Expert: Hoyt Roberson - 12/2/2008

Question
I just was reading one of your responses to a women who was interested in the Lord's Church and wanted to know if women have to remain silent in the church, and I was taken back by the answer given.  
I was born and raised in the Church, my dad was a preacher and my mother is 2nd generation member of the church of Christ.  I left the church for around 10 yrs and since have come back and asked our Father to forgive me of those sins.  
In your answer you said that there are congregations that allow women to lead prayers and do other acts of leadership roles.
     My question is if in 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35, Paul clearly stated women are to remain silent...they are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says... if they have a question they ask their husband at home, it is a disgrace for them to speak in Church...and in 1 Timothy 2:11 Paul again stated women are to remain silent.... how can a women speak in the Church? Does this Scripture no longer apply, or can we pick and choose which verses we like?
Second question, does the church still believe that X-mas is a pagan Holy Day? As born and raised in the Church we were always taught that was reason that we as members of the Lord's Church did not celebrate this pagan Holy Day, do we now celebrate the date that the world claims our Lord was born? If we do where in the Scriptures do we have the authority to add to the Bible or where is the command for this Holy Day?

Answer
Hi Rob,

Thanks for coming back to churches of Christ. We really do have some good things to offer larger Christendom and good folk like you are one of them.

As you are no doubt aware, one of our strengths - and one of our challenges - is our emphasis on local autonomy and our lack of any central doctrinal headquarters. There are more than a few "groupings" of congregations in our brotherhood, and our autonomy does not acknowledge any person's or congregation's authority to speak for any other congregation; much less to speak for the entire brotherhood. As a result, we have a broad range of views on a variety of topics and no one has the authority to say "you are not one of us" - at least not if we take autonomy as seriously as we say we do.

As a result, we have congregations that do things differently, including how they interpret Paul's statements and apply those interpretations. I grew up in a pretty much standard church of Christ but I am aware that not all congregations "do church" the way we did. There are in fact, congregations that allow women to do a host of things most congregations do not. In some congregations, women not only read Scripture, but they serve as elders too. These are not Christian churches (who are generally more conservative than churches of Christ except in the area of instrumental music), and they do consider themselves within churches of Christ. They have a history of being a church of Christ and continue to identify with that heritage. I am not competent, nor is anyone, to declare they are not a church of Christ. Thus my answer that took you back. Right or wrong, there are congregations of churches of Christ that allow various roles to women even if that's not the norm.

Now let's look at your specific concerns. If you don't mind, I'll address your second question first. I need to begin by acknowledging that you and I have heard different reasons why our congregations didn't observe Christmas as a church occasion when we were growing up. In my circumstances, while the pagan holiday topic was brought up, we were much more concerned that Christmas was not authorized by Scripture. Ergo, we couldn't observe it.

In that congregation, and I suspect in yours, we would eschew all official mention of Christmas, but we had no problem honoring mothers on Mother's Day, or fathers on Father's Day. If we didn't actually honor them, the sermon was routinely about the value of mothers and fathers on the appropriate days. I think we can agree that there is no Scriptural authority for the church to observe society's Mother's Day, and yet we routinely observed it.

Therefore, we find ourselves considerably inconsistent in collectively observing a day that is in no way spiritual, but denying ourselves the ability to observe the birth of our God during a time when society is focused on that (at least to some degree). We are in a position of hearing sermons on the birth of Jesus as we work through Matthew and Luke, as long as those studies don't fall in December. It seems to me that if Mother's Day is acceptable in church, and if we can acknowledge Jesus birth in August, we have no real good reason for proscribing doing so in December.

As to Christmas being a pagan holiday, I would submit that it is only a pagan holiday for pagans. For Christians, who worship the true God and remember the incarnation in December or January (Orthodox churches), it matters not what some Druids may do around the winter solstice. We would have a larger problem if we erected mini-Stonehenge models on our lawns and actually offered adoration to a non-god. But I've not ever heard of a congregation doing that.

So on both grounds of Christmas being either not authorized or falling in the same month of a pagan holiday, our traditional objections are considerably inconsistent and we rob ourselves of opportunities to tell the Gospel incarnation to our neighbors simply because we can't find a verse that says "celebrate my Son's birth in December."

Now to Paul and women. I'd like to look at Timothy's letter first and then the Corinthian correspondence. Before we get to either though, let's consider some of the words we are going to use. Silence cannot mean silence since we allow women to sing and we allow women to control their kids in church. So silence isn't absolute silence even in Paul's use of the word - and not in ours. We will discuss women usurping the authority of man, or teaching a man, and so we need to understand what we mean by those words. Assuming we accept the terms at face value, a woman must be usurping some authority, or actually be teaching a man to be in violation of these proscriptions. If she isn't doing one or the other of those, she isn't in violation, nor is her congregation for letting her do whatever she's doing. Fair?

