I’ve been chewing, for some time, on the practice of having males
only serve as liturgical assistants and acolytes in the Church. At my current
congregation, for many years both boys and girls had been allowed to serve in
this way. Most of our circuit congregations allow it.
The only definitive position that the Synod takes in its
quasi-official documents is that there is no Scriptural prohibition to it. So,
anyone who would use males only, especially in a place where both girls and
boys have been allowed to serve, has “a lot of explaining to do.”
So I’ve been mulling it over how best to explain this to
those who ask (and some have asked). Two things I come up against: 1) There is
no word of Scripture that I can think of that would prohibit the use of females
in that capacity, and 2) The tradition of most of our congregations has been to
allow both males and females to serve as acolytes.
Given the lack of a definite sedes doctrina for female acolytes, the issue is usually thrown
quickly into the adiaphora basket.
However, the fact that something is an adiaphoron,
if it is truly such, does not necessarily mean that we must do it. What it
means is that the Church is free in this regard to do what seems best.
Furthermore, in matters where Scripture is silent our
Confessions do give to pastors some freedom in making ordinances, so long as
they do not make such things binding on consciences or teach that we are
justified by them. The issue of who may serve as an acolyte, I believe, would
fall into the realm of pastoral privilege. In other words, if the pastor’s
preference is not to use female acolytes, then so be it.
In a recent newsletter article for our church, I explained
what our acolytes do: they are liturgical assistants to the pastor, doing much
more than lighting candles. They are also crucifers and torch bearers. They
assist by collecting the Offering plates and taking them into the chancel. They
collect the empty individual glasses from the elderly in the back of the Church
when we take Communion to them. They vest in cassock and cotta.
I also explained that this is a good way for us to teach the
boys and young men in our church about their role as leaders in the Church. It
is a good way to teach them proper decorum and reverence. There are other ways
the girls can serve. They are encouraged to shadow the women who care for the
altar and prepare Communion. And, as in most congregations, there are many
women’s organizations and activities for them to be involved in. I also
mentioned the fact that today the Church suffers especially from a lack of male
participation, and that this is meant to help curb that deficiency.
But all this aside, is there still a more fundamental reason
why the practice of using males only for this role in the Church is ideal? I
believe so. There is no question that we live in a time when there is much
confusion regarding the roles of men and women in the Church. More and more
churches are making it possible for women to have authoritative roles, as well
as female pastors. There is a general lack of understanding of what roles are
appropriate for women to fill in the church.
So, is it right for us who value male headship and
authority, who do not allow women to serve as pastors, or to assist with the
conduct of the Service, to allow girls to serve in these minor roles? Isn’t
this rather confusing to them? If a girl has assisted in the conduct of the
Service, has vested just like the boys, has carried crosses and torches, etc,
isn’t she more likely to question when she gets older the practice of a
male-only clergy? Isn’t she more likely to ask, “What’s the difference? Why was
a girl allowed to do all these other things, but she can’t be a pastor?”
Maybe this is an overreach, but as a parent I know that it
is necessary not only to tell my kids how to behave, but also to model that
behavior for them. If I tell them not to do something, but go ahead and do it
myself, that sets a bad example for them, and essentially confuses them. Why is
it okay for Dad to do it, but not me? So also, I think that we almost become
guilty of leading young women into temptation when we give them these roles. We
tempt them by enticement, like leading a young child in front of a candy shop,
even letting them taste the candy, but then saying, “You can’t have any.”
In this case, we let the young women get a “taste” of what
it is like to assist in the Conduct of a Divine Service, but then we say, “You
can’t do that” when it comes to being pastors. Not only is this unloving, but
it creates problems later on down the road. If, however, from their childhood,
they have learned to see only men leading the Service, and young men assisting
with the Service, won’t they be less likely to be among those who question the
propriety of a male-only clergy?
One could, I suppose, take the position that it doesn’t
really matter who lights candles if this is done apart from the Service. We
usually have ours lit 5-10 minutes before the opening hymn, and the boys
extinguish the candles after the closing hymn. When I don’t have acolytes
present, either I light them or an usher does (and our ushers are all men—go
figure).
As a compromise, so as not to cause too much offense, I
suppose a pastor could allow girls the opportunity to light candles before the
Service and to extinguish them afterward, while reserving the roles of crucifer
and torch bearer for males only since these take place during the Service. In
this case, however, I wouldn’t have the girls vest, or remain up front after
wards. I would just have them light the candles and go back to sit with their
families.
In either case, I think that the real issue at hand is what
is being taught and conveyed to the young people and the rest of the
congregation. It would seem that with all of the confusion over the roles of
men and women in the Church today, we might do well to listen to the words of
the apostle: “All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful.”
If something is truly a matter of Christian freedom, then
the rule should apply both ways. If the Church is free to use male and female
acolytes, both lighting candles and assisting the pastor in the liturgy, then
we should also be free not to do it. Too often, however, the opposite is true.
People think that if we are free to do something then we must do it. St.
Paul’s words above would not allow such thinking though.
Posts
