# Mid-Week Prayer Meetings



## Smeagol (Dec 27, 2019)

Does your congregation have prayer meetings?

What do they look like, regarding format?

Are others allowed to pray out loud (laymen)?

Should women be allowed to pray out loud during this type of public meetings?


In our family worship we usually close in prayer and I encourage my family members to take turns praying out loud and Dad (me) closes. This helps me hear what is on my children’s heart as they speak to God.

I am wondering if this should be done in the public prayer meeting when the Pastor opens and closes, but the laymen are permitted to pray in between.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 27, 2019)

Our prayer meeting on Wednesday evening begins with an opening prayer, a short scripture reading that has reference to whatever the devotional is that night (right now we are going through the Shorter Catechism), then we sing two psalms (ask for favorites). Then we have a time of prayer, receiving requests, and then the Elders pray.

After that I teach the aforementioned devotional.

It lasts about an hour.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 27, 2019)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Our prayer meeting on Wednesday evening begins with an opening prayer, a short scripture reading that has reference to whatever the devotional is that night (right now we are going through the Shorter Catechism), then we sing two psalms (ask for favorites). Then we have a time of prayer, receiving requests, and then the Elders pray.
> 
> After that I teach the aforementioned devotional.
> 
> It lasts about an hour.


Thanks for sharing brother. So there is time allotted for laymen and laywomen to pray out loud?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 27, 2019)

Not at present

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Dec 27, 2019)

Our mid-week meeting is partly a review and discussion of the past sermon, and then a time of prayer. Anyone can pray; it is opened and closed by an elder.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 27, 2019)

Being that my congregation is a church plant established as a mission work to Calvin College (now University), we host a theology and pizza night on Wednesdays at Dr. Noe's home. The goal is to reach Calvin students with Reformed theology and solid expositions of Scripture on Wednesdays. The evening begins with fellowship and pizza. We then gather around and the pastor opens with prayer. The portion of Scripture we are studying is read aloud. We then systematically work through the text with questions and discussion. The pastor closes us in prayer. We then finish the night with singing Psalms and hymns. The amount of students that attend is very encouraging.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 27, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Being that my congregation is a church plant established as a mission work to Calvin College (now University), we host a theology and pizza night on Wednesdays at Dr. David C. Noe's home. The goal is to reach Calvin students with Reformed theology and solid expositions of Scripture on Wednesdays. The evening begins with fellowship and pizza. We then gather around and the pastor opens with prayer. The portion of Scripture we are studying is read aloud. We then systematically work through the text with questions and discussion. The pastor closes us in prayer. We then finish the night with singing Psalms and hymns. The amount of students that attend is very encouraging.


You had me at pizza


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 27, 2019)

We have a prayer meeting, and I think such is encouraged directly in Scripture by 1Tim.2.

I think the format could be very pragmatic, whatever works for a particular group. We typically follow an acrostic (ACTS) format, after opening with some Scripture (which one of our men asked to lead chooses for us). That text often will be referred to again in the course of the hour, as the topic changes.

Everyone is encouraged to pray, but someone is appointed to begin one topic, and another appointed to conclude.

All, including women and children, are encouraged to pray if they will. I regard 1Tim.2:9 as actually enjoining women _explicitly _to this work, when Paul writes, "likewise the women."
(The sentence is notoriously difficult to punctuate, and to connect the directions about "adorning" with Paul's ongoing subject of prayer. Paul follows this direction for female engagement in such prayer by reiterating that women may NOT lead in public worship, v11ff. The idea would be a false inference; similar to when he addressed false inferences in 1Cor.11 & 14, taken from the idea that possessing a talent or a certain gift is equivalent to divine authorization to employ such anywhere one willed.)​I think such times of prayer are ideal for pastors and elders, besides parents with children, to be encouraging, modeling, and listening.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 2


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 27, 2019)

Our prayer meetings are complete worship services (including a sermon) focused on intercessory prayer. Women may not lead in prayer. Men are chosen and called upon by the minister to pray at various points of the service.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## timfost (Dec 27, 2019)

1. Pastor or leader prays
2. Scripture reading, instruction, discussion
3. Prayer requests
4. Prayer (anyone encouraged to pray)

We also usually begin with singing. Work prevents me from attending most Wednesday evening meetings, unfortunately.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## jambo (Dec 27, 2019)

We have 4 house groups meeting on a Thursday night. They begin about 8 pm and with a bible study. Last year the pastor sent out questions to the house group leaders that were based on the Sunday sermon. It was a good way of discussing the sermon and how it applies to us. Prayer time follows this and we'd pray for various aspects of church life and ministry and this was open for all members to pray. Each Sunday service we make a point of praying for our missionaries sent out by the church but each group has specific missionaries assigned to them for prayer. Sometimes we would skype a missionary or missionary family and chat and pray with them. Then we finish with a cup of tea and we are over around 10:30 pm.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Susan777 (Dec 27, 2019)

No building so no opportunity to gather physically. We have a 6AM prayer meeting by phone on Wednesdays. Pastor sends out email outlining people needs and other concerns the night before. Meeting is opened and closed by him. All are welcome to pray.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## jw (Dec 27, 2019)

We have a non-compulsory prayer meeting on Wednesday evenings. We pray for the "big ticket" items of the church.

1. It begins with a singing of a Psalm
2. A very brief exhortation
3. Pastor or one of the elders prays
4. Singing of another Psalm.
5. Brief exhortation.
6. Pastor or one of the elders prays.
7. Psalm

45 to 50 minutes, on average. Since it is a churchly function, church officers pray.

Linked is an example order of meeting: https://ccrpcorg.s3.amazonaws.com/Prayer Meeting/Prayer Meeting 12-25-2019.pdf

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## lynnie (Dec 27, 2019)

At our midweek prayer meeting we sing a few songs and then the time is about half prayer and half bible study. We go about 60 to 75 minutes and some folks hang around and talk a bit after. Anyone can pray. Once a month the entire time is prayer, no bible study. The pastor does a list as a guide but anybody can add to it. Last time it was church related including praying for all the kids, but one month might have missionaries or prayer for the nation and those in government.

I cannot figure out for the life of me why some churches dont allow women to pray. The Refomed Baptist near us is like that unless they've changed recently. I Cor 11 says for women to wear a head covering when they pray and prophecy because of the angels. That is women speaking in the gathering in the presence of unseen angelic witnesses. If a guy feels in some intuitive way that something is wrong, my guess is that the women are not wearing head coverings. It isn't the prayer itself, or expression of thanks and praise, that is the problem. It is just so warped and stupid to say women can't pray. Tell them to cover their head and pour out their heart in prayer.

I am trying to be gracious and not express my full feelings about this lol. Some of you are so badly mistaken and unbiblical.


----------



## jw (Dec 27, 2019)

Well, I disagree about the “unbiblical” and “mistaken” characterizations, but okay. Not only are women to be prohibited from leading prayer in a churchly context -who are to remain silent in the churches (outside the corporate Amen, or reciting in unison the decalogue and LORD's prayer, and the singing of praise/prophesying)- but unordained, unqualified, unexamined men should be prohibited too. Women may pray, and _ought _too, but not verbally leading in the church, along with most of the men. They cover their heads in the worship service while praying in concert with the LORD’s people, and they sing the praises of God. There is no deprivation here. Nothing “stupid” about that. Your attempts at coming across graciously failed, as if the position of women leading prayer verbally in a churchly context is some kind of a new position not thought out and well-defended in ecclesiastical history.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 27, 2019)

We begin with a hymn, then have two seasons of prayer, one for things external to our congregation (other churches, missionaries, etc), then for internal concerns. Each time the floor is open for requests to be voiced, and letters from other churches or missionaries are often read. All men are encouraged to pray; it is forbidden to women to lead in prayer. Not to start a debate with Lynnie in the above post, but the explanation is that leading in prayer is a matter of having authority: the leader is speaking for the rest. The women in the passage were to have their heads under cover _while prayer was going on. _This does not mean they were themselves leading the prayer. Take it or leave it, that is the RB RB understanding of it.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Chad Hutson (Dec 27, 2019)

Our midweek service is not necessarily a prayer meeting, it is Bible study. We begin with a few songs, a prayer, then instruction, ending in prayer. However, our prayer service is on Sunday evening, prior to worship. We begin by recounting/reminding of prayer needs. Led by the pastor (me) and then continued by other elders, deacons, or faithful men. I then conclude the prayer time prior to beginning the worship service. Women are present and praying, although they do not lead prayer. We pray for thirty minutes uninterrupted.
It is noteworthy that not one woman has ever been told not to lead in prayer, but they have never had to be. They know by instruction that the men should lead and we have never had any issues in this regard. We have incredible men and women who serve faithfully and are devoted to prayer.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Dec 27, 2019)

At our Wednesday night Bible study and prayer meeting, the pastor leads the meeting. He opens with prayer and then leads the study, during which there is open discussion as he leads. After the study, there is a time of prayer, usually with the pastor closing in prayer (although sometimes he'll ask someone else to close). Everyone (men and women) are encouraged to both participate in the discussion and to pray during the prayer time.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## B.L. (Dec 27, 2019)

Afterthought said:


> *Women may not lead in prayer.* Men are chosen and called upon by the minister to pray at various points of the service.





