# Women 'Leading' in Public Worship



## Romans922

There have been a couple threads here about women reading the Scriptures in Public Worship lately. I had thoughts about this or questions at least:

*1*) Is reading the Scriptures an act of Leading (where one would be leading both men/women)?*A*) If so, is reading the Scripture because it is an act of leading, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?​*2*) Is the singing of Psalms, Hymns, Spiritual Songs (use of the language is so that no one is offended, EP or non-EP) to be done by the Pastor, elder, or can it be done by anyone? 

*3*) Is a woman who 'leads' in singing considered leading the congregation?*A*) If so, is a woman 'leading' in worship, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?

*B*) If so (to question 3), if you were in the OPC or the PCA (where I know this happens) how would you respond to women 'leading'?​


----------



## JML

Romans922 said:


> There have been a couple threads here about women reading the Scriptures in Public Worship lately. I had thoughts about this or questions at least:
> 
> *1*) Is reading the Scriptures an act of Leading (where one would be leading both men/women)?*A*) If so, is reading the Scripture because it is an act of leading, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?​*2*) Is the singing of Psalms, Hymns, Spiritual Songs (use of the language is so that no one is offended, EP or non-EP) to be done by the Pastor, elder, or can it be done by anyone?
> 
> *3*) Is a woman who 'leads' in singing considered leading the congregation?*A*) If so, is a woman 'leading' in worship, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?
> 
> *B*) If so (to question 3), if you were in the OPC or the PCA (where I know this happens) how would you respond to women 'leading'?​




1) Yes.
A) It would be wrong for a woman to read Scripture out loud to the 
congregation for two reasons.
1. It is a shame for them to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:35)
2. They are not to take authority over the man. (1 Tim. 2) Those 
who read and preach in the public service do so with authority 
give them by God.

2) Personally I think it should be done by an elder. Preferably one that has 
the ability to carry a tune.

3) Yes.
A) Yes. They would also have to speak to the congregation to tell them 
the psalm and tune, etc. which would violate 1 Cor. 14
B) Not Presbyterian, so I can't answer this one.


----------



## Kevin

3) No.


----------



## Grillsy

I think that answering this question can be tricky. Especially part 3.

It all depends on how we view worship and what its function is. I am inclined to say no to all three.

Part 3 again is the trickier one. 

What is the point of the singing? To worship God? Certainly. But even in our hymns and psalter there is a great deal of teaching. I am not putting the Trinity Hymnal on par with the Holy Word or anything like that, but I think that we can in some sense equate leading worship with teaching. That would certainly bar a woman from leading. In my humble opinion.


----------



## Scott1

I'm thinking this through. Here is what I have observed, and did not assume was contrary to Scripture (not advocating these necessarily, because I need to study this further):



Romans922 said:


> There have been a couple threads here about women reading the Scriptures in Public Worship lately. I had thoughts about this or questions at least:
> 
> *1*) Is reading the Scriptures an act of Leading (where one would be leading both men/women)?*A*)
> Yes, formal reading of Scripture, as in liturgy, during corporate worship is a leading and authoritative act.
> 
> If so, is reading the Scripture because it is an act of leading, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?
> 
> ​*2*) Is the singing of Psalms, Hymns, Spiritual Songs (use of the language is so that no one is offended, EP or non-EP) to be done by the Pastor, elder, or can it be done by anyone?
> 
> Any male, ordained or unordained, may lead; women can be in any support role in the band or choir, even as assistant director but ought not exhort if Scripture is interjected between songs.
> 
> *3*) Is a woman who 'leads' in singing considered leading the congregation?*A*)
> Ordinarily, a man should lead in this but temporarily or incidentally, a woman might lead in capacity as assistant director.
> 
> If so, is a woman 'leading' in worship, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?
> 
> *B*) If so (to question 3), if you were in the OPC or the PCA (where I know this happens) how would you respond to women 'leading'?​Biblically, if there is a clear violation of Scripture or the (vowed) constitution of the church, first go to the choir director or band leader. Then, go to one elder. Then to session as a whole or a representative thereof such as moderator. Then, go to presbytery. Then, if amenable ask Elder to proceed to general assembly or to assist with SJC or other process.


----------



## TimV

There were female singers in the Temple, so a solo by a woman would have precedence. There were very talented people at my old PCA church, and the only irritating thing for me was when one of the very liberal women would insist on giving a mini sermon before she sang.


----------



## CatherineL

Would singing "special music" in a worship service be considered leading? I'm a classically trained singer (my major in school) and often sing in services - mostly for special services like baptisms, Christmas, and Easter. If it is considered leading, what about other worship services other than the regular Sunday worship like weddings and funerals? We don't have women reading scripture or speaking otherwise in worship, so I never considered that it might be unbiblical to sing special music.


----------



## jwithnell

I think there's a difference between singing a solo and "leading" the singing ... the first, I'm assuming, has been approved as part of a particular service and is to _encourage_ worship. For that purpose, I think it's especially helpful to print the words of the song so people can follow along (not to sing along, but to contemplate the words) and I especially appreciate when the song is given somewhere other than the front of the congregation.

As far as leading in singing, I think in this country at least, the practice goes back to the cantors in the puritan churches that chose which tune would be used and started it (without instruments) so the rest of the congregation could follow along. Anymore, with words already set to well established tunes and (for most of us anyway) instrumentation, I don't think its needed at all and can really be an intrusion -- especially when someone is up there flapping his arms. Now if you're talking about someone standing up there choosing a lot of back-to-back songs, I think that's more fitting for a campfire than a worship service.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Every RP church I have had the pleasure of worshipping with has had women "lead" the singing.


----------



## Tripel

Can a woman give a testimony of praise during the worship service?

If so, can she read or quote a passage of Scripture during her testimony?


----------



## JBaldwin

Tripel said:


> Can a woman give a testimony of praise during the worship service?
> 
> If so, can she read or quote a passage of Scripture during her testimony?



Many times over the years, in the PCA churches I've attended, women have given testimony at the request of the pastor and/or elders. I don't see this as a problem since they are clearly under the authority of the leadership. 

