# Responsive Readings, are they Westminsterian, are they Biblical?



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 24, 2008)

This has been discussed before here and here, but in light of this off topic post of mine on another thread I thought I'd do a poll and new thread.

I do not believe the Westminster Standards authorized, or envisioned including responsive readings in the public worship service. They do not list a separate element that would cover this in Confession of Faith 21.5, and it can only logically be covered there under the reading of the scriptures. However, in Larger Catechism Q&A 156, the Assembly notes:

* 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
w DEU 17:19; REV 1:3; JOH 5:39; ISA 34:16
x DEU 6:6-9; GEN 18:17, 19; PSA 78:5-7
y 1CO 14:6, 9, 11-12, 15-16, 24, 27-28​The scripture references for "u" indicate the reading is limited but not how exactly other than that the examples indicate it was performed by the Levites. The Divines had stated previous to the completion of the LC that the reading of the word was to be done by the pastors and teachers with the added exception of those that intend the ministry, in their directory for public worship.*** 

* Of Publick Reading of the Holy Scriptures.*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. Howbeit, such as intend theministry, may occasionally both read the word, and exercise their giftin preaching in the congregation, if allowed by the presbytery thereunto.​Also, as Jeff Bartel noted on the older thread, the Westminster form of church government is even more explicit. 

*The Form of Presbyterial Church Government.*Pastors.

THE pastor is an ordinary and perpetual officer in the church, prophesying of the time of the gospel.(f)

First, it belongs to his office,

To pray for and with his flock, as the mouth of the people unto God,(g) Acts vi. 2, 3, 4, and xx. 36, where preaching and prayer are joined as several parts of the same office.(h) The office of the elder (that is, the pastor) is to pray for the sick, even in private, to which a blessing is especially promised; much more therefore ought he to perform this in the publick execution of his office, as a part thereof.(i)

To read the Scriptures publickly; for the proof of which,

1. That the priests and Levites in the Jewish church were trusted with the publick reading of the word is proved.(k)

2. That the ministers of the gospel have as ample a charge and commission to dispense the word, as well as other ordinances, as the priests and Levites had under the law, proved, Isa. lxvi. 21. Matt. xxiii. 34. where our Saviour entitleth the officers of the New Testament, whom he will send forth, by the same names of the teachers of the Old.(l)

Which propositions prove, that therefore (the duty being of a moral nature) it followeth by just consequence, that the publick reading of the scriptures belongeth to the pastor's office. ... 

f. 1 Pet 5:2-4; Eph 4:11-13.
g. Acts 6:2-4; Acts 20:36.
h. James 5:14-15.
i. 1 Cor 14:15-16.
k. Deut 31:9-11; Neh 8:1-3; 13.
l. Isa 66:21; Matt 23:34.
​Note the similar appeals in FOG reference "k" and the references in "u" for LC 156.

* ** The Directory for Public Worship was sent up and then approved by the Parliament on January 4 1644-45; it was published on March 18, 1645.The larger catechism was sent up October 22, 1647, and published after Nov 1, 1647 (according to Chad Van Dixhoorn, vol 1.382). The scripture proofs were approved April 12, 1648 and published on the 14th. The earliest draft of the Form of Government is dated Dec. 11 1644, but due to the controversies over government in the assembly it was not finalized and published until around November 1, 1647 (Van Dixhoorn, 1.369, 382).


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 24, 2008)

I would say that the public reading of the word is committed to ministers of the word and sacraments. I see no biblical justification for responsive readings nor any need for them, but on the contrary everythng seems to preclude such a practice.

I chose "Don't know" because I am unsure what the WS teach in these regards.


----------



## beej6 (Feb 24, 2008)

Just to throw in a tertiary standard 

The BCO's for the OPC and PCA distinguish between the reading of Scripture by the minister and the responsive reading of Scripture: "In the former God addresses his people; in the latter God's people give expression in the words of Scripture to their contrition, adoration, gratitude, and other holy sentiments. The psalms of Scripture are especially appropriate for responsive reading." (OPC BCO, Directory for Worship, III.3; and PCA BCO, Directory for Worship, 50-1)


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 24, 2008)

Why is publick spelled with a 'k'? I see this alot. And why has it not been corrected to just read public? Perhaps Quale needs to teach them correctly; no 'e' in potato


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 24, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Why is publick spelled with a 'k'? I see this alot. And why has it not been corrected to just read public? Perhaps Quale needs to teach them correctly; no 'e' in potato


Just typing from a late 19th century British text; didn't think I needed to editorialize.


