Women in Church Music and Church Choirs

You noticed!

 

THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION AND WOMEN’S MUSIC.

Luther, Zwingli, Knox, and Calvin did more than anyone else to “restore” congregational singing as an ordinary part of regular worship on the Christian “Sabbath” (which was of course every Sunday). But the question is, did they therefore allow women to join the choir and sing solo special music in the Church?

I am not so sure about Martin Luther. But Knox and Calvin did not allow singing of solos or choirs in the Church by anyone whether male or female. The churches founded by them are Presbyterian, and they historically practiced exclusive psalmody. Indeed I do not know of any major Protestant sect of the 16th century, either Calvinist or Arminian – except possibly Lutherans – who would have even dreamed of letting women sing solos or sing in the choir in Church.

Thus the real cause of the restoration of the innovation of women’s solos and choirs in church is presumably (in default of further evidence) purely due to cultural, secularly conditioned and motivated changes. Not even the Quakers, who allowed women to teach and preach in Church, would have even dreamed of allowing either men or women to participate in congregational singing, solos, or choirs in the church at all.

In fact, the very idea of women in choirs started with the pagans. See Quasten, Music and Worship in Pagan and Christian Antiquity, 77 – 86.

Every Anglo-Catholic / High-Churchman / Tractarian or "Roman Catholic", or member or director of any Anglican Cathedral Choir KNOWS that the very NOTION of allowing women’s solos and choirs in Church is an innovation. And I happen to know that until the 18th century, Lutheran choirs remained EXCLUSIVELY male: boys and youths sang the upper parts. No castrated male could sing in the choir. The Lutherans of the 16th and 17th centuries understood well that 1 Corinthians 14:34/35, when isolated from the very reason Paul himself gives for the precept, forbids even choral singing and solo singing on the part of women in church.

And so did the Church of England, at least in the cathedral chancel choirs. I find it very hard to tell which denomination was the first Protestant denomination in England ever to permit any woman to sing in solos and choirs in public worship, but I do happen to know that in the 18th century many village parish Anglican churches already had mixed choirs singing in the west gallery.

‘Women did not sing in the liturgical choir from the fourth century on, and they do not do so to this day, either in Catholic churches or in Protestant churches that have real liturgical singers, who are properly speaking the attendants of the priest … [but this so-called “liturgical” singing as attendants of the priest is contrary to the spirit of the New Testament priesthood of all believers]. This is to say that where music is regarded as worship [well then, so singing congregationally in a formal worship service is not worthy of being regarded as worship, eh (?)], and so used in the church service, women may not sing in the choir, and the music requiring high voices must be sung by immature boys. The only exception to that was from early times the singing of nuns in their own chapels. But here a special voice was cultivated, clear, high, sexless. Women did not sing in their natural voices.

The Protestant Church based in music not on the liturgy but on Luther’s noble principle of congregational singing. From this selected strains of folk music were converted into hymns. These are the basis of Bach’s chorales. To ensure a high quality of church music, the Lutherans established schools for boys, like St. Thomas’ in Leipzig, where Bach served. No schools trained girls to be official singers, organist, or composers for the Church.
In the Calvinist churches in Switzerland and France there may have been trained women’s choirs. Goudimel, in 1565, set eight psalms for four high voices. In the preface to his collection he says that he composed the music for both home and church use. But in England the authorities spared no pains to prevent the participation of women and girls in choirs. Henry VIII issued warrants permitting boys with good voices to be impressed for service in the cathedral choirs. In Queen Elizabeth’s time boys were taken from their parents without compensation to serve as Children of the Chapel. … Men, who habitually took the alto parts and still do in many places in England, at that time often sang the soprano in falsetto, rather than allow a woman to use her natural voice in religious song.’ – Sophie Drinker, Music and Woman.

