# What's with the directory for family worship?



## Braden (Nov 2, 2018)

I was reading it today, and it seems to say that (in the first 4 articles) nobody who is bit a minister may interpret the Bible. What gives? Can we not read and see what it says for ourselves?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 2, 2018)

(Just so all can see this.)
The Directory for Private (Family) Worship:

I. And first, for secret worship, it is most necessary, that every one apart, and by themselves, be given to prayer and meditation, the unspeakable benefit whereof is best known to them who are most exercised therein; this being the mean whereby, in a special way, communion with God is entertained, and right preparation for all other duties obtained: and therefore it becometh not only pastors, within their several charges, to press persons of all sorts to perform this duty morning and evening, and at other occasions; but also it is incumbent to the head of every family to have a care, that both themselves, and all within their charge, be daily diligent herein.

II. The ordinary duties comprehended under the exercise of piety which should be in families, when they are convened to that effect, are these: First, Prayer and praises performed with a special reference, as well to the publick condition of the kirk of God and this kingdom, as to the present case of the family, and every member thereof. Next, Reading of the scriptures, with catechising in a plain way, that the understandings of the simpler may be the better enabled to profit under the publick ordinances, and they made more capable to understand the scriptures when they are read; together with godly conferences tending to the edification of all the members in the most holy faith: as also, admonition and rebuke, upon just reasons, from those who have authority in the family.

III. As the charge and office *of interpreting the holy scriptures* is a part of the *ministerial calling*, which none (however otherwise qualified) *should take upon him in any place, but he that is duly called thereunto by God and his kirk;* so in every family where there is any that can read, the holy scriptures should be read ordinarily to the family; and it is commendable, that thereafter they confer, and by way of conference make some good use of what hath been read and heard. As, for example, if any sin be reproved in the word read, use may be made thereof to make all the family circumspect and watchful against the same; or if any judgment be threatened, or mentioned to have been inflicted, in that portion of scripture which is read, use may be made to make all the family fear lest the same or a worse judgment befall them, unless they beware of the sin that procured it: and, finally, if any duty be required, or comfort held forth in a promise, use may be made to stir up themselves to employ Christ for strength to enable them for doing the commanded duty, and to apply the offered comfort. In all which the master of the family is to have the chief hand; and any member of the family may propone a question or doubt for resolution.

IV. The head of the family is to take care that none of the family withdraw himself from any part of family-worship: and, seeing the ordinary performance of all the parts of family-worship belongeth properly to the head of the family, the minister is to stir up such as are lazy, and train up such as are weak, to a fitness to these exercises; it being always free to persons of quality to entertain one approved by the presbytery for performing family-exercise. And in other families, where the head of the family is unfit, that another, constantly residing in the family, approved by the minister and session, may be employed in that service, wherein the minister and session are to be countable to the presbytery. And if a minister, by divine Providence, be brought to any family, it is requisite that at no time he convene a part of the family for worship, secluding the rest, except in singular cases especially concerning these parties, which (in Christian prudence) need not, or ought not, to be imparted to others.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 2, 2018)

Hi Braden, if you re-read the section that Matthew has helpfully highlighted you'll notice that the Directory is actually saying the opposite of what you thought it was saying! (Let me see if I can explain this.)

They're drawing a comparison. They're saying that "Just as the Pastor is the one who interprets and explains the Scriptures in the church, so the Father should interpret and explain the Scripture in the home." They are drawing a connection between the church and the family and giving voice to the Reformation belief that the family is a "little church." So the point is not that only ordained ministers are to read and interpret the Word - in fact the opposite is in view! They are urging every family, every household, to take up the daily task of reading, interpreting, and applying the Word of God to their daily lives.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 2, 2018)

Hamalas said:


> Hi Braden, if you re-read the section that Matthew has helpfully highlighted you'll notice that the Directory is actually saying the opposite of what you thought it was saying! (Let me see if I can explain this.)
> 
> They're drawing a comparison. They're saying that "Just as the Pastor is the one who interprets and explains the Scriptures in the church, so the Father should interpret and explain the Scripture in the home." They are drawing a connection between the church and the family and giving voice to the Reformation belief that the family is a "little church." So the point is not that only ordained ministers are to read and interpret the Word - in fact the opposite is in view! They are urging every family, every household, to take up the daily task of reading, interpreting, and applying the Word of God to their daily lives.



