I read a section from a book entitled Word, Spirit, and Power written by several authors. The area on “Women as Founders and Leaders of Congregations” was an interesting explanation of women in leadership. The first sentence appears to be the theme of the article. It reads, “Historians of early Christianity generally fail to notice the important role women played in the founding and promoting house churches.” I have posited on this site that Christianity is the product of the early church fathers. They institutionalized the teaching of Christ and the apostles by creating the church organization. Naturally, any historian of that movement will write about “founding and promoting” churches. Such a concept is the human creation that confuses a class of people known as “the called out” with the “founding and promoting” of churches. With Constantine’s influence, Christianity was forever fixed in the world as having been started by the Lord as “house churches” but evolved into the organization of churches today.
Today, the term “house churches” describes the return of churches formed in smaller groups and meeting in houses. The term is nowhere found in the Bible. However, it is believed that if churches met in houses, it is justifiable to speak of that assembly as a “house church” to distinguish it from the formation of churches in church buildings. Constantine and his contemporaries would have considered the edifices of worship as “churches.” Thus, if meeting in a home is the same place of worship, it can be rightly termed “house church.” However, the New Testament teaches that the place of worship is in the heart of His people, not a place.
This article recognizes that brethren met in homes but reads into the practice of gathering with fellow Christians a common practice of establishing churches in those homes. Additionally, it is assumed that if women were central figures in the home where the church was formed, then the women must have had a leading role in the church. It reminded me of my geometry classwork when I worked on a problem by solving the equation correctly but read into it an element that did not exist. When the teacher told me it was unsolvable,  I soon recognized that I must carefully read the problem and never assume anything. That women were part of the body and that they had spiritual gifts in the days of the apostles, one cannot deny. We have examples of a prayer meeting in the house of Mary (Acts 12:12). A sister named Apphia, who lived in Colossae, along with Philemon and Archippus, met with others in a home (Philemon 2, while Nympha of Laodicea opened her home to the saints (Col. 4:15).  Paul mentions Pricilla and Aquilla and the “ekklesia in their house” twice (1 Cor. 16:19; Rom. 16:3-4). Finally, there is the mention of the household of Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11).
Those women were keepers of the home and took a leading role in their own respective homes; one cannot deny it.  But, to assume that her leading role was in a church organization that is prevalent today is reading into the equation that does not exist.  The first paragraph of the article ends with the statement, “The assembly (Context:’ in the house . ) was called ‘the house of God,’ the ‘new temple’ because the Spirit dwelt in it.” This teaching equates the physical assembly, later defined as “gatherings,” as the temple or house of God. Again, this confuses the physical assembly with the called-out class of people. They are the people of God in whatever town they lived not because they assembled but because they were the called-out.
This is another example of how people have created problems for themselves that would never exist if they would quit defining God’s people in a town as the formation of a church organization. There is no official position of authority, no pubic display of service as standing before an assembly (audience) in a pulpit or serving the Lord’s Supper (commonly called the eucharist).  As Jesus and Paul show, these physical gatherings were private meetings regularly convened to edify and strengthen one another. If there were such a place as a “hang out” among saints, this would have been it. Who would have a problem with a woman in any modern tradition serving a plate of bread in her home? Who would have a problem with her speaking as long as she respected the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, which deals with women with a prophetic gift and wives of the prophets?
I once preached for a church whose elders thought a woman sitting in a church pew could speak in a Bible class but not in the public worship service. Why is a difference made in the two situations?  One is more relaxed and open for public discussion, while the other is a formal worship service.  The only answer is that when the first ends, she is to be quiet because of 1 Corinthians 14:34. Consequently, a new ruling is made that forces one to make the ridiculous conclusion that “in the church” in that text does not include the time allotted for the Bible study classes.
Then, we have Paul’s teaching to Timothy that does not permit a woman to teach over a man or usurp authority over a man. Some women would say that the text must be understood and applied in the church.  Yet, when Paul instructs the men in the preceding paragraph, he tells men to pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands. Nothing in the context limits their teaching over a man only when assembling in a church.  Nor does it indicate that this limitation placed upon her is applied only to her husband.  Yet, let us be clear that Paul is not saying that a woman cannot teach a man. He’s not saying she can’t teach a man in the church. He’s not even saying that a woman can’t teach her husband.  This reflects her demeanor and attitude that places her over a man in any role.
For this reason, Paul instructs women in 1 Corinthians 11 to have their heads covered when praying and prophesying. Her covering was understood to be a sign of her submission.  Just because she had a gift of Spirit did not give her the prerogative to ignore this sign. Given the day’s culture, especially if there was a Jewish influence there, it is likely that the women were taking their veils off when praying and prophesying. It wasn’t so much that they had to bring a veil with them so that whenever they prayed or prophesied, they had one handy to put over their heads. Nor does 1 Corinthians 11 set its context in a “church” setting. Instead, because these women had direct revelation from God (in the person of the Holy Spirit), leaving out the need to go through men, they took the veil off when praying and prophesying.
In all of this controversy over women and the passages that give some attention to their role, we greatly err when we apply the instructions to the workings of a local church or church organization. Take it out of your computations and read it in the context of first-century spiritual gifts, which would have been shared from house to house when saints gathered for edification. When the Holy Spirit is revealing a divine message to a woman for edification, she is not to position herself over a man (any man) or violate any cultural norm that conveys her submission like a veil did in their culture.
Furthermore, because Christians met in homes where women lived and worked does not mean that she is exempt from this teaching. On the other hand, the limitations have nothing to do with the operation of a church. She will not violate any principle by standing before a gathering to preach, as no pulpit would exist in her home for anyone to preach. She’s not presenting herself over a man by a formal serving of the Lord’s Supper because there is no public formality of serving the Lord’s Supper for anyone.  In fact, we might expect the women in their own home readily serve the needs of others, and, yes, that would include serving the Supper of the Lord. The widows who were accepted as being enrolled in 1 Timothy 5, which means that the brethren financially supported them, had proven themselves in their role of service.  Among the good deeds that described the work in their homes in verse 10 include bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble, and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. The list is not exhaustive, but you will notice that she is never cast in a teaching role. Titus 2:4-5 speaks of older women teaching younger women to be “sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God is not blasphemed.” The woman’s role has always been a supportive role, not a leadership role. Despite today’s independence and equality, the work of the early women of the first century gave attention to matters surrounding home life. Nothing is demeaning about it. It is a place of honor that no man can replace. But, it is also a distant memory in the history of many families who have abandoned their place to work in the man’s world. For what reason? Has it been to prove that she can do it just as good as any man?  Or is it to silence the arrogance of men who treat her with disrespect? Has it been worth it? I used to warn that the family was under attack. Now, I say that the family has been defeated and changed forever.
Part of this is due to the age-old problem of desiring positions of authority and establishing organizations over which men may seize greater control. The article seeks to show that women had a leading part in the church of the first century when neither men nor women had a role of leadership that they had in mind. The leaders among saints were individuals who were the rich recipients of the Spirit’s work, the means by which all were edified.  The modern-day church, with its leadership structure is not anything to covet, whether man or woman, and it is certainly not worth a woman’s pursuit and choice that would cause her to abandon her role as wife and mother.