For more information concerning the earliest recorded time period at which women and girls were allowed to sing in Anglican parish choirs, I have attached a file entitled WOMEN_IN_VICTORIAN_ANGLICAN_CHURCH_MUSIC.pdf.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

And this is supposed to be a reason to put a stop to women singing solos in choirs? Pagans loved their wives and wore socks to keep their feet warm. Are you going to ban marriage and wearing socks next because pagans did it? I just can't be bothered with any more of this nonsense.

Microphones, electric light, guitars, pianos and central heating are going to be next on your list of 'INNOVATIONS' that we are all supposed to KNOW about and get rid of, I suppose.

I can think of one thing the church can do without though, and that's irrational religious bigotry. I eagerly look forward to your next very wordy campaign against it. Good luck! You will get my support in that. but I've got better things to do with my time than debate this silly ?pagan? singing solos nonsense.

As for the rest of what you have posted, - the Christian church has always done some highly irrational things in every generation since it started back on the Day of Pentecost about 33 Ad or thereabouts. It is gradually getting saner on some issues and remaining just as irrational on others. That's because the visible church it's made up of human beings. Many of whom are quite obviously irrational. God will eventually perfect it though. Hopefully God will put pathetic concerns like women singing solos in church services on a back burner though, until the second coming. That's if God considers it's worth paying any attention to. I know I don't.
.

 

It's not necessarily St. Paul, but you and I and everyone else will have to wait until we meet with him in heaven to find out whether he actually wrote it or whether one of his many detractors and misogynistic opposition at Corinth spitefully sneaked it into the very first copy of his letter and got rid of the original. Meanwhile it is an 'inspired' way of revealing closet misogynists who love to appeal to 'the law' in order to maintain their precious 'rights' to maintain control over women, while arrogantly convincing themselves of God's approval for it.

There seems no better text in the Bible for revealing secret intent of the heart, wheat from chaff, Luke 3:17, good fish from bad, Matt. 13:47-84.
.

 

Oh, and yet another claim made by many so-called Anglo-Catholics is this:

And such, is the STRONGEST, and most DICTATORIAL and IMPERIOUS claim that the Anglo-Catholic branch of the Church of England has EVER made whenever they cannot prove from Scripture that the Bible forbids women and girls from singing in Church Choirs.

 

And as if the Anglo-Catholic fustilarian argument against women in church choirs had not been just about enough,

- The Churchman, March 6, 1856. In 1931, another attempt to argue AGAINST the introduction of women into church choirs was made:

Women and the Ministry (anglicanhistory.org):

(- Report of the Convocation of Canterbury and York Commission on Women and the Ministry, 1931.) And such are the nature of the reasons why the Anglo-Catholics have traditionally argued AGAINST allowing women to sing in church choirs.

 

How very antinomian!

Your position on St Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 is not a permissible assumption to make when interpreting the Bible, but is rather repugnant to our belief in the authority and inerrancy of the Bible. Again, Terms of Service | Anglican Forums:

While your comment is not technically a violation of the letter this web forum rule, it does tend to go against the spirit of it. The presumption is always in favor of the sentence: therefore I cannot accept your suggestion that 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 is not a genuine Pauline precept. And as I said, when traditionalists cannot prove from Scripture nor even from human philosophy and human reason and logic that women in solos and choirs violates 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 & 1 Timothy 2:11/12 during public and promiscuous assemblies of worship, they appeal first and foremost to the sacred unwritten and outside-of-the-Bible universal and perpetual custom of the universal church.

 

Ok I'll have a go.

34Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Now if they are not allowed to speak why did Paul say they could prophesie (spelling?) if they had their hair covered of course.

1Cor 11 -4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.

Now let's for arguement sake say that women aren't allowed to speak in church, but can they sing? Singing is not speaking, speaking is saying your own words. Reading aloud, reciting, and singing are repeating someone else's words.

I haven't looked at 1 Tim yet, Taggart has just started on TV

 

I'm not a political fanatic, but I do have my opinions.

