1 Corinthians 33 - 34

[ChristIsTheWay]

1 Corinthians 33 - 34: “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.”

A member of WELS, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, told me this was proof that women can’t be lectors in the Church and claimed this was proof that the RCC is in error because we allow for women lectors. I disagree and certainly do not believe we are in error. However, I do not know how to respond and explain the real meaning of the verse, because I am not sure what it is. Anyone have ideas/advice? Thanks and God Bless.

 

[jemfinch]

1 Corinthians 33 - 34: “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.”

The key is in the very beginning.

A member of WELS, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, told me this was proof that women can’t be lectors in the Church and claimed this was proof that the RCC is in error because we allow for women lectors. I disagree and certainly do not believe we are in error.

Good!

However, I do not know how to respond and explain the real meaning of the verse, because I am not sure what it is. Anyone have ideas/advice? Thanks and God Bless.

“God is not a God of disorder, but of peace.” Paul was simply making and applying a disciplinary law to the Corinthian Church to achieve an end: order a Church that was too disorderly. The goal of his prohibition (and the others in the chapter) is to bring order to the gathering. As long as female lectors (lectrixes?) are not bringing disorder to the mass, they’re licit.

And again we come to a discipline/doctrine distinction as well. I’m sure the WELS member you interacted with would certainly not reject a blood transfusion (like the Jehovah’s Witnesses) even though Acts 15 clearly tells believers to “abstain from blood” – Acts 15 was the promulgation of a disciplinary measure, not a doctrine of the faith, just like 1 Corinthians 11.

Jeremy

 

[RyanL]

We don’t allow women to give homilies - only do the reading. Does the pitch of the voice which is simply reading the Bible (not even the Gospel) really matter? It’s not an exposition of doctrine, it’s simply reading. She’s not empowered over the congregation - she’s simply reading.

In return, you might ask the following:
If a woman sings in Church as a part of the choir, is that violating St. Paul’s prohibition?

What if the song is a Psalm?

What if the song includes words from the Gospels?

What if she has a solo?

What if she’s praying the Lord’s Prayer (which comes straight from the Gospels)?

What if someone sneezes and she says, “God bless you”?

At what point has she “not kept silent” such that it’s sinful and the Church can no longer be Christ’s Church?

Just some questions which might prove more problematic under her literalistic interpretation.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,

IMHO women are aloud to teach other women and children. They are not aloud to teach other men. I think it is because God made man the head of household and a man head of the church. So it stands to reason that a woman should not be the head of a church. It doesnt mean they have to stay silent all the time. Honestly, I dont know exactly what it means.

BTW–I am a woman and accept my place in the order of things. (Well, maybe not completely at home )

Also, woman was made to be a suitable helper for man-not to be in charge. But the fall changed all of that. We(women)want to be in charge. It is a sinful desire to want to run our households and even be ministers or priests. That is my opinion only.
What is a lector’s responsability?
Peace

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

What is a lector’s responsability?

They read Scripture at Mass. Usually there are two such readings by lectors, then the priest reads from the Gospel.

 

[Thal59]

Try to keep in mind that these first churches were occupied mostly by Jewish converts. The restriction Paul is speaking of is consistant with the lesser role the women had in the Jewish practices. It would not be advisable in the first century to change the manner of too many customs at once.

But what if one of Paul’s successors, someone whom he had laid hands upon, decided with his authority as bishop to allow a woman to read a passage from scripture during mass? The authority of the successor is as valid as Paul’s. If the rest of the church decides the practice is acceptable, then who has the authority to denigrate it?

Tell your WELS friend that as the church grows, customs are subject to change per the ongoing authority of the succesors of the apostles. (The bishops or the magesterium if you like.) Tell your friend that if he did not belong to a church that had seperated from the true apostolic church, the** normal growth and development** of the church Christ established over the last 2,000 years would not seem so alien to him.

Thal59

 

[ALLFORHIM]

They read Scripture at Mass. Usually there are two such readings by lectors, then the priest reads from the Gospel.

Thanks
Oh, ok. Im not sure how I feel about that. If they are just reading Scripture,I would think that is ok. If they are teaching Scripture to the congregation, then I think that might be wrong. Again, I have no idea and this is something I guess I dont weigh in on too often.

 

[jemfinch]

Thanks
Oh, ok. Im not sure how I feel about that. If they are just reading Scripture,I would think that is ok. If they are teaching Scripture to the congregation, then I think that might be wrong. Again, I have no idea and this is something I guess I dont weigh in on too often.

Only someone who’s received the sacrament of the Holy Orders (deacon, priest, or bishop) can say the homily at mass, which means only men can do so.

Jeremy

 

[RobNY]

A member of WELS, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, told me this was proof that women can’t be lectors in the Church and claimed this was proof that the RCC is in error because we allow for women lectors. I disagree and certainly do not believe we are in error. However, I do not know how to respond and explain the real meaning of the verse, because I am not sure what it is. Anyone have ideas/advice? Thanks and God Bless.

This is tangential to the topic at hand, but slightly ironical.

I once constructed an argument in which I attempted to show that the Lutheran interpretation of ‘the priesthood of all believers’ is invalid by mean of a reductio ad absurdum. The ironic part is that the inability of women to be priests was the lynchpin of my argument. What is ironic specifically is, if women indeed cannot be priests, then the entire basis for the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers (as Lutherans understand it) is shown to be unsound-- itself undermining the very authority of Lutheran ministers. If you’re interested in the argument, ask me about it, and I’ll see if I can help you. Unfortunately, although it was on these forums, it may now be destroyed by the crash.

-Rob

Oh and… as for the actual topic, RyanL made the best point. The Church traditionally restricts a woman from preaching in Church-- which also meshes well with Paul’s statement that he does not allow a woman to have authority over a man in Church, if you wish to interpret his statement in such a way.

 

[Ron_Conte]

IMHO women are aloud to teach other women and children. They are not aloud to teach other men. I think it is because God made man the head of household and a man head of the church. So it stands to reason that a woman should not be the head of a church. It doesnt mean they have to stay silent all the time. Honestly, I dont know exactly what it means.

Also, woman was made to be a suitable helper for man-not to be in charge. But the fall changed all of that. We(women)want to be in charge. It is a sinful desire to want to run our households and even be ministers or priest.

I agree with this statement.

The alternate interpretation of this passage, that Paul was just correcting a disorder in a particular Church is not valid. First, because it restricts the primary meaning of the passage in such a way that it has no significant meaning for today. And secondly because the mere preference for order over disorder does not explain related passage such as: ‘for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church’ and 'I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

When an interpretation of a Scripture passage reduces the meaning of that passage to the point where it teaches us nothing we do not already know apart from Revelation (such as that order is better than disorder), then that interpretation cannot be correct, for Scripture is full of meaning and of wisdom, beyond the wisdom of men.

The decisions of the Church in temporal matters, such as discipline as opposed to doctrine, are never infallible. So when the Church permits women lectors, this cannot be taken as an infallible interpretation of Scripture. As to the doctrine of men’s and women’s proper roles in the Church, this is still to some extent an open question.

Ron Conte