The PCA should reject such proposals to change our long-held convictions. We must remain true to the Scripture, which assigns exclusively male leadership in church governance and worship. We must remain true to the Reformed Faith, which has assigned the leading of public worship to ordained men or those training for ordained office.

Derek Radney, known for his online presence and leadership within Alliance for Mission and Renewal circles, has written an interesting piece on worship in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). He advocates for a nearly full inclusion of unordained men and women in “performing” the acts of worship, while reserving certain acts of worship (e.g., preaching and the sacraments) and the “leading” of worship to the duly ordained Elders of the church.

Radney’s recent article is the latest contribution to an ongoing debate in the PCA concerning who may lead in a public worship service. The 52^nd General Assembly debated whether unordained persons may oversee the distribution of communion elements. A number of presbyteries have seen an increase in churches allowing women to lead congregations in Sunday morning worship. Has Radney offered the PCA a theologically safe way forward that holds to historic Reformed principles of worship and complementarianism? No, I don’t think so.

Equivocation on Participation

There is one basic logical matter I want to address before dealing with the substance of Radney’s article. Radney entitled his article “Lay Participation in Worship” (emphasis mine), and he carries the theme of “participation” throughout his article. Phrasing the debate in terms of participation is really an equivocation on an important part of the debate.

As Peter Kreeft puts it succinctly, equivocation “means simply that the same term is used in two or more different senses in the course of an argument.” For instance, Radney writes, “The Reformation sought to increase congregational participation in worship, and I invite us to consider taking this concern a step further, not because the culture demands it, but because Scripture compels us.” He rightly says that the Reformation increased lay participation in worship. Yet, the real issue in debate is not participation in worship. The real issue is who may lead in worship. Using the language of participation serves Radney’s rhetorical aims because, after all, what Protestant would want to be seen as opposed to lay participation in worship? No one, I hope. But his use of participation papers over a more complex set of issues.

There are at least three different types of roles in a corporate worship service: participation, support, and leadership. A participant is anyone who attends a worship service. The participant’s goal should be to glorify God and receive the means of grace. A participant who also aids in the logistics of the worship service plays a supporting role. “Support” encompasses a range of aspects, from running the soundboard to musical accompaniment. Finally, a worship service needs leadership. Those who lead quite literally conduct the service, guiding the participants and supporters. In classical Reformed thought, the congregation may participate and support, but it is the officers—particularly the elders—who lead the worship service. The debate here is not over either participation in or the supporting of a worship service. We are debating who may lead in a worship service. That must be clear, as the terms of the debate largely determine the questions we ask of Scripture and the Standards.

The Regulative Principle

Many have appealed to the Regulative Principle as a reason for excluding unordained persons from leading in worship. Radney counters this claim by arguing that the Regulative Principle only applies to the elements of worship, not their forms. We must have biblical warrant for all the elements of worship, but not necessarily the forms of worship. Radney argues that if we needed explicit examples of every form used in worship, then we would not reasonably have enough data from Scripture to conduct a service. I broadly agree with his point here. However, the Regulative Principle does play a role in these conversations.

Radney is correct that the regulative principle does not directly apply, but he pushes the point too hard, for the regulative principle does indirectly apply. When one reads the Second Commandment, the principle is that we must not worship God on human terms. The distinction between the Creator and His creatures is such that worship is shaped by revelation, not human imagination. Some old Puritans called unregulated worship “will worship” because it followed the human will rather than divine revelation. The real question for Reformed and Presbyterian congregations is whether having unordained men and women leading in worship is pleasing to the Lord. Thankfully, we are not left wondering. Scripture is not silent on this issue.

Scripture and Authority

The most important aspect in the current debate is the clarity of Scripture on the question of unordained persons leading worship. I am going to narrow the scope down to what I perceive to be the real issue in the debate: Does Scripture allow women to lead a congregation in worship? First, there are no positive examples of such a practice. If there were, then there would be no debate.

Second, there are two texts that provide the most direct revelation about women in public worship: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. The first text, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, does not merely restrict a woman from preaching in a worship service. Paul enjoins a woman from teaching or exercising authority over a man. He becomes even more emphatic when he says that women must “remain quiet” in corporate worship. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul not only says that women “must keep silent,” but he goes further, saying that they “are not permitted to speak,” concluding that it is “shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

Radney works around these verses by arguing that women are commanded to sing and, therefore, Paul’s commands are not absolute. That is fair up to a point, but Radney’s reading of these texts tries to take a supposed exception and make it into the rule for the church’s practice. In truth, there is no exception to Paul’s overarching commands, because neither 1 Timothy 2:11-15 nor 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 stand in tension with women singing in corporate worship. Men and women are commanded to sing in worship. The issue in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 has to do with teaching and the exercise of authority. In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the issue is speaking, not singing. As we apply 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to worship, can a woman lead any element of worship without speaking, teaching, or exercising authority? It would seem to me that these texts proscribe a woman leading in worship because there is no way to lead in an element of worship without speaking, teaching, or leading.

Read More