# proper role of women during meeting



## puriteen18 (Jul 4, 2003)

What is a woman's proper role during meeting?

I have believed for a time now that they should keep complete silence in the cogregation (though that's not always the case at my church), but last week we had a youth bible school at our church. The minister who came to teach was talking to our youth sunday school teacher (a lady). Anyway after the lesson they were talking by themselves about which apostle was their favorite. They both agreed on Peter since he was most outspoken. The minister said quickly after though that he would had rather be a Paul. Our sunday school teacher said in kind of a joking manner that she didn't like Paul. The minister (almost in shock) ask why. She said it was becuse Paul said that women are to keep silent in church. He quickly assured her that Paul only said that to the Corithian church because the service was wildly out of hand and that Paul was just setting strict rules to restore order and that it didn't apply to other churches. But then he did say that of course women were not to preach, but could share personal experiences, pray, et cetera. She was pleased at his answer.

This troubled me. What do you think about it? also what do you think about women as sunday school teachers?

Here are some verses I am sure are familiar.

&quot;Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.&quot; I Cor. 14:34

&quot;Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 
But Isuffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.&quot; I Tim. 2:11-12

Thanks fo rthe replies.


----------



## pastorway (Jul 4, 2003)

As has been previously discussed on this board, those verses are in the context of the meeting of the church where women are forbidden to hold a position of authority or teach/preach the Word to men.

1 Cor 11 is clear that women are expected to pray in the church, and according to Eph 5:18-20 and Col 3:16 women as part of the church are to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in worship. So these verses are not about woemn never uttering a single sound in church - they deal specifically with the teaching of the Word as elders in the church - women cannot do that!

Phillip


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 5, 2003)

I agree with Pastorway, obviously women can sing and pray in Church.

As far as women being Sunday School teachers, as long as they are not teaching men, I see no problem.


----------



## cupotea (Jul 5, 2003)

men or boys?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 5, 2003)

I would not have women teach anyone above the age of middle school (6th-8th grade) in order to avoid this problem.


----------



## pastorway (Jul 5, 2003)

We do not have women teach boys 13 or older. That whay there is no question about whether they are teaching men.....we also encourage men to teach the boys in all age groups and rarely segregate out the children from the adults in our church.

Phillip


----------



## cupotea (Jul 6, 2003)

yeah, I'm pretty sure thats how they do it in our church. I mean sometimes for my sunday school and man with his wife might teach but it's mostly just the husband. And with the segregating, we have a sunday school for k-1, 2-3, 5-6, junior high, and high school and then everone comes together for the regular church service


----------



## puriteen18 (Jul 9, 2003)

Thanks for the replies. 

When I said &quot;complete silence&quot; I did not mean for them not to sing, sorry if I wasn't clear. Women should sing.

One more question:

What about head coverings?


----------



## pastorway (Jul 10, 2003)

Paul is not teaching head coverings - he is teaching submission. That submission was expressed by head coverings. Today, the question for applying these passages would revolve around what a woman does now to show she is in submission. 

Look for the principle, not necessarily the practice.

An example of this would be that as has been mentioned elsewhere on this board, Jesus told the dicsciples that if they did not have a sword they should sell something so they had money to buy one.

Does that mean we should all go buy a sword?

No. It means we look for the principle - Jesus was teaching His disciples to be prepared to defend themselves. That is why this can be applied to day by saying that it is right to bear arms (guns)!

So, look for the principle! Then apply it!

Phillip

[Edited on 7-10-03 by pastorway]


----------



## cupotea (Jul 10, 2003)

What if you already have a sword? Should you sell it and buy a gun?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 10, 2003)

*Both Principle and Symbol*

Not to be too confrontational here but it seems to me that verse 10 of that passage commands both the principle of submission and the practice of wearing the symbol of that submission. It's not an either/or situation. You might be able to argue that the head covering was a cultural expression of submission for that time, but we are still commanded to have the symbol too. Since we have no cultural symbol of submission (that I am aware of) it would seem to me wisest to stick with some sort of head covering so that we are still conforming to the command of Paul in our worship. We must have BOTH the symbol AND the reality of what it represents.

PuritanSailor

[Edited on 7-10-2003 by puritansailor]

[Edited on 7-10-2003 by puritansailor]


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 11, 2003)

[quote:cd163419a5]
Since we have no cultural symbol of submission (that I am aware of) 
[/quote:cd163419a5]

How about the fact that a woman will take her husbands name :question:


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 11, 2003)

[quote:c55d22f5c8][i:c55d22f5c8]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:c55d22f5c8]
[quote:c55d22f5c8]
Since we have no cultural symbol of submission (that I am aware of) 
[/quote:c55d22f5c8]

How about the fact that a woman will take her husbands name :question: [/quote:c55d22f5c8]

I hadn't thought of that before. It could be a sign of submission, or oppression if your a feminazi  But the command is &quot;the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her [i:c55d22f5c8]head[/i:c55d22f5c8].&quot; Seems to me to be something more visible in public worship than a name. But hey, I'm still studying the issue. But is it just a coincidence that head coverings went away with the rise of feminism and such related philosophies? I'm sure you all have debated this topic before though.
If there's another thread on it then please pass it on to me 

[Edited on 7-12-2003 by puritansailor]


----------



## puriteen18 (Jul 13, 2003)

Thank guys for the replies. As always very helpful.


----------



## ChristianasJourney (Jul 14, 2003)

*A word about headcoverings...*

I'd like to add something here, for what it's worth...since I'm probably the only one on this thread who has worn a headcovering.

1st - I found pastorway's comments about this passage teaching submission and not headcoverings to be rather insightful. 
I'm afraid I tend to get worried about the practice and lose sight of the intent.