In my humble opinion this is the same with women "leading" the singing or reading a passage of Scripture at the request of a pastor or elder. In our church, an elder prepares Scriptures to be read before each song we sing. He usually asks members of the worship team to read them. 

I am the director of music at my church, and I "lead" the singing in worship. What that means is an elder or the pastor announces the songs, and I set the tempo and get the worship team started. 

When the topic of whether or not I had the freedom to say anything before a song in worship came up, the pastor said this to me, "You have my permission to say something appropriate before a song, but know that if you ever step out of line, I'll correct you right on the spot." I don't open my mouth to speak, and I've never been corrected. 

Seriously, I've discovered that if I communicate to the elder on my worship team (and to the worship team) what was going through my mind when I chose the music, if it's important to the worship, he manages to communicate that to the congregation either through a comment or a Scripture verse.


----------



## KMK

For a woman to 'usurp' authority there would have to be a qualified man who could be doing the job instead. In this day and age it is not hard to imagine a church where there isn't a man who can carry a tune well enough to 'lead' singing.


----------



## JML

Tripel said:


> Can a woman give a testimony of praise during the worship service?
> 
> If so, can she read or quote a passage of Scripture during her testimony?




I can't tell if you are saying that they can give testimony, so the following is just an answer to the question, not an attack on your post. 

No. There is no way around these verses. They are not cultural and still apply today. A woman is not permitted to speak during a worship service. Why would we add things that Paul has explicitly prohibited?

*1 Corinthians 14:34-35*
34Let 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.
35And 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.

-----Added 7/17/2009 at 10:42:16 EST-----



KMK said:


> For a woman to 'usurp' authority there would have to be a qualified man who could be doing the job instead. In this day and age it is not hard to imagine a church where there isn't a man who can carry a tune well enough to 'lead' singing.



I humbly disagree. This reasoning could lead to women pastors if there was no qualified man in the church. I know that you don't believe in that and am not accusing you of believing it. My point is that the Scripture is clear that a woman cannot speak in church just as it is clear that a woman cannot be a pastor, so if we will allow one, what would stop us from allowing the other?


----------



## Edward

John Lanier said:


> *3*) Is a woman who 'leads' in singing considered leading the congregation?*A*) If so, is a woman 'leading' in worship, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Yes.
> A) Yes. They would also have to speak to the congregation to tell them
> the psalm and tune, etc. which would violate 1 Cor. 14
Click to expand...


Some of us use printed orders of worship, so the answer to 3 (A) is not universally true. 

----

I'm still pondering the rest of the questions. I see a distinction between reading scripture and the other questions raised, probably on 'means of grace' grounds, but I'm not sure that my distinction is valid.


----------



## Rogerant

*Special Music?*

There were female singers in the Temple, so a solo by a woman would have precedence.

Do we have any scriptural evidence of female singers "leading" worship in the temple? Do we have any scriptural evidence of men or women leading worship in song as it is done today in the church? With a designated "worship team"? I am not saying that it doesn't exist. I would just like to know if there is any. Can anyone provide some?

There were very talented people at my old PCA church, and the only irritating thing for me was when one of the very liberal women would insist on giving a mini sermon before she sang.

I am not so concerned about whether this would irritate me as much as it might irritate God. But, it happens in my church as well. The Belgic confession is clear on those who would presume to be called to serve in office and should not "intrude". When one speaks to the congregation from the stage or pulpit, they are taking a position of leadership. I long to be able to take the pulpit and expound what God has commanded us to do. To proclaim the Gospel correctly. "BUT" I recognize that I DO NOT MEET the criteria to fulfil that office. And until I have been called, must submit and sit on my hands in the pew and suck it up. Therefore, when those who have not been called, take it upon themselves to intrude upon the office, get up and incorrectly proclaim the Word, yes I get irritated!  

_Article 31: We believe that the ministers of God's Word, the elders, and the deacons ought to be chosen to their respective offices by a lawful election by the Church, with calling upon the name of the Lord, and in that order which the Word of God teaches. Therefore every one must take heed not to intrude himself by improper means, but is bound to wait till it shall please God to call him; that he may have testimony of his calling, and be certain and assured that it is of the Lord._

Would singing "special music" in a worship service be considered leading?

Is there any scriptural support for "special music"? I think that any time "special music" or a hymn or praise song is performed by the performer, that it draws our attention to them and the performance, rather than to God. Any thing that draws our attention away from the proclamation of the Word in worship is not of God. 

Can a woman give a testimony of praise during the worship service?

We allow God one hour per week to speak to us in a corporate setting. The Gospel is about what God has DONE FOR US objectively, in history PAST. Personal testimonies (by men or women) are mainly subjective, focused upon self, may attribute things to God that may not been of His doing, or may attribute to self that may have been of His doing, and for the most part are poor in theological content. Not that there is anything wrong with personal testimonies, but like any message in the indicative of God's work, or any message of exhortation of what we are doing, the message must be carefully analyzed by knowledgable elders to make sure that it is sound and attributes things that are verifyably of God and those things that can not be recognized as such. Personal testimonies are used as a teaching tool which employ indicatives and imperatives. Therefore they at a teaching tool. And those that teach must recognized by their calling to do so and not to intrude in offices that they do not belong. Thus personal testimonies should be confined to other settings than the worship service.

PS. Where are the representative heads (the men) in these churches? Why are they not stepping up and fulfilling THEIR responsibility to fulfil these offices?

Comments?


----------



## Scott1

CatherineL said:


> Would singing "special music" in a worship service be considered leading? I'm a classically trained singer (my major in school) and often sing in services - mostly for special services like baptisms, Christmas, and Easter. If it is considered leading, what about other worship services other than the regular Sunday worship like weddings and funerals? We don't have women reading scripture or speaking otherwise in worship, so I never considered that it might be unbiblical to sing special music.



Great questions, and I'm tentative as I need to study this further.

The "special" services (e.g. baptisms, Christmas, Resurrection Sunday, etc.) are all corporate worship.

I have not viewed weddings or funerals in the same category.