To quote again:

" As the charge and office of interpreting the holy scriptures is a part of the ministerial calling, which *none* (however otherwise qualified) should take upon him in any place, but he that is duly called thereunto by God and his kirk;"

It quite clearly states that _none_ except duly called ministers may interpret the holy scriptures to others. It is making an analogy within respective spheres: As the minister must not neglect the ordinary duty of interpreting/preaching the Word, so the family and especially the head must not neglect the ordinary duty of reading and conferring over the Word.

It is also establishing an important distinction. _Contra_ Doug Wilson and other patriarchalists, as well as the Quakers and Brownists of the time of the Directory, the husband/father is not a minister in the home and ought not to preach or interpret to his family as one with ordained authority, nor is the home a church. Nevertheless, there is an analogical duty to read the word in the family and to reprove and exhort according to the plain meaning of it. The distinction and priority between public worship and family worship must be maintained.
*
*

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 1


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 2, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> To quote again:
> 
> " As the charge and office of interpreting the holy scriptures is a part of the ministerial calling, which *[you]none[/you]* (however otherwise qualified) should take upon him in any place, but he that is duly called thereunto by God and his kirk;"
> 
> ...



As is often the case, our fore-fathers were wise and balanced in avoiding pitfalls on both sides!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 2, 2018)

Also, I think they're using the word "interpret" in a somewhat narrower and more technical sense than a modern reader might.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 2, 2018)

Questions 156-157 of the Westminster Larger Catechism shed some light on this:

"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.

Q. 157. _How is the Word of God to be read?_
A. The holy Scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God, and that he only can enable us to understand them; with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them; with diligence, and attention to the matter and scope of them; with meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Nov 2, 2018)

Historically, Reformed Christianity has not advocated me-and-my-Bible-ism. Calvin, for instance, understood that the church, not the individual, has the authority to interpret Scripture. This might come as something of a shock to modern Protestants, many of whom have imbibed ideas of the supremacy of the individual in making sense of Scripture. The pitfalls of that kind of thinking are obvious enough, in our day and in Calvin's, as well as throughout church history.

"Read your Bible every day" does not mean "Feel free to interpret Scripture as you like".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Nov 2, 2018)

Hamalas said:


> so the Father should interpret and explain the Scripture in the home



I don't believe that is a fair reading of the passage. In fact, it appears to be well contrary to what was written.


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 2, 2018)

Edward said:


> I don't believe that is a fair reading of the passage. In fact, it appears to be well contrary to what was written.



Obviously I wasn't clear in what I wrote so let me see if I can clarify what I was aiming at in my original post.

I think my use of the word "interpret" is what's causing confusion. So let's scratch that and let me explain what I mean.

The Larger Catechism Questions I quoted above say that all men are to read the Word diligently: "with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them; with diligence, and attention to the matter and scope of them; with meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer." There is obvious study, analysis, and attention involved with this. We are to wrestle with the text and are to work to uncover its meaning. So in that very general sense, yes, all men are called to read and "interpret" the Bible. (What's the alternative here? To read your Bible without thinking about what it's saying? Of course not.). And the father has a particular role in leading his family in the reading and study of the Scriptures (which, I think we can agree, is clearly what the Directory has in view).

Now here is what that does NOT mean:

1) It does NOT mean that the father is some sort of authoritative Pastor/priest in his home a la Doug Wilson/FV teaching. 

2) It does NOT mean that every individual takes the task of interpretation on their own shoulders with the "me-and-my-Bible" attitude described above. 

Hopefully that explains what I meant by the word "interpret" above.


----------



## Edward (Nov 2, 2018)

Hamalas said:


> And the father has a particular role in leading his family in the reading and study of the Scriptures (which, I think we can agree, is clearly what the Directory has in view).



Again, I would suggest that that is a strained reading. 



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> and it is commendable, that thereafter they confer, and by way of conference make some good use of what hath been read and heard.



That suggests a discussion by all, not a leader - follower session.


----------



## Smeagol (Nov 3, 2018)

Edward said:


> That suggests a discussion by all, not a leader - follower session.


Edward,

I think it is well within the purview of this Directory that the Father (when present) is the leader in family worship. As quoted below.

True there MUST be maintained the distinction as others above have rightly pointed between the Minister of the Church (who interprets and preaches the Word to the flock) and the Father (who reads the word and exhorts his family with the word), but the the family dynamic (headship) is still exhibited even in Family Worship. A father's role as the "Head of the Household" do not disappear during Family Worship.