I grew up with female altar servers , and I think that women can and should be allowed to do everything that men do in the church EXCEPT for the priesthood.

You see, a women is fully capable of doing the duties a male priest does, but this would go against Catholic dogmas which I refuse to try understand because I am NOT a fool looking for fool's gold.

 

I, on the other hand, do believe that women can become priests, and my Anglican diocese agrees with me - my own parish priest is a woman. One of the things that made me leave the Catholic church was this very belief. I know many Anglicans agree with you, but fortunately for me, I live in a diocese that doesn't.

 

Women's ordination is a modernistic error no less than gay "marriage" and abortion on demand.

 

And yet you belong to a church founded by a woman. Square that circle for us.

 

Read my PDF file on Three Points Concerning Ellen G White and Women's Ordination for the answer.

 

Last week, Invictus objected: "And yet you belong to a church founded by a woman. Square that circle for us." I forgot to tell him/her that his/her objection has absolutely nothing to do with the cases of conscience I raised on the question of Women and Church Music.

 

You also forgot to answer my reply to this question in post #68.

 

My Answer to AnglicanAgnostic's Questions in Post #68!

In Post #68, you asked:

My reply is that a certain D. A. Carson tried using 1 Corinthians 11:5 as a proof text to show definitively that women are permitted to pray and prophesy (provided that they have their head covered) in the formal worship service. As it turns out, there is actually no particular venue assigned to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. This was a point observed by a certain Mr. Michael Marlowe, a former Plymouth-Brethrenite, who some years ago, became an ultra-fundamentalist Presbyterian: see http://www.bible-researcher.com/women-prophesying.html.

Among other things, two essential conditions for 1 Corinthians 11:5 to constitute a lawful exception to 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 that would allow women to (in this case) pray and prophesy (as is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:5) in the formal worship service, are: (1), there must be a specification of the venue assigned in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 which specifically and unequivocally shows that the venue assigned in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 can only refer to the particular precise venue for which Paul the Apostle lays down the terms and provisions he has laid down in 1 Corinthians 14; (2) there must be a specification of the manner in which the allegedly allowed act of praying and/or prophesying is done, which specifically and unequivocally shows that this particular manner in which the allegedly allowed act of praying and/or prophesying is done can only have the same specification as the particular act named in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 named as forbidden to women, (of course in which case it is any and all acts of "LALEIN" in Church - the only true and accurate translation of this Greek verb LALEIN into English is SPEAK), or is at least is necessarily classified by the terms and provisions contained in 1 Corinthians 11:5 as a species of such an activity, or necessarily has as one of its essential and intrinsic elements, inherent in the very nature and ontology of the act of praying and prophesying, the precise and exactly named activity forbidden by its very name, to all women in 1 Corinthians 14.

Mr. Marlowe’s argument is that D. A. Carson’s argument from 1 Corinthians 11:5 violates both of these essential sine qua non conditions. (And again, D. A. Carson's contention that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 refers primarily or most prominently to the church meeting for which Paul the Apostle is laying down regulations in 1 Corinthians 14 is insufficient. What D. A. Carson needs to prove is that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 can only refer to the particular precise venue for which Paul the Apostle lays down the terms and provisions he has laid down in 1 Corinthians 14. No degree of probability short of irrefutable mathematical and theological certainty can be sufficient.)

But I have found that D. A. Carson’s argument from 1 Corinthians 11:5 violates yet a third essential condition: An important fundamental principle of Biblical hermeneutics is that when an affirmative and negative precept seem to “conflict” with each other in any sense, the affirmative must be interpreted, limited, qualified, and restricted in light of the negative, and not the negative in light of the affirmative. All ways of doing the affirmative in any manner that would necessarily result in the very sin forbidden by the negative precept are not only unlawful: but also null and void ab initio, just as if the duties in the affirmative precepts were left entirely undone. Even the English Common Law recognizes this in its maxim that - IN RE PARI, POTIOREM EST CAUSA PROHIBENTIS: "Where a thing is owned in common, the cause of him prohibiting its use is the stronger" (Dig. 10. 3. 28; 3 Kent, Comm. 45; Poth. Con. de Soc. note 90; 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 438, 491).