Ordinarily, singing should not focus on individual talent (e.g. solos) or the individual at all but not quite to say that there could never be a solo by male or female, ordained or unordained.

So, as long as this is done with care to not focus unduly on the person, it is permissible to have solos with men or women singing. I think it is incumbent upon all not to call undue attention to themselves during worship, those who lead, those who worship because the focus is not on self or talent, but directed toward our Lord.

-----Added 7/17/2009 at 11:17:08 EST-----



> *Rogerant*
> "BUT" I recognize that I DO NOT MEET the criteria to fulfil that office. And until I have been called, must submit and sit on my hands in the pew and suck it up. Therefore, when those who have not been called, take it upon themselves to intrude upon the office, get up and incorrectly proclaim the Word, yes I get irritated!



You might want to phrase this as part of your sanctification. Growing in the grace of humility and submission to brethren. It is a Christ like quality.


----------



## Tripel

John Lanier said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a woman give a testimony of praise during the worship service?
> 
> If so, can she read or quote a passage of Scripture during her testimony?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't tell if you are saying that they can give testimony, so the following is just an answer to the question, not an attack on your post.
> 
> No. There is no way around these verses. They are not cultural and still apply today. A woman is not permitted to speak during a worship service. Why would we add things that Paul has explicitly prohibited?
> 
> *1 Corinthians 14:34-35*
> 34Let 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.
> 35And 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.
> 
> -----Added 7/17/2009 at 10:42:16 EST-----
Click to expand...


Is that passage not addressing prophesy and speaking in tongues? That's what the rest of the chapter is speaking to. Is Paul just taking a break from addressing prophecy and tongues to address women doing ANY speaking?


----------



## Rogerant

Scott1 said:


> CatherineL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would singing "special music" in a worship service be considered leading? I'm a classically trained singer (my major in school) and often sing in services - mostly for special services like baptisms, Christmas, and Easter. If it is considered leading, what about other worship services other than the regular Sunday worship like weddings and funerals? We don't have women reading scripture or speaking otherwise in worship, so I never considered that it might be unbiblical to sing special music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great questions, and I'm tentative as I need to study this further.
> 
> The "special" services (e.g. baptisms, Christmas, Resurrection Sunday, etc.) are all corporate worship.
> 
> I have not viewed weddings or funerals in the same category.
> 
> Ordinarily, singing should not focus on individual talent (e.g. solos) or the individual at all but not quite to say that there could never be a solo by male or female, ordained or unordained.
> 
> So, as long as this is done with care to not focus unduly on the person, it is permissible to have solos with men or women singing. I think it is incumbent upon all not to call undue attention to themselves during worship, those who lead, those who worship because the focus is not on self or talent, but directed toward our Lord.
> 
> -----Added 7/17/2009 at 11:17:08 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rogerant*
> "BUT" I recognize that I DO NOT MEET the criteria to fulfil that office. And until I have been called, must submit and sit on my hands in the pew and suck it up. Therefore, when those who have not been called, take it upon themselves to intrude upon the office, get up and incorrectly proclaim the Word, yes I get irritated!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might want to phrase this as part of your sanctification. Growing in the grace of humility and submission to brethren. It is a Christ like quality.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the rebuke. I should have phrased it better without the capital letters. I didn't mean to yell in frustration. This lack of humility of mine is one of the evidences that I have that "I have not been called" as yet to this office.


----------



## Romans922

Tripel said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a woman give a testimony of praise during the worship service?
> 
> If so, can she read or quote a passage of Scripture during her testimony?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't tell if you are saying that they can give testimony, so the following is just an answer to the question, not an attack on your post.
> 
> No. There is no way around these verses. They are not cultural and still apply today. A woman is not permitted to speak during a worship service. Why would we add things that Paul has explicitly prohibited?
> 
> *1 Corinthians 14:34-35*
> 34Let 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.
> 35And 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.
> 
> -----Added 7/17/2009 at 10:42:16 EST-----
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that passage not addressing prophesy and speaking in tongues? That's what the rest of the chapter is speaking to. Is Paul just taking a break from addressing prophecy and tongues to address women doing ANY speaking?
Click to expand...


Let's read it again, "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*."

Seems commentators state this has to do with Genesis 3:16, "And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This is something rooted in Genesis, really even before Genesis 3. This seems to be just like what Paul does in 1 Timothy 2, referencing creation order. Matthew Henry even references:

"Here the apostle, 1. Enjoins silence on their women in public assemblies, and to such a degree that they must not ask questions for their own information in the church, but ask their husbands at home. They are to learn in silence with all subjection; but, says the apostle, I suffer them not to teach, *1Ti_2:11, 1Ti_2:12*. There is indeed an intimation (1Co_11:5) as if the women sometimes did pray and prophecy in their assemblies, which the apostle, in that passage, does not simply condemn, but the manner of performance, that is, praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, which, in that age and country, was throwing off the distinction of sexes, and setting themselves on a level with the men. *But here he seems to forbid all public performances of theirs*. They are not permitted to speak (1Co_14:34) in the church, neither in praying nor prophesying. The connection seems plainly to include the latter, in the limited sense in which it is taken in this chapter, namely, for preaching, or interpreting scripture by inspiration. And, indeed, for a woman to prophesy in this sense were to teach, which does not so well befit her state of subjection. A teacher of others has in that respect a superiority over them, which is not allowed the woman over the man, nor must she therefore be allowed to teach in a congregation: I suffer them not to teach. But praying, and uttering hymns inspired, were not teaching. And seeing there were women who had spiritual gifts of this sort in that age of the church (see Act_22:9), and might be under this impulse in the assembly, must they altogether suppress it? Or why should they have this gift, if it must never be publicly exercised? For these reasons, some think that these general prohibitions are only to be understood in common cases; but that upon extraordinary occasions, when women were under a divine afflatus, and known to be so, they might have liberty of speech. They were not ordinarily to teach, nor so much as to debate and ask questions in the church, but learn in silence there; and, if difficulties occurred, ask their own husbands at home. Note, As it is the woman's duty to learn in subjection, it is the man's duty to keep up his superiority, by being able to instruct her; if it be her duty to ask her husband at home, it is his concern and duty to endeavour at lest to be able to answer her enquiries; if it be a shame for her to speak in the church, where she should be silent, it is a shame for him to be silent when he should speak, and not be able to give an answer, when she asks him at home. *2. We have here the reason of this injunction: It is God's law and commandment that they should be under obedience (1Co_14:34)*; they are placed in subordination to the man, and it is a shame for them to do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing ranks, which speaking in public seemed to imply, at least in that age, and among that people, as would public teaching much more: so that the apostle concludes it was a shame for women to speak in the church, in the assembly. Shame is the mind's uneasy reflection on having done an indecent thing. And what more indecent than for a woman to quit her rank, renounce the subordination of her sex, or do what in common account had such aspect and appearance? Note, Our spirit and conduct should be suitable to our rank. The natural distinctions God has made, we should observe. Those he has placed in subjection to others should not set themselves on a level, nor affect or assume superiority. The woman was made subject to the man, and she should keep her station and be content with it. For this reason women must be silent in the churches, not set up for teachers; for this is setting up for superiority over the man."​


