Why Women Should Not Speak In Our Churches

Revelation 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach…

1 Timothy 2:11 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. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Corinthians 14:34 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.
38 But if any man be IGNORANT, let him be ignorant.

Introduction

Paul (as in 1 Corinthians 14:38), continually views the contentious, emotional stubbornness of many Christians (especially in regard to the women who control them) as something practically insurmountable. Yet, there ARE many who are open to information. Therefore, this article is offered in this perilous hour to all who are willing to reason upon the subject of women speaking in the church. It is also hoped that it will encourage others who have already chosen to obey God’s commandments concerning women in our churches.

The conclusion of this article is that women are permitted to teach and testify among women, teach children, and testify and pray aloud with men in private, small group, and non-church situations. They are also allowed to sing among the mixed church assembly. Yet, in regard to regular speaking, they are called to remain silent in the mixed church assembly (i.e. any time the “church” is gathered). This holy silence is a form of submission. Among other things, it is a sign that communicates to the assembly (especially the growing children), God’s order for the church and home. Homosexuality did not grow to be accepted overnight. The denominations did not get to the place to where they have to debate ordaining women (or homosexuals!) overnight. The minor rules that we may think are unnecessary, when ignored, have far reaching implications for Christians and society over time. This is why we should not lean unto our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5-7).

Everything and everyone in God’s creation has its own sphere in which to prosper. Sin is rebellion against God and His commands. It is therefore sinful for any angels, men, women, or children to leave the PLACE that God has ordained for them. Lucifer and his angels attempted to leave their domain on earth and desired to be like God in the Heavens (Isaiah 14:13).

Eve was also deceived by Satan into thinking that there was a better place (“as gods”) for her than the place and position that God has ordained. Likewise, another group of perverted angels once left their assigned place:

Jude 1:6 And the angels which KEPT NOT THEIR FIRST ESTATE, but LEFT their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Both Jude and Peter, when describing the final falling away, reveal that professing Christians will be rebellious against godly AUTHORITY. They will leave their places in a mad, Satanic lust for LIBERTY against God’s commandments and ordained ORDER:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there SHALL BE false teachers among you…
10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and DESPISE GOVERNMENT. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not
afraid to speak evil of dignities.
19 While they promise them LIBERTY, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

This final, Laodicean rebellion will have a form of godliness (i.e.”spirituality”). It will, therefore, deceive many women:

2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the LAST DAYS perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, DISOBEDIENT to parents, unthankful, unholy…
5 Having a FORM OF GODLINESS, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For OF THIS SORT are they which creep into houses, and lead captive SILLY WOMEN laden with sins, LED AWAY with divers lusts…

Some women in the last days will be led “away.” They will be led away FROM the place and position that God has assigned for them:

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure SOUND DOCTRINE; but after their own LUSTS shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Silly women (the opposite of wise women) will be led away by their lusts (2 Timothy 3:6, 4:3). Eve was led away by her lust for POWER. Many women, in these last days, will be led away (in various degrees) in a lust for more power and authority. “Laodicea” (Revelation 3:14) means “rights of the people.” They will find God’s commandments to be vexing and constraining. They will not endure SOUND DOCTRINE (2 Timothy 4:3). “Sound doctrine” is found in Titus 2:

Titus 2:1 But speak thou the things which become SOUND DOCTRINE: 2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. 3 The AGED WOMEN likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of GOOD THINGS; 4 That they may teach the YOUNG WOMEN to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

This passage in Titus 2:5 explains clearly what many of our churches in the last days will depart from! While the final rebellion is by no means limited to women, the Holy Ghost clearly reveals that SILLY WOMEN (and the false teachers who prey upon them for money – see 2 Peter 2:3) will be one of the reasons that the final age will be extremely dangerous. These false teachers will “creep” into the houses (e.g. television, radio, computer, etc.) and promise these “religious” women LIBERTY (2 Peter 2:19). They will use smooth words to lead many “devout” women away from such “good things” (Titus 2:3) as motherhood, the home, obedience to husbands, immoveable affection for their husbands and children, modesty, and SILENCE IN THE MIXED CHURCH ASSEMBLY. But Satanic freedom is not true freedom (2 Peter 2:19-20). It is the slippery slope back down to the Prodigal’s mire (2 Peter 2:22, Luke 15:16). With this introduction, let us now take a look at some general history in regard to women speaking in professing Christian churches.

The Quakers and the Methodists

The Bible teaches that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” ( 2 Timothy 3:13). Therefore, any view concerning holiness in these last days that departs radically from what godly Christians have always believed throughout history should be immediately questioned; especially when it is forced to use radical translations, etc., for its own defense. Christian history cannot be used to prove doctrine. Yet, when it is almost entirely against us, it should certainly be used as a red-light, calling for a closer, Biblical examination of our doctrinal views.

Most professing Christians in history have obeyed God’s commands concerning women which He gave through the apostle Paul. Robert E. Billings, Jr., writes:

“From the time of the Reformation in the 16th Century, until some time in the 1970s, there is virtually no record of women speaking in Evangelical churches. However, today, with increasing frequency, churches that have historically been Evangelical are allowing women to speak at the meeting of the church….Feminism teaches that there are no significant distinctions between male and female and that the sex roles in society are interchangeable. All these views are antithetical to the Word of God. The Humanist, the Relativist, and the Feminist would all say that in any organization, including churches, women should do the same things as men and that men should do the same things as women. But the Bible does not teach this.” (“Should Women Speak in the Church Meeting?,” Everyday Publications)

There have certainly been some exceptions. The heretical George Fox (1624-1691) and his radical Quaker followers (e.g. Margaret Fell) had already attempted to apply Paul’s admonitions for women to be silent to specific churches in Paul’s day, thus allowing future women to ignore the commands. George Fox would, therefore, certainly be a historical application of 2 Timothy 3:6.

