In researching this piece I became aware of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, held in Sydney in 2015. Some of what Mr Jackson said on that day is directly related to this subject of the role of women in the congregation. I have quoted the relevant parts but in the preamble to the day we have this extraordinary statement.
Q. And do you (the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses) see yourselves as Jehovah God’s spokespeople on earth?
A. That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God’s spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days – and Jehovah’s Witnesses believe these are the last days – there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfil that role.
(Geoffrey Jackson 15937 lines 35-47, testimony to the Australia Royal Commission 14/08/2015)
That seems quite honest. However it is not how they present themselves to the brethren through their literature and broadcasts. Compare this (picked at random from many):
Today, Christ uses the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses to direct his congregation.
(Bearing Thorough Witness © 2009 p119)
Make of that what you will, but on with the main subject:
We live in a very strange world. Once upon a time men were men and women were women, but now it seems, suddenly, we can be any gender we choose. And that causes no end of problems, such that even the courts are engaged in declaring that we are the gender we were at birth, our biological gender. I thought that was obvious, but then again the world has become a very confusing place, where right is wrong, up is down, good is bad, male is female, black is white. Why? Well many well-meaning Bible readers will point to 1 John 5:19 and tell us this is Satan’s world and so what should we expect? They are right, of course, but still the question arises as to why so many people accept, embrace and defend what is happening in the name of tolerance and human rights. We are who we are and we cannot change that, but this does not stop people choosing to mutilate the body and pervert the mind in a pretence of gender liberation. Why? I cannot answer that beyond referring back to John’s epistle. So I will not try.
Peter, in his first letter, tells us that women are the ‘weaker vessel, the feminine one’ (3:7). This is true. Men are usually bigger, stronger, faster than women and that is why most sports these days have separate events for men and women competing in the same sport – football, tennis, cycling and so on. Women are at a natural disadvantage in these disciplines. Alas, from the very beginning of human history, men have abused this advantage to treat their female companions in an appalling manner; at its most basic, as sex objects, bearers of progeny and skivvies. It is little wonder then that women want emancipation and equality. Much of this oppression has been done in the name of religion, in the name of Christianity and the Bible, in the name of God. Institutionally misogynistic religions, at least implicitly, base these beliefs on the writings of the putative misogynist-in-chief, the apostle Paul. They will point to the passage at 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 which says:
33 For God is a God not of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the holy ones, 34 let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak. Rather, let them be in subjection, as the Law also says. 35 If they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the congregation.
Unfortunately they fail to reason that this directly contradicts the earlier discussion in chapter 11 of the same letter about how a woman can pray and prophesy in the congregation under a sign of authority. In his testimony to the ARC (more on that later) Jackson referred to verse 28 which says an interpreter should remain silent, and verse 30 where the first speaker should become silent, both being male. He said:
A. So you notice in verse 34, that's where it says "keep silent", but if you look at verse 28, there it says: But if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent. So the expression "keep silent" is referred to a male, and then verse 30, where it is talking about prophets, and in verse 30 it says: If another one receives a revelation whilst sitting there, let the first speaker keep silent. So this chapter is talking about orderly conduct in the church meetings or in the congregation meetings. So verse 28, if someone starts speaking in another language but there is no interpreter, the scripture says "let him keep silent". Now, it appears that in the congregation there was a problem because some women were actually challenging, arguing, debating with the men who were taking the lead in giving teaching. Now, you may not feel that that is the case, but that's the context of what is said here, and in chapter 11, it refers to the fact that a woman could speak with a head covering. So I think a very literal interpretation of verse 34 and verse 35 is not appropriate in the context. (page 15962 lines 8-34)
Couldn’t have put it better myself – and from the horse’s mouth too! There is evidence that the above passage (vv34-35) is a marginal comment that has found its way into the main text and is therefore a spurious addition to the sacred text.
Zondervan Academic - Gordon Fee seems to be the authority here.
On the other hand
Got Questions attempts to reconcile the two passages.
Also we have the instruction to Timothy:
11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but she is to remain silent. (NWT)
The Greek word here rendered ‘silence’ is hesychia (Strong 2271) meaning quietness, calmness, tranquillity, silence. ‘It refers to a state of quietness or tranquillity, often in the context of demeanour or lifestyle. It implies a peaceful and calm disposition, free from disturbance or agitation. This term is used to describe both an external quietness and as internal peace of mind.’ (Strong’s Lexicon). NWT and KJV are two of a small minority of translations that go with ‘silence’. Most go with ‘quiet’ or ‘remain calm’. Does this mean that women have no role in the congregation, other than to make up the numbers? The Watchtower Society is certainly one group that strictly enforces this interpretation. All of its appointed men are just that – men, from ministerial servants all the way up to their governing body. Evangelising aside, sisters are given menial roles in the congregation only when there is nobody else to perform the required tasks. Even ‘unbaptised brothers’ (an oxymoron) of minor age are given preference, should they be available. WTS is accused of institutional misogyny and it is not difficult to see why. But should there be full ecclesiastical equality between men and women in the congregation? Or is there a balance? What did Paul have to say on the matter? Chapter 11 of First Corinthians is actually a beautiful celebration of gender, femininity, the role of men and women, and how they are designed to complement each other perfectly. Let us explore together.
11 Become imitators of me, just as I am of Christ.
2 I commend you because in all things you remember me and you are holding fast the traditions just as I handed them on to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head shames his head; 5 but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, for it is one and the same as if she were a woman with a shaved head. 6 For if a woman does not cover herself, she should have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved, she should be covered. 7 For a man should not have his head covered, as he is God’s image and glory, but the woman is man’s glory. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. 9 And what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. 10 That is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 Besides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it fitting for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that long hair is a dishonour to a man, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her instead of a covering. 16 However, if anyone wants to argue in favour of some other custom, we have no other, nor do the congregations of God.
