servants of the same God and of equal value in his sight. Let us not be lead into areas of contention by non-issues.

Decision-Making Process or Making Decisions?

Another non-issue, when properly understood, is the objection to women being included in the “decision-making process.” Again, we need to be clear in our terms.

The “decision-making process” is the process of gathering information, seeking counsel, weighing options, expressing the needs of the whole church and looking at alternatives. This process, culminating in a condition where adequate information is received that will permit a decision to be made is quite different from the leadership position in which actual decisions are made. It is scriptural to include women in the decision-making process by which their voice, intelligence and soundness is appreciated and weighed. Then the men (if in a business meeting, or the elders, if such exist) retire and make the actual decisions. Women cannot remain in subjection and have an equal voice in making decisions. This is sustained by Paul’s instructions to Timothy: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:12). It would be a usurpation of women over men (especially in those congregations where women outnumber the men) for women to make decisions on an equality with men. Thus, to answer our lead question, it would be without scriptural authority for women to participate in any meeting in which decisions are made on behalf of the congregation. God has appointed male leadership in the church and this is exercised in either the business meeting of the men or the eldership (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9; Heb 13:7, 17; 1 Pet. 5:1-3).

We see a parallel in another collectivity: the family. A wise man includes the wisdom and experience of his wife in discussing alternatives that face the family. In any collectivity, after full discussion, some one is charged with making the final decision. In the family, this is the husband (Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1). In the church, the men (or the elders) make the final decisions.

Service (v. 3); the number of these men would be seven in number (v. 3). While it might be argued that some things decided by the apostles were matters of “the faith” and not judgment, such could not be said for the fact that seven men were to be chosen (not more or less). Here is a private meeting of men that decided on a matter of judgment on behalf of the entire congregation. This instance provides apostolic example for men having a business meeting (unless there is an eldership in place, Acts 14:23) where women are not included and where matters of judgment for the whole church are decided.

Needless to say, such decisions are made in matters of judgment, not in matters of the revealed faith, which are decided in heaven (Jude 3).

“Does Acts 6 Authorize Women in Business Meetings?”

With the above disclaimers firmly in place, we consider the events of Acts 6. In this chapter, we have males (the apostles) leading the church and making decisions in matters of judgment while the “multitude of the disciples” (vv. 2, 5), the congregation, acted as one to carry out what was decided. We infer that “the multitude” included the female members of the Jerusalem church.

But were women excluded from all considerations of the problem? No, quite clearly, they were included. Through a process not specified (thus, permitting generic options), “the multitude” “looked out from among themselves” (v. 3) these seven men whom the apostles appointed to their work (vv. 3, 6). The action “pleased the whole multitude” (v. 5), thus bringing peace and accord to a troubled church (v. 1). Similarly, faithful men in business meetings have met for uncounted years and decided matters for congregations, engendering peace and accord in local congregations on every continent of the globe. Abuses of this scriptural process (unwise men, arrogant overlords, violent arguments, etc.) do not destroy the right of such meetings to exist.

A Modern Example of a Scriptural Precedent

At the Woodmont congregation where I preach (and also serve as an elder, along with brother Ron Houchen), we have one or two congregational meetings each year in which the whole church comes together to discuss all aspects of our work. In this meeting, the women are encouraged to speak, make suggestions, ask questions, give their counsel and provide information. The elders understand that some women do not have husbands or have husbands who are not Christians and need to be informed. At the same time, we value the soundness, wisdom and experience of every member, including the women. After a full and extended discussion of our work, the eldership retires and prayerfully decides on behalf of the congregation the best actions to take, grateful for the counsel of every member. We believe this respects the Scriptures in providing male leadership (in this case, the eldership), provides the women with occasion to serve while remaining in subjection and avoids the pitfalls on either side: radical feminism or male chauvinism.

