Other Books at Freedom's Ring

Chapter 5

Public Versus Private Meetings

For nearly forty years, I must confess that I tried to make the scriptures teach what my brethren and I have practiced and taught. In doing so, I now confess to a lot of intellectual gymnastics, which warped and twisted both logic and scripture to give me some sort of rationale I could live with. But, upon a more mature review of my positions, I am now convinced that a more intelligent and honest review of what the scripture really teaches is required. I no longer need those hobgoblins of attempted consistency.

Our warped reasoning is nowhere more evident than in our attempts to define what is a public assembly versus a private assembly, or where a worship assembly begins and ends, or how to end it and allow women to speak. We acknowledge that the New Testament church had regular assemblies. The writer of Hebrews tells us that we are not to "forsake the assembling of ourselves together" (Hebrews 10:25). The church at Ephesus met on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7). The Corinthians assembled for prayer, prophesy, tongues, interpretations, revelations, singing, and the Lord's Supper (I Corinthians 11-14).

The churches which forbid women to be in the pulpit and which will not allow women to preside over the Lord's Supper rely on I Corinthians 14, especially verses 23, 34, and 35. This scripture is used to separate the times women must be silent and the times when they can speak. With rare exceptions, churches have not interpreted the silence of I Corinthians 14:34 to be mute. The Greek word used by Paul here is "sigao." This word means, "to be quiet," or "to hold one's peace." To be mute comes from the Greek word "phimoo." Paul does not use that word here. More on this passage later.

Our application of the silence rule from I Corinthians 14:34 and I Timothy 2:11,12 pivots on our interpretation of I Corinthians 14:23, "When the whole church be gathered together." In most churches, large and small, we teach that the Bible classes at 10:00 a.m. are "private" classes and that the later service in our sanctuary when the Lord's Supper and the contribution are taken is a "public service." This application gives us a lot more latitude on women teaching men. But even our application is flawed with gross inconsistencies.

We quote Acts 18:26, where Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside and "taught him the way of the Lord more perfectly." The word "private" is not in the text. We have rendered it so to promote our tradition. We have reasoned that she could not have taught him in a "public" service (Sunday morning at 11:00 a.m., Sunday evening, or at a prayer meeting service, or even in a Bible class with men present, unless she were sitting down facing the front).

First, no one knows why she and Aquila took Apollos aside. Time could have been a factor. The place could have been a factor. Possible embarrassment could have been a factor. But, most likely, it was to get away from noise and confusion. It may have been because women were not permitted to speak or teach in that synagogue. For certain, it was not because God had forbidden women to teach men, or that teaching men anywhere was considered an exercise of authority over them. What does an uninformed man seeking to serve God have to lose if an informed woman teaches him God's truth? What authority does he give up? God has nothing to lose, but He has souls to gain if a woman enables men to understand and follow the truth. God would not want a man to remain ignorant just because there was no man present or capable enough to teach him the truth, publicly or privately.

Some have even argued that since Apollos was still teaching John's baptism, he was not really a baptized believer, and thus it was scriptural for a woman to teach a man not yet scripturally baptized. But, would anyone really argue that after his baptism she couldn't teach him anything else? Not even in a private Bible class? Of course not. But most would allow her to teach him only if she were in a sitting position and not up in front of such a private class. What does "up front" have to do with teaching? In most home Bible studies that I have attended, the entire group of participants is sitting down, usually in a circle. Does God say that it is all right for women to sit in a circle in the home and teach men across the room, but in a classroom at church a man must stand at the front while a class for adults is being conducted? Of course, He doesn't!

We have reasoned that the rule of silence, when applied, is to be applied only to the "whole assembly" of the church. That is, Sunday morning services, Sunday evening services, gospel meetings, Wednesday night prayer meetings, and other "congregational" worship services. We have traditionally reasoned that the Bible class hour which proceeds this "whole assembly" is made up of private classes. Therefore, because Priscilla could teach in private, then it is scriptural for women now to speak up, read, or argue for a point of view, since these are private meetings. Yet, we won't let a woman and a man formally teach these private classes as Priscilla and Aquila clearly did. We only allow the "Aquilas" to be the teachers. As obvious as this inconsistency is, we still try to convince ourselves that our way is God's way, is doctrinally sound and consistent. Why would we kid ourselves so? Fear, tradition, illogical reasoning, or ignorance is our answer. Bible teaching isn't.

Using our hermeneutic in the case of Apollos, we are taught and allowed to do only one thing. This "approved example" only approves a woman teaching an unbeliever in the presence of her husband. Nothing else was done and nothing else is inferred. If it, indeed, approves women speaking up in a so-called "private" Bible class, then it approves husband and wife team-teaching. No other conclusion can be reached. Of course, some people in an attempt at consistency, would say she had no business teaching Apollos because Paul said, "I permit not a woman to teach" (I Timothy 2:12). But no one would dare try to teach or practice such a doctrine. Priscilla was in clear violation of this scripture; "I permit not a woman to teach" (I Timothy 2:12).

