Thanks, persp for your quotes. I do think they carry truth, because I can think of many scriptures to support the statements.

FWIW in this discussion (which is not much), I am a woman, and I am directing the music at my church, which I disagree is scriptural. I knew and the pastor and deacons knew that it was a stop-gap measure at the time they hired me: they had had the word out for months for a male music director with no takers. Since I am a single mom at their church with a need for income while I finish school, they suggested I apply (I was already filling in) and I did, and they hired me. God's grace is sufficient. I am on the lookout for another job that can replace that income now that school is winding down. I couldn't be out of this job soon enough to suit me.

But I never was and never will be a worship leader. Not made for it, even if I was of the opposite gender. And I will be one of those musicians who won't be "using my talents for the Lord" in a church or evangelistic setting. It's my vocation. What God usually asks of me in church and evangelism are my mothering and teaching abilities, and I will happily do that. My music will be somewhere else.

Most likely I won't even sing "special music" on a volunteer basis. I have had my talent so totally questioned and slashed to pieces through this ordeal, apparently simply because I have it and others don't, that I will not in the future display it before the Body for fear that it will cause them to stumble.

mm

Persp,

For once I have to say I agree completely (ok, I'm not a hip-hop fan). I do think that too many in the "Christian Music" industry (whatever "Christian Music" means) have sold out their artistic integrity in order to make money by speaking platitudes.

I also have to say that you may be the only person (other than myself) who has ever quoted Mark Heard on this message board. So I'm curious as to how you heard of him?

TBG

I actually heard of Mark Heard from you, TBG. You made some passing reference to him in the old thread, and I looked him up. His lyrics are amazing, and I'm hooked, though the production is usually awful.

All this discussion of Christian Music really got me thinking. One of my all time favourite Rock groups is widely considered a Christian band . That would be U2 . Apparently many of their songs are even used as hymns in some Christian Churches (mostly Episcopalian). Of course not all their songs focus on Christian themes, but albums like October and The Joshua Tree have Christian references. And Pride (in the Name of Love), one of my particular favourites, seems to be a direct reference to Christ. Bono is a life-long self-professed Christian.

I know that some don't consider him very Christian because of his occasional use of language and political views. I was wondering what many of you thought about U2 in terms of the current discussion.

Peace and Long Life
GB

. . . .

Have . . . I . . . actually . . . made . . . a . . . convert?

As an aside, quite a few artists have done covers of Mark Heard songs including Phil Keaggy, Randy Stonehill, Rich Mullins, Kevin Max, and (of course) Pierce Pettis.

GB, I probably should start listening to U2 at some point.

TBG

I’ve finally gotten around to listening to Mr. Sweatt’s sermon (you know, the one that was introduced weeks ago). My general impression is that he really doesn’t know what he means, as is usually the case with free-willie pastors. Every now and then they’ll give you some good, solid doctrine, but before you can say ‘Charles Finney’ they turn around and trample everything they just said. And the funny thing is that they don’t ever seem to see the contradictions in their message.

For instance, Mr. Sweatt makes statements like, “…in our ministry, if God does not work nothing good is going to happen.” On hearing that, I might have been inclined to imagine that Mr. Sweatt was going to give a solid presentation of the sovereignty of God, if I did not already know that he believes God’s power in saving to be subject to the free will of man.

And again, Mr. Sweatt says,

We only have one agenda, and that’s God’s agenda. We don’t want anything else. I don’t want anything he don’t want me to have. I want to do what he wants. We have only one goal, and that’s to bring glory to God. Paul says, “I live in such a way that I want Christ to be seen through me; that should be our only goal.

Apparently God’s agenda, and what he wants Mr. Sweatt to have, is the survival of the Fundamentalist movement. At least, that’s what his whole message seems to be about…

In another instance of flightiness, Mr. Sweatt erects a terrific straw man, and proceeds to beat it to death, declaring, in parody of a ‘Calvinist’:

What is the most familiar New Testament verse that every child in Sunday School learns? John 3:16. “Now listen to the preacher: “For God so loved the Cosmos—” Well, it doesn’t really mean that. God only loves the elect! He doesn’t love everybody. “…that whosoever believeth—” Well, it doesn’t really mean ‘whosoever.’ You gotta understand; it doesn’t really mean that.”
Now listen to me. We tell our people, “Read the Bible, study the Bible, trust the Bible!” And then we tell ‘em it doesn’t say what it means! So would it be fair to say that many in our movement say “We accept the Bible as interpreted by John Calvin, John Piper, C.J. Mahaney?” We’re going to have another inerrancy debate. Does the Bible say what it means, or does it not?

