Why Masculine Worship Matters

Home | Who We Are | Contact | Support / Give | Login

Header bar for section loads here.

Tue, 2010-10-12 10:39 — moderator

Our sexuality effects everything. In this quote, Doug Wilson gives a great explanation how this is true of the worship service:

"Masculine worship does not exclude women in the same way that feminine worship excludes men. Women flourish when men take spritual responsibility. Men wither or stay away when women lead in the church. So the church is not a men's club - men, women, children, and babies gather before the Lord together. Masculine worship is not worship for men; it is worship in which men fulfill their responsibilities to others. As a result of masculine leadership, women and children are free to contribute to worship rightly. But they do so because men have taken responsibility. In a Scriptural worship service, both masculine and feminine elements will be present, but the masculine will be dominant, in a position of leadership. When the feminine element leads or dominates, the result is that those who are masculine are encouraged to stay away." (Future Men)

Comments

Tue, 2010-10-12 13:46 — Jana

Two thumbs up.

Tue, 2010-10-12 15:16 — Ryan Fultz

So...how would you describe

So...how would you describe masculine worship...?

Tue, 2010-10-12 17:43 — Jody K.

It's difficult to describe

It's difficult to describe what no longer exists, and what none of us has ever seen. In his essay "Ministers in Skirts," Wilson briefly summarizes the complicated history of the feminization of the church since the days of the Industrial Revolution. There's been a complete sea-change, he says, in our understanding of sexuality, so much so that we retain virtually no memory of what life was like prior to that time. What God intended to be a compliment to masculine piety--feminine piety--has become in this post-Industrial Revolution, post-Enlightenment age the measure for what all true piety is. All our assumptions about godliness today are feminine. Masculine piety has been entirely, or almost entirely, lost. Whenever it does occasionally raise its head, we're completely flummoxed by it.

This is evident in the fact that today feeling is preferred over doctrine, sentiments are valued above objective statements of fact, emotions are trusted before arguments, experience is prized above knowledge, and protecting relationships is believed more important to God than defending His truth. For centuries the church was understood to be built upon a common faith (meaning shared doctrinal commitment), it has become in our day a community of shared emotive experience. All the danger has been removed. All the risk has been safely padded. There is no more battle, no more race, no more prize (winners and losers), no martyrs. Just a bunch of geldings and the women who keep them. The manly men stay home and watch football where there's still some vestiges of masculine glory left to be seen.

What does masculine worship look like? It starts with men realizing that God made them to fight, and argue, and defend, and teach, and provide, and discipline, and lead; that He meant them to do this "in the church!" And that, not only are these attributes okay, they are absolutely vital for the safety and well being of the flock. Men need to come to terms with these things, and then, by faith, start to live them out. If Christian men would conduct themselves like men, then worship wouldn't have a problem being masculine. We wouldn't continue to feed on trivial, sentimental, drivel. As men, we simply wouldn't stand for it.

But as it is, we're convinced today that to be godly is to emote, and cry, and swoon, and hedge, and flatter, and to be "nice" to everyone at all times no matter what. We live as if God is bound by love never judge anyone, as if His holiness was a touchy-feely, lovey-dovey, kissy-kissy kind of a thing, as if His wrath was something only proud religious legalists care about.

Masculine worship is worship where God's perfections are not apologized for. Where His holiness, justice, wrath, power, lovingkindness, patience, omniscience, anger, mercy, righteousness, and truth (etc.) all equally embrace. Where men take responsibility to lead in proper, reverent response to these attributes. Where souls are in jeopardy all the time, and wolves are a constant threat to their safety. Where Satan is real, and really an enemy. Where the praises of the Lord are robust and strong and pedagogical. Where you sing with the spirit, and with the mind also. Where the prayers are reverent, thoughtful, and full of God's own Words. Where the warnings ring clear, where the heart of man is desperately wicked, where the judgment seat is held out before you. Where the world is renounced. Where holiness is required. Where grace is not a program to improve your life, but a thing, without which, you are hopelessly lost and eternally damned. Where joy richly overflows at the thought of Christ's victory over sin and death. Where Jesus is not just a passive Lamb, but also a roaring Lion. I could go on...

Don't make the mistake of thinking that masculine worship is a bunch of men getting together to roar and grunt and roast animal carcasses on spits to the glory of God. Masculine worship is worship where men are humble enough to to lay down their lives for their King and the souls under their charge. Which is not to be confused with the present situation in which we make a principle out of rolling over to play dead.

Tue, 2010-10-12 20:52 — Douglas Elliott

Great post!

Tue, 2010-10-12 22:18 — Paul Belcher

I praise the Lord for men who

I praise the Lord for men who have stepped up to lead us in worship, which has drawn me to be convicted of my sin, repentant before a holy God, humbled before Him, and filled with love for and faith in Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior.