----------



## Scott1

> Matthew Henry even references:
> 
> For these reasons, some think that these general prohibitions are only to be understood in common cases; but that upon extraordinary occasions, when women were under a divine afflatus, and known to be so, they might have liberty of speech. They were not ordinarily to teach, nor so much as to debate and ask questions in the church, but learn in silence there; and, if difficulties occurred, ask their own husbands at home.



It sounds like Mr. Henry is surveying thought here before coming to his conclusion:



> The woman was made subject to the man, and she should keep her station and be content with it. For this reason women must be silent in the churches, not set up for teachers; for this is setting up for superiority over the man."



One reading of this might be that a woman is not qualified by Scripture to teach, read or exhort Scripture as part of public worship but may speak informally and incidentally, and may speak privately at church.


----------



## toddpedlar

Joshua said:


> I'll defer to the Reformers, old Puritan divines, and my Reformed Presbyterian forefathers, old sticks-in-the-mud that they were.



You old stick-in-the-mud.


----------



## Tripel

Joshua said:


> I'll defer to the Reformers, old Puritan divines, and my Reformed Presbyterian forefathers, old sticks-in-the-mud that they were.



...I tend to defer to the great minds of today who have access to a wealth of resources including our great reformed forefathers.


----------



## Tripel

Joshua said:


> I understand. The problem is when the "great minds of today" don't like something that has been mined from the Scriptures by "our great reformed forefathers" that tend to capitulate to not so great minds of egalitarians, feminists, etc.



I understand that. But I don't think there is anything about the previous centuries that made the great minds of that day less susceptible to wayward thinking.


----------



## toddpedlar

From a blog post of mine from a few days ago. I can't say it much better than Calvin:



> I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that *whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God.* But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere "will worship" (ethelothreeskeia) is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate." (pp. 128-129, John Calvin, "The Necessity of Reforming the Church", Tracts and Letters, Volume 1)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more I think about this issue, especially in light of reading Calvin's brief treatment in these paragraphs, the more I am amazed at our arrogance in the church, in which we say that we are free to worship God in whatever way pleases us. Is God not owed complete obedience in all things? Is He not right, as Sovereign King, to determine the proper means of serving Him? Today man-centered and man-oriented worship is entirely rampant... and the opinions against which Calvin writes in the above, "that whatever they do [in worship] has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honour of God." (p. 128) I have heard arguments against strictness in worship many times that amount to just this, now 500 years later. "But as long as we love Jesus, it really doesn't matter how we worship him." "They like to dance in worship, and that's good - it shows how much they love God." This is just what Calvin was addressing (though the specifics of corrupted worship were different in his day). God Almighty has declared to us His expectations of us. Shall we not simply obey Him? Where do we think we have the right to dictate terms of our service to our Sovereign?
> 
> More later... much to chew on.
Click to expand...


----------



## JBaldwin

Is there a difference between women "speaking their minds" i.e. giving their opinion on something and just speaking in church? I think that both the I Tim 2 passage and the I Corinthians 14 passage would show this is the more accurate understanding. 

John Gill says


> 1 Corinthians 14:33 and whereas the apostle had suggested, that all might prophecy, or preach, that is, that had gifts qualifying for it, he would be understood only of men, and not women, who were not permitted to speak in the church *in a way of preaching*; no, not even to ask questions there about what they heard, but if they wanted to be informed of any thing they did not rightly understand, they were to ask their husbands at home; this the apostle argues, partly from the law, which commands them to be in obedience to men, and partly from the indecency of such a practice




On I Tim 2:11 he says


> Let the woman learn in silence,.... The apostle goes on to give some other instructions to women, how they should behave themselves in public worship, in the church of God; he would have them be learners and not teachers, sit and hear, and learn more of Christ, and of the truth of the Gospel, and to maintain good works; and he would have them learn in silence, *and not offer to rise and speak, under a pretence of having a word from the Lord,* or of being under an impulse of the Spirit of the Lord, as some frantic women have done; and if they should meet with anything, under the ministry of the word, they did not understand, or they had an objection to, they were not to speak in public, but ask their own husbands at home;



There is a Greek word used in I Tim 5:8 and again in I Peter 2:15 that literally means to muzzle or "be kept in check". The word is also used in the Gospels when Jesus tells someone to "hold their peace" or when He silenced the Saducees. 

I think it is very interesting that Paul chose a word which can be translated to be quiet (which is an action or attitude on the part of the woman) in two passages mentioned above instead of choosing a word which means to put to muzzle. 

As I read it, this issue is about women not taking an authoritative teaching position or asking questions in worship. It has more to do with authority than it does with whether or not a woman ever opens up her mouth in worship. 

If a pastor and elders ask a woman to give testimony, and they have approved what she is going to say, I really don't have a problem with it. I am thinking of a specific situation several years ago where my pastor at the time asked a woman to come up and share with the church what she had shared with him, because he believed it would edify the congregation and give glory to God. The matter involved the entire congregation, and the pastor felt it would be communicated directly from her. It was clear the pastor was in authority. It was clear the woman was not teaching or preaching. 

