DHK,
The Bible does not teach that women cannot speak in tongues. The verse about women keeping silent in the church is not _immediately_ after the instructions on tongues. It comes right after the instructions about prophesying. If you believe that women were not to speak in tongues in church, then you would certainly agree with the idea that women were not to prophesy in church, right?
But then you have a problem to deal with. Acts 2 says that the sons and _daughters_ would prophesy. Philip had four daughters that prophesied. I Corinthians 11 even talks about women prophesying. So it is clear that women can prophesy, and the issue for discussion is how that relates to the command that women keep silent _in the church._
If you believe in a near-absolute-silence position when it comes to women in church, then you have to concede that women were allowed to use the gift of prophecy outside of the church meetings. (Of course, you do not have to conceed that, unless you want to be logical.)
Then you would have to revamp your beliefs about not using spiritual gifts outside of the church. I Corinthians does not limit the use of prophecy or tongues to church meetings, no matter what you say. It is clear from scripture that there were times when prophecy was used in one-on-one situations or in small groups. The gift, however, works for the common good. It is clear from scripture that miracles were done in situations outside of a meeting of the local church for mutual edification. Peter, John, and Paul did miracles while evangelizing. One of Paul's miracles was done while he and Barnabas were evangelizing a bunch of pagan Gentiles, so there is not much of a case you can make for that crowd being a 'church.' So the only logical conclusion here is that your interpretation that 'for the common good' means that gifts must only be used in church meetings is wrong. Common sense should be enough to tell us that. 'For the common good' just doesn't mean 'only in church meetings.'
If women could prophesy outside of church, then it makes sense that some of them might be able to speak in tongues outside of church. And if you would look at Acts 1 and 2, then we see that Mary and some other women were numbered among the 120! So there goes your theory that women cannot speak in tongues.
I Corinthians 14 does not forbid tongues outside of church. You argue that tongues do not edify the speaker unless they are interpreted. You contradict Paul, who teaches that tongues edify the speaker, and if they are interpreted, they can edify the church.
I Corinthians 14 tells the one who would speak in tongues that if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church and let him speak to himself and to God. The restriction on interpreting only applies 'in the church.'
You interpret Paul's statement "...I speak in tongues more than ye all....' to refer to Paul speaking in foreign languages in evangelism. Of course, you have no proof from scripture that he is speaking of evangelism here. I would like to point out that you are contradicting yourself with this interpretation. If Paul used tongues to evangelize when he went to all those places where there were no churches yet, THEN HE WAS USING TONGUES OUTSIDE OF CHURCH. And if the people understood him speaking in tongues, THEN HE PROBABLY DID NOT INTERPRET WHAT HE SAID. You argue that tongues cannot be used outside of church, but then you argue for Paul using tongues outside of church. You can't have it both ways. Which way do you believe?
On I Corinthians 14:26, Paul does not say it was wrong for everyone to have a psalm, a doctrine, a tongue, a revelation, and an interpretation. Instead, he puts a restriction on these expressions of gifts by saying 'let all things be done unto edifying.' Paul didn't teach the churches to have a church meeting that featured one preacher preaching a sermon while all the rest sat silently, except to sing a few congregational hymns. This idea comes from tradition. The Corinthians were having a mutually edifying meeting in which multiple speakers used their gifts to edify the congregation. Paul gave instructions so that these meetings would be done in an orderly fashion according to the Lord's ordained pattern. He never through out mutual edification in favor of a pastor preaching on long sermon. So we need to go with the God-ordained pattern.
The instructions Paul show that Paul supported mutual edification, rather than the one-man-show. His instructions about tongues required a speaker in tongues and an interpreter. His instructions about prophesying told the prophets to speak two or three, and allowed 'all' to prophesy, and for 'the other' to judge.
Hebrews 10:25 is famous as the verse preachers use to tell people to go to church. But the passage not only tells us not to forsake assembling together, but it also tells us what to do when we assemble. It says 'but exhort one another.' That is a command. The command is not 'be exhorted by one man' but rather 'exhort one another.' This is right after verse 24 which tells us to provoke ONE ANOTHER to love and to good works. We see more detail in I Corinthians 14, which gives instructions on how to have a mutually edifying meeting.
Shall we throw out all of Spurgeon's books and works on that basis? One of his best known book is his "Lectures to His Students," composed of 'guess what?' Lectures or sermons!! Oh no! Not sermons again!! Throw the book out. It is not good! Really, what kind of logic is this? Most of the greatest commentaries, Bible Teachers/expostors, evangelists, missionaries, and other great men of God, have written books--books of sermons. Many of those books of sermons have become useful commentaries. Many more of them have become useful books on subjects of prayer, The bible, Witnessing, or even, yes, even--the Charismatic Movement.