Joshua said:


> *Not only are women to be prohibited from leading prayer* o in a churchly context -who are to remain silent in the churches (outside the corporate Amen and the singing of praise/prophesying)- but unordained, unqualified, unexamined men should be prohibited too. *Women may pray, and ought too, but not verbally leading in the church, along with most of the men*.





Ben Zartman said:


> All men are encouraged to pray; *it is forbidden to women to lead in prayer*.....but the explanation is that leading in prayer is a matter of having authority: the leader is speaking for the rest.





Chad Hutson said:


> *Women are present and praying, although they do not lead prayer.*



What does "leading in prayer" actually mean? In other words, women aren't allowed to pray out loud when everyone else is silent and since they would be the only ones heard audibly praying that would constitute "leading" the meeting at that point? Is this the idea? I'm trying to imagine what this looks like in practice.

How about in private settings? Can a woman pray out loud in an informal small group setting? How about during family prayer time with her husband and children?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 27, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I regard 1Tim.2:9 as actually enjoining women _explicitly _to this work, when Paul writes, "likewise the women."
> (The sentence is notoriously difficult to punctuate, and to connect the directions about "adorning" with Paul's ongoing subject of prayer.​


Interesting Rev. Buchanan, I have always, just in reading and contemplating the passage, connected the “in like manner also” with the attitude and demeanor enjoined upon the men, “without wrath or doubting,” as Paul goes on to describe for women a life lived with faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. Do any commentators take your same view, especially older ones?

Everyone is encouraged to pray in our morning Bible hour at church, and I have generally refrained, with a very few times of doing so because of the desire on our pastor’s part that all participate. But after the last time of offering prayer aloud during our prayer time I decided to go with what has seemed best to me from Scripture and refrain. I agree with Joshua’s and Ben’s take on the reasoning. If friends, male and female, got together to pray outside of a congregational meeting that would likely be different.​


----------



## lynnie (Dec 27, 2019)

Joshua said:


> Well, I disagree about the “unbiblical” and “mistaken” characterizations, but okay. Not only are women to be prohibited from leading prayer o in a churchly context -who are to remain silent in the churches (outside the corporate Amen and the singing of praise/prophesying)- but unordained, unqualified, unexamined men should be prohibited too. Women may pray, and _ought _too, but not verbally leading in the church, along with most of the men. They cover their heads in the worship service while praying in concert with the LORD’s people, and they sing the praises of God. There is no deprivation here. Nothing “stupid” about that. Your attempts at coming across graciously failed, as if the position of women leading prayer verbally in a churchly context is some kind of a new position not thought out and well-defended in ecclesiastical history.



All right, if you believe in head coverings I will retract my crack. In my limited experience I've seen the "women can't pray aloud" only in non head covering situations. I don't agree they can't, and I believe Phillip's four daughters were verbal in some fashion in gatherings, but at least you don't appear to be tossing 1 Cor 11 out.

I also think, (and right now I probably don't have a good logical argument for this, more just intuitive) a smaller midweek gathering does not equate to the Sunday service. In our church on Sunday only men in leadership lead the opening, closing, and deacon prayer, and I am glad for that. But midweeks seem much less formal.....more like the family getting together. It just isn't the same feeling in the meeting. Maybe feeling is the wrong word, but it feels appropriate for various women to lift up a prayer request along with many men on a midweek.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 27, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Interesting Rev. Buchanan, I have always, just in reading and contemplating the passage, connected the “in like manner also” with the attitude and demeanor enjoined upon the men, “without wrath or doubting,” as Paul goes on to describe for women a life lived with faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. Do any commentators take your same view, especially older ones?
> 
> Everyone is encouraged to pray in our morning Bible hour at church, and I have generally refrained, with a very few times of doing so because of the desire on our pastor’s part that all participate. But after the last time of offering prayer aloud during our prayer time I decided to go with what has seemed best to me from Scripture and refrain. I agree with Joshua’s and Ben’s take on the reasoning. If friends, male and female, got together to pray outside of a congregational meeting that would likely be different.​


Jerri,
I'm not sure about what commentators might be in agreement. It's been a while since I preached this passage.

I am confident of what the context is about, of Paul's purpose in writing and how the first part of the letter flows from chs.1-3 especially. This part is concerned to promote organized prayer for the church. V8 does not shift the subject under discussion, but summons the whole church (as opposed to designated "prayer warriors") to the task of prayer.

So Paul calls on the men to pray in every congregation (he's not telling them to have impromptu tete-a-tetes "everywhere" when they meet one another on the street). "Without wrath and doubting" are dispositional requirements for all effectual prayer; and I suppose are tendencies men/males may be more particularly tempted to, and should suppress especially in their public prayers.

V9 begins, "in like manner also the women," and I understand Paul to refer to the primary activity of the previous v8 (prayer) and indeed the focal activity of the previous 8vv entire. He hasn't changed the subject. He says that he wants the women to pray in every such meeting as well. The following words (end of v9 and v10) pertaining to the women--as in the case of the men--are describing mainly dispositional requirements (the outward expression is an index of the inward heart), i.e. the manner of the praying iself, which often in the case of women need to be attended to more particularly than men when it comes to social presentation. Even at a prayer meeting, we need to remember we aren't coming there to impress our fellow parishioners; but to pray to God. You are already "dressed up," ladies, in godliness and good works.

And at v11, he dispenses with a false-inference: that the previous encouragement to the women to prayer institutes a change in worship practice. It does nothing of the kind, and he enforces standard church practice with the same arguments he ever used in vv12-15.

If, as some have proposed even here, they understand formal church worship to be of one kind, be it on the Christian Sabbath or any other day or purpose such as the collective prayers during the week--well then, Paul's statement enjoining silence on the women he simply affirms here as across the board. But then, I also think that these will not regard v9, "likewise the women," as applicable to the main subject, i.e. prayer; but make the whole subject shift at that place to a focus on "women in church."

I happen to think my interpretation (whoever may consent to it) preserves the subject (prayer), the flow of the passage, and explains _why _Paul shifts into his defense of male-only leading in worship in the closing vv of that section. It does a better job than the alternatives, in my opinion, which is why I adopted it.

I think Sabbath-worship is unique, and is the place most especially governed by minister-led function. Office is tied to the church's formal worship, and must reflect the divine concerns for purity of expression; and so is appointed for men only to fill it. I don't think the prayer meeting is formal worship or subject to the same regulation. I don't believe a woman praying publicly beside other women, and men, and children, has anything to do with the "silence" Paul calls for in v11. I don't think that female piety is anything to be ashamed of, nor is every instance of praying aloud "leading." This goes also for the children who may have something to say (as well as learning appropriate habits in our midst).

I'm not anxious to fight over this, or disparage any who don't agree. I believe I am defending my stance with a faithful, reverent, and consistent treatment of Scripture's text.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 28, 2019)

Prayer
Scripture/exposition - We’ve gone through the psalms since I began in 2011, we just start over we are on our 3rd time through.
Prayer - open to all to pray, but thankfully only heads of households tend to pray. I’m not sure a woman has prayed since I came in 2011.
Sing the Psalm and one more.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 28, 2019)

BLM said:


> What does "leading in prayer" actually mean? In other words, women aren't allowed to pray out loud when everyone else is silent and since they would be the only ones heard audibly praying that would constitute "leading" the meeting at that point? Is this the idea? I'm trying to imagine what this looks like in practice.
> 
> How about in private settings? Can a woman pray out loud in an informal small group setting? How about during family prayer time with her husband and children?


Yes, "leading in prayer" means praying out loud while everyone else is silent. Those in silent mode are supposedly listening to and affirming the out-loud-prayer by a discreet "amen" at the end ("how will he say amen at your giving of thanks?...). There is no context where everyone is praying out loud at once. That defies reason and destroys unity.
A woman may pray aloud in informal settings: her home, at a meal, at family worship, etc. I think our PMs have a more formal feeling because we alternate between having them on the Lord's Day and mid-week: the reason being that few can make it mid-week, but all members are expected to be present on the Sabbath. So the mid-week order is a hold-over from the Sabbath habit. And while the mid-week is informal in that the church cannot require attendance, it is still the church gathering to pray together for church matters, so it feels--whether our judgment is right or wrong--like the same order ought to apply.

