Is it okay for women to be worship leaders?

James Is Back · Aug 30, 2014

Strong in Him said:
No.

Gotcha. Reason why I asked is because you seem very very passionate about this debate and I thought you were one and you were defending your position.

Carry on than. I'll just sit back with my popcorn while you guys hash it out because I already interjected my opinion and got nailed for it so I'll hush it up and watch from the sidelines.

Interesting debate it is though like some others I've seen here!

Strong in Him · Aug 30, 2014

Reborn Yet Again said:
Gotcha. Reason why I asked is because you seem very very passionate about this debate and I thought you were one and you were defending your position.

I was a lay preacher and hope to be reinstated soon. I have many dear, devout, lovely female Christian friends who are either Ministers, are pursuing that calling or have known deep pain when men have told them they cannot follow that calling because God created them female.

But I hope I would passionately defend any Christian who was called by God to serve him in any way. Everyone has the right, and duty, to use the gifts the Spirit has given them and follow the call that God has placed on their lives. We are all made in the image of God, are his children, witnesses and instruments; he has the right to ask us to do whatever he wishes us to do, irrespective of what others feel about it.

Albion · Aug 30, 2014

RDKirk said:
The problem is the word "leader," which could mean anything these days. In some churches, the woman who plays piano is for all intents and purposes a "worship leader" of sorts. Or in another church, the person leading the worship is clearly only the priest--who leads everything of the service.

Exactly...and although I raised that point a long time ago, I don't think that it was ever clarified what the OP had in mind. Obviously, if "worship leader" was meant to exclude the pastor, few people would say it's wrong for a woman to be holding that post except for those who make "women should keep silent" their reason for opposition.

In very few of the churches which have made the change in recent years was that a consideration.

RDKirk · Aug 30, 2014

Albion said:
Exactly...and although I raised that point a long time ago, I don't think that it was ever clarified what the OP had in mind. Obviously, if "worship leader" was meant to exclude the pastor, few people would say it's wrong for a woman to be holding that post except for those who make "women should keep silent" their reason for opposition.

In very few of the churches which have made the change in recent years was that a consideration.

Yes. I have seen the term "minister of music" or "minister of worship" used for an ordained clergy position, and that person is usually also the de facto "worship leader," but where I've seen "worship leader" used in most cases, it has not been used to designate any ordained clergy position.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Aug 30, 2014

MoreCoffee said:
Should God enable you, and you form a mind to do so, then visit one some time and see. I recommend sitting somewhere towards the back of the church building, a seat where you will be able to see and hear but will not get in the way, and be sure to take one of the missals or mass cards offered near the entrance so you can see the text of what is said and understand a little better what is happening. It's an education in itself to watch how other Christians worship and pray.

God be with you.

Is that what is termed an objective approach as opposed to a subjective approach?

NorrinRadd · Aug 31, 2014

Albion said:
I think you may be misunderstanding something there, but I don't know what you've read. You may be speaking of "Deaconesses" who are not ordained and are not clergy. Advocates of women's ordination often try to make something out of these laywomen who have been "formally set aside" for this role and were better known in the days of the early church than now. There isn't much of an argument from history for women's ordination without doing this.

I think Macy would disagree.

Here is an article I've linked previously.

Here is a PDF file summary of his book.

Of course for some of us this part of the debate is only of peripheral importance, since we believe the sacerdotal priesthood system is a construct of the Obsolete Covenant, and never did have a place in the New Covenant. Ben Witherington mentions that here, among other places.

By the 1800s, yes, a few rebel, splinter and/or extreme religious groups were introducing women pastors, that's true. When I generalized and said that there was a 2000 year history of male clergy, I was aware that there were some exceptions in the modern period before the major denominations she and I were speaking about made the change. The Lutherans, Episcopalians, United Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. did not ordain women, even if the Unitarians and some Pentecostal did--until very recently. And of course, most Christians still belong to churches that do not ordain women, so history is all but totally on the opposition's side.

First of all, I think at some earlier point I may have mis-typed and cited Linda Belleville in this context. She was actually responsible for other chapters in Discovering Biblical Equality. The correct citations were Ruth Tucker for the Early Church through the 18th Century, and Janette Hassey for the 19th and early 20th Centuries.

I suppose we have some difference of opinion as to what constitutes "rebel, splinter and/or extreme," as well as "pastor" and "clergy."

In the 1700s, women played significant roles in Methodism, often being *functionally* clergy and (rarely) pastors, even if not *formally* such.

In the 1800s, notable individuals that welcomed female clergy, including as pastors or something equivalent, included A.B. Simpson, D.L. Moody, A.J. Gordon, and W.B. Riley. Denominations included Wesleyan Methodist, Free Methodist, Nazarene, Brethren, Free Will Baptist, American Baptist, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Evangelical Free Church, Evangelical Mennonite, Salvation Army, and others.