On the same account, if the pastor and elders ask a gifted woman to pull together a group of musicians and chose the music in worship, because he knows he is not musically qualified to do so, then I don't see where that is forbidden in Scripture. Nothing is being done outside the authority of the elders and pastor, the woman is not putting herself in a position of authority. 

If on the other hand, these passages mean a woman is not ever to utter a word in worship, then I can see why someone would be opposed to a woman sharing her testimony or leading the music.


----------



## Romans922

So who should be reading the Scriptures, who should be leading the singing, who should be leading the prayer, the sacraments?


----------



## JBaldwin

> In a sense, here is where the discussion takes a different turn. I would operate on a completely different foundation in that I don't believe the elders and pastors have authority to incorporate things into the stated worship that God has not commanded. If the lady has something to share with the church, and the pastor thinks it will be edifying, then he should make time for it before the call to worship or after the service. Because he's the pastor and elder of the church does not mean he has the power to authorize whatever he thinks best in the service.
> 
> The reason these discussions can never get far without digressing is because there are those of us who believe that the regulative principle, insofar as the elements of worship go, does not allow for preferences, choices, as to what kinds of music, etc. are permissible. Instead we would say there is no preference as to whether it be an organ, piano, or guitar. None of the above. No preference as to who may sing a solo, or what the choir will sing this morning, because we find them both to be unwarranted.
> 
> So it devolves into opening a can of uncontainable worms due to more foundational disagreements of the nature of worship and its regulative principle. The question shouldn't be the negative Who is not allowed to 'lead' in the services?, but rather the positive, Who is it that should lead the services?




I appreciate your comments, and you're right, if we go too much further on this topic, it will turn to an issue of the regulative principle which I don't want to get into any more than it appears you do. 

The fact is, I would agree with you that the men lead. I don't think I've ever felt differently. My question has to do with the definition of leading. My examples aside, does leading mean the woman never says anything? Or does it mean the woman is not free to speak her mind or give her opinion?

Because Paul says that women should ask their questions at home, I would be inclined to believe that leading has to do with speaking opinion rather than never opening her mouth.

-----Added 7/17/2009 at 04:03:20 EST-----



Romans922 said:


> So who should be reading the Scriptures, who should be leading the singing, who should be leading the prayer, the sacraments?



I hope that all who read me understand that I am not an advocate of women leading in church. In fact, I have gone out of my way to make sure that everyone understands that I believe the men are in charge. 


Maybe the question should be--can women give praise (without teaching) or lead the singing (and by that I mean start the song, not give a mini-sermon before the songs) or read a Scripture passage at the request of the elders and pastor? None of these except perhaps the Scripture reading are authoritative in nature. Which goes back to my question about what did Paul mean about women keeping silence in the churches.


----------



## Grillsy

Romans922 said:


> So who should be reading the Scriptures, who should be leading the singing, who should be leading the prayer, the sacraments?



Men whom God has called?


----------



## Turtle

JBaldwin said:


> In a sense, here is where the discussion takes a different turn. I would operate on a completely different foundation in that I don't believe the elders and pastors have authority to incorporate things into the stated worship that God has not commanded. If the lady has something to share with the church, and the pastor thinks it will be edifying, then he should make time for it before the call to worship or after the service. Because he's the pastor and elder of the church does not mean he has the power to authorize whatever he thinks best in the service.
> 
> The reason these discussions can never get far without digressing is because there are those of us who believe that the regulative principle, insofar as the elements of worship go, does not allow for preferences, choices, as to what kinds of music, etc. are permissible. Instead we would say there is no preference as to whether it be an organ, piano, or guitar. None of the above. No preference as to who may sing a solo, or what the choir will sing this morning, because we find them both to be unwarranted.
> 
> So it devolves into opening a can of uncontainable worms due to more foundational disagreements of the nature of worship and its regulative principle. The question shouldn't be the negative Who is not allowed to 'lead' in the services?, but rather the positive, Who is it that should lead the services?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your comments, and you're right, if we go too much further on this topic, it will turn to an issue of the regulative principle which I don't want to get into any more than it appears you do.
> 
> The fact is, I would agree with you that the men lead. I don't think I've ever felt differently. My question has to do with the definition of leading. My examples aside, does leading mean the woman never says anything? Or does it mean the woman is not free to speak her mind or give her opinion?
> 
> Because Paul says that women should ask their questions at home, I would be inclined to believe that leading has to do with speaking opinion rather than never opening her mouth.
> 
> -----Added 7/17/2009 at 04:03:20 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who should be reading the Scriptures, who should be leading the singing, who should be leading the prayer, the sacraments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope that all who read me understand that I am not an advocate of women leading in church. In fact, I have gone out of my way to make sure that everyone understands that I believe the men are in charge.
> 
> 
> Maybe the question should be--can women give praise (without teaching) or lead the singing (and by that I mean start the song, not give a mini-sermon before the songs) or read a Scripture passage at the request of the elders and pastor? None of these except perhaps the Scripture reading are authoritative in nature. Which goes back to my question about what did Paul mean about women keeping silence in the churches.
Click to expand...



You raise thought provoking questions. I suppose for definitive answers, in practice, it will be up to the session (or equivalent) of a particular church to decide. 
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Romans922 said:


> There have been a couple threads here about women reading the Scriptures in Public Worship lately. I had thoughts about this or questions at least:
> 
> *1*) Is reading the Scriptures an act of Leading (where one would be leading both men/women)?*A*) If so, is reading the Scripture because it is an act of leading, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?​*2*) Is the singing of Psalms, Hymns, Spiritual Songs (use of the language is so that no one is offended, EP or non-EP) to be done by the Pastor, elder, or can it be done by anyone?
> 
> *3*) Is a woman who 'leads' in singing considered leading the congregation?*A*) If so, is a woman 'leading' in worship, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?
> 
> *B*) If so (to question 3), if you were in the OPC or the PCA (where I know this happens) how would you respond to women 'leading'?​



1. I would argue no, simply reading the Word (without any editorial comments) is not exhibiting authority. Incidentally, women reading Scripture in corporate worship is allowed in the PCA BCO.

