Why do you conclude that the praying and prophesying of 1 Corinthians 11 is not a part of church activity? How do you define a church gathering in which women would not be permitted to speak?
This text is from an article written by David Gooding in 1987.
My first reason: In 1 Corinthians 14:33–34, Paul plainly says 'As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches' (ASV). The occurrence in this one verse of two similar phrases, 'As in all the churches of the saints' and 'in the churches', is not tautologous. (For the punctuation between verses 33 and 34, see the modern versions.) The first occurrence bids the Corinthians take notice that the custom of the women remaining silent in the churches was universal among the early Christian communities. The second occurrence defines where it is they are asked to remain silent: 'in the churches' as distinct from other places. I take it that this plain statement makes it clear that the praying and prophesying by women, for which Paul gives directions in 1 Corinthians 11:5ff, was not done in the churches but was done elsewhere.
My second reason: The idea that, while it would be appropriate for a woman to exercise her gift of prophecy elsewhere, it would not be appropriate in the church, is not a strange or forced idea thought up by conservative traditionalists. The same principle is applied—though for a different reason—to the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:18–19 ('howbeit in the church') and again in 1 Corinthians 14:28 ('let him keep silence in the church'). Notice the close similarity between this expression and that in 1 Corinthians 11:34. Similarly, the regulation which Paul introduces for the observance of the Lord's Supper (see 1 Corinthians 11:20, 22, 34) makes the same point that activity which is appropriate in the house is not necessarily appropriate in the church. There is also the small, but perhaps significant, point that Paul's first reference in this context to the believers coming together in a church capacity is at 1 Corinthians 11:17 and not at 1 Corinthians 11:2.
My third reason: It is widely held now that 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 should be understood in connection with 1 Corinthians 14:29. When a prophet spoke, others could ask him questions in order to elucidate and, if need be, to criticize and correct his doctrine. But it is argued that verses 1 Corinthians 11:34–35 forbid women, not to exercise their own gift publicly, but simply to join in this questioning of the prophets (or teachers, etc.). And for this reason it is further suggested that, under the guise of asking questions, they might challenge the authority of the male prophets and surreptitiously assume the role of teacher, which is not permitted to them (1 Timothy 2:12).
I do not myself believe this interpretation to be true. If this is what Paul meant, he surely would have said so. He would have given as his reason why women are not permitted to speak in the church but to ask their questions at home, that 'it is a shame for women to exercise authority over the men' (as he does in 1 Timothy 2:12). But this is not the reason he gives. The reason they are to ask their questions at home and not in the church is that, while it would be perfectly appropriate for them to speak and ask questions in the home, it would be unbecoming for them to do so in the church.
My fourth reason: In Israel, following their understanding of the Law of what was becoming, prophetesses did not exercise their gift as part of the formal services of the temple or of the synagogue but, like Anna in the temple courts, on more informal occasions. First Corinthians 14:34 suggests that Paul would have understood the Law as carrying these same implications.
In response to the second part of your question: When it comes to defining a church meeting, it seems to me that the New Testament does not lay down precise regulations. On the other hand, there are obviously times we would all find it easy and important to distinguish between a meeting of the church and other kinds of meetings. Suppose, for instance, a Christian householder invites twenty or thirty fellow Christians to his home to spend time in singing hymns, prayer and Bible-reading. Presumably all would agree that, as householder, he has the right to decide who shall be invited and who shall not. But suppose, by his invitation, the local church holds its meetings in his house. Then surely the householder would not have the right to decide, simply because he is the householder, who should be entitled to attend and be members of the church. That surely would be a matter for the elders of the church; and the householder might not even be an elder.