We first note that Paul is very aware of the divine order and structure that God has instituted. The hierarchy is simple; God is head of all, including Christ, Christ is the head of man, man is the head of woman. This is the overriding principle that influences Paul’s discussion. ‘God is a God not of disorder but of peace’ he wrote. Paul was never a fan of a rabble-rousing free-for-all, and neither is God.
Under the auspices of this general principle, Paul makes it very clear that it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to pray and to prophesy in the congregation. Yet it must be done in a way that recognises divinely instituted authority. The sign of recognition is the head covering – a scarf perhaps, or a hat – and in this way our sisters can and should have a greater role in the congregation. But it really is not about equality or anything similar. Look at the next passage in verses 7 – 11. ‘The woman is man’s glory’. Think about that! Men and women complement each other perfectly. When we go out, all dressed up, and our lady is wearing her finest, most elegant attire, with a beautiful hair-do to match, (‘comeliness, loveliness and purity’ – Barnes) do we men not bask in her glory? The woman was created for the sake of man, as a helper and a complement of him (Genesis 2:18). It is a role, not of inferiority but of honour. Without women there are no men. Yes, the first woman Eve was created from Adam’s rib and came from him, and was for him, but every other man has come through a woman. So whilst there is no reason given here for women to claim equality with men, neither is there any reason for men to treat women as second-class, second-rate, beings to be used and abused in any way they see fit. The female is as much of God’s arrangement as is the male. There is no place for any internecine gender rivalry and competition in God’s arrangement. The woman is not separate from man neither the man from woman, for all things are from God.
But what about spiritual and intellectual equality? Read what Peter said on that momentous day at Pentecost CE 33. Quoting prophecy he said at Acts 2:
16 On the contrary, this is what was said through the prophet Joel: 17 ‘“And in the last days,” God says, “I will pour out some of my spirit on every sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy and your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams, 18 and even on my male slaves and on my female slaves I will pour out some of my spirit in those days, and they will prophesy…”’
To fulfil prophecy, both genders would receive God’s spirit, inspiring them, daughters and female slaves, to prophesy. Yes, every sort of flesh. Paul agreed. In writing to the Galatians he stated ‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ (3:28 NIV).
So what did Paul have in mind in writing to Timothy about a woman learning ‘in quietness and full submission’ (1Tim 2:11 NIV)? As can be assumed there has been much discussion over the centuries (see Appendix 1 for the main interpretations), but the first, and quite radical teaching, is that a woman in the congregation should learn. Putting aside how she should learn, and contrary to Jewish tradition, Paul is encouraging spiritual growth for women and for them to be active participants in learning about their faith; they too were to exercise faith in Jesus, get baptised and be responsible for their personal salvation. He mentioned many in his letters, some of whom were either explicitly or implicitly ministers.
Take these from Romans chapter sixteen:
Phoebe is called a diakonos, deacon or ministerial servant, and a defender of many.
Prisca and Aquila, fellow workers in Christ, are named six times and in four of those, as above, Prisca (Priscilla) is named before her husband. Does that tell a story? She took the lead in helping Apollos gain a correct view of his teaching.
Mary worked ‘very hard’ for you (NIV).
Andronicus and Junia were ‘outstanding among the apostles’ (NIV), an ambiguous statement but not denying that among the wider apostolic community women were highly respected. Regarding Junia ‘…with early church tradition and many scholars affirming her as a female apostle. This highlights the role of women in the early church, which was more prominent than in many contemporary societies.’ (Berean Study Bible). Instead NWT chooses to perform a sex-change operation and the female Junia becomes the male Junias. (Compare Ίουνίαν with Ίουλίαν in v15. Julia remains female).
Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis all worked hard.
Nympha had a congregation at her house (Col 4:15).
Euodia and Syntyche appear to have had a disagreement of some kind and so they were urged to be of the same mind (Php 4:2). For this spat to be alluded to in scripture suggests that these two women were prominent and had important roles in the Philippi congregation. The evidence that women had active and important roles in the early church is without doubt.
There is a very pertinent comment made by Paul to Titus in chapter two of his epistle. Verse 2 give instructions to the older men, presbytes, and then in verse 3 to the older women, presbytis, notably that both groups were to be teachers of what is good, the former to younger men (v6) and the latter to young women (v4). The two words are identical save that one is in the male gender and the other in the female. NWT gives these as ‘older man’ and ‘older women’ or ‘aged’ in the 1984 edition. This distinguishes the word from presbyterous which is the basis for the position of elder in the Jehovah’s Witness church and priest or presbyter in the Catholic church, amongst others. In 1:5, Paul tells Titus to appoint elders in every town. This is the word presbyterous. In translating 2:2 as ‘older men’ NWT correctly notes the difference. What it means is that mature men and women in the congregation all have a dignified role and that teaching is not a matter to be monopolised by a quasi-clergy elder class. So specifically for the older women, by words and actions they were to teach the younger women to love their husbands, their children, to be sound in mind, workers at home, good, whilst being subject to their husbands. In the modern-day congregation, there are a whole host of teaching and administrative roles that could be filled by our sisters, without in any way disrespecting the headship arrangement of Jehovah and without usurping the authority of the men that Jesus allows to run each congregation.
So how is it then that WTS has such great trouble when it comes to the role of women in the congregation? That they do is without doubt. Facing the Australia Royal Commission, G.W. Jackson of the governing body was questioned at length about the lack of women in roles of responsibility in the organisation, specifically where the victims of rape and child abuse are required to testify before a judicial committee composed entirely of men. The transcript of that section is in Appendix 3. But here are some pertinent extracts:
Q. Now, I am sure you know of the concerns expressed by the women who have given evidence in this hearing about the confrontation and difficulty in that confrontation which they found in approaching a male-dominant structure; you understand that?
