# Who may perform the Scripture readings in worship services?



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2012)

Westminster Larger Catechism Q&156: _Is the Word of God to be read by all?_ 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.

We’ve discussed this several times from different angles on the Puritan Board, and I bring this up because of recent threads. I’m interested in Scriptural and historical reasons why practice has become unrestricted in any way in Presbyterianism. Has anyone noted any scriptural reasons for the change of loosening who may read the Word in public worship? I did not find any when looking into this a couple years back on this thread.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/public-scripture-reading-westminster-50833/#post654790

Or is this just another instance of unauthorized loosening practice becoming official doctrine? What reason would you give for allowing anyone outside the teaching ministry, or eldership, or those who intend the ministry, to read the Word in worship services? Here are some old threads; and we’ve dealt with this going way back to the early days looks like.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/regulative-principle-women-reading-1976/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/rpw-responsive-reading-8475/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/leading-congregation-who-11754/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/reading-word-public-worship-17646/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/responsive-readings-they-westminsterian-they-biblical-29792/

Here is some background from the standpoint of early Presbyterianism.
At the Reformation in Scotland the office of Reader had been encouraged given the scarcity of ministers, but in 1580 the General Assembly abolished the office. It continued in use on a “diminished scale” into the seventeenth century (“Readers (Reformation),” _Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology_, Nigel M. de S. Cameron et al. [IVP: 1993] 693). The Westminster Assembly determined that reading the scriptures belonged to the minister’s office, “and when the Westminster Directory for Public Worship was adopted by the Church of Scotland in 1645, it may be said that the service of the reader was ostensibly and almost practically brought to an end in Scotland.” Andrew Edgar, _Old Church Life in Scotland: Lectures on Kirk-Session and Presbytery Records _(1885) 60. Cf. C. G. M‘Crie, _The Public Worship in Presbyterian Scotland_ (1892) 431. George Gillespie seems to have played a significant part in the debate at Westminster on this point, arguing for the reader mainly on the basis of trying candidates for the ministry, and amongst other reasons, arguing from the example of the sons of the prophets (Session 238, June 13, 1644, cf. Chad Van Dixhoorn, _Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly 1643–1652, _unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 7 vols. (2004), volume 5, Appendix B: [transcription of the] Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, 12 April 1644–15 November 1644, page 150). That portion of the directory for worship was subsequently passed that day with the proviso that those who intend the ministry may read the scriptures to the congregation and preach, if approved by the presbytery to do so. Cf. Lightfoot_, _“Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines,” _The Whole Works_, vol. 13 (London: Dove, 1824) 284; Westminster Directory for the Pubic Worship of God, “Of the Public Reading of the Holy Scriptures,” ¶1–2.

As far as American Presbyterian practice; it remained unchanged; formally restricted to the pastors and teachers until far as I can tell: In 1894, the PCUS (Southern Church) added in the DfPW “or other authorized persons” to the pastors or teachers as far as who was allowed to read the Scriptures in Public Worship. The PCUSA kept the authorization to pastors and teachers until their merger with the UPC and the new directory of 1958 put the determination of what Scriptures were to be read in the pastors hands, and left who actually did the reading completely unaddressed and unrestricted.


----------



## Wayne (Feb 12, 2012)

Very timely for me. I had a patron call Friday asking about this same question.
Thanks for the resources, which get filed away.

The following page provides the current text of the PCA's Book of Church Order, plus antecedent texts
(background on where the PCA text came from), plus a comparison to the OPC's Book on the same 
subject.

Historical Development of the PCA Book of Church Order : Chapter 50, Paragraph 2

The change from long-standing Presbyterian tradition begins with the wording of the 1894 PCUS BCO, "some other authorized person", 
which could be anybody, in that "authorized" is not defined. That same 1894 wording was adopted by the PCA in 1973, but then softened
in 1975 and we've retained that 1975 wording since.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2012)

Thanks Wayne. So, would the presumption be correct that, since the language of authorization was not defined, there has not really ever been a formal defense of looser practice from Scripture or argument against the original position of the Westminster Standards?