MoreCoffee · Aug 31, 2014

~Cassia~ said:
Is that what is termed an objective approach as opposed to a subjective approach?

Neither, it's called visiting

Radagast · Aug 31, 2014

RDKirk said:
where I've seen "worship leader" used in most cases, it has not been used to designate any ordained clergy position.

And is it biblical for the ordained clergy to take a back seat while someone else leads the service?

tturt · Aug 31, 2014

“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she is to keep silent.”

"I" is Paul - not Yahweh. It was Paul's opinion.

Women overwhelmed Paul (imo) such as 1Co 7:30 “And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;”

But this is like other things in Scripture, we study and come to what we think is "the answer." But we need to respect those who do not share the same interpretation of those Scripture.

pyramid33 · Aug 31, 2014

tturt said:
permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she is to keep silent
"I" is Paul - not Yahweh. It was Paul's opinion.

Isn't Paul right when he say's, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

I'm so sucking up.

Scripture cannot be broken. It translates to men of God to teach and authoritize. I find that all women love it that way.

NorrinRadd · Aug 31, 2014

tturt said:
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she is to keep silent.

"I" is Paul - not Yahweh. It was Paul's opinion.

That's an awful lot of weight to rest on one little pronoun. There is a lot of "I" talk in 1 Cor. 4, some of it also involving Timothy, and the implication is that Paul expects his instructions to be followed.

If Paul had never written 1 Cor. 7:10-12, I'm sure there would be MUCH less tendency for people to say, "That was only Paul giving his opinion, it wasn't God." The thing is, in that case -- 1 Cor. 7 -- he explicitly SAYS it, and even there, it may not mean it is "just his opinion." It could mean that when he says, "not I, but the Lord," he is citing what Jesus said in the Gospels, and when he says "I, not the Lord," he is letting the reader know he is addressing a point Jesus didn't address, not that his own teaching lacks authority.

Payne, Fee, Belleville, Keener, and others have noted plenty of issues of translation and context about that passage to justify taking a light and careful touch in applying it today.

MoreCoffee · Aug 31, 2014

NorrinRadd said:
That's an awful lot of weight to rest on one little pronoun. There is a lot of "I" talk in 1 Cor. 4, some of it also involving Timothy, and the implication is that Paul expects his instructions to be followed.

If Paul had never written 1 Cor. 7:10-12, I'm sure there would be MUCH less tendency for people to say, "That was only Paul giving his opinion, it wasn't God." The thing is, in that case -- 1 Cor. 7 -- he explicitly SAYS it, and even there, it may not mean it is "just his opinion." It could mean that when he says, "not I, but the Lord," he is citing what Jesus said in the Gospels, and when he says "I, not the Lord," he is letting the reader know he is addressing a point Jesus didn't address, not that his own teaching lacks authority.

Payne, Fee, Belleville, Keener, and others have noted plenty of issues of translation and context about that passage to justify taking a light and careful touch in applying it today.

Paul wrote to both Timothy and Titus to tell them how and who to select as elders and bishops. Surely that is not a little pronoun nor incidental and rather unimportant advice.

1 Timothy 3:1-13 KJV

(1) This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
(2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
(4) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(5) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
(6) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
(7) Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
(8) Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
(9) Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
(10) And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
(11) Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
(12) Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
(13) For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

You're familiar with the above passage and its counterpart in Titus.

NorrinRadd · Aug 31, 2014

MoreCoffee said:
Paul wrote to both Timothy and Titus to tell them how and who to select as elders and bishops. Surely that is not a little pronoun nor incidental and rather unimportant advice.

In case there was a misunderstanding, I was gently arguing *against* dismissing that passage solely on the basis of that one little pronoun. However, I do believe there are several other important issues of translation and context.

1 Timothy 3:1-13 KJV
(1) This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
(2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
(4) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(5) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
(6) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
(7) Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
(8) Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
(9) Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
(10) And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
(11) Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
(12) Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
(13) For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
You're familiar with the above passage and its counterpart in Titus.

I am. I am also familiar with NT scholars who opine that currently, only the CEB and CEV translate them accurately.