Did the apostles meet privately and make decisions before and without the whole multitude coming together (the equivalent of a men’s business meeting or elders’ meeting)? Yes, quite clearly this was done. The apostles met first to consider the problem, decided some matters and then called the multitude together to tell them of their decisions. What did the apostles decide independent of the congregation? That the apostles would no longer serve tables (v. 2); that other men (not women) would discharge this Acts 6 is a part of the inspired record that teaches us how to allow the church to function under male leadership while respecting all the principles taught elsewhere in the word of God regarding the role of men and women in the kingdom of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 16-17
February 2, 1995

By Mike Willis

Controversy is unpleasant for everyone. We all long for peace. Controversy is sometimes unavoidable. Despite every effort to stay out of World War II, the United States was drawn into war by the unprovoked Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. In a similar way, soldiers of Christ are forced into battle by the unprovoked attacks of Satan against the doctrine of Christ. One’s only alternative is to raise the white flag of surrender or to pickup his spiritual sword, the word of God, and do battle.

This issue of Guardian of Truth contains an exchange between Tom Roberts and Don Patton on the proper understanding and use of Romans 14. At issue is whether Romans 14 is limited in application to matters of authorized liberties (matters of indifference) or can include sinful conduct and preaching that is contrary to the doctrine of Christ. Some will look at the conflict as unnecessary “preacher fighting,” and believe that some brethren “shoot from the hip” and ask questions later. I thought that knowing what went on behind the scenes of this conflict might diffuse that criticism.

In September 1994, I received a good manuscript from a younger preacher that reviewed the sermon preached by Don Patton. He felt Don’s argument reflected a growing danger and needed to be re-viewed as soon as possible whether by him or someone else. While I agreed, I also realized from past experiences that some brethren get upset when this subject is discussed and sometimes the motives of younger men are impugned. Realizing how much conflict would erupt from publishing the manuscript, l suggested to the younger man that truth would be better served if an older man reviewed the material. He agreed.

A few weeks later and without me requesting it, I received Tom Roberts’ manuscript reviewing brother Patton’s sermon. Brother Roberts had already addressed the conflict caused by brother Patton’s material in the Dallas area. Before submitting his article to me, brother Roberts already had asked several respected brethren to go over the material to give him feedback in removing anything that was unnecessarily abrasive and in honing his arguments. I also deter-mined that no personality conflicts were motivating his review of brother Patton’s material.

I asked Tom to send a pre-publication copy of his material to brother Patton to be sure that there were no misrepresentations printed. Brother Patton contacted me upon receiving brother Roberts’ material and charged that he was being misrepresented in the review.

At this point, I asked for copies of all pertinent information to judge the matter for myself. I was given a transcript of Don’s original sermon, a tape recording of a review of that sermon by Bobby Holmes, and Don’s reply to brother Holmes’ review. Later I was sent a video copy of brother Patton’s exegesis of Romans 14. Upon receipt of this material, I sent copies of all of this to Fred Pollock, president of the Guardian of Truth Foundation, and to Connie W. Adams, associate editor of Guardian of Truth, to be sure that my judgment was balanced in handling this material. Both men agreed that brother Roberts’ material needed to be printed and thought my plan of action for handling the matter was fair.

I read the complete transcript of brother Patton’s sermon at least three times. I listened to it on tape two or three more times, on one occasion with Donnie V. Rader during a meeting that I conducted in Shelbyville, TN. I listened to every tape that was sent to me more than once.

Upon completing my review of brother Patton’s material, I made some suggestions to brother Roberts and he gladly made the suggested changes.

In the meantime, Don was offered an opportunity to reply to brother Roberts’ material. My original intention was to publish brother Roberts’ article in one issue and a reply by brother Patton and a rejoinder by brother Roberts’ in the next issue. It was suggested that Don would be treated more fairly if he was given opportunity to reply in the same issue. I thought that was a reasonable request and indicated that I would do that.

