# OPC position on lay readings and prayer



## jwithnell (Jul 9, 2017)

Can you explain the OPC position on lay scriptural reading and prayer in public worship and, in a nutshell, give the logic for that position? 

I saw the 1991 report to GA, which involved Dr. Richard Gaffin, someone I respect tremendously, but I had difficulty understanding the position taken.

Thanks


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 9, 2017)

Is that report online? How do the report deal with WLC 156 and the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God?


jwithnell said:


> Can you explain the OPC position on lay scriptural reading and prayer in public worship and, in a nutshell, give the logic for that position?
> 
> I saw the 1991 report to GA, which involved Dr. Richard Gaffin, someone I respect tremendously, but I had difficulty understanding the position taken.
> 
> Thanks


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 9, 2017)

It is in this list
www.opc.org/ga_reports.html

It appears to be offering alternative positions, and some of what I ploughed through didn't seem consistent with what I know are the general practice of the denomination. I was hoping a PB OPC participant could help me. I certainly don't know enough to make connections between this report and the confession or DPW.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 9, 2017)

Dennison has understood the issues and presents the case for only the Minister; good man. In the body of the report the majority reject the meaning of LC 156 which they recognize limits reading of scripture to the pastor. The relation to the WDfPW is that it makes what is inferred in LC 156 explicit that it only should be the minister. Their drawing on Baillie who still wanted to retain the office of reader, indicates also they recognize what the LC means. Dennison goes into more detail as it is important to defending his Minority report contra the majorities rejection of 156's proof texts implications. If someone from the OPC does chime in, did this report end up with any changes being made in the OPC Directory in this regard? This committee seems to have come about from the changes new life churches were making; these largely went PCA did they note?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 9, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Dennison has understood the issues and presents the case for only the Minister; good man. In the body of the report the majority reject the meaning of LC 156 which they recognize limits reading of scripture to the pastor. The relation to the WDfPW is that it makes what is inferred in LC 156 explicit that it only should be the minister. Their drawing on Baillie who still wanted to retain the office of reader, indicates also they recognize what the LC means. Dennison goes into more detail as it is important to defending his Minority report contra the majorities rejection of 156's proof texts implications. If someone from the OPC does chime in, did this report end up with any changes being made in the OPC Directory in this regard? This committee seems to have come about from the changes new life churches were making; these largely went PCA did they note?



I am curious as to what responses might come from older OPC members. For me, I have a distaste for the practice of lay readings and prayer. I find that the OPC (although good in many areas) lacks in their understanding of the elements of worship. The OPC is a far cry from the PCA, but it has its bad spots as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 9, 2017)

I only have experience with one OPC congregation. When the minister was present, no one else ever read Scripture or prayed. The exceptions came on rare occasions when he was out of town. In those cases a RE led worship. We were so far away from any other likeminded churches that the only alternative would have been to cancel worship.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 10, 2017)

In my church, OPC, only the pastor reads the Scripture during the service. He might have a lay person read the scriptures during Sunday school, but that's not part of worship.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 10, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I am curious as to what responses might come from older OPC members. For me, I have a distaste for the practice of lay readings and prayer. I find that the OPC (although good in many areas) lacks in their understanding of the elements of worship. The OPC is a far cry from the PCA, but it has its bad spots as well.


I don't find this to be true at all. Which elements are you speaking of?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 10, 2017)

The new OPC Directory for Worship restricts the leading of worship to ministers, elders, licentiates, and men under care. The last three are not allowed to pronounce the salutation or benediction, or to administer the sacraments. (DFW I.D.2)

This Directory is part of the OPC Constitution so it's the official standard of our practice. The above mentioned Report is not binding but is considered pious advice.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 10, 2017)

Puritan Sailor said:


> The new OPC Directory for Worship restricts the leading of worship to ministers, elders, licentiates, and men under care. The last three are not allowed to pronounce the salutation or benediction, or to administer the sacraments. (DFW I.D.2)





I'm not totally sure that these statements are exclusive enough:



> It is particularly appropriate that public prayer be led by a pastor of the congregation (DPW 2.B.d)
> 
> He who performs this serves as God's representative voice. Thus, it ordinarily should be performed by a minister of the Word. (DPW 2.A.2.a)




The one on reading the scriptures seems more exclusive but the prayer section isn't as much. I know of a particular session that allows lay prayer during evening service.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 10, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> I don't find this to be true at all. Which elements are you speaking of?