2. Song leading can be done by women, so long as a man leads the worship in general. I like the model of my current church, where a TE and female (or male) song leader both lead the singing. 

3. Again, I would argue a woman can lead in specific songs, so long as a man (preferably ordained) leads the worship in general. In other words, a man should conduct the order of worship, but I think a woman can lead songs - though I don't like the mini-sermonizing either. 

Scott, if you disagree with women praying in worship, would you take an exception to the BCO if ever ordained as an elder in the PCA? Not trying to be argumentative, just curious about your response.


----------



## Romans922

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been a couple threads here about women reading the Scriptures in Public Worship lately. I had thoughts about this or questions at least:
> 
> *1*) Is reading the Scriptures an act of Leading (where one would be leading both men/women)?*A*) If so, is reading the Scripture because it is an act of leading, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?​*2*) Is the singing of Psalms, Hymns, Spiritual Songs (use of the language is so that no one is offended, EP or non-EP) to be done by the Pastor, elder, or can it be done by anyone?
> 
> *3*) Is a woman who 'leads' in singing considered leading the congregation?*A*) If so, is a woman 'leading' in worship, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?
> 
> *B*) If so (to question 3), if you were in the OPC or the PCA (where I know this happens) how would you respond to women 'leading'?​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I would argue no, simply reading the Word (without any editorial comments) is not exhibiting authority. Incidentally, women reading Scripture in corporate worship is allowed in the PCA BCO.
Click to expand...


Mason,

You have brought this up before somewhere I think. But this is incorrect. 

BCO 50-1 - The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is *performed by the minister* as God’s servant...

BCO 50-2 - The reading of the Holy Scriptures in the congregation is a part of the public worship of God and *should be done by the minister or some other person*.

You would say that opens it up for anyone to read Scripture. But you have to take things in context and the Church must follow her constitution (WLC). SEE this post here 






Consequently, as it has to do with the context, if you think about it women cannot according to the BCO read God's Word. Why? BCO 50-1, "The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is *performed by the minister* as God’s servant. *Through it God speaks most directly to the congregation*..."


Ask yourself the question, "If God speaks to you is it authoritative?" If so, when one reads Scripture, as it goes on to say when one preaches as well, God speaks most directly and if it is with authority then the one reading has authority over those who are hearing.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

I believe the duty of edifying the Church belongs to the Pastors and teachers in our day. This is not to speak against what does and should take place as private exhortation and edification between members, but to edify the Church *as* the Church is part of the office the Lord has given to ministers. See the quotation from Ephesians 4.11-12

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

With all due respect to others who have posted earlier in this thread, I do not believe the Pastor had the authority to call the lady forward to edify the Church. He might have taken her sentiments himself and spoken them to the congregation--that would have been in order, and in keeping with the passage above. However, to introduce alternate authorities into the public worship service is unwise, and against the direction of the Apostle. Whether he realized it or not, the Pastor authorized another authority in the Church that day. I'm confident that at least some in the congregation were rendered more forward by this circumstance to speak to this lady privately to counsel with her, etc. perhaps even to the exclusion of their pastor. It would not surprise me to learn that she grew in the esteem of the congregation to the point of being an unofficial leader in some sense--this is what the Apostle is avoiding in 1 Timothy 2.9ff. The very act of addressing the congregation in the public sense is an authoritative act.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Romans922 said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been a couple threads here about women reading the Scriptures in Public Worship lately. I had thoughts about this or questions at least:
> 
> *1*) Is reading the Scriptures an act of Leading (where one would be leading both men/women)?*A*) If so, is reading the Scripture because it is an act of leading, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?​*2*) Is the singing of Psalms, Hymns, Spiritual Songs (use of the language is so that no one is offended, EP or non-EP) to be done by the Pastor, elder, or can it be done by anyone?
> 
> *3*) Is a woman who 'leads' in singing considered leading the congregation?*A*) If so, is a woman 'leading' in worship, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?
> 
> *B*) If so (to question 3), if you were in the OPC or the PCA (where I know this happens) how would you respond to women 'leading'?​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I would argue no, simply reading the Word (without any editorial comments) is not exhibiting authority. Incidentally, women reading Scripture in corporate worship is allowed in the PCA BCO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mason,
> 
> You have brought this up before somewhere I think. But this is incorrect.
> 
> BCO 50-1 - The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is *performed by the minister* as God’s servant...
> 
> BCO 50-2 - The reading of the Holy Scriptures in the congregation is a part of the public worship of God and *should be done by the minister or some other person*.
> 
> You would say that opens it up for anyone to read Scripture. But you have to take things in context and the Church must follow her constitution (WLC). SEE this post here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consequently, as it has to do with the context, if you think about it women cannot according to the BCO read God's Word. Why? BCO 50-1, "The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is *performed by the minister* as God’s servant. *Through it God speaks most directly to the congregation*..."
> 
> 
> Ask yourself the question, "If God speaks to you is it authoritative?" If so, when one reads Scripture, as it goes on to say when one preaches as well, God speaks most directly and if it is with authority then the one reading has authority over those who are hearing.
Click to expand...


If this were true, Pastor Barnes, then only ordained men can read Scripture according to the BCO. BCO 50-2 clearly says that reading of the Scripture can be done by the minister or some other person. So either it can be done by ordained men only or anyone appointed by the minister. If the authors of the BCO intended it for men only, wouldn't they have said "some other man" instead of "some other person?"

Also, I don't quite follow your logic about women having authority since God is speaking authoritatively through them. I don't see how this holds: if the authority is from God, then it isn't somehow bestowed on the one reading the passage. The woman or man who simply reads from God's Word doesn't possess the authority of God, he/she is simply verbalizing what is already written in the text. That's like saying an interpreter has authority of those for whom he translates; simply relaying the message doesn't imply authority. 

Exposition by a pastor is a different story, and is obviously reserved for men only.


