The Commentariat Speaks (38)

A developing trend in his local congregation troubles a regular Blog & Mablog reader named Brian. It’s the sisters. His church leaders have started inviting women to read scripture to their fellow believers and to lead the congregation in public prayer. He inquires:

“Is there an exegetically defensible way to interpret 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 in such a way as to permit women to [read Scripture and then lead in prayer on Sunday morning during public worship services]?”

I don’t think he’s looking for an end-around these scriptures because he goes on to wonder if this trend is sufficient reason to break fellowship and go elsewhere.

The Aaronic Argument

What Brian is encountering goes way beyond his own church. I don’t have any hard data on it but, anecdotally at least, the leadership of more than half the evangelical churches I know (and probably more) experience no cognitive dissonance when they permit this sort of thing. At least I assume that’s what’s going on. If they are allowing it despite conflict with their own consciences, they are not true leaders at all. The old excuse that “the people wanted it” didn’t work for Aaron and it didn’t work for Saul. It doesn’t sound any better in the mouths of so-called shepherds who may use it today.

That does not mean everybody in the congregation is equally comfortable watching and listening to it, and many of those squirming non-participants are … yes, women.

A Groundswell of Discomfort

Why is that? Mostly, their reaction is visceral rather than intellectual. Many women simply don’t like other women taking leadership positions or, more fundamentally, men abdicating them, which is always what has happened when a woman fills a hole designed for a man. Women characteristically dislike weak or lazy men, and with good reason. Far from viewing a sister on the platform with a microphone as an exercise of Christian freedom they’d be happy to indulge in themselves, the wiser among them find it a complete embarrassment.

That’s frequently because the sort of woman most eager to be heard in a public gathering is usually the sort you least enjoy hearing from. Such individuals rarely know when to sit down and shut up. “Less is more” is a concept they’ve never studied on. That’s not a problem unique to women. Men can also take inappropriate delight in the sound of their own voices. You can usually tell when it’s happening by the preponderance of audible sighs from the congregation. But vocal participation in church meetings is a privilege one should enter into cautiously, reverently and succinctly, not a right to be seized at will or an opportunity to leap at without due consideration for the potential spiritual consequences.

So, yes, some of the negative reaction to women reading scripture and/or leading in prayer is instinctive. The practice violates millennia of church tradition. If we are very honest with ourselves, it is a product of the influence of the spirit of the age in which we live, not a more refined and accurate understanding of the Bible and the mind of God. When our churches are doing and saying exactly the same things as the world around us, watch out.

Exegetical Defensibility

But our commenter is not primarily concerned about his feelings or ours. He’s wondering if such practices are “exegetically defensible”; in other words, if anyone can make a consistent, logical case for them from scripture. He cites 1 Timothy 2 (“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”) and 1 Corinthians 14 (“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church”). These are the most obvious passages that address the issue.

The most frequent excuse cited for promoting women’s vocal participation in church is changing culture. Proponents of the practice allege (with zero scriptural basis, we should note), that the women in Corinth and Ephesus were unusually boisterous and needed a word of restraint, but Paul surely didn’t mean that no women ever were to take public, vocal part in the meetings of the church. Certainly he didn’t mean today’s women.

If our metric is exegetical defensibility, that proposition fails spectacularly. One only has to look at the relevant passages. Not one of Paul’s five reasons for commanding women to be silent in church has anything at all to do with culture.

Five Non-Cultural Reasons for Submission and Silence

In 1 Timothy 2, the apostle cites the creation order: Adam was formed first, then Eve. He adds a second reason: Adam was not deceived; the woman was. Therefore, he implies, women ought to be in submission when gathered in the presence of God. We can leave aside for now the question of whether he is suggesting that Eve’s Church Age daughters are as subject to deception as she was. The point is that neither reason he gives is remotely cultural. You may not agree with his argument. You may not understand his argument. Nevertheless, it ought to settle the matter. Peter calls Paul’s letters “scriptures” on the level with the books of the Old Testament. Apostolic authority trumps yours and mine. In short, Paul’s reasoning has nothing to do with Ephesian culture. No exegetical defensibility there, folks.