A. I do understand that, your Honour.
Q. Is there room for the church to change that?
A. That's a very good question, and I'm glad you asked it. Is there a chance to make elders women or make women elders? No. There is no leeway there. Later on: Q. Is it possible for the process to be modified so that that decision can be made by a body which could include women - that is, the decision as to whether or not the allegation is true or false, made by a body which could include women, and that decision would thereafter be acted upon and a decision made as to whether or not to disfellowship by the elders? Do you understand?
A. I do understand, and I apologise, your Honour, for not answering directly. I didn't understand fully what you were saying. The answer, your Honour, is such a situation would be worthy of us considering and doing research and checking the scriptures, yes. The possibility of considering that is there.
At one point he had trouble finding scriptural support for the policy:
Q. Can you give me the reference for that?
A. Yes. In the scriptures --
Q. That is, judges being only men - not elders, but judges being only men?
A. Okay. I would have to check - I think Deuteronomy is one of them, but with regard to 1 Timothy, chapter 3 - and I'm sure, your Honour, you are very familiar with this, in verse 1:…
Throughout the day he repeatedly excused himself with the ‘it’s not my field’ line until:
Q. Mr Jackson, you say it's not your field, but you are a member of the Governing Body which is responsible, as you have said, for the whole field, and you have been a member for 10 years, and all the committees are responsible to and accountable to the Governing Body.
A. That is correct.
Q. So it is your field, isn't it?
A. Only as far as approving the basic scriptural principles. So is there a scriptural principle that you have in mind you want to ask me about, or are you talking about policies and implementation of policies? There is a difference there.
I would like to help him out with some specific examples beyond those already mentioned. At Judges 4:4 we are told: ‘Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that particular time.’ She summoned Barak to fight against Jabin and his chief of the army, Sisera. He refused to go unless Deborah accompanied him. She did, and with divine assistance, they accomplished the task in hand. She was both a judge and a prophetess. The thing about prophesying is that those chosen were chosen by Jehovah himself. They were given God’s ‘confidential matter’ (Amos 3:7) and they were to speak out as God’s spokesman to whomsoever he wanted that message to be heard. Even kings were expected to listen to, and accept the word of God, as delivered by his prophets. It was not an insignificant role. We might think of prophets as primarily predicting the future and that certainly featured but it was not their reason for being appointed. They were to speak God’s message to the intended audience. The Greek word prophetes (pro, before; phemi, to speak) literally means to speak out. Yes, even the kings were subject to the prophets.
There are many other prophetesses mentioned in the Bible account. Firstly there was Moses’s sister Miriam. Then in the days of Josiah, Huldah was used to declare Jehovah’s word of judgement to the king. Noadiah tried to undermine the resolve of Nehemiah; perhaps not a good example but a prophetess nevertheless. Mrs Isaiah was a prophetess. Anna too, who was privileged in her twilight years to meet the baby Jesus and to speak about his role in Jerusalem’s deliverance. And it was a woman, Mary, who was given the unique role of hosting the Son of God in her womb and allowed to raise him as her own son.
It was recently announced that elders’ wives would be required to attend Elders’ School for the last two talks of the day. Alas, I am not privy to the nature of these talks and can only speculate wildly on what they might have heard or of any new roles within the congregation. I am aware that Mr Jackson promised to consider the possibility of including women in the process when women and children were involved. Perhaps…? As we have seen, the complete sidelining of women in roles of responsibility does not have absolute scriptural support. The JW stance is based on interpretation of scripture which may or may not have some validity. However WTS was set up by C. T. Russell and moulded into the powerful, wealthy, coercive organisation that it is now by J. F. Rutherford and just maybe their attitudes towards women still has some significant influence.
Both these two men had strained and awkward relationships with women. In 1879 Charles Russell married Maria Frances Ackley, two years his senior, attractive and well-educated. As they were expecting to go to heaven imminently they mutually agreed not to consummate the marriage. They felt that it was better to be eunuchs for the kingdom. Alas, the heavenly calling did not come. It seems that Charles had no problem with celibacy but that Maria did. At the divorce proceedings in 1906 her attorney suggested that ‘she was deprived of one of the chief pleasures of life’. She was, it seems, a sexually frustrated woman! What made it worse was Charles’s liaisons with Rose Ball, amongst others, who had been caught with Russell in her bedroom on several occasions in 1894. So at that court case Maria testified: ‘Rose has told me that you have been very intimate with her, and that you have been in the habit of hugging her and kissing her and having her sit on your knee and fondling each other’. In his defence, written in the WT edition of 15th July 1906, Russell stated that Rose was quite childish in appearance, perhaps about 13 years old, or 10 according to another. I am not sure quite what kind of defence this is, as in today’s world that would be seen as child abuse, paedophilia. Apparently she was being overworked and came to Russell in tears and he was being ‘fatherly’ toward her. Actually she was 25 years old and a director of the society! Her work involved dealing with correspondence, not really something that one would entrust to a ten-year-old. Maria Russell had left her husband in 1897 who refused to directly support her, but he did eventually allow her to live in one of his houses in Allegheny which was large enough to sub-let and thus provide her indirectly with some income. And it was Maria who first propounded the idea that Charles was, personally, the faithful and wise steward of Matthew 24. Although initially he was unhappy with this idea, he did manage to grow into it over the years!
Rutherford is described as a ‘thoroughgoing misogynist’. He lived apart from his wife for years and hated feminists. He refused to show any deference and openly quoted Kipling’s description of a woman as ‘a hank of hair and a bag of bones’. Unsurprisingly these values spread amongst the brethren. Nevertheless, he had a secretary, Bonnie Boyd Heath, and a nurse and dietician called Berta Peal, who had deserted her husband of 15 years to enter Brooklyn Bethel in 1938; he divorced her for abandonment in 1940. Circumstantial evidence, along with her own comments that ‘he [Rutherford] was like a husband to me in every way’ strongly suggest that she was indeed his mistress! Along with his explosive temper that occasionally excited him to physical violence, he used vulgar language, regularly engaged in irate tirades at morning worship, was a drunkard and alcoholic (even to the extent of ‘rum-running’ through the Canada branch during the abolition years!), was not averse to attending nude burlesque shows (at least once with two elders and a young Bible Student woman). He had a luxury apartment in New York, a palatial residence on Staten Island along with a secluded residence in the woods. Expensive quarters were maintained for him in London and Magdeburg and he ended his life living at Beth Sarim, a ten-bedroom mansion in San Diego, along with a large retinue of retainers and a sixteen-cylinder Cadillac. Yet on the other hand he was self-righteous and a pure-bred Puritan. The society that he formed and shaped is still very puritanical in its outlook. Just as Catholicism owes more to Constantine than it does to Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses owe more to Rutherford than they do to Christ. But that is another story.
