ChristiansUnite Forums

  1 CORINTHIANS 14:34 SAYS THAT WOMEN ARE TO KEEP SILENCE IN CHURCH AND THAT WE ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK.
  THIS CHAPTER IS MOSTLY ABOUT SPEAKING IN TONGUES AND WAS WONDERING IF IT MEANT THAT WOMEN WER5E NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK IN TONGUES OR JUST NOT TO SPEAK AT ALL?
  ALSO SEARCHING THE BIBLE TO FIND WERE A WOMEN'S PLACE IS IN THE CHURCH.  I THOUGHT I READ SOME WHERE THAT WOMEN ARE ALSO TO PRAY IN SILENCE BUT CAN'T SEEM TO FIND IT OFF HAND.

  ANY HELP WOULD BE GREATFULL
  THANK YOU

Hi Bawilli,

About your question, let me say that what I will say is going to be disagreed with by many and has been already on other threads and forums.   But, and let me tell you up front, this is not a simple answer.  I don't think there is one.  Your question is more difficult than you may know.   There are whole schools of thought and whole denominations that adhere to them that say Paul meant exactly what he said, for all women, in all churches.   There are others that say what he said was cultural and concerned a particular matter at the particular time he wrote it.

Here is what I posted on another forum.   Hope it helps somewhat to answer your very good question:

Take 1 cor 14:34 for example:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

For those who think this applies across the gender, the logic goes "Ok, if you can't talk, you sure can't for instance, prophesy, or preach, or teach.  Then, in many minds is added, "in fact, you are "commanded" to be under  the man; why, even the law says so."  A corrective word here seems needful:  "commanded" is not even in the manuscripts, surprise, surprise.  

As for the law saying so, I sought diligently and found not one of the 10 commandments that have mention of women speaking or not speaking in the churches.   Also found none in the books of law of the Bible.    

So you gotta ask yourself, what law is Paul speaking about?  Jewish doctine, perhaps, but surely man-made, and not God ordained.  When combined with the non-existent "commanded" however, this "commandment" has the appearance of spiritual authority, but lacks the reality of it.  

Now, let's take a better look at this verse AND its context:   Let your women keep silence in the churches for it is not "permitted" (KJV Greek Lexicon defines (first definition) this as "to turn to, transfer, commit, instruct" and only the 2nd definition is "to permit, allow, give leave "."   Why was the 2nd definition used?  

Is it possible that it was because the transcribers over the years were male and that is the way that seemed appropriate to them, considering their cultural context?  If anyone can honestly say "no" to that I'm not going to argue, but you are wrong.  

If you put the first words from the first definition into the statement you can come up with things like...."for they are not turned to to speak", an absolute statement of fact FOR THE CULTURAL CONTEXT:  Neither the "heathen" Greeks nor the Jews allowed women to speak in public.  Greek women are documented as being kept incommunicado by the males who "ruled" them, by many historical archives.  Jews prayed every morning, "Thank you, God, for not making me a woman".  For all I know, the observant ones still do.   I DOUBT that means they hold (held) women in high esteem.

As for the women not speaking in church, Paul himself says in verse 23 of this passage, "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?"

Notice he says "whole" church, and if "all" speak in tongues...

and in verse 24 "But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:"

notice it is "all" who prophesy (not "you men") and ALL who convince the unbelieving and ALL who are said to have "judged" the unbeliever.

Verse 25 says:  And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

By the prophesying of ALL, the speaking of ALL, whether in tongues or prophesy, the unbelieving is now convinced that God is among them.  

How then is Paul supposed to be saying, "oh yeah, you women, you keep silent".   The cultural context seems to be the only explanation!   A paraphrase might be something like:  

"You are not "turned to" or "expected" (in today's words) to speak in public, by the unbelieving, so be under "obedience".  (If you see an unbeliever in the midst of the church), remember it is not to you they will turn to to hear teaching or behaving with authority...walk with circumspection in your prophesying or speaking in tongues.  