As for those who would say that we deny the public outpouring of the heart to women, well--we try to keep men from it too. "When thou prayest, pray in secret..." Public prayer is not the time to wrestle out the serious issues of your soul: it is a time when, with decency and order, one man, or men in turn, pray on behalf of the congregation. Sure and it should be fervent and heartfelt, but it is not the time for praying your guts out, so to speak, or sweating blood. Jesus went off by himself to do this ("tarry here while I pray"), and His recorded public prayers are very organized and decent. There's nothing worse than when a guy thinks he should give public vent to his inmost thoughts and affection in public, or wanders off publicly in a stream-of consciousness ramble no one can follow. I've often wished I had an air horn to gently remind them of what they're supposed to be doing, or a tranquilizer dart to discreetly silence them. Our elders and deacons regularly give reminders of the do's and dont's of public prayer.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 28, 2019)

lynnie said:


> All right, if you believe in head coverings I will retract my crack. In my limited experience I've seen the "women can't pray aloud" only in non head covering situations. I don't agree they can't, and I believe Phillip's four daughters were verbal in some fashion in gatherings, but at least you don't appear to be tossing 1 Cor 11 out.
> 
> I also think, (and right now I probably don't have a good logical argument for this, more just intuitive) a smaller midweek gathering does not equate to the Sunday service. In our church on Sunday only men in leadership lead the opening, closing, and deacon prayer, and I am glad for that. But midweeks seem much less formal.....more like the family getting together. It just isn't the same feeling in the meeting. Maybe feeling is the wrong word, but it feels appropriate for various women to lift up a prayer request along with many men on a midweek.


Lynnie,

Personally I am still not sure where I land on head coverings being required today. Usually it depends on the day. My family does not currently practice covering. Unless I am thoroughly convinced it is required (mostly binding in all ages), I will not ask them to. I try to study the matter a couple times a year.

However, the Charge that 1 Corinthians 11 is “tossed”, I think ignores (in an uncharitable way) some of the great commentators who have seen the practice as cultural and tried their best to treat the passage in an exegetical manner(1 of many being Matthew Henry). Again, I personally have yet to conclude either way. You might want to take some time to check out this RPNA document from 2001. It does a great job outlining some Church History regarding the practice.

http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/headcovr/headcovr.htm

I have to say, it seems to be a pretty good paper. On the mornings I wake up and “don’t” believe it required, it is because of this document and it’s approach to the passage. The beginning of the paper is a review of historical comments on the practice. The end of the paper is exegetical work closed by a conclusion.

P.S. You can look up Matthew Henry online. Below is a quote from the RPNA paper (linked above) quoting Calvin (and yes I am aware of his famous breast quote relating to modesty):



> John Calvin has rightly rendered the sense of the passage. Commenting upon 1 Corinthians 11:14 Calvin states:
> 
> _He [Paul—RPNA] again sets forth nature as the mistress of decorum, and what was at that time in common use by universal consent and custom—even among the Greeks—he speaks of as being natural, for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair. Historical records bear, that in all countries in ancient times, that is, in the first ages, men wore long hair. Hence also the poets in speaking of the ancients, are accustomed to apply to them the common epithet of unshorn. It was not until a late period that barbers began to be employed at Rome—about the time of Africanus the elder. And at the time when Paul wrote these things, the practice of having the hair shorn had not yet come into use in the provinces of Gaul or Germany. Nay more, it would have been reckoned an unseemly thing for men, no less than for women, to be shorn or shaven; but as in Greece [Corinth—RPNA] it was reckoned an unbecoming thing for a man to allow his hair to grow long, so that those who did were remarked as effeminate, *he [Paul—RPNA] reckons as nature a custom that had come to be confirmed *(emphases added)._
> 
> If, as Calvin taught, nature is custom that has come to be confirmed within a society, then Paul is asking this question: "Doth not even a custom which has come to be confirmed in your culture, itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" This follows very well with the scope of Paul's argument and is indeed something that the Corinthians could easily judge. If we say that God explicitly commanded the use of the headcovering in this passage irrespective of the culture of the Corinthians, then there was really nothing for the Corinthians to judge in themselves, and this makes Paul's question irrelevant. We are not prepared to assert this.



P.P.S. I recommend the full paper in the very least to challenge yourself.


----------



## Whit (Dec 28, 2019)

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=33191739496864


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chad Hutson (Dec 28, 2019)

BLM said:


> What does "leading in prayer" actually mean? In other words, women aren't allowed to pray out loud when everyone else is silent and since they would be the only ones heard audibly praying that would constitute "leading" the meeting at that point? Is this the idea? I'm trying to imagine what this looks like in practice.


In the formal setting of a "service," leading in prayer means out loud while others listen. In informal settings (homes, friendship circles, etc.) women are free to lead prayers.
Again, this is never an issue within our congregation. The women _want_ the men to lead, not because of any inability or deficiency in the women, but rather because they sincerely seek to honor God and to see the men doing so as well. Remember, these issues have as much to do with men neglecting their duties as it does women usurping authority. In the Christian church, when men lead lovingly and humbly, Christian women appreciate it and respond positively.
Much of the controversy in the contemporary setting revolves around a failure of men to be men. As a result, oftentimes women feel compelled to pick up the slack. Its not simply women seeking to wrest control from male domination (although in some contexts this is the case). We need to teach the men how to pray and that it is their duty to pray.
My observations after 22 years in pastoral ministry: 1) men are often lazy or uncommitted; 2) women are often more devoted than men; 3) if not instructed properly and/or held accountable, even the men who are committed can fall prey to the vice of arrogance or superiority; 4) humble, self-controlled, committed, caring, and strong men are vital to a healthy church and appreciated by God-fearing members; 5) it isn't necessary to tear manhood down in order to build up womanhood, or vice versa.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 28, 2019)

Moderating: let’s keep away from debate/discussion on head covering in this thread. There are many good discussions to research on the PB, just fyi. Search for ones involving @Afterthought and Rev. Winzer (MW) as some of those get to older commentary and what is meant by references to the cultural aspect.


----------



## kodos (Dec 28, 2019)

G said:


> Again, I personally have yet to conclude either way. You might want to take some time to check out this RPCNA document from 2001. It does a great job outlining some Church History regarding the practice.
> 
> http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/headcovr/headcovr.htm



Don't wish to distract even more from this thread, but just FYI - that is not an RPCNA document. It is an RPNA document.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 28, 2019)

kodos said:


> Don't wish to distract even more from this thread, but just FYI - that is not an RPCNA document. It is an RPNA document.


Corrected. Thanks for catching.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 28, 2019)

Ben Zartman said:


> There is no context where everyone is praying out loud at once. That defies reason and destroys unity.


I've known plenty of Koreans to do this. I went to a Korean church in Canada where they called it "praying in one voice," even though it is precisely the opposite. It's chaotic.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 28, 2019)

*Disclaimer

Me sharing the RPNA article is not a reflection of my opinion of that group. I merely think the article I linked is very thoughtful no matter one’s conclusion. I hope others will as well.


----------



## Nomos (Dec 28, 2019)

Ben Zartman said:


> There is no context where everyone is praying out loud at once. That defies reason and destroys unity.



Does that apply to publically directing one's voice to God through song as well? Or does changing pitch and tempo disqualify it as "prayer"?


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 28, 2019)

Nomos said:


> Does that apply to publically directing one's voice to God through song as well? Or does changing pitch and tempo disqualify it as "prayer"?


If everyone is singing the same words in unison, there will be no confusion. If everyone is reciting a creed or the Lord's Prayer in unison, as many Reformed churches do, there is no chaos. It is when everyone is praying out loud simultaneously but saying different words that things get squirrely. How will the unlearned give the Amen at your giving of thanks if he has no idea who said what? 
@Tom Hart I bumped into it too several times; what a nightmare! Even one person muttering while another is praying is distracting in the extreme.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 28, 2019)

For those whose practice is not to allow women to pray when men and women are gathered for the mid-week Church meeting, does your wife and/or daughter(s) have opportunity to pray in family worship?


----------



## Nomos (Dec 28, 2019)

Ben Zartman said:


> If everyone is singing the same words in unison, there will be no confusion. If everyone is reciting a creed or the Lord's Prayer in unison, as many Reformed churches do, there is no chaos. It is when everyone is praying out loud simultaneously but saying different words that things get squirrely. How will the unlearned give the Amen at your giving of thanks if he has no idea who said what?
> @Tom Hart I bumped into it too several times; what a nightmare! Even one person muttering while another is praying is distracting in the extreme.



I misinterpreted your original post, probably because I've never heard of a church that practiced multiple people praying out loud at the same time using different words. That seems rather quite strange to me.


----------



## Nomos (Dec 28, 2019)

G said:


> For those whose practice is not to allow women to pray when men and women are gathered for the mid-week Church meeting, does your wife and/or daughter(s) have opportunity to pray in family worship?