It seems reasonable to conclude that how women are treated in any religious setting is determined primarily by interpretation of scripture, and also by the history and personalities involved in the founding and subsequent policies of that religion. Neither of these are valid reasons for sidelining our sisters in quite the extreme way that Jehovah’s Witnesses do. The hierarchy of authority as set out in scripture is inviolable. That is according to the word of God and who dare challenge that? Within this is the inadmissibility of a woman exercising authority over a man unless that woman has had a direct, divine appointment as previously discussed. Perhaps a woman teaching a man in the congregation would be inappropriate, but praying and prophesying (speaking out) under his authority appears to be completely appropriate, scripturally speaking.
Appendix 1
1 Timothy 2:11-12 A summary of the main interpretations:
Traditional – that Paul is establishing a universal principle that women should not teach or hold authority over men in the church, reflecting God’s role for the genders.
Cultural – a specific issue in the congregation in Ephesus where false teachings were spreading and therefore not a universal command but addressing a local problem.
Linguistic – based on the unique use of the word authenteo (Strong 831 - authority, domineer, govern, have mastery over). The suggestion is therefore misusing authority rather than simply exercising authority.
Historical – that 1 Timothy was written later in Paul’s name and that this passage reflects evolving church dynamics rather than Paul’s original teaching.
Equality – advocating for proper learning and education for women was radical at the time. The emphasis on learning in quietness was meant to encourage women to gain theological knowledge rather than restrict them.
Appendix 2
S-147-24.07-E Ca: For Elders
Under the guise of helping young brothers ‘in their early teens or younger’ to make spiritual progress and be ‘tested as to fitness’, paragraph 2 states:
‘The Governing Body is pleased to inform you that exemplary, unbaptized male publishers may also be used to care for some congregation tasks that are appropriate for their age and circumstances.’
Handling microphones and the audio-visual equipment is given as an example if permission is granted by his parent or guardian. Paragraph 3:
‘If sisters are being used to care for some of these practical tasks, please assign exemplary brothers (baptized or unbaptized) to care for the work. If there are not enough brothers, please contact the circuit overseer for direction before using sisters…’
(italics and spellings as original).
This raises all sorts of questions beyond the scope of this article, but for now it seems extraordinary that young boys, male children of perhaps 8, 10 or 12 years old, should be given priority over mature sisters in running the congregation!
Appendix 3 Testimony of Geoffrey Jackson to the Australia Royal Commission - 2015. The part relevant to the WT view of women in the congregation.
38 Q. Now, I'm sure you know that one of the problems forBack
39 survivors, revealed by their evidence in this very hearing,
40 is their concern about having to approach men within the
41 church to tell their story and then have that story
42 assessed and judged by men alone; do you understand?
43 A. I do understand that, your Honour.
44
45 Q. Now, in the society in which you live, and in which
46 I live, we have seen significant change, although perhaps
47 not yet complete, in the role which women play in the
.14/08/2015 (155) 15949 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI
1 decision-making and government of our society, haven't we?
2 A. We certainly have.
3
4 Q. That is a reflection of a contemporary understanding
5 of the role and contribution which everyone in our society
6 can make to the common good, isn't it?
7 A. Yes.
8
9 Q. Now, I am sure you know of the concerns expressed by
10 the women who have given evidence in this hearing about the
11 confrontation and difficulty in that confrontation which
12 they found in approaching a male-dominant structure; you
13 understand that?
14 A. I do understand that, your Honour.
15
16 Q. Is there room for the church to change that?
17 A. That's a very good question, and I'm glad you asked
18 it. Is there a chance to make elders women or make women
19 elders? No. There is no leeway there. But,
20 your Honour --
21
22 Q. Why is that? Can you tell me why that is?
23 A. Sure, yes. If we turn to --
24
25 Q. Is it because of a literal application of the Bible?
26 A. Your Honour, it goes back to the theme of the
27 scriptures right from the creation of Adam, right through
28 Israelite times, to the Christian era. But, in all
29 fairness, may I just say something with regard to that?
30
31 Q. Most certainly.
32 A. You see, the role of women in the Jehovah's Witness
33 religion is a very dignified role. We don't make women -
34 well, we certainly do not want women to feel like
35 second-rate citizens. In God's view, men and women are
36 equal. But even people who fly aeroplanes realise you
37 can't fly an aeroplane by committee - there has to be
38 a pilot and a copilot. And that's the Bible arrangement.
39 It's not because of any lack of intelligence or lack of
40 ability on the part of women; it is an arrangement that has
41 stood the test of time.
42
43 Now, within that arrangement, the Bible clearly states
44 that a man does not have absolute authority over a woman,
45 and a woman is a co-worker, a complement - the Bible refers
46 to her as. So I think in the context of understanding how
47 women are treated among Jehovah's Witnesses, I think if you
.14/08/2015 (155) 15950 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI
1 investigated it further, you would see there are very many
2 happy women in the marital arrangement.
3
4 Q. It used to be the case that all of our pilots were
5 women [sic], wasn't it, and we changed that.
6 A. All of our pilots were?
7
8 Q. Were men?
9 A. All men?
10
11 Q. Yes, that's right?
12 A. Oh, were men, yes.
13
14 Q. Were men and we've changed that now and we have women
15 who are pilots.