Do you see how he misunderstands the doctrine of Total Inability? If he understood that no sinner will believe apart from regeneration, that no natural man has any spiritual life whatsoever, perhaps he would not be so hostile. The scenario he sets up (and the one I used to assume was true, in my free-willie days) is that, in Reformed understanding, anyone may believe, but of the ones that believe, only the elect are saved. Twisted, perverted, and convoluted, to be sure, but I can understand how, from that misunderstanding, he is so hostile to what he considers our heresy. Perhaps we Reformed folks would do well to spend more time on the sinner’s unwillingness, as well as inability, in the matter of his salvation.

So to sum it all up, Mr. Sweatt is very confused. And I, like our dear Doctor, find myself not angry with him, but sorry for him. He seems to have a real desire for God’s glory and the accomplishing of his will; unfortunately he can’t wrap his mind around the idea that these goals might not be best accomplished by his dear Fundamentalism, or even that he might be guilty of reading his Bible through a man-centered lens these many years. But let’s not get smug about it. The doctrine I’ve been defending in this post ought to tell us that any truth we have laid hold of, any right knowledge we have attained, is due solely to God’s sovereign grace, and not conditional on any good or evil we have done. If God gave us right understanding, we have every reason to hope and pray that he will do the same for Dan Sweatt.

I'll say that for worship, I have three criteria that I use for determining whether a song (whether hymn or not) is suitable for worship:

1. Context: is this the context for, say, "Shout to the Lord"? In the church I am currently attending, a small PCA congregation in the deep south, this song would be the wrong style. At their sister church in inner-city Chattanooga, the song would be perfectly acceptable. Cultural context does matter.

2. Content: are the lyrics Biblically sound? Are they just fluff? This is one reason why I would love to see more churches adapting the Psalms--what could be more Biblical than singing Scripture? I have also appreciated Sovereign Grace Ministries' Valley of Vision project of taking Puritan poetry and adapting it as worship music--cool stuff (now if they'd only adopt the Westminster Standards.....).

3. Community: is it singable? I have honestly heard a ton of worship songs *coughDavidCrowdercough* that are not easily singable. If the song is in a key that cannot easily be sung, or at least harmonized (yet another reason to like Trinity Hymnal) by basses, sopranos, and teenagers whose voices are cracking, then it might not be good for worship. Worship is a community act and therefore we shouldn't discriminate against those to whom God has given less than average voices.

I like this advice the best. Nice and practical.

I would love to see more churches adapting the Psalms--what could be more Biblical than singing Scripture?

So would I! Amen! And consider this: "Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the LORD with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped" [2 Chron 29:30, KJV]. What could be better than that? I have Psalms, Wisdom books, Gospels, and Revelation playlists on my YouTube channel and I’m just gonna keep adding them ‘cause I think singing the Bible is a great way to memorize it, to feed oneself the Word. Obviously, it doesn’t replace Bible reading and study.

What were the sources of Paul's instructions on worship [and everything else] for the various churches he wrote letters to? 1. Old Testament [their Bible, remember]. 2. Holy Spirit when OT doesn't address issue. 3. Tradition? 4. Paul? So when our Bible, all 66 books, doesn't address certain aspects of worship in churches today, what do we do? We humbly ask the Holy Spirit for wisdom and guidance. And He helps us rightly apply the Word to our situation. No two churches are the same. Paul's letters should be enough evidence of that. But the modern movement in Christian music seems to produce churches that superficially look and act alike, especially in worship, whatever their level of spirituality and holiness. There's too much copycat, i.e. "so and so did this and it worked for their church" ["worked" = church growth = more people to pay tithes, not necessarily more disciples] "so let's do it!" This movement seems to produce ecumenicism that ignores doctrinal differences. I'm an Evangelical Pentecostal. That doesn't mean I like what some Evangelicals are doing today [the latest being celebrating Ramadan ]. But I do believe in and practice evangelism as Christ's command. I'm not against Baptists or other denominations. Sometimes I respect them more than Pentecostals [don't tell anybody]. I attend a Southern Baptist church 1-2 times a month! [TRBC ] But I'm not "high-church."

In most church practices, I think the older should teach the younger. The latter should be submissive. But all should practice humility. This idea is stated in 1 Timothy 5:1-2, Titus 2:2-6, and 1 Peter 5:5. At the same time, we should not despise the youth, for they still have a place and role in the church [1 Tim 4]. Our emphasis should be on a person's wisdom and gifts, not his or her physical age. But this practice is not taking place in churches today. Has it ever? Instead of the old teaching the young, "passing the faith along," like the good ol' Gaither song says, the young are segregated and told “you can [should?] have your own music, your own ways of worship, your own” … etc. The young are teaching the old. What about this is Christian?! The old have wisdom. They have experiences with God. They have stories of His faithfulness and healing. They know pain and suffering, trials and temptations. And they know how to make it through. How many young people in Western churches today know what it is to suffer persecution for the cross? How many of them have had to rely on God for their daily bread? They didn’t go through the Great Depression or World War II… But I’ve recently heard 3 people under age 35 wish the older saints of the church would tell their stories of God’s faithfulness.