As for being under "obedience", that word is defined as (ibid):

1.  to arrange under, to subordinate
2.  to subject, put in subjection
3,  to subject one's self, obey
4.  to submit to one's control
5.  to yield to one's admonition or advice
6.  to obey, be subject

These definitions definitively indicate a VOLUNTARY submission and not a "command performance" of silence.
 
How male Christians can possibly interpret this passage to mean "we rule, we alone can lead, and if we don't there will be chaos", is highly illogical.  

Paul certainly didn't say that here, and he didn't only speak to women in this passage which he wrapped up by saying in verse 40 "Let all things be done decently and in order".  This is the same message he pointed out in verse after verse:

(28-33, for instance):  28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
   
As for women's place in the church, I'm convinced that it is wherever the calling of God places them.   Some are gifted teachers, others are gifted at being "mothers in Israel" to the congregation they meet with, some are evangelists, others might be called to go to the mission field.   If the church were not currently so much an audience, speaker type of situation, if all did as Paul spoke of, having a psalm, hymn, prophecy, etc when gathered together, we'd soon know what our calling is, I think.  

As it is, we have to depend on an interior knowing and that in spite of well-meaning negative input if you do happen to share your "vision".     God is able, thankfully, to overcome all obstacles to let us know what He has called us to do in this life.   Put yourself in His hands and ask Him to show you the way He has chosen for you.  It might happen instantly that He will tell you, but more likely there will be, over time, a certain "knowing" in your inner man that "this" is what I'm all about.

 I agree with you peh. I don't fully understand the context from which 1 cor 14:34 was given. I have not studied it.

But I do know that God has used women in powerful ways in the Old and New Testament.

Here's five I can think of from the Old Testament.

 Rahab, Deborah, Jael, Bathsheba, and Esther.

In re your question..........


Have you ever tried to keep one silent?  


 ;D


Now, without the tongue in cheek......

Paul was specifically addressing an specific problem, in a specific church, at a specific time, and it primarily related to unrestrained behavior during the church meetings.  Because of the context, and to whom the specific admonition is directed, it would be reasonable to assume that:
1. It was mostly women who were doing the talking, and
2. The men were not taking any position of leadership or restraint in the matter, resulting in:
3. A lack of edification and exhortation in accordance with what God wanted.

There are as many "opinions" on this subject as there are Christians...and each and every one of them can dig up "proof" texts to support their position.

I think we would all do well to examine the entirety of the NT, and especially Paul's writings, to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to the role of women in ministry...both within and without the church meeting.

Here (http://www.john812.com/women.pdf) is a link to a study (about 5 pages) on women in ministry. It's a PDF, so it should download automatically. Read it at your leisure.

If it was up to me, they wouldn't speak anywhere ;D Not Like they ever have anything worth hearing, right?:P ;D

Wouldn't that be heavenly!!!

;D

Uh...yeah.....sure......um hmmmmmm! ;)

Don't know if this will help or not......
http://www.ntrf.org/silent2.html

Interesting site. The appear to be a little confused, though, they are convergance who think they are Evangelical.

Dear Bawilli,
Unfortunately, the attitude of much of the Church today toward women revolves around two difficult to interpret passages written by St. Paul. I am addressing the one mentioned in your post.

St. Paul was a very sarcastic person and it shows up in his writings. The best interpretation that I have found revolves around this sarcasm - allow me to explain.

1 Cor. 14:34-37 (KJV)  (Quotation)
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.  [35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

The passage then continues…

[36] What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? [37] If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Note that I have added quotation marks around the sarcastic verses to indicate that St. Paul is quoting the words of someone in the Church probably a "Judiazer", someone - who in judging from the text - considered himself a prophet in that local body.  Obviously, all St. Paul wanted to do was correct this individual - not dwell on it to a point of driving him (them) out of the Church.