Particularly the ones discussed with my last post on prayers and readings.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 10, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Particularly the ones discussed with my last post on prayers and readings.



I guess you would have to give more information. I'm not seeing any evidence on any of your posts about the OPC's lack of understanding when it comes to the elements of prayer and readings.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 11, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> I guess you would have to give more information. I'm not seeing any evidence on any of your posts about the OPC's lack of understanding when it comes to the elements of prayer and readings.



Sure.

The issue is in their practice. I know of at least two churches in my presbytery alone that allow lay readings and prayers during worship. I'd rather not name them for privacy reasons.

However, it is interesting to note that the 13th and 14th general assemblies dealt with song in particular. Their arguments about prayer and song are not very strong to be honest. In my view they equivocate on the majority report.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 11, 2017)

Well, I've only been to two different OPCs mine and one other. So I'm unsure how many do this, but neither of the two I went to did. The pastor is the only one who prays and reads Scripture. I'm also not sure you can condemn the whole of OPC based on the activities of two churches.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 11, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I'm not totally sure that these statements are exclusive enough:
> 
> The one on reading the scriptures seems more exclusive but the prayer section isn't as much. I know of a particular session that allows lay prayer during evening service.




DFW I.D.2.f makes it clear who is allowed or not allowed to lead in public worship, "No others should take such leadership in overseeing or conducting public worship." So it has specified ministers, elders, licentiates, and men under care, and then concludes "no others". That is the section dealing specifically with who leads. 

The section you quoted is also specific. The "ordinarily" you quoted from (DPW 2.A.2.a) refers to the fact that the leader in prayer should be a "representative voice" of the congregation and so it should ordinarily be the local minister. The allowable exceptions from "ordinarily" then would be any others specified from DFW I.D.2 when the local minister cannot lead for whatever reason. 

Hope that helps


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 11, 2017)

I've seen a remarkable consistency in worship practices having visited multiple churches in at least three OPC presbyteries. The practice has consistently been ordained leadership in worship. 

I've wondered about the official position, in part because of what's debated among other denominations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 11, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Sure.
> 
> The issue is in their practice. I know of at least two churches in my presbytery alone that allow lay readings and prayers during worship. I'd rather not name them for privacy reasons.



I suspect they began these practices before the new directory came into effect and simply maintained it not realizing the new directory clarified what was previously ambigious from the old directory about who leads.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 12, 2017)

The link to the report seems clear that latitude is permitted. In our church, it is a rare event that a lay person reads or prays, but not totally unknown. (The Christmas Eve service being the most notable ... we often have different people reading the scripture, all of them reading assigned sections.) Prayer is even more rare, but nearly every service has a deacon praying (at the end of the collection of the offering.)

It seems the report is fairly clear ... but the end of the matter was that nothing was done. 

So the official position was ... leave it alone. (Which was seen as ambiguous by the committee report.)


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 12, 2017)

Now I am confused. According to Patrick, your directory does not allow this (and I omit commenting on services tied to the idol calendar of the RCC; oops, I guess I did).


Brian Withnell said:


> The link to the report seems clear that latitude is permitted. In our church, it is a rare event that a lay person reads or prays, but not totally unknown. (The Christmas Eve service being the most notable ... we often have different people reading the scripture, all of them reading assigned sections.) Prayer is even more rare, but nearly every service has a deacon praying (at the end of the collection of the offering.)
> 
> It seems the report is fairly clear ... but the end of the matter was that nothing was done.
> 
> So the official position was ... leave it alone. (Which was seen as ambiguous by the committee report.)