16 A. That's right. And that's because --
17
18 Q. Why couldn't the church accept that women can
19 contribute to the decision-making processes, particularly
20 in relation to allegations of sexual abuse brought forward
21 by women?
22 A. The answer, your Honour, is that we expect women to be
23 involved in that. But in the actual role as elders within
24 the Christian congregation there is a very firm standard
25 set there. There is no leeway whatsoever for that in the
26 belief of Jehovah's Witnesses. But if I could mention,
27 some of the reports that you have considered are from 25
28 years ago, and if I understand correctly, from what little
29 I heard of the Commission in the last few days, Mr Spinks
30 very accurately described that there has been more of an
31 awareness of Jehovah's Witnesses to make sure that any
32 victim who has been a victim of a horrible crime is not
33 required to actually go before three men. We've made
34 changes, your Honour, because those changes in the actual
35 technicalities of the policies don't change - they are not
36 affected by the actual Bible principles, except the very
37 important principle of showing love, empathy and concern
38 and trying to avoid any form of trauma. And that is our
39 desire. If it wasn't perfect before, which it wasn't,
40 we've tried to change that, and we will make further
41 changes when we consider the recommendations of the
42 Commission.
43
44 Q. Well, we will come back to your processes later on.
45 I will leave you now with Mr Stewart.
46 A. Thank you, your Honour.
8 THE CHAIR: Q. Mr Jackson, is there any biblical
9 impediment to a woman being appointed to investigate an
10 allegation?
11 A. There is no biblical impediment to a woman being
12 involved with the investigation. In fact, I think - oh,
13 sorry. I am sorry, your Honour.
14
15 Q. No, you continue.
16 A. And I think that is one of the benefits of the
17 Royal Commission, what has been brought to light is that
18 certainly it is good for a woman to be involved with
19 particularly some of the sensitive areas. But if I could
20 just mention, many of our publications are very broad in
21 aspects. We're not just talking about this one aspect of
22 child abuse, which is a horrific crime, but it can also -
23 the same principles are used for other sins, such as
24 drunkenness and other things the Bible mentions. But in
25 this sensitive area, yes, I think the Commission has
26 clearly shown that it would be good for women to be
27 involved.
28
29 Q. Is there any biblical impediment to a determination,
30 a judicial determination, being made by a body which
31 includes women, although the elders thereafter may respond
32 as the decision-maker in relation to what happens to
33 someone after a decision has been made as to the truth or
34 not of an allegation?
35 A. That's a good question. Could I just mention first,
36 your Honour, something - please bear with me on this. The
37 judicial system that Jehovah's Witnesses use is not in
38 competition with the criminal justice system. We respect
39 that and we feel that that is something that the community
40 needs to make use of. But also, if I can just highlight,
41 any victim is not viewed as someone that needs to stand
42 before a judicial committee. They did not do anything
43 wrong. They are the ones that have been victimised. They
44 need the help.
45
46 Now, to answer your question directly, women can be
47 involved in this very sensitive area, but biblically
.14/08/2015 (155) 15954 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI
1 speaking, the role of the judges in the congregation lays
2 with men. That's what the Bible says and that's what we
3 endeavour to follow.
4
5 Q. Can you give me the reference for that?
6 A. Yes. In the scriptures --
7
8 Q. That is, judges being only men - not elders, but
9 judges being only men?
10 A. Okay. I would have to check - I think Deuteronomy is
11 one of them, but with regard to 1 Timothy, chapter 3 - and
12 I'm sure, your Honour, you are very familiar with this, in
13 verse 1:
14
15 This statement is trustworthy: If a man is
16 reaching out to be an overseer, he is
17 desirous of a fine work. The overseer
18 should therefore be irreprehensible, a
19 husband of one wife, moderate in habits,
20 sound in mind, orderly, hospitable,
21 qualified to teach, not a drunkard, not
22 violent, but reasonable, not quarrelsome,
23 not a lover of money, a man presiding over
24 his own household in a fine manner, having
25 his children in subjection with all
26 seriousness.
27
28 In biblical times, the same expression that is used for
29 "elder" is also used for "older man". And when we are
30 translating - of course, that is my field - sometimes it is
31 hard to decide whether it means "elder" as in a position or
32 "older man". But definitely, when it speaks of judges at
33 the gates of Israel, we are talking about older men. But
34 I apologise, your Honour, seeing you asked this question,
35 I cannot give you the exact scriptural reference but will
36 be happy to do that.
37
38 Q. We would appreciate it, because one possible
39 modification to meet this issue of the lack of women as
40 judges of allegations brought forward by women against men
41 may be a modification of your process to include women in
42 the judicial determination step. You understand?
43 A. I do understand, your Honour, and we will make sure
44 you get those references.
45
46 Q. Can you understand how a woman, a young woman - any
47 woman - might feel when allegations which she makes of
.14/08/2015 (155) 15955 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI
1 having been sexually assaulted by a male are determined
2 exclusively by men?
3 A. In the context of a police station, I can understand
4 that, your Honour. But, please, may I also mention, the
5 role of these elders, they are friends of those in the
6 congregation. Their role is to shepherd, help, care for,
7 and so although perhaps a young person may feel that way,
8 and we would do everything we can within the Bible
9 parameters to make sure that that is eased so that a person
10 isn't put in that very difficult situation. But still,
11 ultimately the decision maybe without that person would be
12 made, and the decision is not concerning the criminality -
13 that is the criminal system. The decision is concerning
14 the spiritual cleanliness of our congregation and the
15 rehabilitation of those that commit sins.
16
17 Q. That's to concentrate on the abuser, but what I'm
18 talking about is the position of the person who has been
19 abused. Do you understand?
20 A. I do understand that, your Honour, and the women --
21
22 Q. All that you have just said is talking about it from
23 only one perspective; do you see?