What’s the purpose of any church practice? To edify, exhort, and comfort other believers [1 Cor 14]. God is the author of peace, not confusion [14]. Paul tells us, “Let all things be done decently and in order” [14:40, KJV]. We should “giv[e] no offense in anything, that the ministry be not blamed” [2 Cor 6:3, KJV]. And the purpose of spiritual gifts, including worship, is "for the perfecting of the saints" and "for the edifying of the body of Christ" [Eph 4:12, KJV]. Do our church practices today resemble this? They should…

We need to ask ourselves, what is the fruit of listening to X song, Christian or not? How does it change our hearts, for good or bad? If for bad, chuck the song!

Yes, I know there have been musical arguments for centuries. And I recently read an anecdote, written over 100 years ago, about an older church member’s gripes about that day’s youth that would rival the twenty-first century. I’m not completely historically illiterate. But I also think the situation today is more widespread than before. There are some differences. I’ll have to do more research.

Did you know the greatest enemy of a particular generation's style of worship is the previous generation?

I wonder why… And maybe I agree with the previous generation!

Why shouldn't we treat the youth different than the adults? I already stated the answer in my post. They don't speak the same language that the older generation does. The modern day CCM out there is the language the younger generation understands. They can relate the messages, to the beats, in those songs. They can't relate so well to the older ones. And if they can't relate, how can they worship?

I’m 29. Many consider me part of the “youth” you describe. Barring a one-year-old, I’m the youngest member, by decades, of the Wednesday night meeting I attend. I don’t want to be treated differently from the older generation. Guess what? They don’t treat me differently! I speak their language, not those of the youth. I used to attend a summer Bible study led by people 3-4 years younger than me. I liked the Bible study. But I didn’t like the music. IT’S JUST NOT ME.

Music is the same. It was intended to be good. All styles included.

Yes, God created music. He intended it to be good. But Satan has his music too. And not all music is the same.

Just because you don't enjoy modern music doesn't mean it's not of God.

You know nothing about me! I love a lot of modern music! The problem is when "modern" = CCM, alternative, rock... It shouldn't! Have you checked my Youtube channel lately? Apparently not. Let's see ... I like Michelle Tumes, some Michael W. Smith, the occasional Chris Tomlin, the occasional Avalon [whom I saw in concert and used to love but now... ], Selah [concert], Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir, Steve Green, Michael Card, Lynda Randle, David Phelps, Charles Billingsley [@ TRBC! ], Larnelle Harris, Twila Paris, Fernando Ortega, Annie Moses Band [concert], Hillsong, Maranatha Singers, Shannon Wexelberg, Yolanda Adams, Smokie Norful, Donnie McClurkin, Bebe and Cece Winans, Richard Smallwood, Mandisa, Kurt Carr, Helen Baylor, the occasional Kirk Franklin -- just to name a few. I listen to Saturday nite gospel on the radio...

I don't enjoy Gaither's music and much of classical music (although I do love a good movie soundtrack and some hymns).

I love Gaither music and videos! [and classical music....] Have you taken the time to listen to them? You say you like hymns. Well, they sing older hymns I wish others would sing, like “Ninety and nine” [Matthew 18:12-13], “O love that will not let me go,” “Rock of ages” [Exodus 34], “I then shall live,” Is not this the land of Beulah?” “The lifeboat,”, ”Living in Canaan now”, and “Whispering Hope.” They also sing some newer songs [check out my favorites below]. They even sing black gospel, like The Fairfield Four’s “Dig a little deeper”, and Jewish songs, like “Blow the trumpet” [Joel 2], ”Mighty one of Israel” [Isaiah 35:1, 4-6], and “He is Jehovah.” Some of my favorite songs, such as “I know He heard my prayer,” “God on the mountain” [1 Kings 20], “I will glory in the cross” [Galatians 6], “I’m free,” “I’ve just seen Jesus” [John 20], “My name is Lazarus” [John 11], “Holy highway” [Isaiah 35], “I believe in a hill called mount Calvary,” “Let freedom ring,” “Oh what a time!” “These are they” [Revelation 7], “Worthy the lamb” [Revelation 4-5], “The End of the beginning”, “No more night” [Revelation 21:4, 23], “One Day”, “The Promise” [Matthew 9:18-26], “Testify”, ”Until I found the Lord”, and “Umbrella” – just to name a few! – I learned on different Gaither videos. I thank God for them! They’re pretty popular around the world … Africa, Australia, Europe, and the US. And their audiences include both young and old. You want doctrine in music? Go to the hymnals. Go to the church’s heritage.

