Should females be allowed to take up the offering in church during Sunday morning worship service?

Better yet … Ditch the offering altogether

• Have a giving box in foyer (low tech) OR
• Giving kiosk in the foyer (high tech) + online giving

This has nothing to do with women vs. men passing the plate, but since we started working with the Karen in our congregation, we have actually had to move to deeper plates to pass, because they like to take their bills and fold and “fluff” them in such a way as they fill the plate and take up more space. :)

Independent Baptist Church (EC-B) uses red velvet bags on a hoop.

[Greg Linscott]

This has nothing to do with women vs. men passing the plate, but since we started working with the Karen in our congregation, we have actually had to move to deeper plates to pass, because they like to take their bills and fold and “fluff” them in such a way as they fill the plate and take up more space. :)

[Greg Linscott]

This has nothing to do with women vs. men passing the plate, but since we started working with the Karen in our congregation, we have actually had to move to deeper plates to pass, because they like to take their bills and fold and “fluff” them in such a way as they fill the plate and take up more space. :)

• Origami with dollar bills (sample below). Click this Google image search for many more.
• Tithing with pennies

To me giving is an act of worship, not a wire transfer or a plunk into a box at the back.

[Mark_Smith]

To me giving is an act of worship, not a wire transfer or a plunk into a box at the back.

So it’s your contention that dropping a check or cash into the offering plate is somehow sanctified, where doing so in the back (or with a bank transfer) isn’t?

One of the churches I used to attend used red velvet bags on a hoop. I’ve never seen it before or since!

the offering is part of the worship service. We all come in. Our hearts are focused on God. We bring our prepared financial offering and give it at a communal time.

Of course dropping a check in the offering plate by itself is no different than dropping it in a box on your way in.

Mark,

You do realize that the concept of an offering box at the back of the auditorium comes from the temple, right?

[Mark_Smith]

the offering is part of the worship service. We all come in. Our hearts are focused on God. We bring our prepared financial offering and give it at a communal time.

Of course dropping a check in the offering plate by itself is no different than dropping it in a box on your way in.

What about Matt 6:1-4 speaking of giving alms in secret? Of course, this may not be exactly the same as giving an offering to the church, but this was said in context with prayer, both of which were supposed to be done in secret, and the Father would reward openly. It sounds fairly clear that both of these were acts of worship, but doing them openly was getting reward from men, not from God. Fasting, another act of worship, was *explicitly* supposed to be done secretly. I don’t see that that’s necessarily the case for giving to the church, but I think Matt 6 would give some weight to that argument.

Given scripture’s view on secret acts of worship, I fail to see how an act done in secret (at a box in back when no one is looking or by a mouse-click on a screen) is less of an act of worship than doing it publicly, when done with the right motives and heart, of course.

With my Lutheran upbringing still firmly entrenched in my soul, I would prefer that prepared men in suits/sport coats take up the offering and treat it as the act of worship that folks are debating here.

To me the bigger problem is that no one is prepared to usher at all. Ushering is truly becoming a lost art. I am amazed, as I am in churches, at the number of times that no one has even been asked to be part of the ushering crew until the very moment the call is given from the pulpit to take up the offering. Even if they were asked, they often just get up out of their seats and meander to the front, and often they are dressed in a manner in which people did not even come to church until just a few years ago. It is rare to see an ushering crew at the ready in the back of the church any more. I do not view these as improvements to our worship.

A church should have a trained ushering crew in place 30 minutes before the service and throughout the service – to hand out bulletins, help people in the door, take care of needs, patrol the building for safety, etc. Ushering should be viewed as a full-time job anytime the church is hosting a public meeting. This almost never happens today outside of a large church. It is truly a shame. So many men could be discipled and plugged into service in this realm!

In case you can’t tell, I was trained by an incredible “old-school” head usher in my Lutheran background. He taught me life lessons I have never forgotten…

One last anecdote: I heard of a large, traditional SBC church that outfitted the ushers in matching polo shirts during the summer months. Tradition aside, I thought that was kind of cool!

C.D.,

In light of the description I have offered in my post above of what a trained usher should be doing, is there a reason that we would want or need women to do this job, or is this just a matter of the church reflecting the egalitarian trends in the culture?

There was a time when the predominant Christian view would have been that men should do this job so that women do not have to.