I would also wonder if those that prohibit women from praying audibly at a corporate gathering also prohibit them from singing to God, which is just another form of prayer. It seems the logical end given how arbitrary pitch and tempo would be for separating types of prayer.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 28, 2019)

Nomos said:


> I would also wonder if those that prohibit women from praying audibly at a corporate gathering also prohibit them from singing to God, which is just another form of prayer. It seems the logical end given how arbitrary pitch and tempo would be for separating types of prayer.


Prayer and singing are different elements of worship and while they may have some overlapping guidelines, they have unique ones as well.

Btw, I am not saying I disagree with those who require the prohibition. Just trying to better understand.


----------



## Nomos (Dec 28, 2019)

G said:


> Prayer and singing are different elements of worship and while they may have some overlapping guidelines, they have unique ones as well.
> 
> Btw, I am not saying I disagree with those who require the prohibition. Just trying to better understand.



Where does Scripture differentiate the guidelines between speaking and singing when directed to God? It's a strange distinction to me and one of the primary problems I have with prohibiting women from praying out loud. It's the same problem I have with EP. 

The position seems to be reduced to, "when you change the pitch and tone of the words that come from your mouth, new rules then apply: 1] Women can no longer participate, and 2] You can only sing 'inspired' (paraphrases) from the Psalms.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 28, 2019)

Nomos said:


> Where does Scripture differentiate the guidelines between speaking and singing when directed to God? It's a strange distinction to me and one of the primary problems I have with prohibiting women from praying out loud. It's the same problem I have with EP.
> 
> The position seems to be reduced to, "when you change the pitch and tone of the words that come from your mouth, new rules then apply: 1] Women can no longer participate, and 2] You can only sing 'inspired' (paraphrases) from the Psalms.


I don’t really want to get into a rabbit trail.

From Bushell “Songs of Zion” pg.48-49:



> To begin with, we freely grant that singing, preaching, prayer, and teaching all have certain aspects in common. Singing, preaching, and prayer all to varying extents manifest teaching functions. We also grant that they are all different ways or means of applying the Word of God to given situations. But this observation does not in itself settle the question of whether or not singing is a distinct or separate element of worship. Certainly some prayers in Scripture are songs and some songs are prayers, but it is equally clear that some prayers are not songs and some songs are not prayers. Praying and singing, in other words, are distinct acts. The same may be said of preaching. Prayer, singing, and preaching may at times have certain aspects or functions in common, such as teaching or praise, but they are nonetheless distinguishable from one another and separately commanded in Scripture.
> 
> The obligation to pray is not fulfilled by singing, even if singing has much in common with prayer, and the obligation to sing praise to God is not fulfilled by praying or preaching. We do not claim that these are three independent elements of worship, but we do claim that these are separately commanded and that because they are distinguishable from one another, they are distinct elements of worship. We therefore claim that a specific warrant as to content is demanded in each case. The argument that singing is simply another means, alongside poetic speech and prose speech, of praying, praising, confessing, teaching, preaching, admonishing, etc., does not affect this assertion in the least, because the regulative principle, if it governs anything at all, governs the means of worship. Since prayer is an act of worship, prayer by means of prose speech and prayer by means of song, require separate scriptural warrant as to content.



Again, I am not looking to debate this. Take it or leave it. Even if not EP, I think Bushell makes a solid point here regarding prayer and song.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 29, 2019)

Nomos said:


> Where does Scripture differentiate the guidelines between speaking and singing when directed to God? It's a strange distinction to me and one of the primary problems I have with prohibiting women from praying out loud. It's the same problem I have with EP.
> 
> The position seems to be reduced to, "when you change the pitch and tone of the words that come from your mouth, new rules then apply: 1] Women can no longer participate, and 2] You can only sing 'inspired' (paraphrases) from the Psalms.


In some congregations, as I've mentioned, the Lord's Prayer is recited in unison by all--men and women together. There is no 'leader,' unless it be the minister who begins the first syllable. Singing also is done together--women should not sing by themselves in the assembly. But ex tempore prayer, by it's nature, requires that only one person speak at a time--otherwise there is confusion. If only one person is praying and the rest listening, it has to be a man, because it is a position of authority.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 29, 2019)

Ben Zartman said:


> In some congregations, as I've mentioned, the Lord's Prayer is recited in unison by all--men and women together. There is no 'leader,' unless it be the minister who begins the first syllable. Singing also is done together--women should not sing by themselves in the assembly. But ex tempore prayer, by it's nature, requires that only one person speak at a time--otherwise there is confusion. If only one person is praying and the rest listening, it has to be a man, because it is a position of authority.



How is there any authority in asking God to provide or heal or move in some situation? By it's very nature petitioning prayer assumes total dependency on the Lord and complete human inability.

Modern charismatics can turn prayer into authoritative speech, speaking to the devil or speaking things into being and so forth. But that is not what we are referring to. True prayer is dependency on God and without any authority, instead acknowledging that He alone can change situations where we are powerless. There is authority with preaching, and governing the church, but not petitioning prayers.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 29, 2019)

lynnie said:


> How is there any authority in asking God to provide or heal or move in some situation? By it's very nature petitioning prayer assumes total dependency on the Lord and complete human inability.
> 
> Modern charismatics can turn prayer into authoritative speech, speaking to the devil or speaking things into being and so forth. But that is not what we are referring to. True prayer is dependency on God and without any authority, instead acknowledging that He alone can change situations where we are powerless. There is authority with preaching, and governing the church, but not petitioning prayers.


There is authority because the person praying is _leading _the congregation in prayer: he is praying on behalf of the congregation; he is representing the congregation as a spokesman to bring their requests corporately before the Throne of Grace.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Dec 29, 2019)

G said:


> Does your congregation have prayer meetings?


Yes. Wednesday evenings at 7:30 p.m.



G said:


> What do they look like, regarding format?


An hour long. We begin with a hymn and brief meditation on some portion of Scripture. Often I will read some excerpt from some worthy to stir us up to take hold of God in prayer.

Then another hymn on that theme.

Then we usually have two periods of prayer. In the first, I read reports from sister churches, missionaries, and ministries. We also pray regularly for our nation, its government, and members of the Armed Forces. I call on different men in the congregation to pray for the different things mentioned.

We only permit the men of the church to lead in corporate prayer. These men will stand in their place and offer prayer for the matter they were given. Each of their prayers are followed by an "Amen" which is then echoed by the congregation.

After these prayers are concluded, I will address prayer concerns related to our own congregation—conversion of the lost friends and family, prayer for God's blessing on his word from week to week, the sick and aged and shut-ins, for marriages and families, etc. Once these have been explained, I will again call on different men in the congregation to pray for the different things mentioned. Then we bow again in prayer and the men will stand in their place and offer prayer for the matter they were given.

When they have concluded their prayers, I will stand and offer a concluding prayer which marks the conclusion of the prayer meeting.



G said:


> Are others allowed to pray out loud (laymen)?


Men who are members in good standing are encouraged to exercise themselves in public prayer (1 Tim. 2:8).



G said:


> Should women be allowed to pray out loud during this type of public meetings?


No. To pray publicly is to lead the people of God in prayer. Women are not permitted to speak authoritatively or bear rule in the assemblies of the church.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.—1 Tim. 2:12

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.—1 Cor. 14:34



G said:


> In our family worship we usually close in prayer and I encourage my family members to take turns praying out loud and Dad (me) closes. This helps me hear what is on my children’s heart as they speak to God.
> 
> I am wondering if this should be done in the public prayer meeting when the Pastor opens and closes, but the laymen are permitted to pray in between.


We do this as well as a family. I encourage my wife and children to pray aloud in the family. But what is appropriate in family devotions may not be permissible or edifying in the public meetings of the church. Asking children to pray in the public prayer meeting I think would be unwise for several reasons. Having women pray would violate the clear precept of Scripture on women's conduct in public worship.

But I do think having the godly men of a congregation voice their supplications is both biblical and unto the great edification of God's people.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie (Dec 29, 2019)

It makes no sense to me that a woman's submission to her husband at home allows her to pray out loud with him on the sofa and not be authoritative or violating that submission, but suddenly on wednesday night if she prays she is leading men and authoritative. I don't see how you can separate the two. I mean is she leading her husband at home or isn't she. Its all the same. Being in a more public gathering doesn't magically change the substance of what is happening. 

I asked my husband if he ever heard of this when he went to Westminster in the 70s and he said never, not in the student body or faculty. There was some discussion about possibly losing accreditation because they didn't have women on the Seminary board, and at that time they all agreed about no women elders and pastors (but not necessarily deaconesses), but women praying out loud midweek wasn't even on the radar.