Personal testimony
Some of my earliest memories of Christian music are songs by the Gaither trio, including “There’s just something about that Name,” and songs the Gaithers produced for children, including “I’m somebody” and “My Father’s angels.” Occasionally, I still sing to myself some of these songs. When I was a teenager, I started listening to CCM, along with hymns and choirs. But I had zero discernment. I would hear a song, memorize the lyrics if I liked it and made me feel good, and then sing it without thinking of what I was singing. I didn’t notice the song’s theology, whether good or bad. And I preferred fast songs to slow ones, which I considered boring. My mother told me not to listen to CCM because it was worldly and sensual, but I didn’t listen to her. God had to wake me up, and the experience was pretty painful. But I listened this time and I learned.

In 2005, evil thoughts from the devil started plaguing me. In order to get them out of my mind, I stopped singing and started listening to the words of Christian songs. I just wanted some peace. [By this time, some of the so-called Christian songs I had been listening to were pretty violent.] As I listened, I discovered that the lyrics of some songs I enjoyed had bad theology. [For example, one of Jaci Velasquez’ songs contains the line “You harbor truth.” It is obvious from the context that she is referring to Jesus, but theologically, this line is unsound. Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), not “I harbor truth.” There is a vast difference between the two!] Other songs seemed shallow. And most of the fast songs did not bring me peace; they seemed violent, not worshipful. I was looking for answers to why evil thoughts were plaguing me, why I felt so sinful and depraved.

During this period, I discovered some Gaither videos. Before, I had made fun of Gaither songs, as though they were “old people’s” music. I was wrong. Some of the songs on these videos are the best I’ve ever heard, and I wish churches would sing them! Lyrics like “When the Savior in love / Saved me from all sin” (“Oh the Glory Did Roll”) and “I never shall forget the day / When all the burdens from my soul were rolled away” (“I Never Shall Forget the Day) made me realize that I wasn’t saved from sin but a slave to sin, and I couldn’t remember such a burden of sin being rolled away from me. And lyrics like “I’m free from the sin that I carried / From the dull, empty life I’m set free / For when I met Jesus, He made me complete / He forgot the foolish children I used to be” (“I’m Free”) made me realize that Jesus was a stranger to me.

Nearly four years after God’s wake-up call, I know I am saved and many songs on these videos played a critical part in my conversion. But my attitude toward Christian music has also changed. I don’t like jazz or rock in a song because it sounds worldly, and I can’t stand CCM. Of the music I now listen to, does this mean I condone every song I hear by a favorite singer or group? No. Does this mean I like every version of a favorite song? No. I ask myself of every song I hear, “Is its theology sound? Does it glorify God? Or does it put the singer first?” Through the Holy Spirit, I can tell whether a Christian or a sinner is singing a Christian song, and whether a Christian is singing in the Spirit or in the flesh.

(edited)

My Study Bible has a section "How to Read 1 Corinthians"

To fully appreciate Paul’s letters, keep in mind that they are personal correspondence. We are actually reading someone else’s mail. … First, you will encounter the problems that had been reported to Paul: divisions in the church, a case o incest, court cases, the abuse of Christian freedom, chaos in the worship services. … Then, beginning with chapter 7, he takes up some other problems the Corinthians had written him about: marriage and the single life, pagan festivals, behavior of women, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection of the dead. … Not all the problems discussed will apply directly to modern situations. But the general principles underlying Paul’s advice do apply. As you read, look for those principles behind Paul’s arguments.

How do we determine which parts of the letters apply to us and which are specific to the attended audience? How do we separate the principles from the advice?
This verse and the note in ()s that goes with it are rather interesting.

Philippians 4:2 I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life. (Women in the Church: Although these two women were stirring up trouble in Philippi, women played a positive role in that church. In fact, Paul’s first convert in Europe was Lydia, a businesswoman. Paul met with her and a group of women by a river, and later stayed in her house.)

