“Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says.” (1 Cor. 14:34)
Now I don't know anyone who really likes this verse. We tolerate it. We joke about it. Some people may feel strongly about it but I can't remember ever meeting anyone who actually liked this verse. We are rather embarrassed by it in our 21st Century post modern world. Women be silent in church?! Preach that on a Sunday morning! Better yet preach that message on Mothers Day. Hey ladies, shut up. It's not “proper” for you to be talking here today. Hush. And of course we've all heard the sermons justifying the “real” meaning behind what Paul said. He didn't really mean that women were never allowed to speak in church, no, he... uhm he meant that they... uhm, shouldn't teach, yeah that's it, they shouldn't teach men. But it's ok of they have a word of prophecy or something like that because that's different. And certainly they can pray, and sing on the worship team or “share” something. But silence? No that's not what he meant.
I'm not doubting that there may be some validity to these lines of reasoning. Perhaps taking the whole counsel of scripture into account we could find that women did have a more equal share in public ministry and maybe that verse is in reference to teaching men. But something about what that man prayed and what we seem to see a lot of – women, women, women, praying, praying, praying, struck me. His prayer was to ask for forgiveness as a man (and for men in general) for causing women to sin by filling in the men's places. Do we do that? Do we stand in the way of our men leading? What would happen if the women all decided to be quite in church meetings. We refused to pray or prophecy or share or even to sing. The women were silent. Well, we'll never know because that would indeed be a major move of God to get women to be silent in church meetings. I'd love to find out. I'd love to see week after week the silence from the sopranos. Singing from our seats but not leading. Praying from our seats but not leading. Hearing the Lord and recording his message to take to our “husbands” later but not leading. I wonder if we women do sin by filling in this gap so to speak. Not allowing the men to come forward because we have monopolized the God arena. It's a very interesting thought to me. One I can only pray about and blog about. And perhaps if women were to take the lead we could start by leading in listening and allowing our men to come forth more boldly.
6 comments:
This is a very interesting post, Teri! As you know, I was present at that meeting - in a "leadership" role, too - and it was quite a night. I've heard that prayer/concern before - that women are filling in the roles - and I don't think it's from us stepping forward and blocking the men, but from the men leaving a void that we have no choice but to fill in. A small example is the worship team: since we have very few guy singers, the ladies have to step in to sing. A big example: a husband is too weak to be the spiritual leader of his family, so rather than have the family left without a path, the woman has to step in and fill the role. Is the lack of male singers a sin? No. Is the weakness of the male as spiritual head of the house a sin? Yes... I think this is a HUGE topic of concern for the church.
Maybe the lack of male singers IS a sin. Did women lead in the house of prayer that David set up? Weren't the Levites in charge of all aspects of worship, singing, sacrifices, making the special incense, etc ALL men? I've heard the argument about week husbands and I can't see how women filling that role helps the men to become stronger. I can't say I have an answer but I think it would be so cool to find out what it would look like if the women truly were silent in "church".
Uh, that should have been "weak husbands"! Mayhaps that was a subconscious indictment against our lax marriage commitments! HA
i hear all the conflicting opinions swirling in my mind! but i find your thoughts interesting and it would be an fascinating experiment!
If a man is called to lead, he must fight the temptation to be passive. If a woman is called to advise, she must resist the temptation to command.
In the absence of a strong male captain, a woman will start steering the ship -- because the vessel has to head somewhere. But this reinforces the man's passivity until their roles are completely reversed.
I think both men and women can start by demonstrating at least a willingness to step up to their calling and step out of the other's. Women, will you give the men a chance to lead? Men, will you stop waiting for someone else and make some decisions?
(By the way, I'm bothered by our lack of male singers. The sound of too many sopranos is shrill -- a metaphor for this whole issue.)
Kathy I've just begun to read a book called The Blue Parakeet where I think the author is going to make a valid bibilical argument for women in leadership! So I'm anxious to see what he has to say. Of course some of it has to do with God given temperament as well. Thanx for reading!!
Post a Comment