Reviewing a "Document On Women In Worship and Ministry"

Ben F. Vick, Jr

A "Document on Women in Worship and Ministry," which was placed on the website of the Fourth Avenue Church of Christ, Franklin, Tennessee, argues for women taking a leading role in the worship services of the church. Let us consider some of the arguments made which, according to the article, would not only grant but would make mandatory the church's use of women in leading roles in worship.

We are referring to First Timothy 2:11-12 which reads: "11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." It is pointed out that in the same chapter men are told to pray with holy hands raised (1 Timothy 2:8), and women are told not to wear elaborate hairstyles or jewelry (1 Timothy 2:9-11). It is argued that since most of the churches will tell  you those latter statements were not meant to limit how we pray or dress today, then also the prohibition of a woman's having to be silent during the worship does not apply.

First, what many churches say or do is not our standard. The New Testament is our standard, whether individuals or churches accept it or not. Second, neither churches nor individuals have the right to remove the restrictions placed on a woman's leading prayers. Paul states that men, as opposed to women (and at the Greek bears this out) are to lead in prayer. They are to do so with holy hands; i.e., lives that are holy. They are to pray without wrath or doubting. A man's lifting up his hands during his leading of a prayer is authorized from this verse. However, the posture in prayer is not bound because there are other examples in which men fell on their faces, stood or knelt (Matthew 26:39; Luke 18:11, 13; Acts 20:36). And by the way, what proves too much,  proves nothing. If the passage authorizes anything, it authorizes men, as opposed to women, lifting up their hands. Yet in some churches, especially Pentecostal churches, the women are raising their hands (and swaying them) as much as the men.

Third, upon what basis does anyone have the right to throw out the limitations placed on how women adorn themselves? The limitations on how a women dresses  are still required. A little common sense goes a long way. Paul says a woman is to adorn herself in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety. "Modest" means well arranged, seemly, and modest. It is from the Greek word which means orderly, decorously. She is to be properly dressed. "Shamefacedness" is the idea of downcast eyes, bashfulness, i.e. toward men, modesty. Many girls and women today are not embarrassed at all to allow some cleavage to show, even some who claim to be Christians. The Greek word for "sobriety" means "soundness of mind, self-control."

Back when men wore long-johns underneath their britches even in the summertime, brother  J.D. Tant was preaching and he got a little warm; so, he took off his coat. This was at a time when the dresses of women were moving from the ankles toward the knees. A sister in Christ who was all prim and proper was wearing one of those dresses that was in vogue at the time, expressed her appall to Tant about his having taken off his coat. She just could not believe he would have the nerve to take off his coat while preaching. He took this lady by the arm, and said, "Sister, I could take off my britches, and have more clothes on than you!" (A story told to me by Joseph Cox).

The document under consideration decries brethren's lack of study of the cultures in Paul's day. However, the author fails to apply the same measuring rod to himself.  J.W. Shepherd wrote, "The reference is to the them common fashion custom of interweaving gold, silver, and pearls in the hair, causing it to glisten in the light. Gold or pearls refer to the bracelets, necklaces, anklets, rings and chains and such things with which women were often laden. The Jews denounced such extravagant ornamentation. (Isaiah 3:16-23)" (Gospel Advocate Commentary, p. 142). The prohibition is on extravagant dress and ornament. Similar language is used in 1 Peter 3:1-4. Neither Paul nor Peter was saying it is wrong to braid one's hair, or to wear gold or silver. Both were emphasizing the importance of giving more attention to the hidden man of the heart or professing godliness with good works.

Someone retorts: Well, when does one's hairdo or wearing of gold, or silver or costly array become sinful? It becomes sinful when one is putting more time and emphasis on her outward appearance than the heart. The line is crossed when gaudiness and extravagance draw attention to one's self. The wearing of things in the noses, faces, lips, tongues, and multiple ones in the ears fit into that category.  The same goes with the wearing of tattoos, and men are not exempt from this either. I am not saying it is sinful to have a tattoo; but when they blanket one's body (and our bodies belong to God) and cause one to be looked upon as some kind of freak, then it becomes wrong. It is placing too much emphasis upon the outer man which is perishing every day. The passages (1 Timothy 2:9-10; 1 Peter 3:1-4) are not prohibiting a woman's braiding her hair, not the wearing of gold, any more than her wearing of apparel. Her apparel is not to be extravagant or gaudy, nor should her jewelry be. The prohibition is against placing too much emphasis on the outward appearance, and not the heart.

So, the passage under consideration (1 Timothy 2:11,12) cannot be dismissed as not relevant today. It is as relevant today as when written in the first century. It can be seen that the prohibition of a woman's taking a leading role when men are present is not a cultural thing, because Paul goes back to the beginning. He gives the reason why a woman is not to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. He says "For [Note that word "for"; it translates the Greek word gar which means, "for this reason"] Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman..." (1 Timothy 2:13,14). This shows it was not a cultural thing that was to be applied just in Paul's time. It was true in the beginning; it was true in the New Testament times; it is still true today. Those who violate God's prohibition will answer to Him. No amount of study by preachers, elders, and / or scholars will change God's prohibition. The times do not change God's prohibition. Godly women are NOT going to place themselves in positions of authority over men, nor will godly men put them into such positions.

(More to follow).