CEB:

1Tim 3:1 This saying is reliable: if anyone has a goal to be a supervisor in the church, they want a good thing.
1Tim 3:2 So the churchs supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching.
1Tim 3:3 They shouldnt be addicted to alcohol or a bully. Instead they should be gentle, peaceable, and not greedy.
1Tim 3:4 They should manage their own household wellthey should see that their children are obedient with complete respect,
1Tim 3:5 because if they dont know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of Gods church?
1Tim 3:6 They shouldnt be new believers so that they wont become proud and fall under the devils spell.
1Tim 3:7 They should also have a good reputation with those outside the church so that they wont be embarrassed and fall into the devils trap.
1Tim 3:8 In the same way, servants in the church should be dignified, not two-faced, heavy drinkers, or greedy for money.
1Tim 3:9 They should hold on to the faith that has been revealed with a clear conscience.
1Tim 3:10 They should also be tested and then serve if they are without fault.
1Tim 3:11 In the same way, women who are servants in the church should be dignified and not gossip. They should be sober and faithful in everything they do.
1Tim 3:12 Servants must be faithful to their spouse and manage their children and their own households well.
1Tim 3:13 Those who have served well gain a good standing and considerable confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

CEV:

1Tim 3:1 It is true that anyone who desires to be a church official wants to be something worthwhile.
1Tim 3:2 That's why officials must have a good reputation and be faithful in marriage. They must be self-controlled, sensible, well-behaved, friendly to strangers, and able to teach.
1Tim 3:3 They must not be heavy drinkers or troublemakers. Instead, they must be kind and gentle and not love money.
1Tim 3:4 Church officials must be in control of their own families, and they must see that their children are obedient and always respectful.
1Tim 3:5 If they don't know how to control their own families, how can they look after God's people?
1Tim 3:6 They must not be new followers of the Lord. If they are, they might become proud and be doomed along with the devil.
1Tim 3:7 Finally, they must be well-respected by people who are not followers. Then they won't be trapped and disgraced by the devil.
1Tim 3:8 Church officers should be serious. They must not be liars, heavy drinkers, or greedy for money.
1Tim 3:9 And they must have a clear conscience and hold firmly to what God has shown us about our faith.
1Tim 3:10 They must first prove themselves. Then if no one has anything against them, they can serve as officers.
1Tim 3:11 Women must also be serious. They must not gossip or be heavy drinkers, and they must be faithful in everything they do.
1Tim 3:12 Church officers must be faithful in marriage. They must be in full control of their children and everyone else in their home.
1Tim 3:13 Those who serve well as officers will earn a good reputation and will be highly respected for their faith in Christ Jesus.

MoreCoffee · Aug 31, 2014

NorrinRadd said:
In case there was a misunderstanding, I was gently arguing *against* dismissing that passage solely on the basis of that one little pronoun. However, I do believe there are several other important issues of translation and context.

I am. I am also familiar with NT scholars who opine that currently, only the CEB and CEV translate them accurately.

CEB:

1Tim 3:1 This saying is reliable: if anyone has a goal to be a supervisor in the church, they want a good thing.
1Tim 3:2 So the churchs supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching.
1Tim 3:3 They shouldnt be addicted to alcohol or a bully. Instead they should be gentle, peaceable, and not greedy.
1Tim 3:4 They should manage their own household wellthey should see that their children are obedient with complete respect,
1Tim 3:5 because if they dont know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of Gods church?
1Tim 3:6 They shouldnt be new believers so that they wont become proud and fall under the devils spell.
1Tim 3:7 They should also have a good reputation with those outside the church so that they wont be embarrassed and fall into the devils trap.
1Tim 3:8 In the same way, servants in the church should be dignified, not two-faced, heavy drinkers, or greedy for money.
1Tim 3:9 They should hold on to the faith that has been revealed with a clear conscience.
1Tim 3:10 They should also be tested and then serve if they are without fault.
1Tim 3:11 In the same way, women who are servants in the church should be dignified and not gossip. They should be sober and faithful in everything they do.
1Tim 3:12 Servants must be faithful to their spouse and manage their children and their own households well.
1Tim 3:13 Those who have served well gain a good standing and considerable confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

CEV:

1Tim 3:1 It is true that anyone who desires to be a church official wants to be something worthwhile.
1Tim 3:2 That's why officials must have a good reputation and be faithful in marriage. They must be self-controlled, sensible, well-behaved, friendly to strangers, and able to teach.
1Tim 3:3 They must not be heavy drinkers or troublemakers. Instead, they must be kind and gentle and not love money.
1Tim 3:4 Church officials must be in control of their own families, and they must see that their children are obedient and always respectful.
1Tim 3:5 If they don't know how to control their own families, how can they look after God's people?
1Tim 3:6 They must not be new followers of the Lord. If they are, they might become proud and be doomed along with the devil.
1Tim 3:7 Finally, they must be well-respected by people who are not followers. Then they won't be trapped and disgraced by the devil.
1Tim 3:8 Church officers should be serious. They must not be liars, heavy drinkers, or greedy for money.
1Tim 3:9 And they must have a clear conscience and hold firmly to what God has shown us about our faith.
1Tim 3:10 They must first prove themselves. Then if no one has anything against them, they can serve as officers.
1Tim 3:11 Women must also be serious. They must not gossip or be heavy drinkers, and they must be faithful in everything they do.
1Tim 3:12 Church officers must be faithful in marriage. They must be in full control of their children and everyone else in their home.
1Tim 3:13 Those who serve well as officers will earn a good reputation and will be highly respected for their faith in Christ Jesus.

