In the late 19th C. and early 20th C. the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI), like many Presbyterian churches throughout the world (including here in Australia), was drifting rapidly from what the Bible teaches, even on such crucial doctrines as the Person of Christ and the way of salvation.
In 1926 a group of evangelical ministers and laity in the PCI (including W. J. Grier and Rev. James Hunter) sought to stem the tide of unbelief by bringing specific charges against J E Davey, Professor of New Testament (later, College Principal), a leading exponent of these false views at Union Theological College where Presbyterian ministers were trained.
But the General Assembly exonerated Davey, and proceeded instead to deal with James Hunter. This led to the formation of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Eileen and I were blessed in worshipping with their congregation in Stranmillis in 2004.
In recent years some have been seeking, with varied success, to bring the PCI back to a more Biblical basis. One such group is the Biblical Church Leadership group (BCL), a group of ministers and elders within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland who are “convinced by Scripture that men and women in Christ have complementary contributions to make in the life of the Church and that those ordained to lead them as ministers and elders should be qualified men”; they “aim graciously to persuade members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland that this teaching is true and good and that reformation wisely conducted in its courts in this regard would promote the glory of Christ and the well-being of His Church.”
They were encouraged by the recent decision of the PCNSW here on this issue.
Predictably, the BCL has drawn the ridicule from some, including the following sarcastic piece by Fionola Meredith, a reporter with the Belfast Telegraph, 23 Oct 2026:
Women, know thy place! This seems to be the message from a group of Presbyterians called the Biblical Church Leadership group. As this newspaper recently reported, the BCL believes that only men should be ministers and elders in the Church, and that men and women have “complementary contributions”.
The theological view, known as complementarianism, claims the sexes are equal but designed to have distinct roles.
Ah yes, complementarianism: a big, philosophical-sounding, mealy-mouthed word for blatant sexism. I first heard the word — sorry, I can’t be bothered to type it out again — several years ago, when the Rev Dr Stafford Carson, then principal of Union Theological College and convenor of the Presbyterian Church’s doctrine committee, used it to explain why he didn’t support the ordination of women ministers.
Rev Dr Carson told the BBC: “Personally, I’m a complementarian, which would say that all the ministry in the Church is open to everyone and that a woman may do everything a non-ordained man may do, but in the specific role of teaching and preaching God’s word, I believe that’s reserved for men.”
As I argued back then, leading Presbyterians have developed a habit of cloaking prejudice against women and gay people in pompous theological language, presumably to make it sound kinder, nicer and more compassionate.
But it’s basically a rhetorical manoeuvre used to disguise straightforward exclusion. Women may possess faith, intelligence, experience and judgement; their sex alone disqualifies them from these offices.
Eight years later, the men-only argument has now acquired an organised campaign group.
Earlier this year, at a meeting at First Ahoghill Presbyterian Church, Rev Mark Neilly quoted verses from 1 Timothy 2, saying: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather she is to remain quiet.”
Hear that, ladies? Sit down and shut up — it’s your Biblical destiny.
“For Adam was born first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor,” said Rev Neilly.
You see? You just can’t trust women — gullible and disobedient, from day one.
Rev Neilly quoted the American super-complementarian, Wayne Grudem: “The fact that Adam was created first, then Eve, suggests that God intended there to be a pattern of male leadership in the family and in the church.”
Thus a creation narrative becomes grounds for excluding every suitably gifted woman from leadership.
Cunningly, it also claims divine authority for this hierarchy, making resistance appear to be disobedience to God.
Hilariously, Grudem even went to the trouble of ranking 83 church activities which he considered appropriate for women and those reserved for men. Basically it’s a no-no for a woman’s contribution to give her authority over adult men. Because they’re big boys now, presumably, and don’t have to do what mummy says any more.
With such farcical stuff, it’s hard not to take the mickey. But the implications are serious.
