The Almighty Worship Hour

"The primary distinction that led...to silencing women was the view that any public speech by women was forbidden or indecent. Consequently, it was not simply that it was 'leadership' but rather that it was 'public leadership.'"

"And 'public' may have received more stress than leadership originally. For example, Lipscomb and Harding both thought women should participate in small, family or home settings but that it was different when the assembly was 'public.'"--J. M. Hicks

In addition to a host of other misunderstandings about first century Christianity like the collection for the saints, the assumption of dualism that leads to hierarchy/oligarchy--clergy/laity behaviors, the origins of the public building and modern sermon--modern, institutional Christianity also exalts specific periods or 'hours' of life over others in order to control the masses.

One glaring inconsistency is "the Bible class hour" versus the "worship hour." Literally, women are allowed to speak in one assembly of Christians, but at the strike of the, evidently, 'almighty' clock and--even though they may have never left their seat--they are immediately forbidden to speak! It is similar to how we view the Lord's Supper. One may eat a 'common' meal only minutes after previously being forbidden to do so in a 'spiritual' meal during the 'worship hour.'

Concerning passages like 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-12, listed below respectively, the author at creedrehearsal.com seems to agree: (all bold emphasis mine, sp)

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

"To resolve these conflicts we attempt to find exceptions, loopholes if you will, to exempt our present practices from the force of Paul's plain, direct, no wiggle room statements. We find a way to exempt singing by appealing to the commands for all Christians to sing in Eph. 5:19 & Col 3:16. Ignoring for the moment that neither of these passages [Eph. 5:19 & Col. 3:16, sp] are speaking of the assembly, how can we justify an exception that Paul didn't make?"

"He didn't say, "Women are to be silent except to sing." No, his plain, direct, no wiggle room statements say women are to be silent - period. Likewise, we exempt confessions of faith in Christ made by women before the congregation on the basis of Romans 10:9-10. But Paul didn't say, "Women are to be silent except to give their confession." Again, his plain, direct, no wiggle room statements say women are to be silent--period."

"So that women may speak during our Bible classes, we've made a special exception for them by claiming that Bible classes aren't really an assembly of the church. We say the 'church' isn't assembled because the people are split up into various rooms in the church building. Therefore, the church isn't assembled until we are all in one room. This line of reasoning is yet another symptom of viewing the church as something it is not; some sort of institution or organization..."

"This can almost be comical in some congregations. I know of small rural churches which are composed of mainly the elderly; there are no children to send off to class. They have Bible class in the auditorium and allow the women to speak. Now picture the same people, in the same seats, in the same room a short time later, but now the women can't utter a word! At some point they went from being just a group of Christians studying together to the duly assembled 'church entity' with not a single change except for the clock on the wall!"

"We have been known to get pretty hot under the collar when people try to introduce exceptions that the Bible doesn't make. Just watch what happens if someone tries to make an exception for divorce & remarriage that Jesus didn't specifically state. But then we turn around and make all sorts of exceptions for women speaking in the assembly that Paul didn't make and we are all just fine with it! So much for consistency. How do we measure up when it comes to full obedience?"

"In churches of Christ today, we bind part of Paul's command, but not all of it. We forbid women to speak, but have you ever known of a preacher, elder, deacon or anyone else who refused to answer a married woman's Bible question when the assembly was dismissed? Have you ever heard the preacher, elder, or Bible class teacher tell the woman that she is commanded in 1 Cor 14:35 to ask her OWN HUSBAND Bible questions AT HOME?"

"I've never heard of this happening. You see, if we follow all of Paul's commands we'd send wives who have questions to their own husbands to get answers. And we'd tell them to wait until they get home to ask. If Paul's teachings forbid women speaking in the church, then surely those same teachings forbid anyone but a woman's own husband from answering his wife's questions. How can we enforce one concept and completely ignore the other?"

"1 Corinthians 14 is clearly addressing the practices and behavior of those in an assembly of Christians. However, in context 1 Tim 2:11-14 isn't speaking of an assembly:

"A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."

"This has lead some people to conclude that all women are to be in subjection to all men! Yet, in the work place these same people submit to women who are in management above them. These same people submit to women who are in positions of power in the government. I don't know about you, but I have a real problem with the idea that other men (in general) have any authority whatsoever over my wife!"

"Most people that I've spoken with don't believe that men in general are dominant over women in general but say the passage simply means that they can't teach men. Generally, we try to just lump this passage in with 1 Cor 14:34-35 and make it all apply to the assembly. But the context of 1 Tim 2 isn't discussing the assembly."

"How do we reconcile the fact that Priscilla taught Apollos in Acts 18:26?"

"Some say that she co-taught with her husband Aquila and this made the situation acceptable, but I fail to see why this would make a difference. It was still a woman teaching a man. So, here is yet another exception we can add that Paul didn't specifically state, "A woman cannot teach a man, unless her husband is helping her teach." Like all the other man made exceptions, I don't find the "husband/wife co-teaching a man" argument to be a convincing "exception." Again Paul's plain, direct, no wiggle room statement was that women couldn't teach men or have authority over them--period."

"Our traditional teaching regarding women in the Churches of Christ is loaded with inconsistencies, shortcomings and unanswerable questions. One wonders how we could have gone so many generations without the majority realizing that something just doesn't add up. It is also worth noting that this isn't a faulty understanding held by just the Churches of Christ; many other denominations also apply these faulty concepts or variations of them."

So, where is the command that we are to have a "worship hour?"