WCF Larger Catechism:
Q. 156. Is the Word of God to be read by all?
A. Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the holy scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.
Some in the PCA take exception to LC 156 and say that, “Woman may do anything in worship that a non-ordained man may do.” In particular many say that it is permissible for women to publicly read the scriptures in worship.
What do you think about this idea that “woman may do anything in worship that a non-ordained man may do?”
Do you think the WLC answer #156 implies that women cannot read Scripture in worship? If it doesn’t say this explicitly, I don’t think it has to count as an exception.
My point is that some are using it as an exception so that women may, in their view, read scripture in worship.
I am not here declaring a judgment on whether this LC question forbids such. My question is about the idea in this phrase often thrown around, “woman may do anything in worship that a non-ordained man may do?”
What are your thoughts on that?
What are the elements in worship traditionally restricted to ordained men, besides preaching and administrating the sacraments? Anything else?
I think that the ministry of the word has been understood to be restricted to men. That would include virtually all leadership in the word-preaching, sacraments, leading in the singing of the word, etc.
But of the phrase?
BTW, the Westminster Directory for Worship surely presumed that men would be performing this function:
“READING of the word in the congregation, being part of the publick worship of God, (wherein .i.we; acknowledge our dependence upon him, and subjection to him,) and one mean sanctified by him for the edifying of his people, is to be performed by the pastors and teachers.”
“Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says.” (I Cor. 14:34)
“Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of hte wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. (Eph. 5:22-24).
The husband is responsible for loving headship in the home. The wife is to be in loving submission to his loving headship. But does this cease when they walk out of the context of their home and attend church? The church is made up of families and if it is improper for the wife to exercise dominion over her husband in the privacy of their home, logically one could deduce that it is also improper for a woman to exercise dominion over her husband (and other men) in the church. I would say this also goes for women Sunday school teachers (where adult men are present) and “Worship Leaders.”
For a woman to read scripture in corporate worship is a violation of the Regulative Principle. God has never commanded women to read His Law in corporate worship. Whenever the Word of God is read, the assumption is that it is to be applied and if necessary enforced; women have absolutely no authority to do so.
DSS, I heartily agree, but because what is a blog discussion without someone playing devil’s adovocated, might I ask whether this applies only to married women? Also, what about female youth?
Out of curiosity, what is the take on God’s use of women prophets? Certainly they were ordained (by God at least) in handling God’s word, and don’t seem to have received any rebuke by either God or men. Also, in Joel God says that both sons and daughters will prophesy, and in Acts 21 there is the mention of Philip’s daughters, all four of whom were receivers and (it seems) pronouncers of God’s word. I would love to hear any opinions about how these examples fit into the equation.
Tg,
The word, women means ‘women,’ and not simply ‘wives.” (Matt. 27:55; 9:20). I would certainly group female youth also in this category.
I tried to post this previously, and for some reason it did not go through. So I will make this second attempt.
Dabney says it quite eloquently:
“Male and female made he them. In order to ground human society God saw it necessary to fashion for man’s mate, not his exact image, but his counterpart. Identity would have utterly marred their companionship, and would have been an equal curse to both. But out of this unlikeness in resemblance it must obviously follow that each is fitted for works and duties unsuitable for the other. And it is no more a degradation to the woman that the man can best do some things which she cannot do so well, than to the man that woman has her natural superiority in things.
But it will be cried: ‘Your Bible doctrine makes man the ruler, woman the ruled.’ True. It was essential to the welfare of both husband and wife, and of the offspring, that there must be an ultimate human head somewhere. …. TO BE GOVERNED UNDER THE WISE CONDITIONS OF NATURE IS OFTEN A MORE PRIVILEGED STATE THAN TO GOVERN.
Now, a wise God designs no clashing between his domestic and political and his ecclesiastical arrangements. He has ordained that the man shall be head in the family and the commonwealth; it would be a confusion full of mischief to make the woman head in the ecclesiastical sphere.”
Drew I am at a conference and my break is almost up. But so I wil know when I get back, are you suggesting that we should have “prophets” today? If so, doing what? Also, are you suggesting that women should be “handling God’s word” in the public worship services?
Be back later…
Thanks for the response, D Stanfield. Might I ask, how far would you press this issue?