I offered Don five pages to respond to brother Roberts. I meant by that five pages of typewriter copy on double-spaced lines. I was not specific enough for Don to realize that, so he submitted five pages of magazine copy. I protested its length and made one request for change. He made the suggested change and shortened his manuscript a little, but insisted on having this much space. In an effort to be as fair as possible, I conceded the point and allowed him more space than I generally have allowed in such circumstances.

His material was sent to brother Roberts and brother Roberts submitted his rejoinder. This process took from September 1994 to February 1995. Perhaps this glimpse into how I handle controversy will dispel some of the perceptions men have that we “shoot first and ask questions later.”

Despite some disagreements that both participants would have about peripheral issues, both are agreed that we have an area of serious difference in doctrinal understanding. We are disagreed on whether or not matters of sin are included in the instructions of Romans 14. This disagreement has serious doctrinal consequences and leads to significantly different conduct in fellowship. We encourage our readers to wade through this lengthy exchange and focus on the heart of the issue: Does Romans 14 teach that we should “receive” those who are practicing sin?

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 4 p. 2
February 16, 1995

By Donnie V. Rader

In discussions about women in business meetings, one of the main passages that is introduced is Acts 15.This chapter deals with the “conference” at Jerusalem about the matter of circumcision. This passage is cited as proof that women may attend and participate in decision-making business meetings.

Let’s consider the argument that is made from the text and then we’ll see whether Acts 15 supports the contention.

The Argument Made on Acts 15

I. The Argument: Those who think Acts 15 allows women in business meetings tell us that this chapter is an example of women being involved in making decisions for the church. They think they see that in more than one spot in this chapter.

a. These brethren contend that the whole church at Antioch (including women) determined to send Paul and Bamabas to Jerusalem (vv. 2-3). Thus, women were involved in making that determination.

b. We are told that more than just the apostles and elders (v. 6) were present and discussed the matters at hand. The “multitude” (v. 12) or “whole church” (v. 22)was present. Thus, this was a congregational meeting to discuss the problem.

c. The contention says that the “whole church” (including women) was involved in the decision to send a letter to Antioch and in choosing some of their own to accompany Paul and Bamabas to Antioch (v. 22).

d. Then, we are told, that the whole church gathered to receive the letter at Antioch (v. 30) and not just the elders or the men of the congregation.

Their conclusion from the above points is that women may attend and participate in business meetings.

Some are using Acts 15 to say that women may attend business meetings, but she cannot participate. Others are using the same passage to say that a woman may attend and she may participate. Still others are saying that this same text teaches that she must be in the business meetings and be involved in the decision-making process.

Some contend that Acts 15 teaches that women can be in the business meetings in the absence of elders. Others say women are to be a part of the decision-making process even when there are elders. In fact, some are saying that elders cannot make any decision without a congregational meeting.

B. Those who are giving Acts 15 as proof that women are permitted in business meetings. Vance E. Trefethen wrote in his book, Confusion or Consensus,

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the whole congregation, under the leadership of the apostles and elders, was involved in the decision to send this letter, and in the drafting of its contents (p. 30).

What’s really amazing about Acts 15 is how similar the pattern of congregational decision-making is with elders as it was without elders in Acts 6 (p. 31).

Acts 15 is the only passage in the New Testament that shows how elders function in the decision-making process of the local church (p. 32).

The same writer used Acts 15 in his recent debate with Tom Roberts (Guardian of Truth, August 18, 1994, p. 495).

Joan H. Rieber wrote an essay entitled “A Woman’s Perspective” which appeared as a chapter in Trefethen’s book, Confusion or Consensus. In it she said,

One of the responsibilities I needed to accept was attending the assemblies of the “whole multitude” to discuss and decide the work of the local church . . . this is the way it was done in Acts 6 and Acts 15 (p. 94).

There are also scriptures that prevent the exclusion of even one woman from congregational assemblies: Acts 6:2-5; Acts 15:12,22 (p. 95).