24 A. Mmm-hmm. So, from the other perspective, with
25 a victim, the main thing for us is helping, supporting and
26 guiding, and women will be involved with that. You see,
27 the judicial committee is not judging the victim. The
28 elders in the congregation and the women in the
29 congregation have the obligation to give full support to
30 any victim.
31
32 Q. That may be so, but the point that I was seeking to
33 have you address was can you understand how a woman might
34 feel when allegations which she brings forward against
35 a man in the congregation are considered and judged
36 entirely by men?
37 A. Obviously I'm not a woman, so I wouldn't like to speak
38 on their behalf, but the two of us, I am sure, could
39 understand from what has been expressed and believe that
40 perhaps there would be a hesitancy there.
41
42 Q. Can I add this to the question, because it's one of
43 the factual circumstances we face in this hearing: can you
44 understand the circumstance for a woman who brings an
45 allegation against an elder, who is a friend of the others
46 who must judge the truth or otherwise of the allegation?
47 Can you understand how that person must feel?
.14/08/2015 (155) 15956 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI
1 A. I can try to understand it, your Honour, yes. But,
2 again, could I ask - and again, this is not my field of
3 activity, but as far as I understand, we have a process in
4 place whereby a neutral member, like a circuit overseer,
5 would be involved with such a case.
6
7 Q. It would be the case, would it not, that even
8 a circuit overseer is going to know an elder well?
9 A. They should be familiar, but they also know the victim
10 well. You see, it's not taking consideration of the
11 spiritual responsibility - you see, these elders are not
12 paid to do their job. They do it because of love and
13 concern and wanting to shepherd the flock. And so I think
14 what we're missing is the spiritual element to this whole
15 thing, where people are comfortable talking to one another.
16
17 Q. I don't know whether you have heard the evidence of
18 the survivors here - did you hear that evidence?
19 A. No, unfortunately that was a bad time for me caring
20 for my father. I apologise, but I will look forward to
21 hearing a summary of it.
25 MR STEWART: Q. Mr Jackson, for example, the elders who
26 hear these allegations, one of the things they have to do
27 is to measure the credibility of the person who says that
28 she suffered abuse; is that not right?
29 A. Yes, as a prosecutor would also measure the evidence
30 that he has before he goes to a case.
31
32 Q. Well, not so much the prosecutor, perhaps you are
33 thinking of the judge?
34 A. Sorry, no. If I understand correctly - well, I'm
35 going way out of my field because I'm not a lawyer, but
36 I thought any case that would go to the police and be
37 brought to the prosecution, you would have to at least
38 establish there was some validity. Maybe that's not the
39 case in Australia.
40
41 Q. Well, the point is this, Mr Jackson, isn't it: you
42 have appreciated, I think, that an elderly man may be in a
43 difficult position to understand just how a young woman,
44 for example, making an accusation or an allegation of child
45 sexual abuse feels in having to make that allegation?
46 A. That is true, but at the same time, perhaps someone
47 who has never experienced the trauma that these victims
.14/08/2015 (155) 15957 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI
1 have felt, even a woman may find that very hard as well
2 because it's such a personal experience.
3
4 Q. But you will accept, I'm sure, that in many instances
5 where a woman or young woman makes such an allegation, she
6 would feel a lot more comfortable having to make the
7 allegation and explain the circumstances to another woman?
8 A. I can't say that I would give a comment on that,
9 Mr Stewart, because you see, again, it takes away the
10 consideration of the relationships in our congregations.
11 It's not like your churches where people just go to church
12 and don't talk to one another. The congregations do become
13 familiar and there can be a friendship. So I agree that
14 the point you are trying to get at, we need to know what
15 the victim is comfortable in doing with regard to who they
16 speak to.
17
18 Q. You gave us a scripture, 1 Timothy, 3 verse 1, which,
19 as I understood it, was the authority for the principle
20 that as it is put there, an overseer, but I think in modern
21 language an elder, must be a man; is that right?
22 A. That's correct.
23
24 Q. And is there a scriptural reference - perhaps this is
25 the one you said you would need to come back to us on -
26 which says that the investigation of allegations of serious
27 misconduct must be done by an elder?
28 A. If I could just clarify your question a little,
29 Mr Stewart, you see, what I think you have heard in the
30 Commission is that we have said that women can be involved
31 in all these various aspects leading up to the actual
32 decision-making whether or not someone is spiritually
33 qualified to remain in the congregation. So just that one
34 aspect, the actual judicial committee itself, is where we
35 believe that men would be involved.
36
37 THE CHAIR: Q. Mr Jackson, that's the question I was
38 putting to you, you see. I was wondering whether you could
39 have a structure which meant that the judicial decision as
40 to whether or not the allegation was true could be
41 determined by a body capable of having women represented on
42 it, and that body's decision would then be taken to the
43 elders in relation to decisions to disfellowship; do you
44 understand?
45 A. I understand that, your Honour.
46
47 Q. Well, is it possible to make that change?
.14/08/2015 (155) 15958 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI
1 A. It is possible to make sure that elders are fully
2 aware of the whole story. But for women to be elders in
3 the congregation, that is not possible.
4
5 Q. No, Mr Jackson, I wasn't asking you that. I was
6 asking you --
7 A. Okay, sorry.
8
9 Q. -- to consider whether the process may involve
10 a determination, which we outside the church would call
11 a judicial determination - that is, is the allegation true
12 or false - and then, that decision having been made, the
13 elders would then make a decision as to the consequence,
14 being disfellowship or otherwise; do you understand?
15 A. I do understand.
16
17 Q. Could women be involved in the determination of
18 whether or not the allegation is true?
19 A. Well, your Honour, if I could say, I think they
20 already are involved, in the sense --
21
22 Q. Not in the decision, Mr Jackson. Please address my
23 question.
24 A. Okay. But yes, in - well, please, could I just use an
25 example. If an underage child says that something has
26 happened and then two women are involved with helping that
27 person, surely they have to decide whether or not the facts
28 are true. They then present those to the elders.