Gender neutral translations seem to be a recent innovation and even though they do no doubt capture, in some cases, the intended meaning and in some cases they reflect modern perspectives that are very different from the author's. The CEV is usually a decent translation but has some serious and systematic inadequacies. The use of gender neutral substitutes for the masculine pronoun that's present in the Greek in the above passages is, in my opinion, a case of modern perspectives intruding into the text written in ancient times.

pyramid33 · Aug 31, 2014

All of you're long post's are so boring!

MoreCoffee · Aug 31, 2014

pyramid33 said:
All of you're long post's are so boring!

alas

Strong in Him · Aug 31, 2014

MoreCoffee said:
Gender neutral translations seem to be a recent innovation and even though they do no doubt capture, in some cases, the intended meaning and in some cases they reflect modern perspectives that are very different from the author's. The CEV is usually a decent translation but has some serious and systematic inadequacies. The use of gender neutral substitutes for the masculine pronoun that's present in the Greek in the above passages is, in my opinion, a case of modern perspectives intruding into the text written in ancient times.

Paul obviously said "if any MAN desires to be a bishop" because women were not allowed to do such things; not even to learn and have an education. Today, we are, and it is acknowledged that God can call women just as much as he can call men - after all, he called Deborah, Mary Magdalene etc.

The Gospel reading in church this morning was "if any MAN would follow me, let him deny himself, take up his cross" etc. No one today would exclude women from following Jesus and taking up their cross, and few women would think "that doesn't apply to me, he used the word 'man'."

Radagast · Aug 31, 2014

NorrinRadd said:
I am. I am also familiar with NT scholars who opine that currently, only the CEB and CEV translate them accurately.

Well, the original Greek certainly uses a sequence of masculine words in this passage, so no serious Greek scholar could suggest that. Rather, the gender-neutral wording reflects a theologically-motivated revision of the original thoughts (as MoreCoffee has suggested).

NorrinRadd said:
1Tim 3:2 {CEB} So the church’s supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching.

That's a terrible translation. Rather than "faithful to their spouse," the Greek literally says "a one-woman man" (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρ&#945

.

NorrinRadd said:
1Tim 3:3 {CEB} They shouldn’t be addicted to alcohol or a bully.

They shouldn't be addicted to a bully?

NorrinRadd · Aug 31, 2014

Strong in Him said:
Paul obviously said "if any MAN desires to be a bishop" ...

No. The Greek is "tis," not "aner."

The Gospel reading in church this morning was "if any MAN would follow me, ...

That also is "tis," not "aner," and the NASB correctly renders it as "anyone," even though it renders it improperly in 1 Tim. 3

Radagast said:
Well, the original Greek certainly uses a sequence of masculine words in this passage, so no serious Greek scholar could suggest that. Rather, the gender-neutral wording reflects a theologically-motivated revision of the original thoughts (as MoreCoffee has suggested).

Actually, according to Payne, the ONLY bit that is possibly masculine is "one-woman-man," which is most likely idiomatic for "faithful spouse." You can go to his Web site and see if he wants to answer challenges about his scholarly credentials.

MoreCoffee · Aug 31, 2014

Strong in Him said:
Paul obviously said "if any MAN desires to be a bishop" because women were not allowed to do such things; not even to learn and have an education. Today, we are, and it is acknowledged that God can call women just as much as he can call men - after all, he called Deborah, Mary Magdalene etc.

The Gospel reading in church this morning was "if any MAN would follow me, let him deny himself, take up his cross" etc. No one today would exclude women from following Jesus and taking up their cross, and few women would think "that doesn't apply to me, he used the word 'man'."

Reasoning along those lines can be used to dismiss any and every passage of scripture on the alleged grounds of cultural and educational backwardness compared to our modern advances and knowledge. In effect you've presented an argument that classifies the sacred scriptures as human knowledge and bound by human frailties present at the time of writing. That is not much different from dismissing the bible as just another human book filled with human stories and lacking any divine content whatsoever.

Is it okay for women to be worship leaders?

CF's Official Locksmith

Great is thy faithfulness

Facilitator

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian

Repentance works.

comes and goes

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian

Repentance works.

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian

Repentance works.

Well-Known Member

Repentance works.

Great is thy faithfulness

comes and goes

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian

Repentance works.

Similar threads