Dale Smelser’s unpublished essay, “The Rule of Elders,” is quoted in Confusion or Consensus in which he refers to Acts 15 and says,

It is impressive how meticulously the Holy Spirit reiterates the participation of the congregation in all this. Here is precedent illustrating function of elders and congregation. Any oversight that excludes similar participation, is not scriptural oversight. Any oversight that determines everything apart from congregational participation, and simply announces its decision to which all are obligated to submit upon pain of rejecting God’s appointed authority, has rejected God’s authority (p. 36).

The same writer wrote an article, “Business Meetings and Oversight” in Sentry Magazine (December 31, 1986, p. 2) saying,

With elders the body should still function and work together, to the same extent, and even at times be able to meet and participate in discussion (Acts 15).

Again in an article, “Do Men Hold a Monopoly On the Business Meeting?” (Sentry Magazine, December 31, 1987, p. 2-3) Smelser stated,

But if the example of whole church involvement is problematical to you, it is in harmony with what took place in Jerusalem and afterward at Antioch and Jerusalem again … “they” (the brethren of Acts 15:1) determined to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, and they were brought on their way “by the church” (Acts 15:2-3). It was the whole church that did all this. That includes women. … That the whole church was present for the discussion and its resolution is evident from the fact that it seemed good to the apostles and elders, “with the whole church,” to choose and send men with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch to confirm the acceptance of the Gentiles (Acts 15:22).

Lynn Trapp is quoted from The Messenger (Glen Burnie, MD Church of Christ, December 13, 1987) in Confusion of Consensus (p. 107),

If we are intent on following the New Testament in every way, isn’t it necessary that we observe all of its teachings? The closed door “business meeting” (except as a part of a general congregational meeting, Acts 15:1-12) is just as foreign to the New Testament as is instrumental music in worship.

Alpha (an anonymous writer) in debate with Omega on women in business meetings affirmed the proposition, “The scriptures teach that Christian women may attend and participate in the decision-making meetings of the church” (With All Boldness, July 1994). His second affirmative said,

To this list of passages from our first affirmative we can add Acts 15:1-29. . . Once again we see “the whole church” involved in a decision of the church (p. 9).

Samuel G. Dawson’s booklet, Women and Men in a Local Church states,

The New Testament contains at least four examples where women clearly participated in congregational meetings, i.e., where the whole church weighed, pondered, and considered their action (p. 19).

One of the examples he cites is Acts 15 (p. 20).

Answering The Argument

1. The question about women and Acts 15: The question is not: (a) whether there was a gathering of the whole church (including women), (b) whether the whole church (including women) listened to the speeches recorded in vv. 7-21 or (c) whether the whole church (including women) agreed with the proposal of sending a letter to Antioch. To prove that women were involved in the above (which is what the text says) proves nothing about women in business meetings. The question is whether women were involved in any decision-making process.

2. There were private and public meetings in Acts 15. There were at least three meetings: two public and one private.

(a) There was a public meeting involving the church (v. continued on next page

4). This was the meeting in which Paul and Bamabas gave their report of what “God had done with them.” Some of the Pharisees were present and caused a stir in this meeting (v. 5). “It seems that the assembly adjourned to meet again at another hour” (J. W. McGarvey, Original Commentary On Acts, p. 183).

(b) There was another meeting of the apostles and elders (vv. 6-22) along with the “multitude” (v. 12) or the “whole church” (v. 22).

(c) There was also a private meeting in which Paul met with those “of reputation.” “I did so in private to those who were of reputation” (Gal. 2:2, NASV, emphasis mine DVR). This private meeting must have been either prior to or between the public meetings (see McGarvey, Original Commentary on Acts, p. 183; New Commentary on Acts, Vol. II, p. 60).

There was a decision made in this private meeting to accept Paul into fellowship (Gal. 2:9). Keep in mind that only men were present in this meeting (Gal. 2:1,2,9). And to think there was none of our modern thinkers there to tell them that could not be done!