I guess it is a small minority position? Well carry on, and I will enjoy my prayer times with my husband.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## B.L. (Dec 29, 2019)

I was looking around to see if any NAPARC denominations take an official position on women praying in prayer meetings and wasn't successful, but I did find this Q&A on the topic on the OPC website for what it's worth (underlining is mine).

*May women pray in prayer meetings?*

*Question:*

_At our women's ministry class we were encouraged by the leader to attend midweek prayer meeting and participate. In discussing this, we encountered many different views on women praying in public. They ranged from women being submissive and only the husband praying to strong convictions that women should pray publicly and participate in prayer at the meetings. Can you give us any guidance on the OPC position on this question?
_
*Answer:*

Thank you for your question. There is not an "OPC position" on this question as such. That's the short and easy answer!

There have been a couple of GA study committees over the years that have produced reports that have some relevance to this question. You will find them at the bottom of this page: General Assembly Papers. The last two papers address "Women in Office" and two up from them is a report on "Unordained Persons in Worship." Note the status of such reports: weighty treatises but not part of the Constitution, which is the Bible, the Westminster Standards, and the _Book of Church Order_.

The reason that I say "some relevance" is because what you reference is prayer meeting, not a worship service, the primary focus of the study committee reports. There are varying views on this, though I think that a book like Noel Week's _Sufficiency of Scripture_ (Banner of Truth) deals well with this sort of question both from the stance of principles and implementation (treating the key texts).

While I believe that 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and other passages would teach that a women should not officially and publicly teach men or lead in any way in public worship, there is no clear biblical teaching that I see that would forbid a woman from praying in a prayer meeting. Those praying in such settings are neither leading nor teaching. If one thinks that those praying in such venues are leading or teaching, then we'd better not have them.

That having been said—that women _may_ pray in a prayer meeting—that is not to say that women _must_ pray in such settings. My wife never does nor ever would. She is not comfortable praying aloud in such settings and women must never be urged to do this against their wills. My wife prays in our and our family's prayers as well as in women's prayer time. So she does pray aloud with others, but not with men present (other than family members). That is her conviction. This does not mean, however, that women may not pray in such settings.

I trust that this is helpful for you.​

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Dec 29, 2019)

lynnie said:


> I don't see how you can separate the two.


Because the Scriptures explicitly address one but not the other.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 29, 2019)

lynnie said:


> It makes no sense to me that a woman's submission to her husband at home allows her to pray out loud with him on the sofa and not be authoritative or violating that submission, but suddenly on wednesday night if she prays she is leading men and authoritative. I don't see how you can separate the two. I mean is she leading her husband at home or isn't she. Its all the same. Being in a more public gathering doesn't magically change the substance of what is happening.
> 
> I asked my husband if he ever heard of this when he went to Westminster in the 70s and he said never, not in the student body or faculty. There was some discussion about possibly losing accreditation because they didn't have women on the Seminary board, and at that time they all agreed about no women elders and pastors (but not necessarily deaconesses), but women praying out loud midweek wasn't even on the radar.
> 
> I guess it is a small minority position? Well carry on, and I will enjoy my prayer times with my husband.


At home the woman prays under the authority of her husband--it's as though she is deputized by him to do so. But he cannot deputize her to hold authority over other men--some actions that she may do toward her husband and family under his headship are non-transferable to the broader context of the church where there are other authority structures. I do sincerely hope that you will continue to pray with your husband.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Dec 29, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Because the Scriptures explicitly address one but not the other.



If a) one is addressed but not the other, and b) the RPW works off of positive commands, would it then follow that c) women should not pray with their husbands in the absence of an explicit command, assuming that the RPW applies to all worship?

I do think @lynnie makes a fair point about the logic here if indeed prayer publicly offered necessarily assumes authority, and Bruce a fair point as to the reasoning according to the Scriptures in question.

I'm not wanting to debate the issue, but simply trying to understand the logic of the position that doesn't allow women to pray in any public setting within the church.

Thanks!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Dec 30, 2019)

timfost said:


> If a) one is addressed but not the other, and b) the RPW works off of positive commands, would it then follow that c) women should not pray with their husbands in the absence of an explicit command, assuming that the RPW applies to all worship?



By that logic, one could argue children ought never to pray in family worship. It could also be argued that fathers (or anyone for that reason) ought not pray or read teach the Bible to their families because they are not ordained ministers.

By this it is illustrated that we own there are different standards applied to public and private worship. What those exactly are is a question worthy of debate. But arguing for an "all or nothing" position seems untenable.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 30, 2019)

timfost said:


> If a) one is addressed but not the other, and b) the RPW works off of positive commands, would it then follow that c) women should not pray with their husbands in the absence of an explicit command, assuming that the RPW applies to all worship?
> 
> I do think @lynnie makes a fair point about the logic here if indeed prayer publicly offered necessarily assumes authority, and Bruce a fair point as to the reasoning according to the Scriptures in question.
> 
> ...


I think you're putting the RPW where it doesn't belong. Regulated Worship is the formal worship of the people of God on His day. We cannot claim that family worship is the same as the Lord's Day assembly. There is no formal call; no ordinances; no ecclesial discipline...it is a father teaching his family the ways of God and calling on Him for help. It is more....normative, which is why I hesitate to call it worship, and prefer "family devotions" to avoid confusion.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 30, 2019)

Ben Zartman said:


> At home the woman prays under the authority of her husband--it's as though she is deputized by him to do so. But he cannot deputize her to hold authority over other men--some actions that she may do toward her husband and family under his headship are non-transferable to the broader context of the church where there are other authority structures. I do sincerely hope that you will continue to pray with your husband.



You probably don't mean this the way it sounds. Deputizing a wife and granting her masculine authority is actually something he can never do, not should she accept such a proposition. In fact you can read countless essays out there ( and I don't feel like looking for links) about problems in marriages and churches because men renege on their God given authority and let women rule. 

If you truly see prayer aloud as authoritative leading, then she can't do it at home because she can't be deputized, because no husband can or should give his wife the authority in the home bestowed on him by God. 

I doubt very much that you are some emasculated guy abdicating his headship in the home, but your semantics sound bad here. I happen to still maintain that if anything, my submission to my husband is more unique than to anyone else, and men and women together submit to the elders within the church. Usurping his authority at home would be more grievous than to lead other men who I am not married to nor made a unique covenantal promise to. 

Anyway, I would drop the word deputize, or the concept of men giving women their own authority, if you get into this down the road with people. Thanks.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 30, 2019)

lynnie said:


> You probably don't mean this the way it sounds. Deputizing a wife and granting her masculine authority is actually something he can never do, not should she accept such a proposition. In fact you can read countless essays out there ( and I don't feel like looking for links) about problems in marriages and churches because men renege on their God given authority and let women rule.
> 
> If you truly see prayer aloud as authoritative leading, then she can't do it at home because she can't be deputized, because no husband can or should give his wife the authority in the home bestowed on him by God.
> 
> ...


You misunderstood my meaning. A woman prays in the home under her husband's headship--he is not abnegating his responsibility any more than allowing her to teach the children math is reneging on his responsibility to oversee their education. Responsibility delegated is not responsibility shirked. I'm sorry the word "deputized" riled you. It seems fitting, since no one would say that a sheriff is shirking his duty when he appoints a deputy. But I'll happily use other words if they'll please you better.
I'm not sure, though, why you can't seem to see the difference between the church gathered and the household gathered. They are two different entities, and different rules apply.


----------



## Username3000 (Dec 30, 2019)

Ben Zartman said:


> I think you're putting the RPW where it doesn't belong. Regulated Worship is the formal worship of the people of God on His day. We cannot claim that family worship is the same as the Lord's Day assembly. There is no formal call; no ordinances; no ecclesial discipline...it is a father teaching his family the ways of God and calling on Him for help. It is more....normative, which is why I hesitate to call it worship, and prefer "family devotions" to avoid confusion.



Where do you get the idea that God’s worship is only regulated in a formal gathering? That implies that God does not care about His worship at any other time.

I just started reading How To Serve God In Private And Public Worship by Puritan John Jackson (edited, and with chapters by Dr. McMahon), and this topic is covered. You should check it out at puritanpublications.com

Here’s a quick quote:

“[T]he worship of God is, namely, a tendering up to God, by Jesus Christ, that honor, homage, and respect that is due from the creature to the Creator...Yes, when you read the Word in private, or meditate on it, or talk with others about it, or when you instruct others in it, by way of catechizing or examination or the like; you worship God so far as you depend on him for such grace and mercy for yourself or others, through these duties.”

How can we say that God is concerned about how He is worshipped only at some times, and not others? The RPW must always be adhered to, must it not?

