Women in the Church: Disagreement The role of women in the church is a hotly disputed topic. Frankly, at times, all the view points seem to boggle the mind. I firmly believe that everyone truly feels their view point is in line with Scripture and is guided by the Spirit. However, I do not agree with every viewpoint. When confronted with this type of dispute, or any attempt to understand Scripture, I believe we must begin with prayer. We need to ask the Holy Spirit to be our teacher, and to repent of and acknowledge our own hubris. Not one of us has obtained the mark of perfection and not one of us sees directly into the heart of God. We must begin at the point of yielding and surrender, looking not to our gains but to what we may give in the interests of others.
Now, hopefully, in that attitude I would like to look at some of the view points available out on the web. May Women Speak in Church? by James W. Scott for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church examines 1 Corinthians 14:33-36. He begins, "For many people, especially in the developing "Christian feminist" movement, the question asked in the above title is not only astonishing but infuriating. Nonetheless, 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 does seem to teach that women should not speak in church." I certainly agree with my brother in the Lord that one first glance the passage would seem to indicate that women should not speak in church. I suspect that also like my fellow slave to Christ, I believe that taking only a first glance at Scripture can be dangerous and lead us to unfounded conclusions. Also, I should point out that as someone Mr. Scott would deem a "Christian feminist" I am not infuriated by this passage. Certainly, there are passages of Scripture I don't understand or that make me mad as a hornet, but this is not one of those passages. Rather I view this passage as an opportunity to learn from the Lord (as I am certain does Mr. Scott.)
After pointing out the structure of the Greek texts, Mr. Scott concludes, "The word "as" in "as in all the churches of the saints" indicates that something is the same as the general practice of Christians. It makes good sense for that something to be the practice that Paul prescribes for the Corinthian church in verse 34. He declares, in effect, "I want the women in Corinth to do what the women do in all the other churches." Which may be the correct interpretation. If so, then we should be able to look at what Paul has other women in the church doing and see that they are silent. "The next day we left and came to Caesarea; and we went into the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the seven, and stayed with him. 9 He had four unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy" (Acts 21:8-9). Of course, this passage says nothing about "in church", as if "church" were a specific building, but these women had the gift of prophecy. Paul describes the gift of prophecy in Romans 12, writing, "For as in one body we have many members, and not all the members have the same function, 5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another. 6 We have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us: prophecy, in proportion to faith; 7 ministry, in ministering; the teacher, in teaching; 8 the exhorter, in exhortation; the giver, in generosity; the leader, in diligence; the compassionate, in cheerfulness" (4-7). Here he says that the gifts are given to us, the body. The body, of course, is a symbol of the church. In fact, Paul goes on to be quite specific about the intent of prophesy, writing that "prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers" (1 Cor. 14:22).
Also according to 1 Peter the source of prophecy is the Holy Spirit. Would then God have told Philip's daughters to be silent after giving them a gift that involved speaking, a gift designed for the church? "So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (1 Peter 1:19-21). We might respond, however, that Philip's daughters were exceptions, women given gifts of the Spirit not according to grace by according to lack of male participants. Does Scripture suggest they were the only ones to be given this gift and no other women? Of course, this is simply not the case. Acts 2: 17-18 says, "In the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. 18 Even upon my slaves, both men and women, in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy."
Yet we must be sensitive to the verse itself, and perhaps Paul somehow meant "silent except when prophesying". Again we can look at what was going on in Paul's churches with Paul's approval. "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, 2 so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well" (Romans 16:1-2). Paul advises the church, to welcome Phoebe and "help her in whatever she may require from you". In order for Phoebe to convey these requirements to the church, was she to sign? or perhaps pass notes? Obviously, this would be ridiculous and not the way to treat an honored co-worker for Christ. In fact, at the time, those who carried letters such as this were expected to answer questions and clarify points within the letter. Phoebe could hardly have been silent.
Could silence for women have been the standard for "all the churches"? Not according to Scripture.
More, Brother Scott even makes reference to prophecy the next section. He writes, "He begins by discussing head coverings in connection with prayer and prophecy (11:2-16; note that verse 1 belongs with chapter 10) and the proper observance of the Lord's Supper (11:17-34). ". However, he disconnects this prophecy from women. "Then, in verses 33b-36, Paul turns briefly to another topic—the role of women." The passage on "head coverings in connection with prayer and prophecy" addresses men and women. Paul gives reasons for women to be "veiled" (or braided) when giving praying and prophesying. "But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved" (1 Corinthians 11:5). Again, prophesying is for the body of believers, and a gathering of believer is church.
Brother Scott goes on to conclude, "The basic meaning of this passage is quite clear: when Christians gather together in church, women are not to speak, but instead are to keep silent. They should even save their questions and ask them at home. Any speaking by a woman in church is shameful, and contrary to the Law's requirement that women are to be in subjection." I have several disagreements with this passage. First, I disagree on the nature of "church". Brother Scott indicates it is, "This can only be a reference to the public assemblies of God's people (verses 23, 26), which at a bare minimum would mean what we today call worship services." In my view, church is not a building or a set time, but anytime two or more are gathered in Christ's name. We cannot "do church", rather corporately as ARE church. More I don't believe it is possible even from the archaeological record to say they had "church" (place specific) at the time of Paul's writings. Rather, it seems believers met together in homes or where ever they could (as Lydia's group met beside the river). Which, brings into question Brother Scott's conclusion, "In verse 35 Paul explains that he is referring to what takes place 'in church' as distinct from 'at home.'" Churches met in homes. Churches were formed around the home model. As today in regions of persecution, Christians could not go to the local "First Church" for noon Sunday service. Instead, the met at home or even in the catacombs of Rome, seeking to avoid detection and persecution. The distinction made by Brother Scott that "The point would seem to be that Christians gather publicly (as called together by the minister and elders) and privately (chiefly as families and their guests)" could not work in such a situations, any more than it works in North Korea.