The following is a quote from Dr. John Gustavson.
Quote:
Professor Sir William Ramsey, the most widely accepted authority on St. Paul in the early 1900's says "we should be ready to suspect Paul is making a quotation from the letter addressed to him by the Corinthians whenever he alludes to their knowledge, or when any statement stands in marked contrast either with the immediate context or with Paul's known views." Considering Paul's views on the ministries of Priscilla, Phoebe and others referred to earlier, it is clear that Paul believed in equality of women in ministry. Moreover, ICor 14:34,35, if taken totally literally, cannot refer to the Old Testament Scriptures when speaking of the Law for there is not one trace from Genesis to Malachi of any such prohibition of women to literally keep silent in the church nor is there a single word in the whole "law of Moses" dealing with the subject. Therefore the words, "it is not permitted" and "as also saith the Law" must refer to some rule outside of Scripture. There was no other, but the Oral Law of the Jews appealed to by the Judaizers in the church in their efforts at that time to bring Christianity back within the confines of Judaism.

The Jewish Oral Law did teach the silencing of women. The Talmud also taught that it was "a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men". However, the Oral Law of the Jews is not Scripture. Again, the reference to the "law" is, of itself, sufficient to show that the Apostle who labored so earnestly to free the Christian Church from the very shadow of Judaism was not expressing his own conviction in the language attributed to him.  Paul never appealed to the "law" for the guidance of the Church of Christ, but, on the contrary, declared that believers were dead to the law by the body of Christ" (Ro 7:4) that they might serve in newness of spirit and not the oldness of the letter (v.6).)"
Close quote:

Because the quote was given in a Sarcastic tone, it simply means that the exact opposite was true because he was mimicking or mocking a Judiaser and not making a statement.

Some translations like the KJV and the Amplified Bible insert the word "What!" at the beginning of vs. 36. What is the "What!" there for? This is an expression of outrage at the previous verses or quotations (33-35). Verses 36 - 38 should be read with an element of anger. Verse 37 continues where he is upbrading someone who thought themselves to be a Prophet in the Church. Obviously the person he quoted in vs. 33-35. As Ramsey suggests, 1CO was probably written in response to a letter sent to him by the Corinthians.

You may want to read one of my sources on this - Dr. John Gustavson's papers - part one and two on Women in the Church. The address is as follows...
 
               www.ncinter.net/~ejt/women1.htm

               www.ncinter.net/~ejt/women2.htm    

Codger

 I don't think sarcasm is part of the Holy Bible my friend.
The verse is most likely written to address a specific situation where some women in a specific congragation were disrespecting the Church by socializing at the service.

Dear BS,
I appreciate your insight and perceptive comments. It makes the hour and a half that I spent writing my first post on this site really seem worthwhile. I really feel welcome here.

With all of the insight given you by the holy spirit and the kindness and maturity expressed on this site I am sure your board will be a complete success. I know your kind attitude and considerate welcome makes me want to be a regular here on CU. Keep up the good fight for the truth of literalism - it's the only way.

Larry

Brother Larry,

The comment given appears to be fairly simple and considerate. Sarcasm is not a part of the Holy Bible, and that's all that was said. The portion of Scripture you quoted involves Paul admonishing the Corinthians and telling them how to restore peace and order in their services. Paul addressed numerous issues. I do hope that you enjoy Christians Unite. We do have a large number of sweet Christians here.

Love In Christ,
Tom

John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

 Very ironic post. :P

Tom Wrote:
 Brother Larry,
"The comment given appears to be fairly simple and considerate. Sarcasm is not a part of the Holy Bible, and that's all that was said. The portion of Scripture you quoted involves Paul admonishing the Corinthians and telling them how to restore peace and order in their services. Paul addressed numerous issues. I do hope that you enjoy Christians Unite. We do have a large number of sweet Christians here."

Dear Tom,
I am wondering what version of the Bible you are reading? Mine is full of people with charater deficiencies all the way through from one cover to the other. That is what makes it so believable - it doesen't reek of embellishment. St. Paul was a sarcastc hothead, who was often at odds with his fellow disciples.