----------



## Grillsy

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I would argue no, simply reading the Word (without any editorial comments) is not exhibiting authority. Incidentally, women reading Scripture in corporate worship is allowed in the PCA BCO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mason,
> 
> You have brought this up before somewhere I think. But this is incorrect.
> 
> BCO 50-1 - The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is *performed by the minister* as God’s servant...
> 
> BCO 50-2 - The reading of the Holy Scriptures in the congregation is a part of the public worship of God and *should be done by the minister or some other person*.
> 
> You would say that opens it up for anyone to read Scripture. But you have to take things in context and the Church must follow her constitution (WLC). SEE this post here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consequently, as it has to do with the context, if you think about it women cannot according to the BCO read God's Word. Why? BCO 50-1, "The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is *performed by the minister* as God’s servant. *Through it God speaks most directly to the congregation*..."
> 
> 
> Ask yourself the question, "If God speaks to you is it authoritative?" If so, when one reads Scripture, as it goes on to say when one preaches as well, God speaks most directly and if it is with authority then the one reading has authority over those who are hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this were true, Pastor Barnes, then only ordained men can read Scripture according to the BCO. BCO 50-2 clearly says that reading of the Scripture can be done by the minister or some other person. So either it can be done by ordained men only or anyone appointed by the minister. If the authors of the BCO intended it for men only, wouldn't they have said "some other man" instead of "some other person?"
> 
> Also, I don't quite follow your logic about women having authority since God is speaking authoritatively through them. I don't see how this holds: if the authority is from God, then it isn't somehow bestowed on the one reading the passage. The woman or man who simply reads from God's Word doesn't possess the authority of God, he/she is simply verbalizing what is already written in the text. That's like saying an interpreter has authority of those for whom he translates; simply relaying the message doesn't imply authority.
> 
> Exposition by a pastor is a different story, and is obviously reserved for men only.
Click to expand...


Any Scripture reading (exposited or not) or singing held during the service after the Call to Worship is considered part of the worship, therefore a woman would not be permitted. 

Why would a woman be reading the Scriptures in front of the congregation in the first place?


----------



## Edward

Romans922 said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been a couple threads here about women reading the Scriptures in Public Worship lately. I had thoughts about this or questions at least:
> 
> *1*) Is reading the Scriptures an act of Leading (where one would be leading both men/women)?*A*) If so, is reading the Scripture because it is an act of leading, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?​*2*) Is the singing of Psalms, Hymns, Spiritual Songs (use of the language is so that no one is offended, EP or non-EP) to be done by the Pastor, elder, or can it be done by anyone?
> 
> *3*) Is a woman who 'leads' in singing considered leading the congregation?*A*) If so, is a woman 'leading' in worship, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?
> 
> *B*) If so (to question 3), if you were in the OPC or the PCA (where I know this happens) how would you respond to women 'leading'?​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I would argue no, simply reading the Word (without any editorial comments) is not exhibiting authority. Incidentally, women reading Scripture in corporate worship is allowed in the PCA BCO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mason,
> 
> You have brought this up before somewhere I think. But this is incorrect.
> 
> BCO 50-1 - The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is *performed by the minister* as God’s servant...
> 
> BCO 50-2 - The reading of the Holy Scriptures in the congregation is a part of the public worship of God and *should be done by the minister or some other person*.
> 
> You would say that opens it up for anyone to read Scripture. But you have to take things in context and the Church must follow her constitution (WLC). SEE this post here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consequently, as it has to do with the context, if you think about it women cannot according to the BCO read God's Word. Why? BCO 50-1, "The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is *performed by the minister* as God’s servant. *Through it God speaks most directly to the congregation*..."
> 
> 
> Ask yourself the question, "If God speaks to you is it authoritative?" If so, when one reads Scripture, as it goes on to say when one preaches as well, God speaks most directly and if it is with authority then the one reading has authority over those who are hearing.
Click to expand...


Unless it's been changed recently, Chapter 50 doesn't have full constitutional authority. 

While I personally lean toward the position that scripture should be read by ordained men, it's an area where I yield to the session and don't make a public issue of it.


----------



## Romans922

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I would argue no, simply reading the Word (without any editorial comments) is not exhibiting authority. Incidentally, women reading Scripture in corporate worship is allowed in the PCA BCO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mason,
> 
> You have brought this up before somewhere I think. But this is incorrect.
> 
> BCO 50-1 - The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is *performed by the minister* as God’s servant...
> 
> BCO 50-2 - The reading of the Holy Scriptures in the congregation is a part of the public worship of God and *should be done by the minister or some other person*.
> 
> You would say that opens it up for anyone to read Scripture. But you have to take things in context and the Church must follow her constitution (WLC). SEE this post here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consequently, as it has to do with the context, if you think about it women cannot according to the BCO read God's Word. Why? BCO 50-1, "The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is *performed by the minister* as God’s servant. *Through it God speaks most directly to the congregation*..."
> 
> 
> Ask yourself the question, "If God speaks to you is it authoritative?" If so, when one reads Scripture, as it goes on to say when one preaches as well, God speaks most directly and if it is with authority then the one reading has authority over those who are hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this were true, Pastor Barnes, then only ordained men can read Scripture according to the BCO. BCO 50-2 clearly says that reading of the Scripture can be done by the minister or some other person. So either it can be done by ordained men only or anyone appointed by the minister. If the authors of the BCO intended it for men only, wouldn't they have said "some other man" instead of "some other person?"
> 
> Also, I don't quite follow your logic about women having authority since God is speaking authoritatively through them. I don't see how this holds: if the authority is from God, then it isn't somehow bestowed on the one reading the passage. The woman or man who simply reads from God's Word doesn't possess the authority of God, he/she is simply verbalizing what is already written in the text. That's like saying an interpreter has authority of those for whom he translates; simply relaying the message doesn't imply authority.
> 
> Exposition by a pastor is a different story, and is obviously reserved for men only.
Click to expand...



Although the BCO doesn't hold (in these places) constitutional authority, you would know the meaning of the Larger Catechism, which does, through the Directory of Publick Worship of the Divines, as I linked above in that post. "Other people" refers to Ministers, elders, and those training for the ministry.