In 1 Corinthians 14, sound interpretation demands we read the statement about women’s silence within the entire subject under discussion, which begins in verse 26 and goes all the way to verse 40. The context is vocal participation in church of any kind by men and women. Paul refers to giving out a hymn, teaching a lesson, making a prophetic revelation, speaking in tongues and/or interpreting them (v26). He includes even asking a question (v35). If we wondered how to interpret the word “silent” where women are concerned, that should settle the matter. He forbids the ladies to participate vocally in things we still do today (like share a thought, give out a hymn or ask a question) and also to use spiritual gifts once available to Christians but available no longer (like prophecy and tongues). He’s calling for comprehensive silence, not selective silence.

Again, Paul’s reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with Corinthian culture. We know that because he states them just as clearly as he would later state them to Timothy. First, a woman’s submission is one of the matters we find laid out in different ways all through the Law of Moses (v34), and Paul plainly states here that the principle carries over from Israel into church life. It is not a legal technicality we can write off because it the death of Christ fulfilled it, but a durable principle that applies under both law and grace. His second reason is that this is the consistent practice of all the churches established at the time (v36). Everybody should practice the same apostolic teachings. Thirdly, this and the other things he writes are commands of the Lord (v37).

The silence of our sisters in Christ in church meetings is not a concept Paul cooked up in his own head. Given his five reasons for enjoining silence, it is exegetically indefensible to construe either passage as encouraging a woman’s vocal participation of any sort in church gatherings, including prayer and Bible reading. You can only get there by arguing from silence (“Well, he doesn’t mention prayer or reading the Bible”), or by redefining the words “quiet”, “silent” and “in submission” to mean “not quiet”, “not silent” and “exercising authority”, their direct opposites. In such a case, language has no meaning.

The Other Argument

But our commenter has left between the lines a second very common argument made in favor of women leading a meeting in prayer or reading scripture. That comes from 1 Corinthians 11, discussed in greater detail here, where the subject is headship and the covering or uncovering of heads in church. There, Paul writes, “Every wife [literally, “woman”] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” Taking a positive from a negative, proponents of vocal participation say, “Look, it’s obvious the practice was for women to pray and prophesy in church.”

First, it’s not obvious at all. Those churches that practice women’s silence and head-covering point out that Paul is correcting two different errors to which the Corinthian women might be disposed: (1) speaking out, and (2) failing to cover their heads. He corrects one in chapter 11 and one in chapter 14. At no point does Paul encourage women to pray or prophesy. He simply gives women inclined to do so yet another reason to stop: they were dishonoring their husbands.

Even if you believe it’s exegetically defensible to turn a negative (“Don’t do this”) into “Hey, we do this all the time!”, there’s a major problem with this position: Paul absolutely requires a woman to cover her head to pray. Have you ever seen a woman lead a church in prayer with her head covered? I sure haven’t. The same false, worldly principle that encourages throwing out the teaching of 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 as “cultural” writes off the unambiguous instruction of the apostle in 1 Corinthians 11.

Breaking Fellowship

Now, there are certainly things in every one of these passages many Christians would like to have explained in greater detail. It would be nice to be able to ask Paul, “How does that work exactly? Why did you put it that way?” The fact is that Paul’s reasoning was non-cultural and sufficient for the churches of his day. What has changed since? Why is it we think we are free to exempt ourselves from apostolic commands?

So then, if the question is, “Is this common practice today within evangelicalism?” or “Are we likely to see more of this?”, the answers are yes and yes. If the question is, “Is the practice exegetically defensible?”, the answer is a conclusive no.

Is the audible participation of women in church meetings sufficient reason to break fellowship with Christians who engage in it and head off down the road in search of greener and more biblical pastures? Each believer must decide that for him- or herself. The answer will probably depend on whether there is any local alternative available that isn’t equally (or even more) compromised.