Puritan Sailor said:


> DFW I.D.2.f makes it clear who is allowed or not allowed to lead in public worship, "No others should take such leadership in overseeing or conducting public worship." So it has specified ministers, elders, licentiates, and men under care, and then concludes "no others". That is the section dealing specifically with who leads.
> 
> The section you quoted is also specific. The "ordinarily" you quoted from (DPW 2.A.2.a) refers to the fact that the leader in prayer should be a "representative voice" of the congregation and so it should ordinarily be the local minister. The allowable exceptions from "ordinarily" then would be any others specified from DFW I.D.2 when the local minister cannot lead for whatever reason.
> 
> Hope that helps





Puritan Sailor said:


> DFW I.D.2.f makes it clear who is allowed or not allowed to lead in public worship, "No others should take such leadership in overseeing or conducting public worship." So it has specified ministers, elders, licentiates, and men under care, and then concludes "no others". That is the section dealing specifically with who leads.
> 
> The section you quoted is also specific. The "ordinarily" you quoted from (DPW 2.A.2.a) refers to the fact that the leader in prayer should be a "representative voice" of the congregation and so it should ordinarily be the local minister. The allowable exceptions from "ordinarily" then would be any others specified from DFW I.D.2 when the local minister cannot lead for whatever reason.
> 
> Hope that helps


----------



## earl40 (Jul 12, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Now I am confused. According to Patrick, your directory does not allow this (and I omit commenting on services tied to the idol calendar of the RCC; oops, I guess I did).



Do you remember the scene in Jango Unchained (call me bad) where the KKK member was complaining about his fellow cohorts complaining about the hoods his wife had made? I quote concerning how I don't understand why people do what they do often against our standards...."criticize, criticize, criticize". 

One thing I have learned as I age is how people will remember one critical statement, and forget the many edifying statements one makes. Especially when one critiques a near and dear belief.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 12, 2017)

Brian Withnell said:


> The link to the report seems clear that latitude is permitted. In our church, it is a rare event that a lay person reads or prays, but not totally unknown. (The Christmas Eve service being the most notable ... we often have different people reading the scripture, all of them reading assigned sections.) Prayer is even more rare, but nearly every service has a deacon praying (at the end of the collection of the offering.)
> 
> It seems the report is fairly clear ... but the end of the matter was that nothing was done.
> 
> So the official position was ... leave it alone. (Which was seen as ambiguous by the committee report.)



Again, the report is not binding, but only considered pastoral advice, and it was issued many years ago. Much discussion has taken place since then. The new Directory for Worship (currently 2015 edition) is much more clear about who can lead in public worship. Note the references cited above. The DFW is the official position not the report.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 12, 2017)

Even in the new version it states "Thus, it ordinarily should be performed by a minister of the Word." Yet in using the statement "ordinarily" it allows for something out of the ordinary. Public reading of the scripture is not prohibited. While leadership should be done by those ordained or licensed, if they direct the reading of the word, then that is covered. Of course that could be viewed as ambiguous ... if a pastor directs someone to read a specific passage (he is still the one in the leadership position) in some particular worship service, but ordinarily reads the Word, then it is within the scope.

With prayer, it uses the phrase "It is particularly appropriate that public prayer be led by a pastor of the congregation...." This too does not state a in absolute terms. It could have been said "It is inappropriate for any other than the pastor to lead in prayer" or "None but the pastor should lead in prayer" ... and they were not so stupid that they thought thought the phrase is equivalent.

I credit them with wisdom and diligence. They have left this to not absolute injunction, but stated what the normal ought to be. If pastors are leading then those men will not deviate substantially from having the ordinary, regular, typical service follow the guidelines. But because these guidelines are not written in absolutes (must, shall, must not or shall not) but rather in terms that allow for some, but not complete, discretion in particular worship services, I would expect some variance.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 12, 2017)

So in the OPC by your reading, the pastor can or can't appoint women to do the scripture reading? It doesn't say not to? I'm not trying to throw stones in a glass house; this is where the PCA is without a constitutional directory. I just want to know if the OPC isn't already sliding and isn't a safe place to flee to when the PCA is ripe for departing. 