29 Otherwise, how would the elders know what the facts are?
30
31 Q. Mr Jackson, you are not dealing with my question.
32 A. I am sorry. I apologise humbly, your Honour.
33
34 Q. Would you like me to put it again?
35 A. If you would, please.
36
37 Q. Your process at the moment has a judicial
38 determination which is made by the elders, and that is the
39 point at which a decision is made as to whether the
40 allegation is true or false; do you understand that?
41 A. Mmm-hmm.
42
43 Q. You do?
44 A. I do understand that, your Honour.
45
46 Q. Is it possible for the process to be modified so that
47 that decision can be made by a body which could include
.14/08/2015 (155) 15959 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI
1 women - that is, the decision as to whether or not the
2 allegation is true or false, made by a body which could
3 include women, and that decision would thereafter be acted
4 upon and a decision made as to whether or not to
5 disfellowship by the elders? Do you understand?
6 A. I do understand, and I apologise, your Honour, for not
7 answering directly. I didn't understand fully what you
8 were saying. The answer, your Honour, is such a situation
9 would be worthy of us considering and doing research and
10 checking the scriptures, yes. The possibility of
11 considering that is there.
16 MR STEWART: Q. Mr Jackson, I would like to refer you to
17 Shepherd the Flock of God, which is tab 120, at page 71,
18 Ringtail 72. This is the manual for elders, and it has
19 been applicable since, as I understand it, 2010; is that
20 right?
21 A. This is - yes. That appears to be the case.
22
23 Q. Would it be the case that this manual came through the
24 processes of the writing committee?
25 A. This manual would have been prepared with the help of
26 the service departments and the service committee would
27 have prepared this information and, yes, the writing
28 committee would have needed to read everything and check to
29 see if scripturally it was applicable.
30
31 Q. I'm showing you page 71, but that is in chapter 5,
32 which is headed "Determining whether a judicial committee
33 should be formed", and it starts out by setting out various
34 wrongdoings, serious ones including manslaughter, attempted
35 suicide, porneia, and so on. So that is the context. But
36 you will see at paragraph 37 it says:
37
38 Even though a Christian has been accused of
39 wrongdoing serious enough to require
40 a judicial action, a judicial committee
41 should not be formed unless the wrongdoing
42 has been established.
43
44 And the word "established" is in italics. So my question
45 is who is it who decides whether the wrongdoing has been
46 established?
47 A. It is my understanding that two elders normally would .14/08/2015 (155) 15960 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI
1 investigate the matter to see if there is some substance to
2 the accusation, having in mind, as you mentioned, this
3 could be ranging from someone getting drunk to someone
4 committing immorality, and so on. So those two elders
5 would at least see if there was some basis of the
6 accusation and they would get back to the Body of Elders,
7 who then would appoint the judicial committee.
8
9 Q. So then the question is, is it scripturally necessary
10 that that role is performed by two elders, as opposed to,
11 for example, a woman appointed for them?
12 A. May I ask, Mr Stewart, is this the same question that
13 his Honour asked, or is there a difference? Are you just
14 emphasising the point?
15
16 Q. Well, I'm trying to understand your answer,
17 Mr Jackson. So if you can just address yourself to my
18 question, what I've sought to do is to identify a very
19 specific decision in the process. It's the decision as to
20 is the wrongdoing established. You have said that that is
21 done by two elders who then report back to the Body of
22 Elders, which then appoints a judicial committee. So I am
23 asking scripturally is there room for that decision as to
24 whether the wrongdoing has been established to be anyone
25 other than elders?
26 A. Good, I understand your question, Mr Stewart. Could
27 we take the case of where the two elders cannot speak to
28 the victim, that perhaps they don't want to traumatise the
29 victim, and maybe two women that are very close to the
30 victim are able to speak to them. In a setting such as
31 that, all the elders would have is the testimony of the two
32 women with regard to the testimony of the victim. So in
33 that way, the women are saying whether they feel that it is
34 a valid case or not. So the answer to your question is
35 yes, women can be involved scripturally.
36
37 Q. But you know, Mr Jackson, my question had nothing to
38 do with involvement. It had to do with who makes the
39 decision. The person who makes the tea is involved, in a
40 sense, if they bring the tea in when the decision is being
41 considered. I'm not talking about involvement. I'm
42 talking about who makes the decision. Am I to understand
43 your evidence is that it must be elders who make the
44 decision?
45 A. That is my understanding.
46
47 Q. And are you able to furnish a scriptural reference for
.14/08/2015 (155) 15961 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI
1 that - in other words, where it is that it is provided in
2 the scripture that that is necessarily so?
3 A. The principle that we were discussing before is the
4 headship principle found in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, and
5 I am sure, Mr Stewart, you have already referred to this in
6 the Commission, but bear with me please as I look at it. 1
7 Corinthians chapter 11 and verse 3 - do you have it there
8 already?
9
10 Q. This time I will be grateful for the page number,
11 Mr Jackson.
12 A. Okay. So 1536.
13
14 Q. I have it.
15 A. So verse 3 of chapter 11:
16
17 But I want you to know that the head of
18 every man is the Christ; in turn, the head
19 of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of
20 the Christ is God.
21
22 So in the church decision-making arrangement, it is based
23 on the headship principle that we have in the family and in
24 the Jehovah's Witnesses community as a whole that
25 scripturally the men make the final decisions. But that
26 does not mean that there is no input from the women.
27
28 Q. Thank you, Mr Jackson. While you are in
29 1 Corinthians, perhaps you would take a look at
30 1 Corinthians 14, verses 33 to 35?
31 A. I have it already, yes.
32
33 Q. Which says:
34
35 For God is a God not of disorder but of
36 peace. As in all the congregations of the
37 holy ones, let the women keep silent in the
38 congregations, for it is not permitted for
39 them to speak. Rather, let them be in
40 subjection, as the Law also says. If they
41 want to learn something, let them ask their
42 husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for
43 a woman to speak in the congregation.