Tue, 2010-10-12 23:10 — Aaron Thomas

Are we mainly talking about

Are we mainly talking about masculine leadership in worship as in services? If so, can we expound on that specifically. I've been a part of quite a few worship teams in different churches and there's rarely an issue with this concept as a concept. I get what Jody is saying about masculine living and of course that flows into everything we do including how we worship. What does it really look like though as it pertains to the gathered church? That seems to me to be where a lot of the push back comes. Should women be able to serve by singing songs on a stage or reading scripture in between songs? Could they even lead songs if it's understood that there is still a man leading the service overall? Should we throw out the "soft" songs even if the lyrical content is theologically rich and it fits such a tune? Can a man sing falsetto? All of these questions and I'm sure dozens more are bound to come up if we believe and teach this truth.

Wed, 2010-10-13 00:04 — Jody K.

>I've been a part of quite a

>I've been a part of quite a few worship teams in different churches and there's rarely an issue with this concept as a concept.

Just because a church is careful to keep a man out front, that don't mean they ain't got these issues. Shoot, Hillsong Australia does as much, and they're principled egalitarians. The question is, did that man behave anything like a man, in the pre-Industrial Revolution, pre-Enlightenment sense of the word. I'm guessing not. If he had, then I don't think you'd be asking these questions today.

Wed, 2010-10-13 11:45 — Aaron Thomas

Jody are you suggesting that

Jody are you suggesting that having biblical male leadership in the church and on stage automatically answers all the questions I raised or are you saying they're not important? I think most of our time and energy should be spent on training and equipping men. These things do come up though and it is only responsible to think through them.

Wed, 2010-10-13 12:25 — Jody K.

Aaron, do you think that the

Aaron, do you think that the Father's of Israel, or King David, or the Apostles, or Luther, or Calvin, or Edwards ever conceived of a day when such questions would seem reasonable to ask? "Should women be able to serve by singing songs on a stage or reading scripture in between songs?" "Can we have a woman lead songs if it's understood that there is still a man leading the service overall?" "Should we throw out the "soft" songs even if the lyrical content is theologically rich and it fits such a tune?" "Can a man sing falsetto" (in worship I assume you mean)? It's laughable. Our forebears would role over in their grave if only they knew.

Yes, if we had true masculine leadership, a lot of these questions would be irrelevant. By citing your experiences on worship teams, your asking us to assume with you that most churches have a basic understanding of, and appreciation for, masculine piety. They just, maybe, don't know how to implement their biblical commitments, practically. Wilson's point in "Ministers in Skirts" (please read) goes against your premise.

An aside: twice now you've referred to that raised area up front as the "stage." Church's don't have stages, they have platforms. It's a very important distinction.

Wed, 2010-10-13 13:28 — Jody K.

I'm not trying to beat up on

I'm not trying to beat up on you individually, Aaron. You're right, these questions really do come up. All the time. They seem plausible, and deserve to be answered. My point is merely that were our forefathers to overhear us seriously entertaining them, they simply wouldn't believe it. Their answers to these questions would have been an incredulous, "What are you, an idiot? Of course not!" But here we are, in an especially perverted age, when they seem to be credible. No previous era would have thought so, and that's what I'm trying to get us to come to terms with.

Wed, 2010-10-13 14:08 — Aaron Thomas

I agree with that. I get what

I agree with that. I get what you're saying. Where do you guys land on some of these questions Jody when they do come up in your church?

Wed, 2010-10-13 14:58 — Jeremy

I truly believe that adding

I truly believe that adding an adjective like "masculine" (or any other for that matter) before worship turns it into something that God did not make it to be. God does not ask for masculine, feminine, or any other kind of worship. Rather, He asks for worship in Spirit and truth (John 4:23). And this kind of worship doesn't look masculine or feminine. It transcends gender in all ways.

Wed, 2010-10-13 15:18 — M Scott Foster

Jeremy, If we could show you

Jeremy,

If we could show you from Scripture would you change your mind?

Wed, 2010-10-13 15:37 — Andrew Henry

Jeremy, When you say that

Jeremy,
When you say that Christ requires us to worship "in Spirit and in truth" you are correct. However, you jump right off the cliff into error when you say that this spiritual worship transcends gender in every way.

It doesn't. There are sex-specific commands for men and women throughout the NT, even ones that particularly address how men and women are to conduct themselves differently in corporate worship. Read 1 Timothy 2:8-15

Also consider Christ, for when he was present in the body on earth, Jesus worshiped the Father perfectly-- in spirit and truth. However, he didn't cease to be a man in doing so. He wasn't a transcendent androgynous being. The same Jesus who spent 40 days in the wilderness in prayer also wrapped cords together and flogged merchants in the temple.