In first Timothy, the word often translated "silent," doesn't actually mean complete silence. It means, essentially peacefully or quietness - the opposite of causing a commotion. The word is "hesuchios" and is used in I Tim 2.2 where we are asked to pray that we may be able to live lives that are peaceful - not silent. We find then, that we have misapplied Paul's admonition to Timothy and have not understood Paul's concern. It is instructive to notice that in the pastoral letters, Paul is concerned with local congregations acting in ways that look good to outsiders. Christians, according to Paul, are supposed to be good citizens. Christian women are no exception and therefore their decorum in the assembly is important and Paul urges them to learn in quietness. It isn't that they cannot speak, but that they cannot cause turmoil - and neither can men. We see then, that the Timothy passage cannot be used to support women not speaking in church.

As could be expected, Paul's instructions to the Corinthians follows the same line. And it is.

I Cor 14 is a short treatise on respectable worship - not necessarily in God's sight, but in the sight of those who may be present. God doesn't care how many prophesy or who interprets - but people do, and that is Paul's concern. Paul isn't overly concerned about speaking in tongues, but the way in which such is done in the local congregation, and it isn't cosmic law that concerns him, but decorum in the assembly. The same issue Paul addresses in I Timothy - and in a number of his letters.

Chapter 14 ends with Paul's admonition that everything should be done in a fit and orderly manner - not for God's benefit, but for that of the image of the church in the community. We see then, that these instructions are not cosmic rules but concern proper public behavior looks to the community.

Now let's look at verses 33-35. These cannot mean to be completely silent either. The same word (derivatives of sigao) is used earlier in the same chapter when prophets or those speaking in tongues are told to keep their peace, or to yield the floor to another. These prophets and speakers are not expected to be completely silent in church, and neither are women, as is clear when all Christians are told to speak to one another in songs and hymns.... No, complete silence is not what we're after.

Rather, once again Paul is interested in community and in Christians submitting to one another. If tongue speakers and prophets are to allow the floor to others, women are also. They are not to push a point, to endlessly question, or as we have seen in Timothy, to cause a commotion. No, if they want to question teachings, they need to do that at home and not in the assembly. But again the point isn't complete silence, but submission.

And that is the crux of the matter. Paul is consistent in his concerns for the propriety of the assembly, and that propriety is based on both Christian submission and societal expectations. Women are not to usurp the authority of men, but neither are men supposed to usurp the authority of other men; both men and women are to yield to others rather than making a spectacle of themselves or insisting on their "rights."

We see then that Paul, neither in 1 Timothy or 1 Corinthians, is arguing or expecting absolute silence from women in the assembly. Our applying the verses as though he was simply means that we have failed to fully study the topic.

A bit more on usurping authority. To usurp is to take by force; it does not include being granted permission to do things. Women who pass communion trays, who read Scripture, or who do a number of other things do not do so after usurping the authority of anyone, nor do they exercise authority over men in any meaningful sense.

So we see that no, we aren't supposed to pick and choose scripture. We are though, expected to correctly apply them even if that correctness is different from what you and I were taught in childhood.

Do some congregations of churches of Christ allow women roles that are different than the ones they enjoy in my congregation or yours? Yes, they do.
Do we have any authority to declare them not churches of Christ? Not if we actually value autonomy.
Does the traditional view of churches of Christ compose the only valid understanding of Scripture? No, it does not.
Are there valid interpretations of Scripture that would allow women not to be completely silent in Scripture, and in fact to read Scripture in the assembly? Yes, there is.
Is such an approach appropriate for every congregation? No.

Here are two sites you might find interesting. I have no desire to change your convictions on this topic one way or the other, but offer these simply for your reflection. The first is...

www.gal328.org and contains a series of articles on this topic by people who consider themselves members of churches of Christ.

The second is www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR256.htm and I don't know the denominational affiliation of the author.

I know this response has been long and in some places it may not be clear. If that is the case, please let me know and I'll be happy to explain what I thought I said.

Please note that women's roles is neither a static nor monolithic topic in churches of Christ. While most congregations do not allow women many public roles if any, and that practice remains the norm among us, there are congregations that have applied Scripture according to their study and have elected to allow various different roles to women depending on their conclusions from Scripture.

Thanks Rob for your questions, may God bless your submission to Him.