Shh! Sermon in Progress

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 1Timothy 2:11, NASB

After addressing the issue of what they should wear, Paul reaffirms (see 1Cor 14:34) their attitude toward instruction. Culturally, the rabbis had strictly prohibited women saying anything in a synagogue. Paul is extending that prohibition in the Christian church. It would seem that during services, men could comment on and perhaps debate theological issues, but women could not. Things have changed today – culturally.

For the most part during Sunday school or small Bible studies, people of both sexes are free to chime in, but during a sermon when theology is being taught, everyone holds their tongue (or at least they should*). If expressed at all, people comment or debate after the message to the minister as they leave. It's what we do today and is just as acceptable behavior now as was the practice of silent women in the first century of the church.

I believe Paul is simply restating common practice of the day just as I would encourage everyone today to hold comments for me until after the message. It's cultural.

Pressing on, Ed ><}}}>

* A long story I'll keep as short as possible. About six years ago, a deacon in our congregation who everyone knew disagreed with me politically spoke up during the sermon. The Scriptural topic was deceit and its consequences. At each point, I had an illustration of a publicly stated falsehood and the results it had on the liar's life and/or career. Two of the illustrations were from political figures and I had been purposeful in choosing one from each party. Unfortunately, I choose to use the "wrong" party first. As soon as it became clear which incident I was referring to, the deacon called out demanding that I "get off" politics.

There was a long silence. I was embarrassed and others later said that they felt the same. (Two in the meeting came later and advised that I seek a public apology because they were offended, which was the best advice I received.) I explained that the story simply exemplified my point. I finished the sermon and right or wrong, I left off the other political illustration.

Inviting him to my office a few days later, he came and after some coaxing apologized to me but stated plainly that he would leave the church before he'd give a public apology even knowing he had offended others. I was honest in stating that I really didn't want him to leave but it turned out to be the wrong decision.

I believe now based on the longer story that ensured that he saw my willingness to acquiesce as the beginning of his hold on me. More and more often, though either privately or in small business meetings, he attempted to get me to leave the congregation and thwarted efforts at moving forward. Three years later, he did leave, but with bitterness in his heart, and sorrow on the part of nearly everyone else including me in the congregation.

I for one continue to pray for him and continue to affirm that in our cultural both men and women must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness during the sermon.