Why? Because:

Firstly:

https://books.google.com/books?id=XMAHAAAAQAAJ&pg= PA503&dq=%22affirmative+is+to+be+expounded+by+the+ negative%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved =2ahUKEwiawrPAoejvAhUWG80KHXtUDgwQ6AEwAnoECAEQAg#v =onepage&q=%22affirmative%20is%20to%20be%20expound ed%20by%20the%20negative%22&f=false:

"the negative cannot be lessened by the affirmative, because a negative can have no degrees as an affirmative can; and if the affirmative were in this case sufficient, when the negative is express to require more, then the affirmative were directly contrary to the negative: but on the other side, though the affirmative requires less than the negative, there is no contradiction. a) Because in matters of duty whatsoever is any where required is every where supposed, and no interpretation can lessen it from what it is in its whole integrity. b) Because all our duty is not every where repeated, but the not repeating it in any place cannot annul the obligation in that place where it is expressly required. c) Because a threatening in all laws is of more force and efficacy than a promise; and therefore when under a threatening more is required, the promise that is affixed to a part of it must be understood by the analogy and promise to that threatening, because one thing is enough to destroy us, but one thing is not enough to preserve us. Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex qualibet particulari. d) Because it is ordinary in scripture to give the promise to every part of duty, which yet shall never be paid to that alone : thus to purity, to poverty of spirit, to mercy, to faith, to alms, to patience, to hope, the promises of blessedness are given ; but although it is said, “the pure in heart shall see God," and "the poor in spirit shall have the kingdom," and they that quit houses and lands for Christ's sake shall receive the reward of the other world; yet unless all that is required be put together in the duty, nothing of the reward shall be given to the person. Every part of an exclusive negative is an indispensable duty; but every affirmative that is encouraged by a promise does not contain a whole duty, but a part of duty, which by being symbolical to the whole is encouraged as every other part is, but is not paid but in an entire payment, to an entire obedience." - Jeremy Taylor, On the Interpretation and Obligation of the Laws of Jesus Christ, Rule II.

Secondly, IT IS NEVER RIGHT TO DO WRONG IN ORDER TO DO RIGHT! It is NEVER RIGHT to employ a WRONG WAY of doing a RIGHT THING, nor is there a RIGHT WAY of doing a WRONG ACTION. We believe, teach, and confess that what God forbids, is at NO time to be done, and what He commands, is UNQUESTIONABLY our duty. We DENY that EVERY particular AFFIRMATIVE duty is REQUIRED to be done at ALL particular times. We also DENY that EVERY possible particular time of doing EVERY particular affirmative duty is an equally lawful, acceptable, and effectual time for doing the duty. We also DENY that EVERY possible method or means, without exception, of doing a commanded duty is equally effectual and successful in accomplishing the prescribed duty. We also DENY that EVERY possible method or means of doing a commanded duty is equally acceptable and permissible under Divine Law or even tolerable on mere sufferance or as a matter of mere grace and favor from one's lawful superiors – let alone mandatory. We also BELIEVE, TEACH, and CONFESS, even as Matthew Henry testified, that: “The manner [and means] of doing a thing enters into the morality of it. We must not only be concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well done.”

Thus, a truly obedient spirit will seek to fulfill the affirmative precept only in such manners and modes which do not conflict with the negative precept instead of seeking to use the affirmative as a pretext for dodging the plain and ordinary meaning of a negative precept he himself KNOWS or CONFESSES to be still binding in conscience.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

My Answer to AnglicanAgnostic's Questions in Post #68! (CONTINUED)

Nowadays, what passes as being the traditional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 is that this verse of Scripture applies only to formal worship services (and other official meetings of the church) only.