I have attended many worship services in small churches which had no so-called "private" classes. These were services "when the whole church had gathered together." Songs were sung and Bible studies conducted, with men and women participating in reading and in commenting. However, the prayers were offered by men, and the Lord's table was presided over by men. Contributions were made by everybody. In these small churches, no one argued that women should not read or comment in these public services. However, in large churches such practices are judged wrong. Why? Tradition is the only answer. Somehow, we reason that if we call classes in big churches "private," that makes them private; therefore, women can speak up and teach from a sitting position because Priscilla did. But we will not let her team-teach with her husband, like Priscilla did. Thus, the rules we apply to that which we call a "public service" in big city churches do not necessarily apply to smaller churches. However, no one ever objects.

In the first place, calling a class a private meeting in any church does not make it a private meeting. The Bible makes no such distinction.

I would define a private class as one which specifies who can attend and which excludes all others. I would define a public class as one which does not exclude anyone from attending, and to which anyone is welcome. I have never attended an adult class which has not been open to the public. In fact, I have never known a church which would not welcome anyone to attend any of its adult classes. I've seen older folks in young folks' classes and young folks in older folks' classes. I've seen sons and daughters go to class with their parents, and vice-versa. I've seen grandparents bring their grandchildren to class with them. But I've never seen a teacher ask someone to leave because the singing, praying, reading and teaching in that room were being done in a "private" class or because these acts were not worship.

We simply use the word "private" in an attempt to make the Bible fit our practices, not because of what the Bible teaches on the subject. The Bible says Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside to "teach him the way of the Lord more perfectly." We put "privately" in the text. It helps justify our tradition.

They could have taken him aside for a dozen reasons. It certainly can't be concluded that it was because a woman can't teach in public! We simply use this Priscilla argument in an attempt to bolster our assumptions and exceptions to I Corinthians 14:34-35 and I Timothy 2:8-12.

I have taken people aside, that is, away from the setting, and taught them in another setting. But those settings were not necessarily private. Paul left the Areopagus in Athens after a great sermon and was accompanied by certain men, including Dionysius and Damaris, to teach them, and they became believers. But I know of no man who would argue that Paul's teaching, aside from Areopagus, was, for some reason, "private" (Acts 17:22-34).

I have known of a few classes, even in a church building, which were restricted to certain people for a special study and, thus, were private. But that is not the rule!

Some who recognize the obvious inconsistency of the church's teachings and practice on women, and the silence question, have tried for consistency by saying that the silence rule applies only on the Lord's Day at the public worship service, usually around 11:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.; but in the earlier Bible classes or later Bible classes or any other services of the church, women are privileged to speak up as is deemed appropriate, if it does not create confusion. (Incidentally, men should also not speak up in ways that create confusion.) Such a position does take some real twisting of scripture, as well as logic. The point is, why should women be selectively silent in a service when the Lord's Supper is served, a sermon is preached, prayers are uttered, contributions are given, and not silent in song, responsive readings, prayers in unison, announcements, greetings, etc.? They are following two sets of rules. The same women can speak up while prayer, teaching, singing, contributing, and commenting are going on an hour earlier in a Bible class. Often these take place in the same room. There is neither logic nor scripture to justify two sets of rules. These rules are man-made. They are creedal.

At which of the services, the so-called "private" or the so-called "public," should we "lay by in store"? God really didn't say, did He? I've been in many Bible classes when a contribution was taken up for a special need of people in that group or people not related to that group. Later, the same people contributed again in the so-called "public" service. How do we decide which is the scriptural time to worship in our offering? One cannot conclude that worship at 10:00 a.m. is different from worship at 11:00 a.m. Tradition and convenience dictate our distinction - nothing else. Likewise, only tradition and convenience, or a decision which seems to be "reasonable" determines at which services a woman can speak up, and in what manner.

It is interesting to read the words of Jesus on worship, in John 4:20-24. Here He teaches that worship is not confined to places, in direct contradiction to our definition of worship as that which is conducted in an auditorium or sanctuary, but not in a classroom. God didn't really say when or where, or in what way women may speak up. Only "human reasoning" makes that determination! We allow women to sing in violation of our preaching on silence in the churches because we "reason" from Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 that it is all right for women to sing - in fact, even that they are required to sing. We "reason" that it is all right for them to make announcements from their pews, greet people, or to talk to husbands, children, and others seated next to them, in violation of the silence rule. We allow them to read, question, teach, and even argue for a particular point of view in public Bible classes, all in violation of the silence rule. Why? Human reasoning only, not a scriptural mandate.

Often, a woman is allowed to teach a class of twelve-year-old children or sixth graders. If one of the boys is baptized, some churches immediately assume she is violating scripture for exercising authority over "men," and insist that she step down as a teacher, even if she is the boy's mother.

Questions:

1. Do women lose their authority at the church-house door over their children?
2. Can a grown woman exercise authority over baptized young people in a mission trip, during a party, or in a home?
3. Do the scriptures teach that the line is drawn at a man-made building?
4. Is the boundary drawn at a classroom door?
5. Who sets these boundaries? Does the New Testament or do men?
6. If men set these boundaries, which ones has God empowered to draw such boundaries?

The distinction between public and private has been determined by the judgement of men, not by the scriptures. In essence, we vote on this doctrine and then apply it according to that vote. The public versus the private gathering doctrine simply enables us to exercise our inconsistent practices without any logical or true Biblical reasons to support them.

If it is scriptural for a woman to speak up in the Bible study period of a small church worship service, where classes and worship are not separated, it is both logical and scriptural for her to speak up when they are divided.