----------



## Wayne (Feb 12, 2012)

That would be my default expectation. There have been some debates and even overtures regarding 
women reading the Scriptures in worship services, but I'd have to do some work to pull those together.

On a purely practical level, I don't understand why churches don't avail themselves of every opportunity
to put the ruling elders up before the congregation in spiritual matters, such as reading the Word and praying.
How better to affirm their proper role in the congregation?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2012)

Lakewood is a small congregation and so we have only one TE. Over the years they used to have men of the congregation help with the readings. This has been tightened up. The RE who also leads the singing, helps with the readings now; usually doing the OT and pastor doing the second/NT reading.


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 12, 2012)

I've only seen the "older" practice in two PCA churches and my current OPC church. Having grown up watching two mainline denominations move even further to the left, the lay readings seem part of the whole challenge to any authority the church may have.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 12, 2012)

Ruling elders often take midweek and other services, if the teaching elder i.e. minister isn't available for some reason, in the conservative Presbyterian churches I'm familiar with in Scotland e.g. Free Presbyterian C of S, Free C of S, Associated Presbyterian Churches.

Ruling elders should be apt to teach, but not necessarily as apt as teaching elders.


----------



## raekwon (Feb 12, 2012)

The wording of the Confession itself seems (to this feeble-minded elder) to be pretty "loose" in itself; at least loose enough to give room for a congregation's Session to delegate the reading of the Word to whoever they want.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2012)

Maybe not feeble minded, but it does most certainly fall into the old trap of tearing the Confession out of the context of the other documents prepared by the Assembly, and in this case the LC is still an unammended part of the PCA's standards.


----------



## raekwon (Feb 12, 2012)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Maybe not feeble minded, but it does most certainly fall into the old trap of tearing the Confession out of the context of the other documents prepared by the Assembly, and in this case the LC is still an unammended part of the PCA's standards.



I'm sorry. My feeble mind failed me even as I was typing about how feeble-minded I am! I meant "Larger Catechism" when I typed "Confession." Perhaps I'm missing something elsewhere in the Westminster Standards. Do they elsewhere get more specific as to who may and may not read Scripture during public worship?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2012)

Yes; other documents and also the scripture proofs to the answer; one of the links I give goes into it I think; I'll try to find it but can't look now; there is the FOG in particular if I recall, and the debates; the discussion I already noted above which comes from a note I put together for Gillespie's English Popish Ceremonies (revised ed. coming 2013, D.V.)


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 12, 2012)

The only examples we have in Scripture of Scripture readings in worship it is always done by Rabbi's, "Teachers of the Law", or Priests. Someone please correct me, but I do not recall anywhere where even the rulers of the synagogue (our analogue to Ruling Elders) read from the Scriptures in worship. 

There certainly is no example of "lay readers" (male or female) in the Bible.


----------



## Andres (Feb 12, 2012)

In our church - we are far from the standard - only our pastor/TE reads the Scripture. Our RE's do rotate praying before the congregation. For example, I give the congregational prayer the second Lord's Day of each month, which I did today actually.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2012)

From my post to the first thread linked above:


NaphtaliPress said:


> *The Westminster Standards are a package deal as far as determining intent. The American Presbyterian churches, I think PCUSA and PCUS, both addressed this and allowed for someone approved by the session.
> For Westminster and public reading of the Scriptures one takes into account the WLC, DfPW and the Fopgc
> 
> WLC 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 thecongregation, (u) yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apartby themselves, (w) and with their families; (x) to which end the holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages. (y)​u DEU 31:9, 11-13; NEH 8:2-3; NEH 9:3-5
> ...


http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/public-scripture-reading-westminster-50833/#post654744


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 12, 2012)

> Reading of the word in the congregation, being part of the publick worship of God (wherein 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.


How in the context of the Westminster Standards is "teacher" defined?


----------



## Wayne (Feb 12, 2012)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Maybe not feeble minded, but it does most certainly fall into the old trap of tearing the Confession out of the context of the other documents prepared by the Assembly, and *in this case the LC is still an unammended part of the PCA's standards*.