Have men fallen to such a low level spiritually in the church that they can’t even get together to form an ushering crew?

Perhaps the crew could or should include women also, such as to serve as greeters. Let’s get the crew organized first!

I see no reason that women could not be involved, for instance, in counting the money.

But my preference would be that we have men serving as ushers for the offering. I don’t know that we can go any stronger than that on this specific issue, and yet I think that my preference is in line with the general flow of the place of male leadership in the New Testament. (As you note, we move quickly into gray areas when we start comparing ushering to singing, etc.)

What are you searching for here beside people’s opinions? If so, I’ve given you mine.

I just wonder – is your concern with improving ushering, with giving women more opportunities or with promoting social change?

Also – do women need this additional outlet of service? In most smaller churches I would estimate that women already do the vast majority of the work.

Paul,

The other side of the equation is that we sometimes have been guilty of unnecessarily restricting the participation of ladies in body life. That is the issue at question here. Frankly, what you described in your earlier post sound much more ceremonial than anything else. The preparation for worship is supposed to be my personal preparation to participate in the corporate worship of the body - i.e. coming with a prepared gift to offer. Ushers are not leading in anything; they are simply collecting.

Chip,

So having an organized ushering crew is ceremonial, but having one that is spread out like the dog’s breakfast is spiritual? You have lost me there…

Frankly, most of the large IFB churches I have been in have an ushering crew similar to what I described in my earlier post. Thus, I am not sure how much it is tied to ceremony.

I guess I’m struggling to find the objective here. Do you want to see four women in dresses and heels march down the aisle to take up the offering? I can’t give you a verse that says it is sinful, nor can I give you a verse that makes you feel good about it. It is not my preference, in case you’re asking. I asked my wife and it is not her preference either. Nor do I particularly want her to be on an ushering crew and responsible for circulating alone through the building while the service is ongoing.

It feels to me like the question was asked by looking through the wrong end of the telescope…

I’m glad to have found SI. This particular “issue” is part of a much larger one which is the role of women in a conservative church. I’ve been a believer for some 40 years and have been in mostly very conservative Baptist Churches. There is still a huge resistance to women participating in the local church despite the fact that many churches could not keep their doors open without them. One church with an elderly pastor had the courage to actually have deaconesses and honored them as such. With those ladies, there was never any question of hospitality duties being taken care of. Much was taken care of for the church including nursery and other childcare. I find too many deacons who are useful for having meetings and not much else (have been one several times in several churches). Ushers are another matter. One commenter above wants them to dress for the role. What does that look like? Why? Why do we have traditions that are mostly man made and not scripturally based. People need to understand the reasons for why we do something and not just because some men got together and said so. There is way too much “because I said so” and not nearly enough scriptural basis.

R:

I’m glad you found SI!

I assume you are referring to my comments. I apologize if I gave you the impression that I am promoting manmade traditions rather than Scripturally-based principles.

On the other hand, the question itself does not reference Scripture. It is asking for opinions, so I have given mine. I have also taken the opportunity to address the larger, directly-related issue of ushering, which I believe to be an important job in the church.

Apparently, some (perhaps you) do not agree with me on that – which is also obvious from the state of ushering in many churches.

I am, frankly, astonished that I have to defend the assertion that ushers should “dress for the role.” I am not asking for them to wear tuxedos – just, please, not cutoffs, sandals and an “I’m with Stupid” T-shirt.

Here are a few Scripture references that come to mind on which I base these assertions: 1 Cor. 14:33, 40; 1 Tim. 3:15. And, of course, we can’t forget the great ushering verse: Ps. 84:10.

Paul,

I think that being well organized does fulfill scriptural principles such as 1 Corinthians 4:2 and 14:40. I don’t think that the preparedness or unpreparedness of the usher impacts my act of worship in any way. That was my point. The service of the usher is his (or her) worship; the act of giving is my worship.

Now, to the OP. The duties assigned to the usher may impact the enrollment criteria. At our tiny church, the ushers’ only duty is to collect the offering. I have been in larger churches that ask the ushers to do more; I have also been in larger churches that divide the ushering duties you suggested among ushers and deacons. My point remains that there really isn’t anything aside from culture that would keep a woman from serving as an usher. The same with the deaconness mentioned by another poster, or of having a woman pray publically.