44
45 Now, as I understand it, that is not applied in the
46 Jehovah's Witnesses organisation - in other words, you do
47 allow women to speak in the congregation?
.14/08/2015 (155) 15962 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI
1 A. I'm sorry, you have two questions there. Can I answer
2 the first one first. Jehovah's Witnesses do follow what is
3 stated here. I can explain. The second one is, yes, women
4 are allowed to speak in the congregation. May I explain to
5 you the reason why I feel we do follow what is here?
6
7 Q. Yes, of course.
8 A. So you notice in verse 34, that's where it says "keep
9 silent", but if you look at verse 28, there it says:
10
11 But if there is no interpreter, he must
12 keep silent.
13
14 So the expression "keep silent" is referred to a male, and
15 then verse 30, where it is talking about prophets, and in
16 verse 30 it says:
17
18 If another one receives a revelation whilst
19 sitting there, let the first speaker keep
20 silent.
21
22 So this chapter is talking about orderly conduct in the
23 church meetings or in the congregation meetings. So verse
24 28, if someone starts speaking in another language but
25 there is no interpreter, the scripture says "let him keep
26 silent". Now, it appears that in the congregation there
27 was a problem because some women were actually challenging,
28 arguing, debating with the men who were taking the lead in
29 giving teaching. Now, you may not feel that that is the
30 case, but that's the context of what is said here, and in
31 chapter 11, it refers to the fact that a woman could speak
32 with a head covering. So I think a very literal
33 interpretation of verse 34 and verse 35 is not appropriate
34 in the context.
35
36 Q. Are you able to give an overarching explanation as to
37 when it is that what is said in the Bible should be taken
38 literally and when it should be given an expansive
39 interpretation as in this instance?
40 A. Very good. The answer is Jehovah's Witnesses - you
41 see, it is not a matter of seven men in the Governing Body
42 taking one verse and saying, "What do you think it means?
43 What do you think it means?" Jehovah's Witnesses try to use
44 the Bible to explain itself. So here, in 1 Corinthians
45 chapter 4, if we were to take the viewpoint that this
46 literally means that a woman cannot speak, then we would be
47 not going in accordance with the context. So the answer to
.14/08/2015 (155) 15963 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI
1 your question is you have to have the whole picture, and
2 that is something that, for yourself - and this is
3 obviously said in all due respect - someone who reads the
4 Bible their whole life should understand the whole picture.
5 And perhaps by means of helping you with regard to that,
6 there are two other scriptures. One is in 1 Timothy
7 chapter 2, which I believe his Honour referred to in the
8 Commission, page 1588, and there it says, verses 11 and 12:
9
10 Let a woman learn in silence with full
11 submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to
12 teach or to exercise authority over a man,
13 but she is to remain silent.
14
15 Now, you will notice the asterisk gives the alternative to
16 that "to remain calm, remain quiet". So obviously, this is
17 talking about the role of women not jumping up, excitedly
18 arguing with others. And it's similar to what 1 Peter -
19 and, please, bear with me - chapter 3 says with regard to
20 a woman who is married to a non-Christian. In 1 Peter
21 chapter 3, that's page 1623, Mr Stewart - have you got it?
22
23 Q. No, I haven't, but I am sure you will read it to me,
24 Mr Jackson?
25 A. Okay. Verse 1 of 1 Peter, chapter 3:
26
27 In the same way, you wives, be in
28 subjection to your husbands, so that if any
29 are not obedient to the word, they may be
30 won without a word through the conduct of
31 their wives ...
32
33 Now, to take the position that the expression "without
34 a word" means they would never, ever, ever speak to their
35 husband would be a misapplication of scripture. So the
36 Governing Body, when we consider these things, is very much
37 aware of trying to get the whole context of things.
38 Otherwise it's like asking two people for an opinion on
39 something and getting three different opinions. If someone
40 just takes one verse, they could have all sorts of opinions
41 about it, but the work of Jehovah's Witnesses is to try to
42 understand the whole Bible as one message from God. Now,
43 I don't expect that you would have the same viewpoint, but
44 I thank you for at least letting me express our viewpoint.
45
46 Q. Mr Jackson, let's make it a little more concrete,
47 then, in a very specific example. You will know that one
.14/08/2015 (155) 15964 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI
1 of the things that has emerged in the last couple of weeks
2 is that in Australia at least, in the Jehovah's Witness
3 organisation, there is a practice of not reporting child
4 sexual abuse allegations to the authorities unless required
5 by law to do so. Do you accept that?
6 A. I am not familiar with the statistics or the general
7 practice, but I can tell you why there is a spiritual
8 dilemma because of this question.
9
10 Q. Well, that's what I'm driving at. Perhaps you can
11 address that question specifically, which is this: is
12 there a scriptural basis to that policy or practice, being
13 not to report child sexual abuse allegations to the
14 authorities unless required by law to do so?
15 A. Thank you for the opportunity to explain this.
16 I think very clearly Mr Toole pointed out that if the
17 Australian Government, in all the States, was to make
18 mandatory reporting, it would make it so much easier for
19 us. But, let's say, the spiritual dilemma that an elder
20 has is to consider how did he get the information that he
21 has been told? Now, there is a scriptural principle in the
22 book of Proverbs, chapter 25 - and I'm not saying,
23 Mr Stewart, that any one of these principles takes
24 precedence, but it is something that the elder would need
25 to take into consideration. So Proverbs 25 verses 8
26 through 10. That's on page 905:
27
28 Do not rush into a legal dispute,
29 for what will you do later if your
30 neighbour humiliates you? Plead your case
31 with your neighbour, but do not reveal what
32 you were told confidentially, so that the
33 one listening will not put you to shame and
34 you spread a bad report that cannot be
35 recalled.
36
37 Now, I'm not saying, Mr Stewart, this is the only factor,
38 but it is one factor that all ministers of religion have
39 grappled with when it comes to an issue such as this.