In Philippians, Paul clearly appreciates what women are doing in the church and the work of the gospel. They struggled “beside” him not under him they are “co-workers” and not “helpers.” Paul clearly has respect for Priscilla and Aquila. In Acts, both of them take Apollos aside and explained the Way of God.” Acts 18:26. Sounds like a woman teaching to me … My study Bible states, “More often than not, Priscilla’s name comes first – which certainly leaves an impression that in the eyes of their friends she was at least her husband’s equal. … they became leaders in that new and dynamic church”
The questions in bold refer to the discussion of the Corinthian and Timothy verses. What is the definition of “church”? Are they talking about the group of people meeting together or the actual building? Many of the early churches met in people’s homes.
What is the definition of “Scripture”? f(I'm asking because if we want to base worship and what we do / don't do on scripture we need to know what it means.) 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” Would Paul consider what he wrote to be scripture? Many of the other books in the Bible are clearly intended for large audiences over generations. But, Paul and other letter writers were writing to specific a specific person or groups of people about immediate problems in their churches. Would they have wanted their letters published? If they had know that their letters were going to be saved and handed down from generation to generation would they have written them differently or written separate documents to be published that would be more fitting for multiple audiences (i.e focusing more on the message of the gospel and less on advice)?

My Study Bible gives the following commentary, with which I agree, concerning I Timothy 2:8-15. Sorry it's so long...

No problem about the length. The posts on this thread tend to be pretty long. I found parts of it to be very helpful, especially the parts about dress. I understand the part about childbirth much better too. Looking at my finished post, it is also very long.

2:8 men. The Gr. word for “men” as opposed to women. God intends for men to be the leaders when the church meets for corporate worship. When prayer for the lost is offered during those times, the men are to lead it. every place. Paul’s reference to the official assembly of the church (cf. 1Co 1:2; 2Co 2:14; 1Th 1:8). lifting up holy hands.

Where does God say that he intends for men to be the leaders in the church? Notice Paul says, “I desire” not “God desires.” Is there somewhere that God or Jesus clearly outlines this?

2:11 A woman must … receive instruction. Women are not to be the public teachers when the church assembles, but neither are they to be shut out of the learning process. The form of the Gr. verb translated “receive instruction” is an imperative: Paul is commanding that women be taught in the church. That was a novel concept, since neither first century Judaism nor Greek culture held women in high esteem. Some of the women in Ephesus probably overreacted to the cultural denigration they had typically suffered and took advantage of their opportunity in the church by seeking a dominant role in leadership. quietly … submissiveness.

“Quietly” and “submissiveness” (“to line up under”) were to characterize the role of a woman as a learner in the context of the church assembly. Paul explains his meaning in v. 12: Women are to be silent by not teaching, and they are to demonstrate submission by not usurping the authority of the pastors or elders.

It seems that in the church women were beginning to get a little more status. Maybe this is a case of trying to get too much too soon. Did they want the role in the leadership because they wanted to serve God or because they wanted power? Were they trying to take on leadership roles without getting the permission of the pastors or elders?

2:12 I do not allow. The Gr. word for “allow” is used in the NT to refer to allowing someone to do what he desires. Paul may have been addressing a real situation in which several women in Ephesus desired to be public preachers. to teach. Paul used a verbal form of this Gr. word that indicates a condition or process and is better translated “to be a teacher.” This was an important, official function in the church (see Ac 13:1; 1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11). Thus Paul is forbidding women from filling the office and role of the pastor or teacher. He is not prohibiting them from teaching in other appropriate conditions and circumstances (cf. Ac 18:26; Tit 2:3, 4). exercise authority over. Paul forbids women from exercising any type of authority over men in the church assembly, since the elders are those who rule (5:17). They are all to be men (as is clear from the requirements in 3:2, 5). remain quiet. See note on v. 11.

Paul once again uses “I” and not “God” “I do not allow someone to do what he desires” seems very different from “I forbid without considering anything else.” Would the situation be different if the elders who rule the church decide to allow the women to teach?

2:13, 14 … Adam then violated his leadership role, followed Eve in her sin, and plunged the human race into sinfulness—all connected with violating God’s planned roles for the sexes. Ultimately, the responsibility for the Fall still rests with Adam, since he chose to disobey God apart from being deceived (Ro 5:12–21; 1Co 15:21, 22).

I know God says in Gen. 3:16 “yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” However, that does not say, “and you shall have no authority over any man.” Does God or Jesus specifically say anywhere that women should not have authority over men? God gave Deborah power over men. She was “a prophetess, wife of Lappidoth” and a judge. Judges doesn’t say that she judged only females but that the Israelites came to her for judgment. I assume that means either individuals of both sexes or all of the Israelites together as group which definitely included men.

Also a curiosity: Priscilla and Aquila. Paul didn't have a problem with women prophesying, and in church (1 Cor. 11) but he had a lot to say about dress. It wasn't "should a woman prophesy" but "men and women, mind your hair when you do it." I've heard people argue that Priscilla can say what she wants out of doors, but if she said the identical things inside a church building she's in big trouble. (I didn't say the people who said it were consistent!)