Brother Scott says, "Any speaking by a woman in church is shameful," adding, "Speaking in general seems to be prohibited." Is it? If a woman invites a homeless person to share a meal, it is shameful? If a woman invites a family-less person to share Christmas, it is shameful? If a woman offers comfort to a bereaved person it is shameful? If a woman soothes a crying child it is shameful? Of course not. However, in each case by my brother in the Lord's interpretation, these things are shameful if done in the House of God. In essence, then a woman could not be used by the Holy Spirit at all in the Body of Christ. She could not minister, could not exhort, could not cheer, could not comfort. Sadly, it would be in the House of the Most High that she would have to be the least Christ like. Incidentally, who does it shame? I don't have an answer to that question.
Not only does Brother Scott view women speaking in the church as shameful, but also, "contrary to the Law's requirement that women are to be in subjection". My first question would be, "which law"? Is this a state law, a federal law or an international? If it is a Biblical law, which Scripture conveys that law? The answer, of course, is we don't know to which law Paul referred--and is also why the article does not elaborate on the verse. Nowhere in Scripture is there a Law about women being in subjection. Which in and of itself suggest we be cautious in our interpretation of this passage. But more, are we or aren't we free in Christ? Are we still bound by the Law, or are we slaves to Christ? There are many issues to be considered in this passage. Its not an easy passage to understand and no one has a lock on what it means. Certainly, it is very difficult to get to the "basic meaning".
"Praying (that is, leading in prayer) must be included in this speaking," writes Brother Scott. He points out that 1 Timothy directs instruction for praying to men, while again, not addressing the instructions Paul gave for women who are praying and prophesying in 1 Corinthians. Given the discussion on church verse home in preceding sections, it is odd that he had not explained why women would be told how to dress their hair when praying in a passage about "in church" of they are not to pray in church.
Brother Scott goes on to add, "Since singing is a form of 'speaking' (Ephesians 5:19) and 'teaching' (Colossians 3:16), it would also come within the scope of activity prohibited to women. This would rule out 'special music' sung by women." Again, it is interesting that in order to abide by this interpretation of the passage, we must disregard other Scripture. Miriam lead the children of Israel in singing. Paul admonishes us all, "What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up" (1 Corinthians 14:26). We are also warned, "Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts, 20 giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Brother Scott, takes a step back however, to try and fit women into worship. He says, "However, it is important to distinguish between an individual addressing the congregation and the congregation as a whole worshiping God audibly in the recitation of a prayer or the singing of a hymn. One aspect of such congregational speech is that the members of the congregation speak to one another (Ephesians 5:19), but in this case no individual teaching or leading is involved." See the nuance he has placed? Women can be part of the group, but not lead the group. Which simply does not fit if one says that singing is speaking and "Any speaking by a woman in church is shameful." Instead of inter grating the apparently conflicting Scriptures, Brother Scott makes an exception to fit one into the other. However, as believers, we don't get to make exceptions. If something is prohibited-sin, then it is sin all the time. We are not God to then get to pick and choose when a prohibition applies or does not apply. Either we are free in Christ or we are bound by the law of sin and death.
My brother in the Lord from limiting the prohibition, goes on to expand the prohibition. He writes, "Would it be right for a minister to read a sermon or congregational prayer written out for him by a woman? Clearly not." Does this hold up to Biblical scrutiny? I tend not to think so. He explains his point by the example of Fanny Crosby, saying, "To sing her hymns in public worship is to make her a teacher, a worship leader, and a prayer leader in the church assembly." If then reading Fanny Crosby's hymns would be prohibited, because she is a woman and use of her words makes her a teacher, then I can only assume parts of the Bible are also prohibited. For instances, Miriam created the song of celebration after deliverance from the Egyptians. Mary eloquently shared her praise of the Most High with Gabriel---and us in the Magnificat. The SyroPhenician woman's words to Christ teach us. Again, in order to abide by this interpretation, we must not only limit the gifts of the Spirit, but the gifts of the Word. They are acceptable when we're with unbelievers but prohibited in the House of God.
Again, Brother Scott allows for an exception saying, "If this is so, it would be proper for a woman to give a personal testimony, report, announcement, or prayer request to the congregation, provided that it does not become exhortation, teaching, or leading in worship. (Whether such activity is appropriate in a worship service is a separate question.) The woman must be careful to remain "in subjection" (that is, not leading the assembly)." In other words, it would be possible for a woman to give a personal testimony, as long as it does not exhort anyone? Exhortation is conveying advice or recommendation. So then, a woman could give a testimony...as long as her testimony does not contain advise or having some sort of recommendation attached. Testimonies, of course, usually are advise and recommendation since it is the sharing of how God operated in one person's life with to build hope that He will do so in the lives of others. She may give a report, but not a report that actually teaches anything. Teaching, of course, is conveying information, so it must be a no information report. Again, in order to abide by this prohibition, one must not be Christ-like.

Archive