3. Those who participated in the discussions were men. (a) It was the apostles (men) and elders (men) who were to consider the matter (vv. 2, 6). (b) Those who addressed the meeting were men: Peter (v. 7), Paul (v.12), Barnabas (v. 12) and James (v. 13). (c) Those who wrote the letter also gave commands (v. 24). The statement “to whom we gave no such commandment” implies that some commandment was given. Who are the “we”? Were women included in giving commandments? If so, could they do so today? (d) There is no evidence that any woman said anything in either of the public meetings in Acts 15! In fact, the multitude kept silent (v. 12). While it is true that the church (including women) was pleased (v. 22), “we are not told how they reached the decision, whether all the members were consulted, or whether the membership expressed agreement with the apostles and elders. The apostles and elders led in the agreement as they did in the discussion” (H. Leo Boles, Acts, p. 241). Those who abuse Acts 15 confuse approval or being pleased with some action with direct participation in decision-making.

To assume that women must have spoken and participated in these meetings is to make the same kind of assumption that our Methodist friends do with the house-hold of Lydia.

Since the “whole church” (v. 22) was in one place, women could not have spoken and participated in any discussion (1 Cor. 14:34-35, cf. v. 26).

4. God was directly involved in these meetings of Acts 15. Unlike our business meetings today, God called this meeting. Paul said he went “by revelation” (Gal. 2:2). Furthermore, when the decision was made about circumcision, it was made by the Holy Spirit (v. 28). I hardly think we could attribute some of the decisions we make in business meetings to the Holy Spirit.

What took place in Acts 15 is really not parallel to business meetings. Acts 15 would be more parallel to having some public discussion (debate) on a doctrinal matter.

A Consequence

If women can participate in discussions where the whole church is gathered (referred to as “assemblies” by some of the advocates of women in business meetings), she can address the assembly. If she can do that and not violate 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12, I wonder why she could not preach without violating those same text? Those who contend that women can participate in congregational meetings (citing Acts 15) cannot consistently keep women from addressing any other assembly.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 18-20
February 2, 1995

By Larry Ray Hafley

“Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease” (Prov. 22:10). Would my home, the place where I work, and the church be more peaceful and harmonious if I were “cast out”? If I am a scoffing, murmuring, complaining scorner, they would be. Is it not a sad thought to think that life might be better for others if I were not present?

 “Heartaches and misery may well be caused by external events and circumstances. They may also be developed in the laboratory of the mind, formed and fashioned out of the empty air of self pity within the vile of bitterness and ingratitude.”

 “A skunk and a rose are known, in part, by the scent they emit.” God can see our lives as a “sweet smelling savor” or as a disgusting odor (Amos 5:21; Eph. 5:2). So, to him, which are you, a skunk or a rose?

 “And they glorified God in me” (Gal. 1:24). What a compliment! What a tribute! Could it be said of your friends, neighbors, relatives, and co-workers, “And they glorified God in me”? Or will it be said, “And they denied God because of me”?

 “Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you” (2 Thess. 3:1). Do we pray “that the word of the Lord may have free course”? Could we pray that the word of the Lord may “be glorified, even as it is with (us)”? Does the word have “free course” in our lives? Is the word of God “glorified” by our lives? Our daily lives, in the family, in the workplace, and in the community, may cause “the name of God and his doctrine” to be “blasphemed” or slandered (1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:5, 10). Which is it with you and me?

 A salesman knocked at the door. The man came to the door, and the salesman, smiling, said, “May I speak to the head of the house, please?” The gentleman said, “Well, sir, the real head of this house has put me in charge for nowso, what’s on your mind?” How wonderful it would be if we would all keep in mind who is truly “the head of the house”!

 “Trickery, deceit, hostility, gouging, verbal abuse, conniving in private huddles, cries for blood, and the removal of some of the participants are the necessary ingredients of a good football game  and a church fuss.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 4 p. 4
February 16, 1995