*Im not saying to add to the discussion of women praying, just in response to your comment about the RPW in general. I am an unlearned man though, so I stand to be corrected.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 30, 2019)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Where do you get the idea that God’s worship is only regulated in a formal gathering? That implies that God does not care about His worship at any other time.
> 
> I just started reading How To Serve God In Private And Public Worship by Puritan John Jackson (edited, and with chapters by Dr. McMahon), and this topic is covered. You should check it out at puritanpublications.com
> 
> ...


There is a distinction to be made between Lord's Day worship when the assembly of God's people is formally called into God's special presence, and acts of devotion done at other times. Worship done outside of the Lord's Day assembly is perforce informal, and is neither mandatory nor regulated the same way. That's why I called it normative: we must still avoid sacrilege and idolatry, but it's OK not to do all the things required of Sabbath worship, things which we must not fail to do on the Sabbath.
When you begin to try and regulate each day as though it were the Sabbath, you do two things: you take away the special-ness of the Sabbath, and you make an idol of the other days. When you say that every act of devotion or instruction or praise must meet the criteria of Lord's Day worship, you are in danger of joining the "all of life is worship" crowd, which actually means that nothing is worship.
To sum up: you're right that God cannot be worshipped in ways other than he has commanded, but we must insist that Sabbath Worship is different than everyday devotion, and that the assembly is governed differently than the family, because they are two different things.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 30, 2019)

Ben, we would probably agree on many things, but your original semantics are problematic. You said for a woman to pray out loud in front of men is authoritative leading....but not at home. 

When God separated femininity from Adam and gave us male and female, he created differences that go to the very core of the soul. A woman cannot have masculine leadership qualities any more than she can have a male pelvic arch or produce sperm. If a woman becomes a pastor or elder, no matter how kind and caring and intelligent she is, she can still never bring the authority of masculinity that God created into her preaching or eldership, because she is not male. 

If you want to think women should be silent at all church meetings, fine, you can think that. But you can't say that to pray aloud is leading with authority ie masculine, and then say she can suddenly be masculine at home. She can't. She never ever can. You have to adjust your mental understanding of what authority is, and realize that her prayers are never- at home or at church- masculine authority of leadership. They can't be. They can be out of order or unbiblical perhaps in some settings, but they can't be some quality that only belongs to men. 

I happen to believe that a woman's prayers are not under headship, unless obviously hubby does not want her to pray a certain way in which case she is better to keep that to herself. A husband can die or be killed in war, and the woman will retain her god given authority over the children even if there is no father. And she goes into the holy of holies and the very presence of God because she is "in Christ" where there is no male or female when she prays. 

Anyway, if you want to think women can't pray at a midweek, that's up to you. But you can't call such praying as being birthed in masculinity ( leadership, authority) and then say it can happen at home. You have to adjust your terminology.

I can drop this : ) , you can think about how you word it and come to your own conclusions. Thanks for the interaction.


----------



## Kinghezy (Dec 30, 2019)

lynnie said:


> You said for a woman to pray out loud in front of men is authoritative leading



*If* we were to say that it is authoritative to lead during a prayer meeting, I think it would be ordained officers (maybe just elders) who would be praying (see Joshua's post 15). I, personally do not find it consistent to say "any man". That starts to sound to me a little like patriarchy. https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/the-patriarchy-movement-five-a.php

... Christ has not entrusted to non-ordained men the public ministry of the word, the administration of the sacraments, church discipline etc... Moreover, men in _general_ are not the head of women in _general_.​I am not sure where I would fall on this one, but I just wanted to point out that there is two positions expressed: (1) "only ordained men" and (2) "only men"; and there could be a fairly significant difference between the two.


----------



## Username3000 (Dec 30, 2019)

Ben Zartman said:


> There is a distinction to be made between Lord's Day worship when the assembly of God's people is formally called into God's special presence, and acts of devotion done at other times. Worship done outside of the Lord's Day assembly is perforce informal, and is neither mandatory nor regulated the same way. That's why I called it normative: we must still avoid sacrilege and idolatry, but it's OK not to do all the things required of Sabbath worship, things which we must not fail to do on the Sabbath.
> When you begin to try and regulate each day as though it were the Sabbath, you do two things: you take away the special-ness of the Sabbath, and you make an idol of the other days. When you say that every act of devotion or instruction or praise must meet the criteria of Lord's Day worship, you are in danger of joining the "all of life is worship" crowd, which actually means that nothing is worship.
> To sum up: you're right that God cannot be worshipped in ways other than he has commanded, but we must insist that Sabbath Worship is different than everyday devotion, and that the assembly is governed differently than the family, because they are two different things.


Thanks. I’ll study the subject more.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 31, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Ben, we would probably agree on many things, but your original semantics are problematic. You said for a woman to pray out loud in front of men is authoritative leading....but not at home.
> 
> When God separated femininity from Adam and gave us male and female, he created differences that go to the very core of the soul. A woman cannot have masculine leadership qualities any more than she can have a male pelvic arch or produce sperm. If a woman becomes a pastor or elder, no matter how kind and caring and intelligent she is, she can still never bring the authority of masculinity that God created into her preaching or eldership, because she is not male.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your thoughts. I guess if you will not see the difference between public assemblies and private ones, and between the different realms where headship applies, we will continue to get nowhere. Perhaps I'm seeing more nuance in the situation than is there. Either way, may the Lord bless you and keep you, sister.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 31, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> *If* we were to say that it is authoritative to lead during a prayer meeting, I think it would be ordained officers (maybe just elders) who would be praying (see Joshua's post 15). I, personally do not find it consistent to say "any man". That starts to sound to me a little like patriarchy. https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/the-patriarchy-movement-five-a.php
> 
> ... Christ has not entrusted to non-ordained men the public ministry of the word, the administration of the sacraments, church discipline etc... Moreover, men in _general_ are not the head of women in _general_.​I am not sure where I would fall on this one, but I just wanted to point out that there is two positions expressed: (1) "only ordained men" and (2) "only men"; and there could be a fairly significant difference between the two.


In Baptist polity, the elders may delegate the duties of prayer and even preaching in some cases to laymen (our deacons preach from time to time, as does a seminary student), but they do so under the authority of the church. When I pray in public, I do so under authority. When the elders pray or preach, they do so under the authority of God's Word. There is a God-given order and structure, so that the elders can delegate any layman to pray, but they cannot delegate that to women, who must keep silence in the churches.
As for patriarchy, that might be a subject for another thread, but personally I find it kind of creepy.


----------



## Kinghezy (Dec 31, 2019)

Ben Zartman said:


> In Baptist polity, the elders may delegate the duties of prayer and even preaching in some cases to laymen (our deacons preach from time to time, as does a seminary student), but they do so under the authority of the church



Got it, thanks!


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 31, 2019)

@Ben Zartman

I think we may disagree with the Normative being the rule for worship outside of Lord’s Day Public worship. I do not want to derail the thread to hash that out but I did want to provide two very helpful post by @iainduguid. His post do not specifically relate to the question or yes/no on women praying in a public church gathering, but relating to how we approach worship in Private and Secret context. I hope this helps you better lay out your thoughts my brother. I have become convinced that the principle of the RPW does regulate the ALL spheres of worship (public, private, secret) because worship is regulated by scripture alone.

1.https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...l-worship-services.100188/page-2#post-1223432

2.https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...l-worship-services.100188/page-2#post-1223441

Also @NaphtaliPress had a solid quote from John Owen here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/so-much-for-the-call-to-worship-before-or-after-owen.100600/


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 31, 2019)

The Owen is here: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...hurch-hath-power-to-institute-anything.86364/


G said:


> @Ben Zartman
> Also @NaphtaliPress had a solid quote from John Owen here:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...l-worship-services.100188/page-2#post-1223432


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 31, 2019)

I've posted this elsewhere, but this was a helpful statement on the Facebook Covenanter forum about the regulative principle of worship applying to all worship, yet with a difference that answers some of the difficulties often raised in family and private worship if the RPW applies there. Posted by RPCNA theological student, Pacific Coast Presbytery, Seni Adeyemi:
Times family worship are far different from public worship, but it [RPW] still applies to both. From the moment of the call to worship, the congregation enters into the special presence of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, mount Sion, an innumerable company of angels, etc. That is why during that time period between the call to worship and the benediction, only the elements of worship are to be done (reading and hearing of Scripture, prayer, psalm-singing, preaching, sacraments, etc.) and nothing else. During family worship there is no special entering into the presence of God like in public worship. Thus there is simply a duty to do the specific acts of worship (pray, read scripture, sing psalms); but there is not a special time during which only those things may be done. Thus acts of non-worship (reading man-made devotionals, discussion, etc.) may be done as helps during those times, because there is nothing special about the time called ‘family worship.’ When you read Ryle you are not worshipping God, even though you do it during that time you call family worship. But you are not so bound to only do formal acts of worship during those times because there is no entering into the special presence of God. Properly speaking, the duty of family worship is only fulfilled insofar as the formal acts of worship are performed. So the RPW does govern both public and family worship, albeit in different ways. The RPW governs the acts of worship in family worship (i.e. only prayer, psalm-singing, and scripture-reading are counted for worship), but it governs both the acts and the time set apart for public worship, such that nothing other than formal acts of worship may be done in the special presence of God.​


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 31, 2019)

G said:


> Not the quote I was looking for, but I have corrected it now.


