It's impossible to deny that the Bible explicitly teaches that women should be silent in church:
"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim 2:11-14).
"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).
There are New Testament mentions of women as leaders and prophets, but they can't cancel out the clear instructions quoted above. We have to deal with these scriptures one way or another rather than sweep them under the rug and live with cognitive dissonance.
Some try to address these awkward scriptures by suggesting they only reflect a cultural issue at the time. It would be convenient if this were true, but it is clear from the 1 Timothy reference that Paul considered women's silence to be a doctrinal matter:
"…for Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression."
It's always tempting to ignore the inconvenient truth, but doing so never serves the Church well in the long run. The truth is that the New Testament explicitly and repetitively teaches that women should be silent in church. The real question, then, is how we read and apply the Bible.
The False Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy
Biblical inerrancy wasn't taught for the majority of church history. It might surprise many to learn it is a modern doctrine, pulled together in the 19th century as a defense against Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859). Instead of facing the valid challenge of a literal reading of Genesis, biblical inerrancy was concocted in order to oppose the important scientific discoveries of the time.
The doctrine of inerrancy was and is a fearful reaction to difficult questions, urging believers to switch off their brains and consider doing so an act of worship. Inerrancy became even more entrenched in 1978 when hundreds of conservative leaders wrote the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy to resist non-literal interpretations of the Bible that many were embracing.
To be clear, believing in biblical inerrancy is not required, and Jesus certainly didn't think that way!
The Bible was never meant to be a legal text. It was written over about 1,500 years by around 40 different authors, living in different periods under a range of circumstances and pressures from a variety of different cultures. It contains poetry, philosophy, letters, Gospels, histories, mythology, and prophecies, all of which need to be understood on their terms. The Bible is not a flawless manual for life but instead reflects the perspectives and limitations of each writer, even as the Spirit guides them.
There is so much beauty and inspiration within it, along with wisdom for personal growth. It draws us to love, but only when interpreted to us by the Holy Spirit. Instead of letting it draw us to God, we have tried to make it God instead. We've turned this beautiful anthology of wisdom into a legalistic prison, preferring to exalt the word of truth over the living Word of God, Jesus Christ.
Compassion Has Always Overridden the Dead Letter of Scripture
Back in pre-abolition days, many churches believed that the Bible taught that slavery was part of the natural order of things. The Church was divided on the matter, but those who resisted abolition would quote from the Bible as their justification. For instance, Paul's injunction that enslaved people should obey their masters (and that masters should be good to their slaves) was used to justify keeping things as they were.
Over hard-fought decades, justice came out on top, and slavery was abolished. It is easy to understand how verses about the biblical way to keep slaves would have slowed down progress and made it harder to reach a consensus. After all, it's in the Bible, right?
The same can be said of how women are seen and treated in the Church. When women campaigned to get the vote, the church was divided over the matter. While some denominations were supportive, others opposed suffrage, quoting scripture to justify the argument that a woman's duties were domestic rather than political.
Asking whether or not the Bible promotes a specific stance on a social matter can be confusing when the Bible teaches so much that we no longer practice it in our societies. We no longer stone people for adultery or for breaking the Sabbath, even though the Bible clearly says to do so.
In Paul's second epistle to Timothy, he encourages him to "rightly divide the word of truth." Why would the word of truth need to be divided? Because of the complexity of its nature. Are we to read instructions about how women should behave in the same way we approach the Gospels? Surely, the answer is no. The Gospels are the core record of the heart of our faith – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus; an epistle is a letter, sent from one person to another or a group, addressing specific, often temporary concerns.
Inerrancy forces us to close our hearts and our minds, imposing a glass ceiling on women in the Church. In the Southern Baptist movement, for example, Rick Warren's church was kicked out of the wider Southern Baptist fellowship for appointing women as pastors. The Southern Baptists refuse women leadership roles, even when they have leadership gifts, which is a direct assault on the Holy Spirit, who portions out gifts to each of us for use in service.
The hard truth is that the Bible was written exclusively by men, living in cultures in which women took second or third place. For the vast majority of human history, women have been treated as second-class citizens at best, including and sometimes especially in the Church. Leaders have hidden behind the instructions for women to remain silent as previous generations did to verses about how to manage slaves, using the text as a shield against compassion and basic decency.
When we impose literal interpretations of scripture from an outdated cultural context upon our own modern culture, we act as if humanity has learned nothing in the past 2000 years, including the life-saving advancements of psychology. In this sense, irresponsibility is willful ignorance.
Women deserve so much better than they are given in much of the Church. They deserve to be honored, respected, and esteemed, just as Jesus honored, respected and esteemed the women he encountered while on Earth.
Paul's teachings on women's silence ought to be brought out from under the carpet, and instead of hiding from difficult questions, we should clearly, fully, and finally agree that those instructions are no longer applicable today, just as the verses on slavery are now obsolete.