Interesting point. He doesn’t forbid women from prophesying (Although he doesn’t specifically say that he is talking about head coverings in church). However, he says they should be quiet in church. The NEW OXFORD AMERICAN Dictionary defines a prophet as “a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God:” It is very clear that women can be prophets and prophesy in order to do so truly they must be inspired by God. Yet, they are not to be allowed to speak as God has inspired them when the church assembles / in the church building? The notes from the study Bible that Mother-Music typed up (and I quote parts of above) talks about what women can’t do when the church assembles. So they are to be quiet when the church assembles, but they can teach and prophesy if it is an unofficial gathering of just part of the church? There is no denying that women can be “inspired by God” or be a prophet. It doesn’t seem logical to me that women who are truly “inspired by God” would be excluded from using this inspiration in a gathering of a church where it would likely do much good.

I seem to remember reading about priestesses somewhere in the Old Testament. Does anyone know if there were any priestesses serving God?
Feel free to answer my question and pick apart my arguments. Although I am familiar with the Bible, there is a lot about it I don't know and / or understand.

Warrior 4 Jesus, sorry if my post detracted from your post asking questions. I don't know of any books that would help you.

Pattertwig's Pal: I love your response on women in worship! Good work!

Paul once again uses “I” and not “God” “I do not allow someone to do what he desires” seems very different from “I forbid without considering anything else.” Would the situation be different if the elders who rule the church decide to allow the women to teach?

Good point.

I know God says in Gen. 3:16 “yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” However, that does not say, “and you shall have no authority over any man.” Does God or Jesus specifically say anywhere that women should not have authority over men? God gave Deborah power over men. She was “a prophetess, wife of Lappidoth” and a judge. Judges doesn’t say that she judged only females but that the Israelites came to her for judgment. I assume that means either individuals of both sexes or all of the Israelites together as group which definitely included men.

Good point! I also thought of Deborah. And who killed Sisera? A woman.

He doesn’t forbid women from prophesying (Although he doesn’t specifically say that he is talking about head coverings in church). However, he says they should be quiet in church. The NEW OXFORD AMERICAN Dictionary defines a prophet as “a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God:” It is very clear that women can be prophets and prophesy in order to do so truly they must be inspired by God. Yet, they are not to be allowed to speak as God has inspired them when the church assembles / in the church building? The notes from the study Bible that Mother-Music typed up (and I quote parts of above) talks about what women can’t do when the church assembles. So they are to be quiet when the church assembles, but they can teach and prophesy if it is an unofficial gathering of just part of the church? There is no denying that women can be “inspired by God” or be a prophet. It doesn’t seem logical to me that women who are truly “inspired by God” would be excluded from using this inspiration in a gathering of a church where it would likely do much good.

The Church of God [TN] had female teachers and preachers from the beginning of its history as a church, c.1900. My late grandfather had a lot of negative views on women. But even he allowed and invited women to preach in his pulpit. My mother has a minister's license. And she used to play the accordion and organ in her church and sing. But things have changed recently. The Church of God is starting to resemble the Baptists and other denominations regarding women in leadership. It makes no sense. I think women, if they're truly called, can and should fill leadership roles. This principle is biblical and also part of my church's heritage/history.

I seem to remember reading about priestesses somewhere in the Old Testament. Does anyone know if there were any priestesses serving God?

I don't know. I can't find "priestess" in KJV, NKJV, or NIV in an online Bible.

220c,

I understand your concerns: I don't like a lot of what CCM puts out these days either. On the other hand, I see little wrong with listening to some of the better rock music that they have put out, like dc Talk, Switchfoot, or TobyMac. Would I use them in a worship service? No, but that doesn't automatically put them out the door in terms of listening.

My playlist includes Christians like Phil Keaggy, Mark Heard, Rich Mullins, and Michael Card as well as secular artists like Led Zeppelin, Paul Simon, the Beatles, and Coldplay. Does this mean that I approve of all that they stand for? Absolutely not. However, I also recognize that there is common grace (as well as some wonderful artistry) in their music.

Here I'll just quote an article I wrote last year for our student newspaper:

St Augustine once said that “all truth is God’s truth.” This means that we as Christians should be actively looking for truth everywhere.

First, though, let’s assume that [this attitude] is right, and we should avoid secular rock and roll because many artists do stand against Christianity. However, let’s be consistent: next comes Jazz music, which promoted sex in the 1920s, then romantic poetry of the 19th century, and then the works of Charles Dickens. You see my point. All of the creators of these forms of art were not Christians (and, in some cases, were anti-Christian), but Christians can still profit from studying and enjoying them.