----------



## Scott1

> 1 Corinthians 14
> 
> 1Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
> 
> 2For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
> 
> 3But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
> 
> 4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
> 
> 5I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
> 
> 6Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
> 
> 7And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
> 
> 8For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
> 
> 9So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
> 
> 10There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
> 
> 11Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
> 
> 12Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
> 
> 13Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
> 
> 14For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
> 
> 15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
> 
> 16Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
> 
> 17For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
> 
> 18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
> 
> 19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
> 
> 20Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
> 
> 21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
> 
> 22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
> 
> 23If 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?
> 
> 24But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
> 
> 25And 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.
> 
> 26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
> 
> 27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
> 
> 28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
> 
> 29Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
> 
> 30If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
> 
> 31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
> 
> 32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
> 
> 33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
> 
> 34Let 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.
> 
> 35And 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.
> 
> 36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
> 
> 37If 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.
> 
> 38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
> 
> 39Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
> 
> 40Let all things be done decently and in order.



When I look at the context of I Corinthians 14, it seems to be toward proclaiming, speaking authoritatively as part of the worship service- not toward speaking at all.

My sense is, in context with other passages, this is not really a categorical imperative (women may not speak "in church") but a precept in line with other biblical principles. In the Corinthian context (and probably in many modern charismatic/pentecostal churches), women are not given authority to preach, teach, exhort or present a "Word from the Lord" as part of public worship.

The biblical principles are what we call the regulative principle, church authority exercised through her officers (deacons, elders, ministers bishops), male authority generally but not an absolute restriction on speaking or even speaking out in church.

I'm still thinking this all through, but here is where I am leaning, particularly in context of I Corinthians 14:

Public worship is specifically prescribed and is to be lead by men, as is the natural order, and particularly by those whom He has called an appointed as something roughly analogous to the Old Testament Priest. But that doesn't mean every single function incident to worship. 

I'm inclined to see reading of Scripture formally, as in liturgy is an authoritative and leading act. It calls to worship, proclaims or exhorts and none of those are functions God qualified for women to lead in the context of public worship (maybe in other contexts, but not as part of corporate worship).

I can't quite see singing as quite as authoritative. Maybe that's not consistent logically, but singing seems to be so much more a collective function. 

So, what can women do and speak "in church" and not violate biblical precepts:

1) sing
2) pray randomly (not leading prayer)
3) pray responsively
4) give personal testimony

What ought they not do in respect of biblical precept?

1) read Scripture formally, as liturgically, in corporate worship
2) exhort from Scripture formally or informally as part of the service

And outside of corporate worship, they can teach, read and exhort other women and young children, and as necessary, if no Christian man is in the home. On these there is no restriction, because I don't think that is what the passages here are getting at.


----------



## TeachingTulip

A quick reply to this thread . . .

Gentlemen, be assured that not all females are demanding or expecting to be inserted into leadership positions in the visible churches. Many females have been allowed to temporally do so, unwittingly, by male authorities who should have searched the Scriptures and confessions more closely.

That said, I want to provide an anecdotal tale:

About 3 years back, my husband and I visited on many occasions, a Presbyterian Church in our area (I will not name, but it was a PC-USA), and at the time they had recently permitted women to step to the pulpit to read Scripture, and many ladies were rehearsing the little children (which produces a gag reflex on my part, at this moment) to produce "darling" little bible plays on the "stage" (stairs to the pulpit) almost every Lord's Day.

Needless to say, DH and I did not continue visiting after seeing the obvious handwriting on the wall.

To make a long story short, just this past week, our local newspaper announced, with a long piece. . .pictures and all, of the newly, ordained, female "reverend" officially ordained as leader of that church.

Now, I am a female and I do not approve of female Pastors or female elders or female deacons or female readers or female leaders of any size, shape, or form.

For this very reason. This is where is always ends. Female Pastors!

God forbid.

And to add to the anecdote, I predict that now that there IS a female Pastor, there will surely be homosexuals permitted into leadership at this "church" in the near future.

For there is left no moral, legal, or Scriptural basis or precedent, by which representatives of spiritual abominations can be denied positions of authority and leadership!

The visible and liberal churches have robbed themselves of their Godly foundations; the clear doctrines of the Holy Scriptures and the historical confessions of the faithful Christian fathers, as expressed in the Reformed Creeds.


----------



## calgal

Ronda:
I agree that the women in "leadership" roles need to be managed (in a way) by a discerning session or council to avoid the very situation you describe. 

I think it is cute to have little kids sing occasionally but I find a lot of special performances where the performer(s) are the focus of the service rather offputting. It is in my opinion correct to use the talents of church members to the Glory of God but not to have plays, orchestral numbers and all sorts of entertainment that detracts from the Preaching of the Word during worship.


----------



## DonP

Romans922 said:


> There have been a couple threads here about women reading the Scriptures in Public Worship lately. I had thoughts about this or questions at least:
> 
> *1*) Is reading the Scriptures an act of Leading (where one would be leading both men/women)?*A*) If so, is reading the Scripture because it is an act of leading, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?​*2*) Is the singing of Psalms, Hymns, Spiritual Songs (use of the language is so that no one is offended, EP or non-EP) to be done by the Pastor, elder, or can it be done by anyone?
> 
> *3*) Is a woman who 'leads' in singing considered leading the congregation?*A*) If so, is a woman 'leading' in worship, an act of authority (see 1 Ti. 2) and thereby contrary to Scripture?
> 
> *B*) If so (to question 3), if you were in the OPC or the PCA (where I know this happens) how would you respond to women 'leading'?​



Is "leading" leading? Yes leading is leading. So women are not to lead, they are to be in silence in church. So what could they lead in silence?

As for singing it is not one person leading, it is all at the same time. Singing is not speaking, it is singing. So yes women can sing with the congregation. 

Solos, no. Why? It is leading worship. Or it is entertainment and has no place in worship. 

Do we have any scriptural warrant for solos?

If the church has been fine and women have been fine for thousands of years, why now do we need to have women go against scripture and come up with a better idea?? 

What is the need?


----------

