Women's Role in Prayer

The role of women in the act of prayer is a current and controversial subject. There has been a great deal of discussion about this issue; some of it healthy, and some of it not as constructive as a mature conversation should be. The Bible does lend itself specifically to the topic, but not in the ways that we currently discuss it. 1 Timothy 2:8 is a well worn passage for both parties involved in this debate. However, the passage itself does not determine whether or not women ought to pray in the presence of men. There are some who stand behind the idea that because of Paul’s use of the male gender word in this verse, it is clear that he teaches that men only are to pray in a mixed gender situation. This position also calls on the “principle of exclusion” to say that men are the only Christians who ought to be praying when Christians are gathered. This view, regardless of its intentions, ignores both the contextual and specific teaching from Paul. The apostle is not discussing who may or who may not pray, but his teaching is that the men ought to pray with a healthy attitude and without dissension or bickering. Conveniently placing a period in the middle of the verse during this discussion, some teachers place a great deal of focus on the phrase that “ Men ought to pray in every place”. But that is not the sentence written by the apostle. For those of us who proclaim “Back to the Bible”, this sort of interpretation simply will not do. Let me illustrate. If Paul’s use of the male gender in verse eight so strongly shows that only men can be praying in the presence of mixed genders, then verse nine clearly teaches that those same men must not “adorn themselves with proper clothing”, because Paul used the female gender word. Hermeneutics should not change from verse to verse in a contextual teaching. The principle of exclusion cannot be applied to verse eight, and then immediately discarded in verse nine when the outcome is undesirable. It is not honest study practice to do so. The sentence written by the apostle says that wherever men are praying, anywhere they might be, they should do without dissention. It seems that the men in question were having severe attitude problems, and were standing in front of Christians to lead prayers, acting as if they hadn't just now been fighting with those same Christians. So the comma in the sentence is read by some to mean that, 1. Men are the only Christians who can pray in a mixed gender environment, and , 2. That, by the way, when you do that, make sure you aren't bickering. This strongly emphazised interpretation is plain wrong. Even after all this, I find myself wondering at the value of a theological position that hinges on the assumed voice inflection and comma position is a single sentence. I don't think the issue is quite that complicated at all.

Allow me to point out that it is my conviction that women ought not pray in the public assembly of Christians. But my view is based upon the totality of New Testament scripture, and the examples and inferences contained in it that teach about this idea of prayer. My conviction is also based upon the truth that humans tend to take things too far. If we allow women to pray in the assembly, then it will be a short step to contradict other clear teaching of our roles. The main reason most people hold to the idea that women cannot pray in any mixed gender setting is due to the combination of I Tim 2:8 and 2:12, which states that a woman cannot have authority over a man. The interpretation then, is that praying while a man is present is equal to assuming authority over him. However, this conviction is based not in Paul’s teaching but in the realm of a conscience that is offended by women praying. There is nothing wrong with sensitivity towards women praying in the presence of men, but for the sake of honesty, it needs to be admitted that this is a matter of conscience and not a matter of biblical doctrine. Paul never teaches that a woman praying is an issue of authority. It certainly can be, but not because it just “is”. If critical thinking is applied it would be noticed that the issue of intent is being blatantly ignored in this whole discussion. We in the church agree that a person’s intent in baptism can mean the difference between salvation and a bath. And that is true. So if intent plays a part so strongly in a person’s salvation, surely it plays a part in issues that are not salvation oriented. What needs to be considered is not whether Paul’s one time use of the male gender should forever and ultimately disbar women from praying to God while men are around, but whether the intent of the person praying is worth the distinction. Is the woman praying in order to take away authority? Are the men allowing her to pray with the intention of giving their authority away? And doesn’t maturity play a part in this as well? If she is not praying with the thought of stepping outside of the boundaries of what she understands to be her God given role, then how is it that authority is being infringed upon? I know that discussion should and will follow, but I propose that a man’s role of authority, which is given by God, is not so fickle that it can be destroyed or taken away so easily. It is not so vulnerable that men should prohibit their wives from praying in front of them. It is not so trite that unrealistic interpretations need to be conjured in order to hold to a certain conviction.