Historically, this has been the practice of the Church, from Paul’s quotations of Greek poetry on the Areopagus, to Augustine’s use of Plato’s philosophy in The City of God, to my Christian mind professor using music from Green Day to illustrate a point. Christians can and should engage and be involved with the culture. It’s not a sin to enjoy the Beatles or Bruce Springsteen. Look at their lyrics and you will find both truth and falsehood; discernment means being able to tell the difference and still enjoy it for what it is.

In response to [this attitude], “having no fellowship” with the works of darkness means sifting through it, discarding what is wrong, but promoting what is right. The Beatles were great musicians and songwriters in spite of the fact that they stood against God, and we as Christians should recognize that and be sobered by it. That’s what this college is all about. Whenever we study anything other than the Bible, we are studying something that is in error, but there is also truth there as well. Christ came, not to replace cultures, but to redeem them. Let us show discernment, rather than throwing out the good with the evil.
Finally, I will concur with [Abraham] Kuyper that there is not a single square inch of creation over which Jesus Christ is not Lord. This means that we, as Christians, should be interested in claiming all parts of our culture, even rock music, films, and dancing, for God. Just like Christians can celebrate Dickens, Beethoven, or Rossini, so too we can celebrate the Beatles, Bruce Springsteen, and Simon and Garfunkel, even while rejecting the falsehoods in their music. They are prime examples of common grace, in spite of their sin.

TBG

My playlist includes Christians like Phil Keaggy, Mark Heard, Rich Mullins, and Michael Card as well as secular artists like Led Zeppelin, Paul Simon, the Beatles, and Coldplay. Does this mean that I approve of all that they stand for? Absolutely not. However, I also recognize that there is common grace (as well as some wonderful artistry) in their music.

Some of your examples [this quote and the newspaper article] sound like "the world" to me. Sorry...

I'm new to this concept of "common grace." Wikipedia has 4 categories. I'm assuming your examples in this discussion fall under "Providential blessings to mankind." This category doesn't appear in Theopedia, which has only 3. Some in PCA and other denominations are critical of the concept. I think I can see the first 3 in the Bible, but I'm not sure about the 4th. So how biblical is it? That's what I plan to research...

I stand with TBG on this. Most of the music I have been 'defending' is stuff I won't listen to and would not want for a church service either. Especially not on a regular basis. But should we automatically ban them from use for everyone? The answer cannot be yes to this. 220, you mentioned you sided with the previous generation's take on music. That may be the case when comparing this generation to the adults of our current congregation, but the adult's music was considered ungoldy by the generation before that as well. How far back do you want to go?

I am right in your age group as well (26) and I also know what it's like to be in a Bible study group where I am half the age of everyone else. We have different styles of worship, music, praying (some in the Study were higher up on the charismatic side of things), but we are unified. I like the more upbeat songs than the others in the group, but should they make me only like the music they like? No. Should the older generation teach the younger generation? Absolutely. They should teach them to fear the Lord, respect their elders and each other, and serve the Lord as He leads. But should the older genreation make the younger generation do it the same way they did? Not necessarily. There is a difference between doing things in a way that fits your character and being rebellious. It appears that your concern is that by listening to certain types of music you are being rebellious. It is true that much of the musical rock and metal music was done with a heart of rebellion against authority but not everyone does that.

Some here would highly disagree with something my church did this summer. I mentioned Curvine earlier. Last summer, we had him for a concert as he was touring through our part of the country. My pastor (who also really does not like rap) saw something out of Curvine that he had never seen in 35 years of pastorship: Curvine did not leave the stage until he had prayed for every single person present individually. He was so touched by this, he invited Curvine back this summer, this time for the congregation. The youth group led the worship, and Curvine was the guest speaker. He did three songs, but the heart of his message was his powerful testimony and his heart to reach the youth in our nation.

You also mentioned about being able to understand the older generation's language in your study. That is easy. You are all Christians. How do you plan to reach the non-Christians living in your neighborhood? You can't use the Christianese many of us have heard our whole lives. Those that are not Christians don't undertand phrases like 'sin', 'need a Savior', 'truth', etc. Especially in this culture where people don't hold to absolute right and wrong. You can't speak them in terms of absolutes if you plan to reach them. I am not saying we have to throw out Biblical teaching. I am saying we need to present it in a way that someone who doesn't speak 'Christianese' can understand. That is what Curvine and others like TobyMac, DC Talk, Switchfoot, and even The Fray are trying to do. I personally know Isaac Slade, lead singer of The Fray. He leads a secular band, that would not be classified as Christian under the standards you have indicated. But every member of that band is a Christian and they are using thier musical gifts to reach out to those who are not Christian.