Consider this. I assume you have, or have had, a music leader who you felt was leading the congregation in worship. I also assume you have a pastor who you believe is leading in worship even when he is the only one talking and everyone else is listening. I also assume you have, or have had, women who provided special music in the service. How is she not “leading” in worship when the song leader and pastor are? We rely far more on tradition than we realize. If a woman can participate as a member in special music, or even “conduct” special music by herself, why can’t she also usher?

[Paul J. Scharf]

I am, frankly, astonished that I have to defend the assertion that ushers should “dress for the role.” I am not asking for them to wear tuxedos – just, please, not cutoffs, sandals and an “I’m with Stupid” T-shirt.

Here are a few Scripture references that come to mind on which I base these assertions: 1 Cor. 14:33, 40; 1 Tim. 3:15. And, of course, we can’t forget the great ushering verse: Ps. 84:10.

The problem is that none of those verses define their application. You have supplied that. It is the same argument that rages about what is “appropriate” dress for church in general; you have just narrowed the discussion specifically to ushers.

We have one at the back and side doors.

Paul, I think as long as they are wearing dresses and heels (hats too) then they could usher. That’s TIC as I support much more female participation in all levels of the church. And we have offering boxes and do not take a collection.

Grid on various church functions that represents my position:

Jim,

What about Romans 16:1? Same word as 1 Timothy 3:8.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Jim,

What about Romans 16:1? Same word as 1 Timothy 3:8.

Response: I differentiate between the function or activity of servant and the office of servant. I suggest that churches have many servants (Gk διάκονος) / ministers who faithfully serve but are not elected or appointed to the office of deacon. 1 Tim 3 speaks of the office.

Another example is Colossians 4:7, “Tychicus, a beloved brother, faithful minister, and fellow servant in the Lord, will tell you all the news about me.”

Yes, including choir director and song leader.

[Jim]

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Jim,

What about Romans 16:1? Same word as 1 Timothy 3:8.

Response: I differentiate between the function or activity of servant and the office of servant. I suggest that churches have many servants (Gk διάκονος) / ministers who faithfully serve but are not elected or appointed to the office of deacon. 1 Tim 3 speaks of the office.

Another example is Colossians 4:7, “Tychicus, a beloved brother, faithful minister, and fellow servant in the Lord, will tell you all the news about me.”

I have always found it an interesting side note that 1 Tim address pastors but goes on to address deacons and their wives. Pure speculation, but I was always curious why the pastors’ wives were not addressed as well.

I don’t want to discourage the good thinking going on here - especially in the back and forth between friend Chip and friend Jim - continue “brethriem.” First, Jim - bro - I love your charts - I’ve got to learn how to do that! Second, is it too “simple” to state - The Scriptures only limit women from positions of leadership that (1) place them in an official theological executive shepherding office and (2) Clearly place men under the direct official corporate doctrinal/ecclesiastical supervision of women (thereby violating the whole 1 Corinthians teaching on headship)?

So if collecting the money doesn’t violate #1 or #2 - in theory wouldn’t it be permissible?

You guys help me - what am I missing?

Straight Ahead!

jt

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Jim,

What about Romans 16:1? Same word as 1 Timothy 3:8.

One might say that the Romans passage allows for female deacons. One might also say that the Biblical description of the deacon role is entirely one of a servant and that the office has no position of authority.

I follow the hypothesis that Phoebe was part of a traveling team (perhaps what we would call a modern-day missionary).

Both the ESV study Bible notes and the MacArthur Study Bible notes propose that Phoebe was a courier who delivered the Epistle of Romans: ESV notes: “Phoebe probably brought this epistle to the Romans”. MacArthur SB notes: “… she had the great responsibility of delivering this letter to the Roman church.”

The noun “προστάτις” (A hapax legomenon) in Romans 16:2, translated “patron” in the ESV, suggests that she was a leader of women.

Responding to Ron who said:

One might say that the Romans passage allows for female deacons. One might also say that the Biblical description of the deacon role is entirely one of a servant and that the office has no position of authority.

My view is neither of the above:

• That this passage IS NOT allowing female deacons (syncing with the 1 Tim 3 passage that limits the office of deacon to men)
• AND I reject the second view that “the office has no position of authority”. Rather, I suggest that Deacons are under the authority of the local church eldership AND have positions of authority.