Later, John Wesley and the early Methodists reasoned that perhaps God had a greater role for women that was not being realized. He came close to the Scriptural ideal by separating small “society” meetings from the church assembly, and allowing women to pray aloud and testify (but not to teach or preach) in these small groups. However, the lines became blurry when these meetings began to grow in numbers, and the women began to call for a clear distinction between “exhorting” and actual preaching. Men such as Wesley (and later Finney) were correct in realizing that women should be involved in active evangelism. They were, however, very wrong by sometimes (though with hesitation) endorsing women to speak in churches. After Wesley’s death (1791), Methodists, for a time, put a lid on women speaking in their churches. However, the door had been opened, and the great good that was performed by the early Methodists would be used to justify disobedience to 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11 for centuries to come.

Yet, the fight was on. For example, in 1832, the general Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, approved a document stating:

“Meetings of pious women by themselves, for conversation and prayer, whenever they can conveniently be held, we entirely approve. But let not the inspired prohibitions of the great apostle of the Gentiles, as found in his epistles to the Corinthians and to Timothy, be violated. To teach and exhort, or to lead in prayer, in public and promiscuous assemblies, is clearly forbidden to women in the Holy Oracles.”

In the first half of the 19th century, not only did women NOT speak in most churches (except in Quaker groups, etc.), it was actually considered highly improper for a woman to address ANY mixed audience:

“The debate over women’s involvement in the American Anti-Slavery Society dated all the way back to its founding in 1833….the joint participation of men and women in public meetings was considered most improper….By 1840, however, women were speaking and holding office in some of the local AASS. organizations….It is this…that caused the AASS to split apart at its national meeting in May 1840.” (Norma Johnson, “Remember The Ladies: The First Women’s Rights Convention,” Scholastic, 1995)

Even Queen Victoria, at the time, let her husband speak for her when addressing mixed assemblies.

The Antichristian Feminists

By 1848, Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) had launched the first Women’s Rights Convention with Lucretia Mott (1793-1880), who was a well-known Quaker. The advertisement for the convention itself was morally shocking at the time:

“On Friday the notice appeared in small print before the ‘Courier’ readership’s astonished eyes: ‘Women’s Rights Convention – A convention to discuss the social, civil, and RELIGIOUS condition and rights of woman, will be held in the Wesleyan Chapel, at Seneca Falls, N.Y….During the first day the meeting will be exclusively for women, who are earnestly invited to attend. The PUBLIC GENERALLY are invited to be present on the second day, when Lucretia Mott, of Philadelphia, and other ladies and gentlemen, will address the convention.’….It seemed innocent enough….But buried beneath the small print were inflammatory words and phrases…’The public generally are invited…’…that meant a ’promiscuous assembly,’ men and women mixed, most improper.” (Norma Johnson, “Remember The Ladies”)

Before this first convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton met with other ladies at the home of Mary Ann McClintock. At McClintock’s mahogany ”spiritualist” table, Stanton quickly drafted the Satanically inspired, ”Declaration of Rights and Sentiments.” Radical feminism was born. Even at its birth, it did not hide that its ultimate goal was to rewrite the Holy Scriptures. The new Declaration objected:

“He [males] allows her in Church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.”

On July 20th, 1848, these early feminists passed the following resolution:

“Resolved, That inasmuch as man, while claiming for himself intellectual superiority, does accord to woman moral superiority, it is pre-eminently his duty to encourage her to speak, and teach, as she has an opportunity, in ALL religious assemblies….it is time she should move in the enlarged sphere which her Creator has assigned her.”

Decades later, Stanton would birth and edit the blasphemous, “Women’s Bible” (1895). In it, this mother of feminism would write:

“Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving….your political and social degradation are but an outgrowth of your status in the Bible.”

She stated that the Scriptures were NOT inspired, and that they must be rewritten, with certain parts deleted! In its commentary on Paul’s commands concerning women speaking in churches, Louisa Southwort in “The Woman’s Bible” (p. 159) writes:

“…should it be so often quoted as having Divine sanction?”

She argued that it was unlikely that Paul actually wrote the command for women to remain silent in the churches. She argued that if he did, it is unlikely that is was based on an inspired command from God. Stanton herself argues:

“The church at Corinth was peculiarly given to diversion and to disputation; and women were apt to join in and to ask many troublesome questions; hence they were advised to consult their husbands at home.” (p.159)

Another writer, in this blasphemous commentary, argues:

“This mother and grandmother under whose teaching Timothy had become qualified to receive the important office of bishop…were required to keep silence in the Church equally with all other women whose evidence of faith were not so conclusive….The ban was placed upon women solely on the ground of sex. The Church has only in this nineteenth century partially amended this record, by establishing the order of deaconesses for women who devote themselves to good works and religious teaching. While in the liberal denominations the pulpit is accessible to woman, it is only in recent years that in any evangelistic denomination it has been permissible for woman to ‘teach.’ The priesthood are as unwilling today as was Paul in the first century, that women shall be placed on an equality in offices of distinction. perhaps this disposition comes of a dim, not fully evolved consciousness that, ‘when the present evolution of woman is complete, a new world will result; for woman is destined to rule the world…’….Until the feminine is recognized in the Divine Being, and justice is established in the Church by the complete equality of woman with man, the Church cannot be thoroughly Christian.” (Lucinda B. Chandler, p.179)

This is how the 19th century ended. Spiritualism and Theosophy had joined hands with antichristian feminism to “go for the throat” of the apostle Paul. One by one, all of the denominations and churches would become embarrassed before the eyes of the world and would begin to bend Paul’s inspired commands concerning women.