This still does not mean we need to include all these songs in worship services. I personally don't like the style of music myself. But I am in no position to judge someone else's choice of music because I wouldn't listen to it myself. If someone considers it worship to listen to CCM, and I don't, I am not going to hinder them by enforcing my personal convictions on them. That being said, if you don't like it and I do, I won't play it around you because of those convictions. I am not defending my personal choice of music. My primary choices are worship music, some CCM (Michael W Smith, Ray Boltz, Carman) and soundtracks. I am defending the worships styles of someone who is different than me.

I will give an example of the issue at stake here. I have been involved in missions for nearly 20 years and living on a missions campus that houses and facilitates mission teams for 10 years (while I am not at my collge dorm). About seven years ago, one church was preparing to send people from their church down to Mexico with our organization. This church was uber-conservative. Not only did the boys dress up all the time, the girls wore skirts all the time, and they were even strick vegitarians. Before a group comes, we train them for two months before their week-long trip. Now this church believes only an organ is worthy for worship when it comes to music instruments. In training, we have a video that has Mexican worship music. This is partly to introduce to the groups that people in different places have different styles of worship. The team insisted they turn off the music because it was offensive to them. It was a very interesting week, but one family from that group learned something. They didn't have to accept the Mexican style as thier own, but they could learn to appreciate it as a cultural experience. And in the US today, we have some many cultures represented, including within cities and neighborhoods, we cannot expect everyone to express worship to God in the same way. Let me ask you this, would you consider another nationality's style of worship to be 'unChristian'? I am not saying you are doing this, but it is not a very far step from the position you have taken to get to that point. Think about it.

Pattertwig's Pal: I love your response on women in worship! Good work!

Glad it made sense to someone beside me.

The Church of God [TN] had female teachers and preachers from the beginning of its history as a church, c.1900. My late grandfather had a lot of negative views on women. But even he allowed and invited women to preach in his pulpit. … I think women, if they're truly called, can and should fill leadership roles. This principle is biblical and also part of my church's heritage/history.

The truly called is the main point. That is very interesting story about your grandfather. I had no idea that having women as preachers went back that far. I also think that women should be allowed to fill leadership roles. My church has 3 pastors two male and one female. I’ve posted an example of what one of the male pastors said. The female pastor does a good job staying with the Word. It is horrible to think that it might be Biblically wrong for her to be a pastor when she is doing a better job of teaching God’s Word.

I seem to remember reading about priestesses somewhere in the Old Testament. Does anyone know if there were any priestesses serving God?

I don't know. I can't find "priestess" in KJV, NKJV, or NIV in an online Bible.

I’m probably thinking about some other book I’ve read. My mind is a hopeless jumble of information that doesn’t always get related to its source. (I do know of the main points in Bible, especially the parts that frequently end up in the readings at church.) I might have read about female prophets and got confused.

If my conclusions are right based on user names and based on what people say they are, only females have been commenting on this topic of women in worship.

By the way, what is CCM?

I don't know if it's much help coming from me Pattertwig (though I am indeed a male ), but I fully support more women in leadership roles in churches, synagogues, mosques, temples etc. . Not only Gnostic Christians, but other Early Christian groups in the first few centuries after Christ had women in prominent roles. I have always doubted the notion that one half of humanity was truly intended to be denied leadership roles in our religions on the basis of gender.

Live long and Prosper
GB

My playlist includes Christians like Phil Keaggy, Mark Heard, Rich Mullins, and Michael Card as well as secular artists like Led Zeppelin, Paul Simon, the Beatles, and Coldplay. Does this mean that I approve of all that they stand for? Absolutely not. However, I also recognize that there is common grace (as well as some wonderful artistry) in their music.

Some of your examples [this quote and the newspaper article] sound like "the world" to me. Sorry...

I'm new to this concept of "common grace." Wikipedia has 4 categories. I'm assuming your examples in this discussion fall under "Providential blessings to mankind." This category doesn't appear in Theopedia, which has only 3. Some in PCA and other denominations are critical of the concept. I think I can see the first 3 in the Bible, but I'm not sure about the 4th. So how biblical is it? That's what I plan to research...

Question: do you approve of Christians watching operas like Puccini's La Boheme? Do you approve of Christians reading the poetry of Coleridge or Homer? How about Christians who listen to bluegrass or Celtic music? None of these are particularly Christian (except maybe bluegrass gospel--but that's another story).

If we as Christians stop listening to the music of the world, reading its literature, and engaging it. There is both truth and falsehood in the world, but I affirm, with Augustine, that "all truth is God's truth" wherever I can find it.

Exhibit A: St. Paul. In his speech to the Areopagus, Paul referenced Greek poetry and indirectly appealed to the sensibilities of the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers of the day. He could not have done this unless he had been culturally engaged and educated in Greek culture. We cannot engage our culture unless we speak its language.

TBG