----------



## BJClark (Feb 24, 2008)

Amazing Grace;



> Why is publick spelled with a 'k'? I see this alot. And why has it not been corrected to just read public? Perhaps Quale needs to teach them correctly; no 'e' in potato



well, it could be that is how it was spelled when the Confessions were written, just as when you read other older texts f's are used as S's and soforth, and instead of changing it, they copied it as orginanally written.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 24, 2008)

BJClark said:


> Amazing Grace;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is archaic now I guess; but as far as the "long" f's and s's, while they look alike, the f's are still crossed and still f's rather than s's and vice versa. Just have to read carefully.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 24, 2008)

More background; looks like we can conclude the Assembly knew about responsals (responsive readings) and was not in favor of them, though they were not going to go out of their way to condemn them (that's my take of the following at least):


> From Gillespie’s ‘Notes of Debates and Proceedings,’ however, we learn that at a certain stage of the discussion as to what should find a place in the book [the Directory for Public Worship], it was proposed to insert a statement of abuses ‘to be condemned, as Wakes, etc.’ The proposal was resisted by Gillespie on the ground that, if English abuses were to be specified, then the Church of Scotland would claim an enumeration of abuses peculiar to that kingdom, and he did not think it ‘fit to make public in both kingdoms what is proper to either.’ Ultimately, it was agreed to send up a separate paper to Parliament containing a list of such abuses.
> Interesting light would seem to be thrown upon this document by a loose paper in Gillespie’s writing preserved by Wodrow, and printed among the ‘Notes’ of the former. On the one side of the MS. is an incomplete list of eight practices or ceremonies, beginning with ‘Gloria Patri,’ and breaking off with ‘the people’s responsals.’ On the other side is a statement ‘concerning other customs or rites in the worship of God formerly received in any of the kingdoms,’ to the effect that, ‘though not condemned in this Directory,’ yet if ‘they have been, or apparently will be, occasions of divisions and offences,’ it is judged ‘most expedient that the practice and use of them be not continued, as well for the nearer uniformity betwixt the Churches of both kingdoms, as for their greater peace and harmony within themselves, and their edifying one another in love.
> If, as it appears likely, the list on the one side of this paper consists of an unfinished enumeration of ‘customs or rites’ spoken of on the other, then it is probable the latter was drafted as a proposed, but not accepted, addition to the preface as it now stands. In that case the Doxology, along with the Creed, standing up at the reading of the Gospel, preaching on Christmas, funeral sermons, churching of women, saying the three Creeds after reading of Scripture, and congregational responses, will rank among practices ‘not condemned in this Directory,’ but the observance of which Gillespie and his fellow-commissioners judged it expedient to be discontinued in the interests of uniformity, peace, harmony, and mutual edifying in love.​C. G. M’Crie, _Public Worship of Presbyterian Scotland_ (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1892) 208-210.


Here is the text of the loose paper itself:

> IN A LOOSE PAPER IN THE SAME HAND [VIZ. GILLESPIE'S] I FIND [SAYS WODROW] WHAT FOLLOWS :—
> _On the backside._
> _Gloria Patri._
> Saying the creed.
> ...


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 24, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Why is publick spelled with a 'k'? I see this alot. And why has it not been corrected to just read public? Perhaps Quale needs to teach them correctly; no 'e' in potato
> ...



Thank you Chris. I was not asking you to editorialize..lol I have always been curious.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 24, 2008)

I put "don't know" because this is the first time I've thought about it. I never considered that responsive readings might be forbidden by the WCF. If that indeed is the case, and the WCF really does prohibit responsive readings, I would say that it is wrong. Since some of the Psalms are responsorial, and they are Scripture, at the very least those would be allowed in worship whether read or sung.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 24, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> More background; looks like we can conclude the Assembly knew about responsals (responsive readings) and was not in favor of them, though they were not going to go out of their way to condemn them (that's my take of the following at least):
> 
> 
> > From Gillespie’s ‘Notes of Debates and Proceedings,’ however, we learn that at a certain stage of the discussion as to what should find a place in the book [the Directory for Public Worship], it was proposed to insert a statement of abuses ‘to be condemned, as Wakes, etc.’ The proposal was resisted by Gillespie on the ground that, if English abuses were to be specified, then the Church of Scotland would claim an enumeration of abuses peculiar to that kingdom, and he did not think it ‘fit to make public in both kingdoms what is proper to either.’ Ultimately, it was agreed to send up a separate paper to Parliament containing a list of such abuses.
> ...