Is murder a part of the Holy Bible? How about Adultry? Have you heard of a Bible character named David? Sorry, I don't follow your logic at all on this.

One of the major problems with people reading the Bible is they try to understand these ancient documents with a 21st century western mind - It doesent work in a lot of cases. Often these opinions are no where near reality in the face of the historical facts. There is no greater example of this than the modern dispensational view of eschatology - it is absurd the unrestrained freedom and liberties that people take with the book of Revelation.

Larry

 Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit my friend. He was a murderer at one time, but then he ran into a person you might have read about, His name is Jesus. Jesus changed a murderer into a minister - a Christian hater into a Christian lover, and a soul winner. Paul was not sarcastic.

 How many members do you think a sarcastic pastor would have? Most people I know don't respond too well to sarcasm. People tend to get their backs up against the wall when confronted by sarcasm.

 Yes, murder and adultery are part of the Holy Bible. So, in your mind this leads you to conclude that Paul was sarcastic?

 Was Jesus sarcastic also? What about murder? that's part of the Holy Bible, so was Jesus a murderer and an adulterer as well? That's severely flawed logic my friend.

 I think what's really going on, is that you have supplanted your own tendency toward sarcasm into the scriptures.

 By the way - nice way to begin your fellowship here at C.U.
I'm sure your sarcastic brand of Christianity will gain you many friends.

How’s that for sarcasm! :P

   

Codger,
  Keep posting  some times it takes a while for folks to understand each other.

I can hear sarcasim in the writings of Paul and verbal abuse ( well disierved) in the very words of Jesus. I do believe the Jewish way of explaining things lends to sarcasim. Don't ya just wish sometimes you could set under the teaching of Paul knowing the language and all that stuff. A summer of teaching from a Rabbi was great fun...

Most folks here are pleasent and many will share different bibical views with out comdemnation. Just as in any group we have or ups and downs.

Codger,
Tom (blackeyedpeas, Mr. Bepster), what ever nick or name, is a very good moderator. Give yourself some time this is mostly a nice place.

 

hello Reba, I noticed you left out my name on your list of "good moderators"  :P

Did you check the message I sent you via private message?

Sorry Tom and Bronzy, I have to stand with Larry and Reda o this. Sarcasm is a part of the Holy Bible. Hyperboles, metaphores, irony, satire, all of it is a part of the Bible.

 I can't believe this has to be explained...

When I said sarcasm was not part of the Holy Bible, I didn't think I'd have to elaborate that I was speaking of Christ's disciples and His chosen ministers. There is obviously all those evil, negative things throughout the entire Bible. However, whenever men such as David fell short and indulged in such Godless acts, they suffered the consequences for it. God makes examples of such disobedience throughout the entire Bible. Lot's wife disobeyed God, look what happened to her, Adam and Eve disobeyed God, we all know what happened after that. God doesn't reward disobedience. Paul was somewhat hot headed, there's no denying that, but he was not sarcastic.

  Paul was known to criticize or rebuke people, but Jesus also did that. Criticism does not rise to the level of sarcasm - sarcasm is used to intentionally wound people.

 There are definitely dark elements in the Bible - yes, all the things you listed. However, sarcasm was not a tactic of Paul's ministry. How could anyone take him seriously if he was sarcastic? Why would he be revered if he was sarcastic?

 Please point out some of Paul's sarcasm. It's not enough to simply say "Paul was sarcastic" and leave it at that. Give examples of this sarcasm. Is sarcasm an attribute of Jesus?

Paul is a very important teacher in the New Testament. He brought the Lord to Gentiles. Jesus personally selected Paul and miraculously changed Paul's life in order to fulfill His mission. Paul was not sarcastic!

 I am at times sarcastic, it's one of my major faults, and I struggle with it. I admit this. Paul was physically, up close and personally touched by Almighty God - Jesus Christ. Paul suffered tremendously while never bending or conceding even an inch to his tormentors. he went to his death because he was obedient to Jesus.