Not so, Chris. The PCA does make provision for changes to the Standards. It's just that it requires a supermajority vote. 
A hypothetical General Assembly would have to receive and adopt an overture on a proposed change, voting at least 75% in favor.
That proposed change would then be sent to the presbyteries for their advice and consent and 75% of the presbyteries would also have to vote in favor.
If that hurdle was met and the following General Assembly also again voted by 75% in favor of the change, that change would then be incorporated into the PCA's edition of the Standards.

The one hole in that arrangement is that a simple majority vote is sufficient within each of the presbyteries, rather than again a 75% majority.

Changes to the _Book of Church Order _only require simple majority votes, but again must be adopted at one GA, sent to the presbyteries and lastly so approved at a following GA.

That GA--Presbyteries--GA process comes from Scottish Presbyterian history and is called the Barrier Act.

On another historical note, the old Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod came within a hair's breadth of changing LC 109, prevented only by their reception into the PCA in 1982.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 12, 2012)

Wayne, I thought Chris' point was that the LC hadn't been amended, not that it _couldn't_ be amended.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2012)

Sorry for a confused sentence Wayne; I was not denying the LC could be amended but that in this instance LC 156 has not been so changed. Also, is the part of the directory that touches on this binding or non binding (I am right to recall parts are and are not binding?).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2012)

I believe this is a reference to the office of doctor which prior to Westminster had been broken out as a second sort of TE.


jwithnell said:


> How in the context of the Westminster Standards is "teacher" defined?


----------



## Wayne (Feb 12, 2012)

That's okay guys. Despite the confusion, I enjoyed the opportunity to wax pedantic.

(seriously, I could have sworn he said "unamend*able*")


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 12, 2012)

Wayne said:


> Changes to the Book of Church Order only require simple majority votes, but again must be adopted at one GA, sent to the presbyteries and lastly so approved at a following GA.



And for those following, to be clear, changes to the Book of Church Order for the PCA requires 2/3 of the Presbyteries to vote for changing it, by simple majority vote within each Presbytery, and as you point, out, a second majority vote confirmation by a subsequent General Assembly. (Amending the Westminster Standards requires a vote of 3/4 at each of two General Assemblies, and simple majorities in 3/4 of the Presbyteries).


----------



## Wayne (Feb 12, 2012)

Thanks, Scott. I was not clear there.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Feb 12, 2012)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Sorry for a confused sentence Wayne; I was not denying the LC could be amended but that in this instance LC 156 has not been so changed. Also, is the part of the directory that touches on this binding or non binding (I am right to recall parts are and are not binding?).



Chapter 50 of the BCO deals with the public reading of Scripture, and it does not have full constitutional authority. Of the Directory for Public Worship, only Chapters 56 (Baptism), 57 (Sealing Ordinances), and 58 (Lord's Supper) are binding. 

I was hoping that this information from my licensure exam would come in handy at some point.


----------



## PCAdummy (Feb 12, 2012)

Our church has recently allowed women to read scripture in the worship service. Is that out of line with the BCO?


----------



## bookslover (Feb 13, 2012)

Wayne said:


> On a purely practical level, I don't understand why churches don't avail themselves of every opportunity
> to put the ruling elders up before the congregation in spiritual matters, such as reading the Word and praying.
> How better to affirm their proper role in the congregation?



Because teaching elders tend to be very jealous of their prerogatives. At an OPC GA I attended some years ago, a vote came to the floor for allowing ruling elders to do some teeny-weeny thing (I forget what now) during corporate worship as an addition to their duties. The line of teaching elders ready to vigorously vote it down was a mile long. I know of one minister (no longer in the OPC) who would have gotten rid of ruling elders entirely if he could have gotten away with it.

Unfortunately, some ministers who hold the three-office view want to turn the space between teaching elders and ruling elders into a moat - complete with alligators!


----------



## J. Dean (Feb 13, 2012)

In the Presbyterian church I have attended, usually it is either the head pastor or the assistant pastor who performs the readings.


----------