In the same way, God's word is explicit about men leading in church and these men are to lead AS MEN [1 Cor 16:13]. Part of the reason that "Masculine Worship" isn't a term that we find in the writings of the reformers is that it was assumed that men would be leading in church. This is why Jody writes that our fathers in the faith would be stunned to hear the questions that we give serious consideration to, despite the fact that the Scripture addresses them plainly, and unequivocally.

Wed, 2010-10-13 17:02 — Jody K.

>God does not ask for

>God does not ask for masculine, feminine, or any other kind of worship.

Not true:

1Tim 2:8-15
8* Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. 9* Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10* but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11* A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12* But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13* For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14* And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15* But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

1Cor 10:3-16
3* But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4* Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5* But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6* For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7* For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8* For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9* for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10* Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11* However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12* For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13* Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14* Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15* but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16* But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

In both passages, we get sex-specific commands explicitly tied to public worship. We don't get to check our sexuality at the church door, Jeremy. God is very intent that we differentiate between the sexes in the service, right down to what we do with our bodies, and what we put on them. Worshiping in "truth" includes the truth that "Adam was first created, and then Eve" and "man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake."

Thu, 2010-10-14 00:28 — Jody K.

Aaron, here is a glimpse into

Aaron, here is a glimpse into our practice at CGS, with some of the thoughts behind it. Hope this helps.

INSTRUMENTS: We have women sometimes play with our otherwise all-male band, though when they do, we are careful to make sure they never outnumber the men. Thought is also given to what instruments these women should play, and how they should or shouldn't play them. Some instruments are "leading" instruments and some are more decorous. I can't imagine having a woman at the drum set, or on the electric guitar. It would be unbecoming. Strings, winds, brass, and piano are generally how women serve us instrumentally at CGS, and not every week.

VOICE: Vocally, we don't allow a woman to lead men in congregational singing. They are sometimes called upon to lead the women in songs that have differentiated male and female parts. Occasionally, we ask a woman to supply back-up harmonies from a microphone, as a way of decorating or complementing otherwise unison singing. Women also provide us a vocal offertory from time to time (hymns, arias, etc.), and you might find this inconsistent with our disallowing them to lead congregationally. I think there's a difference, but I'm not prepared to argue it out right now. But mind you, not just any woman is allowed up there. They must be vocally modest, and godly and submissive in character. I exercise careful oversight over their choice of music, too.

Because of our proximity to a major music conservatory, we've come up against the question of male countertenors and sopranos. Should men sing high like that in worship (or professionally) if they can avoid it? Centuries ago all the choristers were male. No women allowed. Thus, some men were castrated in order to maintain their pre-pubescent range so that the full vocal spectrum could be utilized. There is a long and perverse history associated with this practice, if you care to know it. These days, it's not uncommon for some male singers to train their voices to sing up in the female register. There's a lot of money in this if you can do it well. It is an interesting sound, and one I used to really admire when I worked as a baroque violinist. But after years in the classical music scene, I've noticed a predictable one-to-one ratio between male "countertenoring" and sexual perversion. Having seen first hand the destructiveness of the sin this type of singing reinforces, I'm losing all appetite for the sound of it. I won't allow those voice types to be featured in any part of our services.

SCRIPTURE READING: This is almost always done by men. The only exception I can think of is during the five services of advent when it is customary for us to have individual households (sometimes all-female households) present the reading together during the candle lighting. I like the practice. There's something about Christmas that makes it seem appropriate. All other times of the year, though, it's just men who read.

PRAYER: Men always lead us in prayer. I can think of maybe once or twice when this wasn't the case in the past several years, and I remember deciding that it was inappropriate and that we should avoid it in the future.

Thu, 2010-10-14 12:51 — Aaron Thomas

Thanks for taking the time to

Thanks for taking the time to respond Jody. That's interesting. Each specific instance definitely requires a lot of thought and prayer. I'm with you on most of those positions. I've been thinking a lot of these issues wouldn't come up if the culture in our churches wasn't so individualistic. We'd rather have one voice leading us than a choir for example. That's a different discussion though I think closely related.

Thu, 2010-10-14 13:14 — Jody K.

For the record, our choir

For the record, our choir sings for offertories only, and every other week at that.

Thu, 2010-10-14 14:40 — Jody K.

I misread your comment the

I misread your comment the first time. I thought you were suggesting that choirs are somehow individualistic, and solo voice leadership was wasn't. Don't know how I got that. Sorry.

Having a choir lead the congregation is still the practice in many traditional Reformed churches. A Presbyterian church I visited in Nashville this Summer retained this approach. The main problem with this is that it forces on us a commitment to traditional, four-part style, making the use of common everyday instruments (i.e. drums, guitars) out of the question. You might ask why the choir couldn't just sing the melody together. To which I respond, then why have the choir at all? Better to just have one man lead everybody.

And I'm also not sure I see that any of these issues would be resolved by having a choir instead of one man. How so?

Fri, 2010-10-15 11:25 — Aaron Thomas

Search

Recent comments

Monthly archive

Tags