I don't want to take this too off topic, but I do have a few questions. 

What was the issue with funeral sermons? 

What was meant by "churching of women? 

I take it "the people's responsals" is a reference to responsive reading?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 24, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> I don't want to take this too off topic, but I do have a few questions.
> 
> What was the issue with funeral sermons?
> 
> ...


Churching of women = Thanksgiving of women after child birth which I assume is a reference to the Book of Common Prayer? as here.
I don't recall the specific problem with funeral sermons; I'll have to check M'Crie for a refresher.
Yes, I take responsals to be the same thing as responsive readings.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 24, 2008)

Re Funeral Sermons, Rowland Ward says (_Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and The Directory for Worship_, pp. 134-135):



> _*Concerning Burial of the Dead*_
> 
> This section was debated over six days. Historically the Reformed Church in Scotland had interred the body of the deceased without any ceremony, the corpse being brought to the place of burial in silence by the relatives and the congregation. In the Scottish Book of Common Order the minister, if present, "maketh some comfortable exhortation to the people touching death and resurrection" in the church, if nearby. Funeral sermons as such were generally discountenanced as likely to "have respect of persons, preaching at the burials of the rich and honourable, but keeping silence when the poor and despised departeth."[47] In England Puritans like Cartwright spoke similarly. However, by the time of the Westminster Assembly funeral services had been forbidden by Act of the Church of Scotland (1638), but were not uncommon in England. All the members of the Assembly at Westminster, except the Scots, attended the funeral of parliamentarian John Pym following his death in 1643. The final form of the directory was held by John Lightfoot to permit funeral sermons,[48] but they remained discountenanced in Scotland and were infrequent for the next 150 years.
> 
> ...



Scottish First Book of Discipline (1560):



> Of Burial
> 
> Burial in all ages has been held in estimation, to signify that the same body that was commit ted to the earth should not utterly perish, but should rise again. And the same we would have kept within this realm, provided that superstition, idolatry, and whatsoever has proceeded of a false opinion, and for advantage sake, may be avoided; as singing of Mass, placebo, and dirge, and all other prayers over or for the dead, are not only superfluous and vain, but also are idolatry, and do repugn to the plain scriptures of God. For plain it is, that everyone that dies departs either in the faith of Christ Jesus, or else departs in incredulity. Plain it is, that they that depart in the true faith of Christ Jesus, rest from their labours, and from death [do] go to life everlasting, as by our Master and by his apostle we are taught. But whosoever departs in unbelief or in incredulity, shall never see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him. And so, we say that prayers for the dead are not only superfluous and vain, but do expressly repugn to the manifest scriptures and verity thereof.
> 
> ...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 24, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...



Please do editorialize; its sets a bad example of poor spelling to modern readers.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 24, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...


It's not poor spelling but archaic; there is a difference.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 24, 2008)

Fisher's Catechism:



> Q. 89.3. "Is the word of God to be read by all?"
> 
> A. "Although all are not permitted to read the word publicly to the congregation, Deut 31:9,11, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, Deut 17:19, and with their families, Deut 6:7." [LC 156]
> 
> ...



Thomas Ridgley, _A Body of Divinity_:



> The only thing in this answer, that needs explaining is, what is meant by those words, all are not permitted to read the word publicly to the congregation. We are not to suppose that there is an order of men that Christ has appointed to be readers in the church, distinct from ministers; therefore the meaning of this expression may be, that all are not to read the word of God together, in a public assembly, with a loud voice; for that would tend rather to confusion than edification. Nor ought any to be appointed to do it, but such as are grave, pious, and able to read it distinctly, for the edification of others. And who is so fit for this work, as the ministers whose office is not only to read, but explain it in the ordinary course of his ministry?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 24, 2008)

I have never really thought about it. 

We use responsive reading in our services, and it seems that (especially in the reading of Psalms) when the worship leader reads part, and the congregation responds, that it helps to focus thoughts -- We often read responsively as the Call to Worship, or an Old Testament reading.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 25, 2008)

I'm adding another option to the poll. 
The new option is:
The Westminster Standards preclude Responsive Readings; but I don't know if that is right or wrong biblically.
I don't think I can change votes but you can register your change of mind in a post if so inclined.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 25, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...



But it's poor spelling by today's standards.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 25, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...


Daniel, that is not the point. I suppose you'd hit the ceiling if I quoted Knox from Laing's edition of the works without any spelling corrections. You are being silly.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 25, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...



 Not quite the ceiling; though I think old works are hard enough to read without being in archaic language.


----------