2nd - I'm not afraid of wearing a headcovering, or learning that a headcovering is required of me.

3rd - Most women I know who wear headcoverings have made their own decision to wear them and their husband's don't care that much about it. Rather in incongruous since headcoverings represent submission.

4th - I do not pay much attention to what the culture of the time was, or Josephus says, etc. I really only care what the Bible has to say about it.

5th - My husband will find me submissive with or without a headcovering. And I will be more submissive then the women I know who have worn headcoverings.

All that to get to my point which is while 1 Cor 11. is plain to some people it is not plain to me, partly because when you look at the rest of scripture it does not seem to fit in. Moses wore a scarf in front of his face, Aaron, and the priests all wore God directed turbans, including Joshua the High Priest in Zach. The kings wore crowns. This would all be in direct contradiction to men having their head uncovered. Likewise men not having long hair would not fit with the requirements of the Nazerites like Samson, and John the Baptist. Perhaps it's my own blindness, but the 1 Cor. 11 passage regarding headcoverings has left me confused. uzzled:

It is for this reason I found Pastorway's comments to be enlightening.

P.S. I do wear a headcovering when I worship, but it's more because I don't want to offend some of those around me. And if I spoke or prayed in a worship service, I probably would also wear a covering for my own conscience. 

[Edited on 7-14-2003 by ChristianasJourney]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 14, 2003)

Here is perhaps the best modern Reformed pro-headcoving article I have read. I haven't studied the issue in-depth, so I have not formulated an opinion, but here it is:

http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/headcovr.htm


----------



## thoughtfuldave (Jul 17, 2003)

*I go to the Free Presbyterian Church*

My wife wears a head covering and I take my hat off when I pray. 

She is leaning more and more towards wearing a headcovering all the time because she feels that she should be engaged in public worship and prayer all with our daughter all the time. My wife prays and reads the bible to my daughter all day...We noticed the ladies at our church take the hats off after the church service is over, yet we would go down stairs for food and fellowship and pray for the food there with no covering on. My WIFE, who was a former &quot;feminazi&quot;, has taken the lead on this one and has seen this inconsistancy in the &quot;on/off&quot; headcovering and is the one seeking to reason this one furthur. We shall see what happens. My wife also is leaning more and more towards long dresses and is wearing pants less and less. She is seeking after modesty and is desirus for her beauty to be shared by me and me alone....how wonderful is that.

I look with sadness and anger at what constitutes modern &quot;wpmen of the church&quot;. I see plunging neck lines, short skirts, tight tee shirts. Many women look like business executives or prostitutes rather than daughters of the Most High. What is going on. My wife, who is as about as far from a leagalist as can be, has been accused of going to far by her liberal familly members. Modesty is going too far?!?!

I rant, but I am deeply sadened by all this that is going on...

Forgive me for going every where in this post...but I've written too much to delete..

Love in Christ,

David Stair


A Note: At Princess Diana's funeral...al the queens kids who wore uniforms...the men tok their hats off in the church, the women kept their on...where do you think they got this from??????????


----------



## thoughtfuldave (Jul 17, 2003)

*forgive my poor proof reading above...*


----------



## smellingsalts (Oct 25, 2004)

Is headcovering something that needs to be restored in the American churches?
I think you can compare circumsion in the old to headcovering in the new testements because represents an inward change. Both represents being submissive to God.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 25, 2004)

Yes, female headcoverings in worship are too often neglected or disregarded based on a mistaken view of 1 Cor. 11 which is based in cultural relativism. The women in my church wear headcoverings in public worship as a sign of submission. They do not have to wear them all the time in public, just during worship, although there is nothing inherently wrong with doing that too, except that, in my judgment it is not necessary and in my experience is usually based on an Amish-style approach to life. It is a blessing to me to look around in a worship service and see headcoverings reflecting female submission; I commend those women (and their husbands) who do so and wish that there were more who took Paul's command as seriously.


----------



## smellingsalts (Oct 26, 2004)

What is a proper heacovering for a woman? 
A fancy hat
A bonnet
A Scarf
A Prayer Shawl
Long Hair
Her Husband


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 26, 2004)

In my view, Paul has in mind something along the lines of the first four things that you mentioned.


----------



## ChristianasJourney (Oct 26, 2004)

I thought the proper role of women in meetings was to serve the punch and choc. chip cookies. Am I wrong?


----------



## Ianterrell (Oct 26, 2004)

That would be nice!


----------



## street preacher (Dec 25, 2004)

If you look in the greek the word covered is an actual covering that was placed on the head of the women. It goes beyond submission but also goes into the subject of headship that was set up in the garden of Eden. It is a reminder to both husband and wife of their roles in their marriages in the plan of God. This also speaks to us of the roles in the church of God that is exlained in Titus chapter 2. The church throughout history wore the covering until this past century. We have also run into confusion of the role of women in the church because of it and are to prideful to admit it to the condemnation of some. We now have the devilish practice of women in the pulpit, women running the home and men stepping down as leaders of their homes, women teaching men, etc. Calvin said something to the effect of when women in the church start uncovering their heads they will start to show their bosoms and they certainly have. This is not an issue of equality at all but of God-ordained headship. In the beginning of 1 Corinthians Christ is listed as being under God the Father as the wife is to her husband. Christ is God therefore equal with God as woman is equal to a man. As I have already said, disregarding the physical sign of headship for women has caused problems in the church and in marriages. We have forgotten what it is to be under the God given authority structure that was set up form the beginning of time.


----------



## Thomas (Apr 14, 2005)




----------