One concerned churchgoer told Sunday Life: “Preaching from our pulpits, these men are telling attendees that the biblical truth is that women should submit to men, that women should have no positions of leadership or authority. Given the grave concerns of failures in safeguarding in the PCI over significant years, this message to women and girls from BCL is very concerning.”
They said: “Can you imagine a woman or girl in an abusive relationship hearing the words ‘You should submit to the male in the house’? I would argue if there were more women in leadership roles, perhaps the Presbyterian church wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in. The church needs to deal with BCL.”
Rev Richie Cronin, the chair and founder of BCL, says that it condemns abuse, does not teach women’s submission to men generally, and takes no position on women’s leadership in society.
The unanswered question is whether assurances against abuse adequately address the effect of repeatedly presenting male authority as God’s design. What might that message mean to a woman whose confidence in her own judgement has already been systematically undermined?
As for BCL’S insistence that many women gladly agree with this doctrine, that changes nothing about the restriction itself. A woman’s willingness to accept a lower institutional position does not make that position equal.
The soothing terminology of equal worth, different roles, sounds so pleasantly cooperative and democratic. But women do not need another flattering explanation of why they must remain subordinate.
Equality is meaningless when it comes with a ban on the exercise of power.
My Comment: It is significant that Meredith lumps together BCL’s supposed “prejudice against women and gay people”. I would never suggest that the promotion of women to positions of leadership in the church is in the same category as the promotion of practising homosexuals to such positions. But as Colin Smothers has noted: “While many egalitarians don’t believe the Bible condones homosexuality, many egalitarians employ the same hermeneutical method used to affirm same-sex relationships.” The Church of England is a notable example of this.
Steven Smyrl responded to Meredith’s article:
“This proves beyond doubt that the Rev Richie Cronin and Rev Mark Neilly should be removed as ministers within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.” “Can you imagine a woman or girl in an abusive relationship hearing the words ‘You should submit to the male in the house’? I would argue if there were more women in leadership roles, perhaps the Presbyterian church wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in. The church needs to deal with BCL.”
To which Mrs Neilly, wife of the much maligned pastor, gave a fitting answer:
Dear Mr Smryl,
I address you with your title and respect as I have never met you but have read your comments on this issue and I suspect that you would understand degrading a man’s character would have significant effect on his wife and family. I am Hazel, Mark Neilly’s wife and it may surprise you that I am not in anyway abused or feel threatened by my husband who is, by God’s loving command, head of our family. I do not feel inferior, maligned or brainwashed into any means of thinking and to say otherwise, would infer I have less intelligence and theological discernment to assert biblical truths, of which one is complementarianism.
In fact as a wife, I have the same title as has been given to God within Scripture, Ezer kenegdo which is a suitable helpmeet for my husband. Without going into the Hebrew in detail, it does not infer subordination or one to be oppressed – indeed ‘a husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her’ Eph 5; surely you would not disagree with that scripture truth.
As a couple, a man and woman are equal but different in roles. The reason women have so much burnout in today’s society, is that they are to be all things to all people in this fast paced world! That is not what our loving Father designed us for and there is a humility in a ‘daughter’ who accepts she can do anything to love and serve God bar one thing …one thing …to lead as elder/ minister. Eve was declined one thing and look where her lack of humility got her and the rest of mankind.
Your accusation of my husband and others supposedly inferring that women (AND men may I add) should stay in an abusive relationship is totally out of context and wrong. One liner click bait is always good for headlines but is factually incorrect.
For over thirty years, I have watched my husband and others administer pastoral care and aid those who need help in this area and they are certainly not directed to continue to suffer abuse of any description.
Biblical manhood and womanhood are two precious teachings not to be scoffed at.
Mr Smryl, I also rest in the knowledge that thankfully, I am only answerable to God in the end of the day.
Yours sincerely and respectfully, Mrs Neilly…and proud to be.
Jennifer Davidson: “Well said Hazel Neilly”