Brian Withnell said:


> I credit them with wisdom and diligence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 12, 2017)

Brian Withnell said:


> Even in the new version it states "Thus, it ordinarily should be performed by a minister of the Word." Yet in using the statement "ordinarily" it allows for something out of the ordinary. Public reading of the scripture is not prohibited. While leadership should be done by those ordained or licensed, if they direct the reading of the word, then that is covered. Of course that could be viewed as ambiguous ... if a pastor directs someone to read a specific passage (he is still the one in the leadership position) in some particular worship service, but ordinarily reads the Word, then it is within the scope.
> 
> With prayer, it uses the phrase "It is particularly appropriate that public prayer be led by a pastor of the congregation...." This too does not state a in absolute terms. It could have been said "It is inappropriate for any other than the pastor to lead in prayer" or "None but the pastor should lead in prayer" ... and they were not so stupid that they thought thought the phrase is equivalent.
> 
> I credit them with wisdom and diligence. They have left this to not absolute injunction, but stated what the normal ought to be. If pastors are leading then those men will not deviate substantially from having the ordinary, regular, typical service follow the guidelines. But because these guidelines are not written in absolutes (must, shall, must not or shall not) but rather in terms that allow for some, but not complete, discretion in particular worship services, I would expect some variance.



The scope of "extraordinary" practices is limited by the passage Patrick cites. It should ordinarily be the pastor but it would not be unacceptable to have a Ruling Elder or licentiate perform those duties on occasion. You can't read that section in isolation from the rest of the official documents. 

For my part, I've never been to an OPC church where a lay-person did these things, although I have where ruling elders perform them more often than in extraordinary occasions.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 12, 2017)

Just to provide further clarity, here is the actual text from the OPC Directory for Worship from ch.1 



> *D. The Oversight and Conduct of Public Worship*
> 1. Public worship is Christian, not only when the worshipers consciously recognize that Christ is the Mediator by whom alone they can come unto God, but also when they honor the exalted Christ as the living and only Head of the church, who rules over public worship.
> 
> a. He rules over public worship by his Word and Spirit, not only directly, but also through the ministry of officers in their ruling and teaching his church.
> ...



Again, this passage specifically addresses who can lead in worship. In the next chapter dealing with who ordinarily leads the parts of worship, obviously the minister is the one who "ordinarily" does it. But that does not mean there can be an extraordinary free for all. Ch. 1 already clarified the pool of eligible leaders for public worship; ministers, elders, licentiates, and men under care, and "no others". There is no allowance in the DFW for anyone else to lead in public worship, even in the case of public reading or prayer. Ch. 1 clarifies what is allowable under ch. 2. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 12, 2017)

So no deacons even but certainly not the ordinary member, male or female. 


Puritan Sailor said:


> Just to provide further clarity, here is the actual text from the OPC Directory for Worship from ch.1
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward (Jul 12, 2017)

While most of the focus on this thread has been on Part D, I found it helpful to my understanding to start with C, and particularly C. 1 in seeing what D was dealing with:



> 1. Because a service of public worship is in its essence a meeting of the triune God with his chosen people, a worship service consists of two principal parts: those elements which are performed on behalf of God (through a representative voice) and those elements which are performed by the congregation (through their own or a representative voice).
> 
> a. By his Spirit working through the ministry of the Word, God addresses his people in the call to worship, in the salutation and benediction, in the reading and preaching of the Word, and in the sacraments.
> 
> b. His people, enabled by the Holy Spirit, address God in prayer, in song, in offerings, in hearing the Word, in confession, and in receiving and partaking of the sacraments.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 12, 2017)

Well, y'all are certainly giving me the information I was seeking  

I have an opportunity to address a concern, and I wanted to do so in an informed, respectful, and orderly manner. Thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 12, 2017)

I tend to agree ... at least from the normative. Yet the document does not present absolutes in its statements ... I personally would have preferred if it stated "under extraordinary conditions" rather than just left "ordinarily" as the two statements connotations are not exhaustive of the space. But I'm a mathematician ... I think of the statement "not positive" as not equal to negative instantly (there is zero which is neither positive or negative). 