Jack Cottrell: “Does 1 Cor. 11:2-15 refer specifically to public worship? Not everyone agrees that it does. It is my judgment that it does not. This is based on at least three considerations. First, in vv. 17-18 Paul specifically states that he is now ready to give instruction concerning the public assembly (“when you come together as a church”), and he indicates that this is the first instruction of that nature (“in the first place”).

Second, there is no reference in vv. 2-16 to public worship. But beginning in v. 17, through the end of ch. 14, Paul says several times that he is referring to the gathered church (11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:19, 23, 26, 28, 35). Third, if vv.2-16 are not referring to public worship, then there is no difficulty harmonizing 11:5 with 14:34-35. Women may pray and prophesy in other context, but not [publicly address the assembly for the purposes of praying and prophesying] “in church” (14:35).” (Jack Cottrell, Headship, Submission and the Bible)

Harold R. Holmyard III: “Believers in church gatherings represent the body of Christ, the society of God's people. Those who [publicly address such an assembly] are in de facto leadership roles [and/or roles of authority, jurisdiction, rule, and/or governance over the congregation], since all others must listen. In planned, formal meetings men ought to assume these authoritative responsibilities. [But the traditional interpretation does not apply this to singing or devotional responses. Many who subscribe to the "traditional" interpretation also allow women to sing in solos, choir, and "special music" and not just merely join in with the congregation in congregational singing.] But in the many small, fortuitous groupings of everyday life a woman's speech need not imply authority over males. Males might not be present, or they might be non-Christians, or they might, because of sickness or other difficulties, be the ones in need of a word to or from God. Many other circumstances could explain the propriety of a woman praying or prophesying with men present in a nonchurch setting.” (Harold R. Holmyard, Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Refer to Women Praying and Prophesying in Church?)

J. Carl Laney: “A viewpoint that is deserving of further consideration is the possibility that Paul was addressing two different situations in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. Could Paul have been referring in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to women "praying and prophesying" in contexts other than the meeting of the church? If so, is it possible that his restriction in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 applies only when the church is gathered in public assembly for the preaching of the Word and observing the ordinances of communion and baptism? It has been objected that 1 Corinthians 11 addresses the issue of communion, certainly a church event. But there is a clear transition between Paul's discussion of the head covering in 11:2-16 and his teaching regarding the Lord's Supper in 11:17-34. Only in the second section of chapter 11 does Paul mention the believers as coming together: "you come together" (11:17); "when you come together" (11:18); "when you meet together" (11:20); "when you come together" (11:33). Paul is clearly thinking of the gathered church in 11:17-34. But no such allusions appear in 11:2-16. One could make a strong case for the view that Paul is addressing two different contexts in chapter 11 — the first where believers are gathered in small groups for prayer, and the second where the church is gathered for teaching, preaching and communion. The ministry boundaries for one situation may differ from that of the other … this could have significant implications for our study of 14:34-35. Is it possible that Paul is giving a restriction on public speech in the church, a restriction which would not apply in the home or other informal group meetings? Paul does contrast the church and the home in 14:35 where he points out that it is permissible for women to ask questions in one place but not [PUBLICLY and VOCALLY do the same] in the other. The possibility that Paul is addressing two different contexts in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 is worth pursuing.” (J. Carl Laney, "Gender Based Boundaries for Gathered Congregations: An Interpretive History of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35", Journal For Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Spring 2002, pp. 4-13)

And besides, to many people, admitting that 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 is still binding today exactly as written, the attempt to apply 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to devotional non-church meetings on the grounds of "publicity", whenever both sexes are present at such a "public" non-church meeting, would seem more and more harsh, legalistic, and righteous overmuch (not to mention cruel, unmerciful, and unjust), the less and less formal and public the meeting is, knowing that it is not what conventional wisdom would call a "church" meeting. Even the simple act of limiting 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to just formal worship services (provided only that such a distinction between venues is lawful and Scripturally permissible) would be sufficient to reconcile the apparent "contradiction" between 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

Another question you asked is this: "Now let's for arguement sake say that women aren't allowed to speak in church, but can they sing? Singing is not speaking, speaking is saying your own words. Reading aloud, reciting, and singing are repeating someone else's words."