Responding to Chip who asked me:

Are there any people representative of the office of deacon listed in the NT, in your opinion? How do you differentiate between those fulfilling the office and those fulfilling the duties outside of the office?

• I suggest that the men selected in Acts 6:1-7 are either the first deacons or proto-deacons
• I would differentiate between those in an office vs others generically serving by a selection process being in place for the former where the entire congregation is involved (eg … election of deacons at an annual meeting)

Responding to FJBarnes who stated:

Yes, including choir director and song leader.

My preferences are as follows:

• That ushers be men in suites.
• That the choir director be a male (at my 2nd church, the choir director was a female. I inherited that situation and did not change it. She did a super job
• That the song leader be a male
• I think that the church Treasurer (distribution of funds) could easily be a female. Same with Financial Secretary (Recording of fund inflows). With the Treasurer, aside from spiritual standards, I would prefer someone with accounting / bookkeeping experience and the ability to use financial software such as QuickBooks. For the Financial Secretary: strong Excel or Microsoft Access experience

Your work is an encouragement! Keep it up, brother!

Scripture is silent on much of what we practice in our churches. Yet, we have Sunday Schools, Wednesday night services, rarely have love feasts, do little or nothing for widows and orphans, wear ties which in truth are a bit effeminate (Bible warns on that one), and we load up with all sorts of “offices” that are unknown in scripture. We run from deaconesses which is scriptural it seems. So let’s face it, we are traditionalists of one stripe or another. Even with deacons, scripture does not tell us how many to have on that roster but we see the first church in Jerusalem had just 7 for thousands of converts. I have no problem with traditions, with policies and rules. My concern is often the failure to explain them to folks. Base them on scripture or base them on practical matters or base them on Bible interpretation under faith and practice. I’ve seen too many dogmatic churches who carry on about women’s roles, dress etc. without explanation.

It frightens me a bit to have an auditorium full of suits and have some poor or unprepared person come in to visit and feel terribly out of place. Scripture warns of that.

I tend to think that taking up an offering by and large is so others can see who is giving and then feeling pressure to give. Not a good motive.

[Ron Bean]

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Jim,

What about Romans 16:1? Same word as 1 Timothy 3:8.

One might say that the Romans passage allows for female deacons. One might also say that the Biblical description of the deacon role is entirely one of a servant and that the office has no position of authority.

[Chip Van Emmerik] I just don’t see any authoritative role in the local assembly outside of the undershepherd and the congregation itself.

That would be = NO DEACONS

Not to mention Acts 6:1-7.

[Jim]

[Chip Van Emmerik] I just don’t see any authoritative role in the local assembly outside of the undershepherd and the congregation itself.

That would be = NO DEACONS

Acts 3:1-7

What did you men decide? Can a woman take up a collection in church? Perhaps only if the church uses actual collection plates since women should have experience with plates (you know, in the kitchen). rof. You can’t make this stuff up.

[Jim]

I suggest that the men selected in Acts 6:1-7 are either the first deacons or proto-deacons

I would differentiate between those in an office vs others generically serving by a selection process being in place for the former where the entire congregation is involved (eg … election of deacons at an annual meeting)

I know this thread has gone far and wide! Our church (4th Baptist in Plymouth MN) has elected Deaconesses.

• I think they are about 20 in number
• They are elected by the congregation (a nominating committee prepares ballot)
• I believe they serve for a 2 year term (maybe 3)
• They serve an important function. They
  • Visit shut ins
  • Have a funeral ministry where they provide a meal in the church after the funeral service.
• I personally don’t find strong Biblical support for the office of deaconess, but for me it is a non-essential of the faith.

Is there a difference between a female deacon and a deaconess?

[Jim]

I know this thread has gone far and wide! Our church (4th Baptist in Plymouth MN) has elected Deaconesses.

• I think they are about 20 in number
• They are elected by the congregation (a nominating committee prepares ballot)
• I believe they serve for a 2 year term (maybe 3)
• They serve an important function. They
  • Visit shut ins
  • Have a funeral ministry where they provide a meal in the church after the funeral service.
• I personally don’t find strong Biblical support for the office of deaconess, but for me it is a non-essential of the faith.

My childhood church always considered the wives of deacons to be deaconesses. They would set the communion table. Would allowing women to serve communion rock the boat?