May Women Speak in Church?
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.

In Paul's Churches

During Paul's time, four sisters, all single women, were far from silent. In fact, they performed an important role in the church, a speaking role.

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).

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).

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).

Exceptions or Examples

We might respond, however, that Philip's daughters were exceptions, women given gifts of the Spirit not according to grace but 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."

Inspired or Ordinary

Brother Scott uses inspiration of prophecy to make the distinction, writing:

Thus, the praying and prophesying in view in chapter 11 is inspired utterance, in which God is speaking through his chosen human instrument (2 Peter 1:21). On the other hand, the speech in view in 14:33b-36 is ordinary, uninspired utterance. Clearly, rules governing ordinary speech would not necessarily apply to inspired speech. And yet, as a reminder to all that she remains in subjection as a woman, the inspired woman is to give utterance to God's word with her head veiled (11:10). It is this situation, not that in 14:33b-36, that is no longer with us.

At first this may see a logical distinction, inspired verses uninspired. However, in my view this is a bit of a slippery slope. First, I disagree on the "no longer with us". If the gifts of the Spirit are no longer with us, the Spirit is no longer with us. The gifts are a result of the indwelling of the Spirit, therefore gifts means no Spirit. I can't live without the Spirit of the Living God. I can do nothing good of my own strength. I need the Spirit, now, today and always. But beyond that, we're left with the question of inspiration.

Inspiration and Church Life
Prophecy is speaking by the inspiration of the Spirit, a point Brother Scott and I seem to agree. But Brother Scott sees such inspiration as no longer being with us. This means during sermons the words are rooted in the human giving the sermon, not inspired by the Spirit. Offers of hospitality are rooted in humanity, not in the Spirit. In my view, this divorcing of our actions from what should be the source of our actions is not only sad but dangerous. When we are led by the Spirit, inspired by the Spirit, we are empowered by the Spirit. That is what gives us the wisdom of what to give and when. The Spirit's inspiration give us the wisdom to write a check when needed or pray when needed. Only with the inspiration of the Spirit can we know when to speak correction or comfort....with that inspiration we speak out of our own works (and should in fact remain silent). Our own works, however, are not powered by grace and have the power to save no one.

I believe that the Holy Spirit still inspires us. He still let's us speak His Word and words in a dying world.

I have not visited Brother Scott's church, or any of the churches that are a part of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, though I would like to. Yet, if we can no longer be inspired by the Holy Spirit, I wonder what the services would be like. Without the Holy Spirit we cannot be inspired to sing, inspired to share the Gospel, inspired to feed the poor.....inspired to be like Christ. Not only would we not be "inspired" to do these things, but we wouldn't be empowered to do these things. What then are we? What is church?

As in All the Churches
Yet we must be sensitive to the verse itself, and perhaps Paul somehow meant "silent except when prophesying" or as Brother Scott makes the distinction, silent except when prophesying while inspired. 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. Not incidentally, Phoebe followed in the footsteps of Huldah who also instructed about from the written Word of God.

Could silence for women have been the standard for "all the churches"? Not according to Scripture.

The Disconnect

Brother Scott expands his point stating:

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.

Let us for a moment envision a church service where Jesus suddenly showed up unannounced. What do we know about our Savior? How did He interact with people? One of the most vivid pictures we have of Jesus in the Gospels is His interaction with children. Jesus is the Messiah who told His disciples to let children come. But somehow in our vision of this church service, Jesus lets the children come---running, laughing, singing, asking questions right and left (as children do). But He tells the women to shut up and ask their questions at home.

This concept simply does not accord with my understanding of Jesus or His church. The one who tells me to come, doesn't then tell me to shut up. Again, there is a disconnect in this interpretation of 1 Corinthians that taints other Scripture. In order to accept this interpretation, we must alter our understanding of other Scripture. In this case, we must even alter our understanding of Jesus Himself.

What's in a Church?
Also, 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 wherever 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, they 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.

A Shame to be Like Christ
explains that he is referring to what takes 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.

The Law
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. 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.

"This reference to the Old Testament may have in view the account of the creation of woman (Genesis 2:20-23). There the subjection of women is implicit, according to 1 Corinthians 11:8-10 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15," suggests Brother Scott. Does Genesis 2:20-23 offer any law regarding the subjection of women? Here is the passage:

The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.'

Does 1 Timothy 2:11-15 say that subjection of women is implicit in Genesis 2? 1 Timothy 2:11-15 says:

Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

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". Was the blood of Christ only able to redeem a few or all? Or are women saved by giving birth and not by the blood of Christ?

Prayer
"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, having already addressed the instructions Paul gave for women who are praying and prophesying in 1 Corinthians as no longer applicable. It is interesting that my brother in the Lord expects men to obey the Word of God, but is able to tell that women shouldn't obey the Word of God. I am going to be a bit sharp here. Brother Scott was concerned that Christian feminists would be angered by this the passage under question. However, as much as I respect and admire Brother Scott's commitment to the Lord I am not convinced this interpretation does justice to his commitment to the Word of God. He suggests that those who disagree with him are trying to "get rid" of certain passages, while saying that the passages on women praying and prophesying "that is no longer with us." I am bound by the Word of God. I don't get to pick and choose. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If I'm instructed to pay, I have to pray. Do I veil, no. Paul says I have authority over my own head. But if Paul didn't leave that decision to me, I would have to because Scripture applies.

Extremes
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 integrating 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.

Expanding and Restricting My brother in the Lord moves from limiting the prohibition, and 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 Franny 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. Deborah wrote parts of the song in Judges 5. 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.

Conclusion I want to be clear. I do no write this to ridicule or mock. I believe that Mr. Scott and all the members of his denomination are my brothers and sisters in the Lord. They like me seek to grow and mature in the Lord. They are as committed to the Word of God as I am. That said, we disagree.

I firmly believe that someday we will all stand before our Lord and worship as one. We won't look to the individual, their race, gender whatever, but instead will see Jesus.

Archive

The Gospel Banner Exchange