I like unambiguous statements that have NO room for interpretation, but I'm a very small minority.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Jul 16, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Well, I've only been to two different OPCs mine and one other. So I'm unsure how many do this, but neither of the two I went to did. The pastor is the only one who prays and reads Scripture. I'm also not sure you can condemn the whole of OPC based on the activities of two churches.



Nearly every OPC church I've ever attended had a strange interpretation of psalms as prayers. It seemed to be one of the primary reasons for allowing any type of "theologically sound" songs in worship. I'd add that while it is a debated issue responsives/recitals rarely seem thought out when asked about its practice. 

I am a member of an OPC church. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 16, 2017)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> Nearly every OPC church I've ever attended had a strange interpretation of psalms as prayers. It seemed to be one of the primary reasons for allowing any type of "theologically sound" songs in worship. I'd add that while it is a debated issue responsives/recitals rarely seem thought out when asked about its practice.
> 
> I am a member of an OPC church.
> 
> ...


Strange. Yeah, my pastor prays his own prayers he doesn't use the Psalms. Which responsives? Do you mean the unison prayer of confession?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 16, 2017)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> Nearly every OPC church I've ever attended had a strange interpretation of psalms as prayers



This is a common theme among OPC ministers and elders that I have ran across. Some have even suggested that the hymns they sing are also prayers to God.

As a side: these arguments have been used against those who are EP, which I'm quite disappointed they used them. The arguments aren't sound and they are quite embarrassing (in my opinion).


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 16, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Strange. Yeah, my pastor prays his own prayers he doesn't use the Psalms. Which responsives? Do you mean the unison prayer of confession?



Responsive Scripture readings and even responsive calls to worship are not uncommon in the OPC churches I've been in.

Even beyond the DPW, WLC 156 should make it quite clear that lay readings are not acceptable.



> *Q. 156. Is the Word of God to be read by all?*
> 
> A. Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves,and with their families:to which end, the holy scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.



Compare with the original Directory for The Publick Worship of God, which, while certainly not constitutional today, helps us understand the intent of the catechism:



> READING of the word in the congregation, being part of the publick worship of God, (wherein .i.we; acknowledge our dependence upon him, and subjection to him,) and one mean sanctified by him for the edifying of his people, is to be performed by the pastors and teachers.
> 
> Howbeit, such as intend the ministry, may occasionally both read the word, and exercise their gift in preaching in the congregation, if allowed by the presbytery thereunto.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 16, 2017)

TheOldCourse said:


> Responsive Scripture readings and even responsive calls to worship are not uncommon in the OPC churches I've been in.
> 
> Even beyond the DPW, WLC 156 should make it quite clear that lay readings are not acceptable.
> 
> ...


We don't do responsive scripture reading at the OPC I'm a member of. I have no idea what responsive call even is.....sounds pentacostal lol


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Jul 16, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> We don't do responsive scripture reading at the OPC I'm a member of. I have no idea what responsive call even is.....sounds pentacostal lol



It's very popular. It's basically selecting some Scripture text, sometimes a Psalm portion about assembling, alternating lines between what the minister/RE reads and then what the congregation is expected to read aloud until the passage ends.

In my view, it isn't only unwarranted but unhelpful in having a better dialogical principle at play. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 16, 2017)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> It's very popular. It's basically selecting some Scripture text, sometimes a Psalm portion about assembling, alternating lines between what the minister/RE reads and then what the congregation is expected to read aloud until the passage ends.
> 
> In my view, it isn't only unwarranted but unhelpful in having a better dialogical principle at play.
> 
> ...


Ohhhh ok. My pastor went to China for awhile so we had other pastors from other OPCs in to preach and one of them did that.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Jul 16, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> This is a common theme among OPC ministers and elders that I have ran across. Some have even suggested that the hymns they sing are also prayers to God.
> 
> As a side: these arguments have been used against those who are EP, which I'm quite disappointed they used them. The arguments aren't sound and they are quite embarrassing (in my opinion).



Yes, that conflation is what I had in mind. I just didn't want to derail the thread with the EP buzzword. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------

