The Public Reading of Scripture

“a completely unnecessary restriction on this ministry”

Tim Challies responds-“Let me tell you why I believe the Lord would have the public reading of Scripture in worship services be led by men.”

Women read in our church, but don’t introduce and explain the text. Chaplain Mike’s questions are pretty legit in the link Susan posted.

Can a woman sing a solo that “teaches” Biblical truth or quotes Biblical texts?
Can women participate in choirs or ensembles that sing such songs?
Can a woman give a testimony publicly, sharing Bible verses by which God helped her? Is that teaching?
Is the restriction on public Scripture reading only for public worship, or does it apply to classes? Can I, as a teacher, ask a woman in my mixed gender Bible class to read a passage from the Bible out loud, for the class to hear?
Can women read the Bible aloud in their small groups if men are present?

I can remember pastors coming up after a solo saying stuff like “thank you sister for bringing us the Word in Song. ahey-men!” To me, the connotation for authoritative speaking is more about where authority is derived. If a man is speaking and explaining the text through teaching, the authority is from the word of God, and as well he as a teacher. If a woman is simply speaking the words of God, she is not assuming extra authority other than the scriptures. Presumably the woman who sings the solo has had the text cleared by the pastors, and thus is placing herself under authority. She isn’t making the song up on the fly. She’s merely the channel or performer through which we see truth.

I consider myself to be quite conservative, but, on this issue, it seems we might walk a wider path. I have asked people from grades 4 and on up to read a passage, and we have used both males and females. When we have someone whose native tongue is not English, we often have them read first in English and then in their native tongue. It reminds all of us that God has make His Word available to the world. Once, the people who were teaching our 4th through 6th graders in Sunday School were in Acts 2. They explained to the class that it was just like when we read the Scriptures upstairs. Made that historical occurrence make good sense to the students.

Deaf interpreters are translating from one language into another, and have to communicate the meaning intended by the speaker. It appears to me that this restriction would completely disqualify a woman from interpreting a sermon for the deaf.

Presumably the woman who sings the solo has had the text cleared by the pastors, and thus is placing herself under authority. She isn’t making the song up on the fly. She’s merely the channel or performer through which we see truth.

This argument is frequently made about women teachers who teach under the authority of elders.

[Susan R] Deaf interpreters are translating from one language into another, and have to communicate the meaning intended by the speaker. It appears to me that this restriction would completely disqualify a woman from interpreting a sermon for the deaf.

She is an extension of the speaker and no doctrinal or interpretive authority (interpretive with respect to the text being taught which is the property of the Minister) would be a property of her translating so I do not believe this would qualify, though I do see how the point might arise with some.

In reading the blog (and others who hold the same view as Challies) I find it interesting to see how they make exceptions and permit women to sing and pray publicly, but not read Scripture. It seems if you’re going to be consistent with the whole “silence” thing then they shouldn’t be permitted to speak or sing either alone or in a group to others in the congregation.

Challies equated the reading of Scripture with the preaching of Scripture. Is there some sort of special call that public Scripture readers receive from God?

I often read Scripture to my children at home. When I simply read without comment, I consider it to be them hearing from and being taught by God. If I make comments or give explanations about what I’ve read, then I believe I am teaching them using God’s Word.

Regarding ASL, it does require the signer to interpret on the fly some of what the preacher is saying. Things have to be re-worded and re-phrased. It’s like what would happen if you were interpreting a foreign language. When signing, you don’t sign word for word everything the speaker is saying and often you have to put things in your own words, so to speak. This makes me wonder about Bible translators. There are women who translate Scripture into other languages. This requires that they understand and interpret Scripture in order to be able to do that. I wonder how that works into Challies’ beliefs.

the difference is that in Challies’ church the reading is an ‘official’ Reading, considered a ‘ministry’ and part of the order of the service?

I’ve interpreted for the Deaf before, and I can say that I often had to completely reword what the speaker said, especially if they used a metaphor or idiom. I felt the weight of that responsibility very much, but what’s worse- the Deaf sitting there with no understanding at all, or what understanding I could give them as someone who knew their language?

If Bro. Challies is saying “Hey, this is what we do and why” then that’s fine. But if this is some sort of recommendation for other churches… that’s a little sticky, because it does call into question nearly everything a woman does in church that involves communicating the Word.

Susan, if you keep communicating as you are, I may feel the need to report you to Tim Challies for female Christian demonstrative communicationism.

First, by and large, fundamental churches — which claim to be entirely devoted to Scripture — do an incredibly lousy job at the public reading of Scripture.

