Do Men Hold a Monopoly on the Business Meeting?

by Dale Smelser
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 13, No. 4, December 21, 1987

Several articles by me recently on elders, deacons, and business meetings have led to numerous questions about women attending business meetings. I have noted that the business meeting does not have oversight. We cannot substitute another system to replace God's designated system of watchmen --  elders. The "unwatched" business meeting is simply the body working and functioning as best it can (I Corinthians 12:12-20; Ephesians 4:15-16) without the designated and appointed leadership of elders until things are set in order and elders appointed. A church obviously may function before it has God's system of leadership. The churches of
Asia Minor doing so before Acts 14:23.

A meeting of the men is simply a method for planning and transacting church work. To bind that one method, limiting attendance to men as if such limiting.. r were doctrine, would be to bind one expedient method. It would be like binding singing in unison. That may be done acceptably, but the Bible does not bind that singing method; thus, we dare not. If the Bible has not bound a meeting of the men to plan and transact church work, then we must not say that such is the only way church work may be planned.

So, really, rather than asking if women may attend business meetings, the better question is: May the whole church be present to consider congregational matters, with or without elders? That will answer the question about women, and there are scriptural answers.

In the church in Jerusalem, there was a need for men to be appointed to distribute food to the widows. The apostles called "the multitude of the disciples unto them" to consider the matter. Those assembled were told to choose the men needed for the task, which pleased the whole multitude who chose the seven to be appointed (Acts 6:2-6). Congregational work was to be arranged, and the whole church was present to see to it.

Another example is the action of the church at Antioch, among whom were such notable prophets and teachers as Barnabas, Symeon, Lucius, Menahem, and Saul. "They" -- the church -- separated Barnabas and Saul for the work appointed by the Holy Spirit, fasted, prayed, and laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul, sending them away (Acts 13:1-3). Meyer argues that this action is a church action rather than one of only the prophets and teachers, or, he observes, the whole transaction was performed only in the circle of these five persons. The church acting is analogous to the selection of the deacons in Jerusalem (Acts 6), and it is the church Paul and Barnabas gathered and to whom they reported at the completion of this work to which they had been committed (Acts 14:26-27). And if "they" refers only to the five, the whole deed was transacted without the elders, which they surely had. Paul and Barnabas had been urgent to appoint elders when revisiting churches they had earlier established, all this in between first leaving Antioch and before returning there (Acts 14:23). It would be incredible for those new churches to have elders while the thriving work at Antioch had none.

But if that 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. False teachers coming from Jerusalem to Antioch, "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. "Brethren" here includes women just as "brethren" referred to the "multitude of the disciples" in Jerusalem (Acts 6:2-3).

Then, at Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas were received by the "whole church" and the apostles and elders. In that assembly, the champions of circumcision had their say (Acts 15: 4-5). Later, the apostles and elders came together to consider the matter in the presence of the whole multitude (Acts 15:12). There is exceptional unanimity in understanding this to refer to the church (e.g., McGarvey, Meyer, Hervey, Alexander, Alford, Robertson). 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 Gentiles (Acts 15: 22). And the letter sent with them was from the apostles, the elders, and the brethren (Acts 15:23).

Well, the whole church came together to select servants to minister to widows. The whole church separated and sent away Barnabas and Paul to preach. The whole church sent Paul, Barnabas, and others to Jerusalem. And at Jerusalem, the whole church listened as uncircumcised Gentiles were opposed, was present as the problem was taken up at a second convening, helped select men to be sent to Antioch, and consented to the letter sent with them. In these examples, we see the whole church present to solve the logistics of ministering, for the selection and sending out of preachers, and doing the same for messengers to Jerusalem, where the whole church was present for the controversial discussion, resolution, and selection of men to carry the news of resolution. This justifies the presence of the congregation, the multitude of the disciples, for the consideration and determination of the congregation's work.

Such being an assembly of the whole church (I Corinthians 14:23), and not Christians separated into various groups or classes, the women present should observe the restrictions of I Corinthians 14:34-35. To address this assembly would be the same as speaking in any assembly of the whole church. This limitation probably led to the traditional "men's business meeting." However, this restriction does not prohibit the presence of women. It only directs their decorum. Where is a passage that justifies a business meeting that prohibits the presence of women?