1 Corinthians 14: Prophecy and Tongues

I'm still not quite sure what to make of the gift of speaking in tongues, but Paul seems to less than inclined to make speaking in tongues an integral part of a community worship service.  Perhaps there were people in Corinth who were speaking in tongues and wearing the gift like a badge of honor.  He validates tongues as something to build up the individual, but in the corporate setting Paul is much more interested in those who can bring an understandable message from God.

"Eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (v. 1)
"But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort." (v. 3)
"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying?" (v. 8)
"I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." (v. 19)

You have to admire the practicality of Paul's faith.  If his faith does nothing to build up others, it is far less valuable than a faith that builds the Body of Christ, particularly in the context of the corporate worship setting that Paul is outlining in this chapter.

The end of the chapter provides more direction for orderly worship.  People who have something to say that fails to benefit the entire group are encouraged to do so on their own time.  This applies to speaking in tongues (v. 28), those who are prophesying (v. 30), and women who have questions (v. 35).  The last part about women comes across as a chauvinistic command, and I agree with people who struggle with the line "it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church" (v. 35).  I found something written by Amanda Beattie that  helped me make sense of this passage:

  Paul clearly wasn’t forbidding tongues-speakers and prophets from ever speaking in the church at all. Neither was he forbidding women from doing so.

With all three groups of people, we see two clear points being made. One point is demonstrating theinappropriate time and manner in which to speak, and the other lays out the appropriate time and manner in which to speak. Paul is not regulating the activity, but only the context in which it is done.

We also see that Paul was topically consistent when addressing each group. Paul didn’t tell the tongues-speakers, “Be silent in church. If you have something to say, give a prophecy  between yourself and God.” He told them to be silent, and to speak (in tongues) between themselves and God. The type of speech/silence is consistent.

He didn’t tell the prophets, “Be silent in church. If you have something to say, go speak in tongues when it’s your turn.” He told them to be silent, and to prophesy in turn. The type of speech/silence is consistent.

So why should we then try to say that Paul is telling the women to be silent and not preach, and then if they have something to say, go ask their husbands at home? There’s no consistency in that statement. If Paul is redirecting the women’s speech into the appropriate context, he wouldn’t suddenly change the terms of what they were trying to do in the first place. Again, Paul is not regulating the activity, but only the context. Asking questions in the middle of the teaching was the wrong time and place. The right time and place was later, at home, when they weren’t going to disrupt the whole assembly.