If it exists at all, it is usually done as a warm-up to the sermon, rather than as a stand-alone element of a well-thought-out worship service. Meanwhile, we seem to have time for laughs, jokes, endless announcements that are already in the bulletin or on the screen, meaningless anecdotes, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Beyond that, the churches that do have a stand-alone Scripture reading often do it poorly, and could well use the author’s advice (i.e., don’t wait until it is your time to do the reading, then meander up from the back row, then leaf through your Bible until you find 1 Kings, then ask what chapter we are in — your ministry has sort of lost its impact by that point).

So in light of the above, I would not rule out having a woman involved in the service who could do a nifty job at offering the Scripture reading. However, in a perfect world — while I cannot provide chapter and verse — I would tend to agree with the author that this should primarily be done by a male leader.

After all, what part of the service should we approach more seriously than actually handling the Word of God??

My understanding is that the public reading in the early church was because people did not have their own copies and they needed, regularly, to hear it read since they did not have immediate access to them. Therefore, the command (1 Timothy 4:13) to read publicly was not as a matter of liturgy or public honoring of the Scriptures purely via them being read, rather it was a practical reason. The public reading enabled believers to have regular and repeated exposure to the Word of God through its reading which allowed them more access and subsequent familiarity and memorization of the Word.

Obviously we do not necessitate this so I do question the practice as a matter of liturgical necessity. It seems to me that it has become an exercise in piety in too many cases rather than for the practical reason given. However, with that said, it is always possible that someone will be present who is not familiar with a text that is read and of course it could edify them or convict them so, that must also be considered.

And I agree if someone is going to read they should have some kind of capacity for public narration.

[Alex Guggenheim] My understanding is that the public reading in the early church was because people did not have their own copies and they needed, regularly, to hear it read since they did not have immediate access to them. Therefore, the command (1 Timothy 4:13) to read publicly was not as a matter of liturgy or public honoring of the Scriptures purely via them being read, rather it was a practical reason. The public reading enabled believers to have regular and repeated exposure to the Word of God through its reading which allowed them more access and subsequent familiarity and memorization of the Word.
Obviously we do not necessitate this so I do question the practice as a matter of liturgical necessity…

Alex,

Using that logic, I wonder if it is necessary that there be a sermon. After all, we have the availability of commentaries, radio ministries, Internet sermons, blogs, etc., which first-century listeners did not have. Maybe we could just phone it in?? 8-)

Should we cut out the sermon and make more time for announcements and birthdays?? ;)

Oh for more men who prepare to read the scripture passage in church!

Not overly much Scripture. I’ll add a little.

I Corinthians 11:5 says that a woman can pray or prophesy under authority (don’t want to get bogged down in the head covering question right here). Few would try to yank this out of the context of a local church meeting. Acts tells us that Philip had daughters who were prophetesses.

If I understand prophesying at all, it is repeating/proclaiming the revealed words of God, and only the revealed words of God. As such, it is NOT teaching, and the reference in I Tim. 2 to deception is not applicable. Nor does it bear any authority. Only the words themselves carry authority. However, the choice of when to speak and which words of God to speak could certainly be teaching and/or usurping authority.

Thus, I would view the Biblical pattern as being that a prophetess would speak only the words of God, and only under authority/guidance as to which words, when. The spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets. A prophetess could certainly communicate to leadership when the Lord had given her a prophecy, and could wait for guidance until the right time to speak it to the church, and it may be that this was the pattern. Also, the prophets were to “judge” the prophets, so prophetic messages could have been “vetted” by the other prophets before being passed on to the entire body. Thus, the concept of prophesying the very words of God, yet under authority, is entirely in keeping with the Scriptural teaching both on prophecy and on the role of women.

When a woman reads Scripture, she is speaking only the words of God. Thus, she is doing little different from a prophetess who spoke only the words of God. If it is under authority, I believe it is entirely consistent with I Corinthians 11 and other Scriptural passages. I do not believe there is any Biblical basis for preventing women from doing so, and may in a sense be counter-productive, as it risks diminishing the absolute authority of the verbatim word of God by conveying a sense that the messenger matters. The oral reader of God’s Word has no authority whatever — the only authority, and the entire authority, is in the Word. There is something to be said for having a child read at times, in my opinion. It reminds everyone just exactly where the authority lies.

Wayne Grudem on the role of women in the church here (not in response to Challies though) :

http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-1-No-2/But-What-Should-Women-Do-In-The-…