 You people need to get a grip on this one.

 I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you were not familiar with the difference between sarcasm and criticism.

Voice inflection is a major component of sarcasm. Since we cannot hear this when we read the Bible it can be hard to discern whether there was intended sarcasm or not.

The example given, 1Cor 14:36 is one of those that might be seen in that manner. Paul was not perfect, he was flesh just as we are and very capable of sinning. As was said before in this thread the Holy Spirit was in him quite strongly and spoke through him when he preached or gave directions to the church.

If we look at Pauls overall preaching methods we do not see even a hint of sarcasim anywhere else. In 1Cor 14:36 he was simply asking questions of these people that was a form of chastising in the same manner that Jesus used. One of these examples can be found in:

Mat 11:7  And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?

Was Jesus also sarcastic?  

There is one verse here that was referenced yet nothing was said about it.

1Co 14:38  But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


As to women speaking in the church ....

Yes, Paul used several very Godly women to assist him in doing Gods work. God used women throughout the Bible to do his work.

If we put this in with the other portions of scripture in the Bible we then see what positions and manners of service that women are to have in the church.

1 Cor. 14-38

But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Matthew Henry says the following:

"It is just of God to leave those to the blindness of their own minds who willfully shut out the light.  Those who would be ignorant in so plain a case were justly left under the power (italics emphasis, mine) of their mistake".

It isn't hard to believe it has to be explaiend at all, Bronzy. When you are wrong to start with, and you don't explain an incorrect statement, there are bound to be a lot of people who don't have a clue what you are talking about. When you said "sarcasm was not part of the Holy Bible" we assumed you meant that sarcasm was not part of the Holy Bible. Silly us, uh? ::) We are not mind readers, Bronzy. Try not to make such a generalized statement next time. The Holy Bible may only mean a few of the NT books to you, but the rest of us consider it to be the WHOLE Bible, OT and NT.

And why do you speak of sarcasm as if it where a bad thing? Should me a single statement in the Bible or extra-biblical teaching of the Church Fathes (I'm tryign to make this easier on you) that would even imply that sarcasm is in something a Godly man would use!

:D

SHhh

 First of all I'm not wrong. You are  ;)

Secondly, taken in context with the statement I was responding to you should have got it. Tom and Pastor Roger had no trouble with it.
Third, no one has shown me any examples of this sarcasm, which Paul is supposed to have used.

 Here's another thing. You say "we" and "us" are you the spokesperson for others?


"Should me a single statement in the Bible?? The Church Fathes? I’m trygn to make this easier on you?? Maybe you should try and make it easier on yourself my tongue twisted friend  :D

 Finally, you don't know what sarcasm means if you believe "sarcasm is in something a Godly man would use!"

A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.

 sarcasm

n : witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Johathan Swift [syn: irony, satire, caustic remark]

You may notice my tone is a bit rough Tibby, but some of the "sarcastic" statements you made including this..Really highlights my point that sarcasm is not a teaching method, which can be implemented with any positive effect. As a matter of fact, it gets people a wee bit steamed at times.
I'm not in good health at the moment, so my temper is shorter than usual. To be honest with you, I'm getting sick and tired of being constantly attacked by my fellow "Christians"

I'm striking back a wee bit here, but believe me I am taking it easy on you.

There are other Christians here who I have offended in the past. I actually apologized even though there was plenty of blame for both parties, but instead of forgiveness I get snide comments, and childish remarks. That's not what Christianity is all about friends, we're supposed to be forgiving, and we're supposed to accept our fair share of blame when there's a problem. Some of us think we are too special to go that route.

 I think I'll leave this forum for a while, and take some time to heal and cool down.

 God bless you my brothers and sisters.

Brothers and Sisters,

God's WORD is sharper than any two-edged sword, and it cuts everyone who reads it, the saved and the unsaved. However, it does not use twisted wit or humor to instruct, neither is it a comedy. The Holy Bible wasn't written to entertain or harm. It is the most serious book ever written, and it is THE WORD OF GOD. This reason alone should be enough for any Christian to give this precious book the reverence and respect it deserves.