Okay; I took my best shot with what I had.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 31, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I've posted this elsewhere, but this was a helpful statement on the Facebook Covenanter forum about the regulative principle of worship applying to all worship, yet with a difference that answers some of the difficulties often raised in family and private worship if the RPW applies there. Posted by RPCNA theological student, Pacific Coast Presbytery, Seni Adeyemi:
> Times family worship are far different from public worship, but it [RPW] still applies to both. From the moment of the call to worship, the congregation enters into the special presence of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, mount Sion, an innumerable company of angels, etc. That is why during that time period between the call to worship and the benediction, only the elements of worship are to be done (reading and hearing of Scripture, prayer, psalm-singing, preaching, sacraments, etc.) and nothing else. During family worship there is no special entering into the presence of God like in public worship. Thus there is simply a duty to do the specific acts of worship (pray, read scripture, sing psalms); but there is not a special time during which only those things may be done. Thus acts of non-worship (reading man-made devotionals, discussion, etc.) may be done as helps during those times, because there is nothing special about the time called ‘family worship.’ When you read Ryle you are not worshipping God, even though you do it during that time you call family worship. But you are not so bound to only do formal acts of worship during those times because there is no entering into the special presence of God. Properly speaking, the duty of family worship is only fulfilled insofar as the formal acts of worship are performed. So the RPW does govern both public and family worship, albeit in different ways. The RPW governs the acts of worship in family worship (i.e. only prayer, psalm-singing, and scripture-reading are counted for worship), but it governs both the acts and the time set apart for public worship, such that nothing other than formal acts of worship may be done in the special presence of God.​


This is helpful in some ways but it still displays the fundamental misunderstanding of the RPW that is very common in our circles: the idea that the RPW in itself tells us how we should worship. It does not: it is a preliminary principle, drawn from Scripture, that Scripture alone can regulate our worship. Thus the RPW applies to every act of worship, public or private (and to all in the same way), because it requires us in all our worship to be governed by positive Scriptural warrant (which itself can take a variety of forms: command, principle, positive example, good and necessary inference, etc). The difference between public and private worship is not that one is governed by the RPW and the other is not, or that they are governed in different ways by the RPW (what other way could there be?). It is that _the Scriptures _give us different precepts, examples and inferences that apply to private worship than public worship. 

To the issue at hand, it seems to me part of the disagreement in this thread is whether a mid week prayer meeting is more like public worship or private worship. If it is an extension of public worship, then it makes sense that the Scriptural rules about public worship would apply; if it is more like an extended family worship time, then different rules would apply. Very possibly different churches treat it as one or the other, so seeming differences are actually both appropriate behavior in context. There is, after all, no direct Scriptural instruction about Wednesday night prayer meetings. We are making inferences from passages whose primary focus is elsewhere.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 31, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> I, personally do not find it consistent to say "any man". That starts to sound to me a little like patriarchy.


This was a disagreement on FB last year between those in my church and those in others that otherwise hold the same views on midweek meetings/worship. My church would say that "any man" has authority because God gives it in places like 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11. The others would say that the "men" in such passages should be understood to be ordained (although it should be noted that the reasoning used to arrive at that conclusion actually requires that not any ordained person but only ministers ought to lead in prayer in public worship).

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Dec 31, 2019)

Our mid-week service is a essentially bible study first, and a prayer meeting second. It is opened with a communal meal (yay pizza! boo meatloaf!) then prayer by the Pastor (or Assoc. Pastor); then prayer requests are solicited from the congregation. The Pastor then prays through/over the requests. He then teaches the bible study. The meeting is then closed with prayer by the Pastor. It lasts about 90 minutes.


----------



## Kinghezy (Dec 31, 2019)

G said:


> Does your congregation have prayer meetings?
> 
> What do they look like, regarding format?
> 
> ...



As the OP, care to answer your own question?


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 31, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> As the OP, care to answer your own question?


So on Lord’s Day mornings before classes and service, a 9:15 prayer meeting is held for any to come. The meeting is in a classroom. Request are given and anyone (man or woman) is allowed to pray (goes around the circle) with the Pastor closing the time in prayer. My wife and daughters do not pray out loud during this time. My family really cherishes this time.

Mid-Week Meeting: We share a meal and then go to a classroom. Prayer request are taken. Only the Pastor prays. We then watch a DVD series covering some doctrinal topic.


----------



## Username3000 (Dec 31, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> the fundamental misunderstanding of the RPW that is very common in our circles: the idea that the RPW in itself tells us how we should worship. It does not: it is a preliminary principle, drawn from Scripture, that Scripture alone can regulate our worship. Thus the RPW applies to every act of worship, public or private (and to all in the same way), because it requires us in all our worship to be governed by positive Scriptural warrant (which itself can take a variety of forms: command, principle, positive example, good and necessary inference, etc). The difference between public and private worship is not that one is governed by the RPW and the other is not, or that they are governed in different ways by the RPW (what other way could there be?). It is that _the Scriptures _give us different precepts, examples and inferences that apply to private worship than public worship.



That is very helpful.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 31, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> This is helpful in some ways but it still displays the fundamental misunderstanding of the RPW that is very common in our circles: the idea that the RPW in itself tells us how we should worship. It does not: it is a preliminary principle, drawn from Scripture, that Scripture alone can regulate our worship. Thus the RPW applies to every act of worship, public or private (and to all in the same way), because it requires us in all our worship to be governed by positive Scriptural warrant (which itself can take a variety of forms: command, principle, positive example, good and necessary inference, etc). The difference between public and private worship is not that one is governed by the RPW and the other is not, or that they are governed in different ways by the RPW (what other way could there be?). It is that _the Scriptures _give us different precepts, examples and inferences that apply to private worship than public worship.
> 
> To the issue at hand, it seems to me part of the disagreement in this thread is whether a mid week prayer meeting is more like public worship or private worship. If it is an extension of public worship, then it makes sense that the Scriptural rules about public worship would apply; if it is more like an extended family worship time, then different rules would apply. Very possibly different churches treat it as one or the other, so seeming differences are actually both appropriate behavior in context. There is, after all, no direct Scriptural instruction about Wednesday night prayer meetings. We are making inferences from passages whose primary focus is elsewhere.


@G This is what I've been trying to convey, but with poorer expression. All worship must be regulated by God's Word, but different contexts have different requirements.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Jan 1, 2020)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I've posted this elsewhere, but this was a helpful statement on the Facebook Covenanter forum about the regulative principle of worship applying to all worship, yet with a difference that answers some of the difficulties often raised in family and private worship if the RPW applies there. Posted by RPCNA theological student, Pacific Coast Presbytery, Seni Adeyemi:
> Times family worship are far different from public worship, but it [RPW] still applies to both. From the moment of the call to worship, the congregation enters into the special presence of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, mount Sion, an innumerable company of angels, etc. That is why during that time period between the call to worship and the benediction, only the elements of worship are to be done (reading and hearing of Scripture, prayer, psalm-singing, preaching, sacraments, etc.) and nothing else. During family worship there is no special entering into the presence of God like in public worship. Thus there is simply a duty to do the specific acts of worship (pray, read scripture, sing psalms); but there is not a special time during which only those things may be done. Thus acts of non-worship (reading man-made devotionals, discussion, etc.) may be done as helps during those times, because there is nothing special about the time called ‘family worship.’ When you read Ryle you are not worshipping God, even though you do it during that time you call family worship. But you are not so bound to only do formal acts of worship during those times because there is no entering into the special presence of God. Properly speaking, the duty of family worship is only fulfilled insofar as the formal acts of worship are performed. So the RPW does govern both public and family worship, albeit in different ways. The RPW governs the acts of worship in family worship (i.e. only prayer, psalm-singing, and scripture-reading are counted for worship), but it governs both the acts and the time set apart for public worship, such that nothing other than formal acts of worship may be done in the special presence of God.​



"During family worship there is no special entering into the presence of God like in public worship. Thus there is simply a duty to do the specific acts of worship (pray, read scripture, sing psalms)"

I am assuming you agree with this and I am wondering if the concept of some special presence on Sunday morning is confessional or Puritan or where did it originate. I mean, Jesus said that where two or three are gathered He is in their midst, so there is a very real presence of the Lord even when it is just a few praying together outside an official meeting. It seems rather awful to think that we are doing some duty without the real presence of the Lord. I generally don't find it to be mere duty without presence. I've Sundays that felt like duty, and midweeks that were "outpourings". 