As for reading aloud and reciting, they would certainly be included in the prohibition when performed in the manner as the only person publicly addressing the assembly for the moment while nobody else joins in but quietly listens. But the traditional interpretation is that when Paul said "it is not permitted unto them to LALEIN" (i.e. the NT Greek verb that is translated into English as SPEAK), he meant only what is called publicly addressing the assembly or saying anything loud enough and individually enough to publicly address the whole assembly, by which is commonly meant (includes of course, PREACHING, TEACHING, EXHORTATION, LITURGICALLY READING THE SCRIPTURE, LEADING IN PUBLIC PRAYER, PROPHESYING, SPEAKING IN TONGUES, EXORCISM, ...) and/or put forth questions in a voice LOUD and PUBLIC ENOUGH TO PUBLICLY ADDRESS the ASSEMBLY, and that neither singing nor joining in the devotional responses is included in the prohibition. But the question is not, may women pray and prophesy in church, but does the historical tradition of the church catholic permit women to sing in church choirs, and even if it doesn't, does the Church of England, which is a mere branch of the church catholic, ordinarily have the lawful authority to ordinarily contravene the received historical tradition of the church catholic on this point? Again, when the high church or "Anglo-Catholic" branch of the Church of England can't prove from Scripture (or even from the rules of NT Greek grammar and syntax) that St Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 forbids women to sing in solos or choirs in public worship, they appeal first and foremost to unwritten and never-recorded-in-the-Holy-Bible "Catholic Tradition" (i.e. all such received customs of the Church Catholic that have not been written in the Bible, neither by direct command, nor approved example, nor can be proven therefrom through good and necessary inference) to supply the prohibition. FINIS

 

So what you’re saying is, only women should chant or sing in churches.

 

Oh cool, you’re saying women can do all that stuff, too! That’s great! I know several that’ll be glad to know they can go on doing them.

 

This is the second time in which you have made a liberalistic and modernistic assumption which is completely unlawful for Christians to make when interpreting the Bible in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35, but is rather repugnant to our belief in the authority and inerrancy of the Bible. My whole web thread was specifically formulated to give the benefit of the doubt to the TRADITIONAL interpretation. And it is according to this traditional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12 that this whole question of women in church music and church choirs must be answered.

Now, assuming that Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12 are still in full force today exactly as written: either the admission of women in the church choirs and singing solos and special music in church is altogether a species of the very act which Paul, in Corinthians 14:34/35, names as LALEIN (which is translated into English as speak) - the very act which he forbids women from doing at all in formal worship services, or else it isn't!

If it is, well then absolutely no amount of mere grace or favor, great or small, conditional or unconditional, that the Church authorities may deign to grant to any of their inferiors can excuse women choir singers, nor women soloists, nor women vocal performers of special music in public worship (apart from just merely joining in with the rest of the congregation) from the guilt of doing the very action forbidden expressly and by name in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35!

But if it isn't, well then:

1. What would Ephesians 5:19 have to say about this?
2. Would it still be consonant with the historical tradition of the church catholic (and I don’t mean the popish “church” as headed by the “pope” of Rome in the Vatican, I mean the universal perpetual and uniform historical Christian Church throughout the ages) to permit women to sing in solos, choirs, and special music in church, and even if not, well then, would the Church of England, which professes herself to be a mere branch of the church catholic, ordinarily have the lawful authority to ordinarily contravene the historical tradition of the church catholic on this point?

This is the question that needs to be answered but on traditional conservative grounds, not on liberal feminist or egalitarian grounds.