I would think that the above should be a given, but it evidently isn't with some. I would hope this post is simply food for thought. It certainly isn't my intention to debate this issue, and I won't. I'll simply say this is sad and leave it at that. If anyone wishes to debate this further, I would simply ask that respect and reverence be given to God's Word.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I think you need to read it in context again, then.



It is called plural first person voice, and it is fun to use.



So, you are saying godly men to not get a little heated with their language? Oh really? I think I will let the bible make my case for me. In fact, I'm not even going to leave the book of Matthew to find examples of "witty language used to convey insults or scorn"

Matthew 8:22- What is this but sarcasm? Surely Jesus was not pushing for people to use Zombies and Undertakers? Surely he was not saying let the bodies just pile up where they fall.

Matthew 11:18-19- Is that Irony I detect?

Matthew 23- This is the Main event, right here, the verse you've all been waiting for! I started off listing different verses with harsh words, but I stopped when I realised almost every other verse was a verbal attack used by Jesus. He called Pharisees fools, hypocrites, wicked, and even snakes! Spitefully? Oh yeah! Povastive teaching method, nope, but it sure got its point across.


 

I do nto see where this ties into use. I do not recall any time where you offended me, apologized for it, or got a snide comment in return to your goodwill from me.

Is there a problem? I guess so. When you seem to taking years worth of abuse out on one person in an internet forum, I think we do have a problem.



Tried that and it was here waiting for me when I came back. 90% of my friends (and enemies) had  left, but it was still here,  The problem in not the people of the forum, it is the topics. Religion is a touchy subject, a subject that even people without a religion (e.i. atheist) get worked up about. People hijack planes and crash them into buildings over religion. People start wars over religion. People die just to get there point heard. I think it only show that we as a race have a long way to go.

However, I believe I may do that same. Again. ;D

Amen, Beps.

Jesus would not use comedy or humor in order to chastise someone, therefore His words could not and should not be considered sarcasm.

"It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill.  The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the Gospel.  The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.  But what does it matter?  The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preasched.  (Ephesians 6:15-18)

envy

rivalry

selfish ambition

not sincerely

stirring up trouble

false motives

Would it be preferable for men with these characteristics to lead the Church, while more competent women who would preach out of love, goodwill and in defense of the Bible are relegated to secondary positions.  Does gender take priority over one's relationship with God - apparently in some churches it does!

It matters a lot my friend.
Paul was a great man who sacrificed much in order to live a Christ-like life. Paul was murdered for his faith. So when people go around saying he was sarcastic, it really undermines his whole ministry, and makes a mockery of Jesus Christ.

 What would a person who is searching for Truth think when a supposedly mature Christian tells him that the great ministers of Jesus Christ were a bunch of sarcastic hotheads, and these men are supposed to be Christ-like? This is the kind of attitude being taken up by the Islamic clerics.

If I were looking for the True God and I thought Christianity was taught by such men as that, I would turn and run in the opposite direction.

 Notice that the person who began this thread has not given a single example of this supposed sarcasm? The person who began this thread conveniently disappeared. Makes you
wonder what his motives were in starting such a thread.

Hi In answer to the original question , Yes the text means just what it says , it seems harsh , and it is Gods order in the church .
If we dont follow Gods order in the church, then where is it followed?  1cor 14v33 For God is not the author of confusion,but of peace,AS IN ALL CHURCHES OF THE SAINTS.

verses 34,35, are apart of the order of the churches.
verse 37 tells us these are also commands of the Lord, not just a cultural thing as some would like to argue.
verse 40 says let all things be done decently and in order , (the order that he is giving in this context).

I know of churches that still practise this so its still current.
But surely not popular.

If people think its unfair , they would find other religions even more unfair  for women .

Ive never yet heard a women speak with authority , its not hers biblically , in the New testament church by Gods Order.