Jonathan Edwards has a section in religious affections (around page 300 in my paperback) of all the people in the bible who had powerful encounters with the Lord when alone. And of course in Christian biography there are many stories of people with a profound sense of the direct presence of the Lord and his leading or comfort or help when alone, and that has happened to me as well. My response to this would be that there is no special presence of the Lord on Sunday that can't happen all week or alone or with two or three gathered.

However, when the bible speaks of the gift of discerning of spirits (and maybe this is not what that term means) I have at times have a distinct awareness of the holy angelic hosts on Sunday, and I always think when that happens that it matters to wear headcoverings. I have also had a distinct awareness of angelic (or possibly Holy Spirit) presence on a couple occasions driving where I believe they spared my life from certain death on the road. But I never had that strong sense of angelic hosts midweek that I can recall, or praying at home. 

Of course my impressions and discernments mean zero and opinions have to be formed from scripture, but it is something I am thinking about. Is there a traditional Reformed position that the angelic host is present at the weekly gathering in a special way that isn't the same the rest of the week? From my limited subjective impression that would be true, but I don't want to go by my impressions. Perhaps the guarding angels are always present all the time in the same manner?


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 1, 2020)

lynnie said:


> Jesus said that where two or three are gathered He is in their midst, so there is a very real presence of the Lord even when it is just a few praying together outside an official meeting.



That was spoken in the context of church discipline, not about God being with believers in an extra special way when the numbers are sufficient.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie (Jan 1, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> That was spoken in the context of church discipline, not about God being with believers in an extra special way when the numbers are sufficient.



Yeah, my husband just told me that is the traditional Reformed position and many folks he knew in seminary believed in the Sunday morning special presence. Not everybody though, at least in the PCA back then ( 1970s).

Funny thing, a while ago on Wed night at the end ( the meetings are somewhat informal with a family feel), the meeting was officially over, and our pastor said hey let's sing a little while longer if anybody wants to hang around. We started singing and it's like the holy spirit fell in joy. One of those book of Acts moments where the overflowing joy just came down and swept through us. I wish it was always like that, those tastes of heaven.

I read about that guy in jail for 14 years who was tortured- Wurmbrand was it?- and he said sometimes the presence and joy of the Lord flooded him in his cell in a way he had never known before or after. Not that going to church was an option for him.

Five years ago I got sick and ran a fever up to 103 for 11 days in a row. The first week I would be so cold and huddle under covers and then wake up a couple times a night in such a sweat that my pajamas and the sheets were soaking wet. It was so awful. But the presence of the Lord came down and I was enveloped in a cloud of love for maybe a week. I've never known anything like it. God is love- it was so real.

This matters for ministry to people who can't make it to church for invalid reasons.....I always assure them that God is truly and fully present with them even when they are lying there alone and can't go to church.
Anyway, I suppose this has gotten off topic, but the holy presence can be poured out in a special way at other times than just Sunday morning.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 1, 2020)

It's axiomatic in Christian theology that God is everywhere. So, the question is: what does it mean for God to say he will be _present_ someplace, or in or for some circumstance or occasion? It is to say: his presence will be special, it will be for the express fulfillment of some purpose of his; and his believers are to expect the fulfillment of his word of promise.

God is specially present for the solemn gatherings of his people, as much now as he was in ancient days, Heb.12:22ff. Deut. 4:10, "Gather the people to Me, and I will let them hear My words." He brought them out from Egypt that they might sacrifice to him, Ex.5:3. And whenever the people gathered to answer the special call of God, it was a memorial: where the people stood in solidarity with convocations past and present, as one transtemporal assembly; and God acknowledged or _remembered _them. Num.10:10, "Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months, you shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; that they may be to you for a memorial before your God: I am the LORD your God."

Will God be _with _a very small and informal gathering of believers, just two or three? I think we shouldn't doubt it, Heb.13:5; nevertheless, as mentioned already the context of a given statement must be dominant for interpretation and understanding. Is the statement concerning "two or three gathered" a general principle, which is simply applied in the Mt.18:20 context to church discipline? Or does it speak to the claim of Jesus' authority to preside in even the apparently least-momentous of church activity?

If the Savior and Lord did not institute a kingdom and a government for it, then we should say indeed that no heightened expectation for his special presence would accompany one summons or gathering above any other. Did he appoint a continued weekly day of meeting for his people, a holy convocation? Who is authorized to do such a thing in his name? But if he did, and if there are such appointed, then we should expect him to keep his promise, and to make those assemblies "a memorial before [our] God."

Of course, our God is perfectly capable of drawing near to us (and making himself felt) whenever he wishes. But it isn't the subjective experience that defines his presence, or invokes it. We may and ought to thank God for sweet seasons of his rapturous love, or other tokens of his eyes upon us. But his word is that which is the real locus of his proximity; and where his word is presented with power according to his promise is where we should be attending.

Come to prayer meetings, too. They're not as momentous activity as a worship service, and I hope to hear the voices of all in attendance who desire utterance.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Jan 1, 2020)

Matthew Henry on Matthew 18:20:



> Note, The presence of Christ in the assemblies of Christians is promised, and may in faith be prayed for and depended on; There am I. This is equivalent to the Shechinah, or special presence of God in the tabernacle and temple of old, Ex. 40:34 ; 2 Chr. 5:14 .Though but two or three are met together, Christ is among them; this is an encouragement to the meeting of a few, when it is either, First, of choice. Besides the secret worship performed by particular persons, and the public services of the whole congregation, there may be occasion sometimes for two or three to come together, either for mutual assistance in conference or joint assistance in prayer, not in contempt of public worship, but in concurrence with it; there Christ will be present. Or, Secondly, By constraint; when there are not more than two or three to come together, or, if there be, they dare not, for fear of the Jews, yet Christ will be in the midst of them, for it is not the multitude, but the faith and sincere devotion, of the worshippers, that invites the presence of Christ; and though there be but two or three, the smallest number that can be, yet, it Christ make one among them, who is the principal one, their meeting is as honourable and comfortable as if they were two or three thousand.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Jan 2, 2020)

I was thinking of this thread last night. We had a real nice meeting of all prayer and songs. Fewer people but some were away. 

What occurred to me for the first time in my maybe mentally dull brain is how suitable it is for men to pray like men, and women like women.

I noticed that three men prayed about persecution in foreign nations and for our national government and repentance. The areas they prayed for are areas where one senses great spiritual battle with wickedness and in some cases demonic powers. While they were not loud or forceful, there was a sense of men leading in battle, prayer battle, in those areas of great opposition to God's kingdom and people. 

The female prayer last night was for the sick and for the financially needy and hurting in the church. Sort of maternal. Women wanting to see people helped. The pastor and a visiting pastor prayed very pastoral prayers....you could sense a heart of guarding over souls with caring strength.

Maybe there is meant to be a femininity and masculinity even in petitions. I remember way back 40 years ago in my charismatic days when Derek Prince said that for whatever the reason, it seemed to have bad effects on women to battle/pray against major demonic strongholds and it was best to leave that to men. There was soooooo much wrong in that entire movement and in all the fighting the devil teachings, but even so, men handled "battle prayer" better than women. 

Before the 2016 election there were a couple woman I knew (in other churches) who looked and dressed feminine and were friendly helpful people, but the minute they opened their mouth to pray it was like they turned into guys. I did not disagree at all about how bad Hillary was or how much is wrong in DC, but, maybe women are meant to more petition in a motherly way as opposed to try to be fighting on the front line. Its hard to describe it and I am just really pondering this subject today. Buy I wonder if some people who are against women praying have been around something that isn't meant for women and they rightly feel like something is wrong. I don't have a scriptural basis to think how I am thinking, more just an intuitive sense.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 2, 2020)

Lynnie I don't know exactly how to reply except to say I think you're onto a thing that's true-- I think the biblical basis for determining proper times and places for women to pray aloud/thus "lead" in prayer must come from the creation order. But I have recognized the same thing, that it's lovely for a woman to be publicly clothed in gentle and modest ways ("motherly" being a good picture word) and express herself in conversation and in prayer in those kinds of ways. For sure.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 2, 2020)

lynnie said:


> I noticed that three men prayed about persecution in foreign nations and for our national government and repentance. The areas they prayed for are areas where one senses great spiritual battle with wickedness and in some cases demonic powers. While they were not loud or forceful, there was a sense of men leading in battle, prayer battle, in those areas of great opposition to God's kingdom and people.
> 
> The female prayer last night was for the sick and for the financially needy and hurting in the church. Sort of maternal. Women wanting to see people helped. The pastor and a visiting pastor prayed very pastoral prayers....you could sense a heart of guarding over souls with caring strength.


All of these things are routinely addressed in our meetings with only the men leading in prayer.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