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> In all which the master of the family is to have the chief hand;



and


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 3, 2018)

Edward said:


> Again, I would suggest that that is a strained reading.
> 
> 
> 
> That suggests a discussion by all, not a leader - follower session.



Brother, I'm not convinced that we actually disagree here.

Can you unpack how you interpret (see what I did there?) the Directory's comments?


----------



## Smeagol (Nov 3, 2018)

@OP

This is a good question to ponder. What is a father to do, if his pastor interprets a passage of scripture (lets say Jephthah's Daughter) differently than he would? What should I teach my wife and daughters when reading this passage to my family? For example, if my pastor taught that Jephthah vowed his daughter to the temple service and that he did not literally sacrifice her (death), can I not maintain my own view that he did in fact offer his daughter as a literal burnt offering and teach that to my family, while I still express reverence to the teaching of the pastor and note that Godly men disagree as Matthew Henry states? Would I not then be violating my conscience by teaching my family something that I was not convinced of from scripture?

I agree with the point being made by @TheOldCourse and @Tom Hart, but I wonder how father's can handle above scenarios without being out of accord with the standards.

Thoughts?


----------



## Edward (Nov 3, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> (who reads the word and exhorts his family with the word)



Again, I would suggest that you are reading into it the exact opposite of the language posted by the Rev. McMahon. The language seems clear that the head of the household is to be the _discussion_ leader, not the _exhorter_.


----------



## Smeagol (Nov 3, 2018)

Edward said:


> Again, I would suggest that you are reading into it the exact opposite of the language posted by the Rev. McMahon. The language seems clear that the head of the household is to be the _discussion_ leader, not the _exhorter_.


Not at all. I think you are trying to split a hair that I do not have.

*Exhort-*strongly encourage or urge (someone) to do something.

Fathers are called by the above directory and more supremely by scripture to exhort both their children and their wives in and with the Word of God. Being a father does not give one the right to be an ordained minster. The Directory is right distinguishing between the ministry of public worship LEAD by the Ordained minster and the role of the Father (or head of the house) in Family Worship.

Again from the Directory.


C. Matthew McMahon said:


> as also, admonition and rebuke, upon just reasons, from those who have authority in the family.





C. Matthew McMahon said:


> As, for example, if any *sin be reproved in the word read, use may be made thereof to make all the family circumspect and watchful against the same*; or if any judgment be threatened, or mentioned to have been inflicted, in that portion of scripture which is read,* use may be made to make all the family fear lest the same or a worse judgment befall them, unless they beware of the sin that procured it*: and, finally, if any duty be required, or comfort held forth in a promise, *use may be made to stir up themselves to employ Christ for strength to enable them for doing the commanded duty, and to apply the offered comfort.* In all which the *master of the family* *is to have the chief hand*;



P.S. If I as the Husband/Father am not exhorting my family in the Word, then I am failing in my God created role. I think the Directory and Scripture Compliment each other. To be clear, I am not an Ordained Minster to my Family who can Preach (properly speaking). Nor can I carry out the sacraments to them. However, I am a Husband and Father and scripture and the Directory Illustrate one of my primary roles,which is leading in daily Family Worship (prayer, catechizing, reading the word, exhorting them in the word, training them in how to read the word, answering their questions about the Word, and singing psalms).


----------



## Smeagol (Nov 3, 2018)

So which is it?



Edward said:


> The language seems clear that the head of the household is to be the _discussion_ leader, not the _exhorter_.



or



Edward said:


> That suggests a discussion by all, not a leader - follower session


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 3, 2018)

Edward, it might be helpful if you could define how you are using certain terms. I think that lies at the heart of our disconnect.

What do you mean when you say/read:

1) interpret
2) exhort


----------



## Edward (Nov 3, 2018)

Hamalas said:


> What do you mean when you say/read:
> 
> 1) interpret
> 2) exhort



For exhort, I'll just go with the dictionary definition:
"It derives from the Latin verb hortari, meaning "to incite," and it often implies the ardent urging or_ admonishing of an_ orator or_ preacher_."

For interpret, I'll offer some synonyms "expound, explicate, clarify, illuminate"

In short, I give the plain meaning to words. 

As for discussion leader, I may have left some ambiguity by trying to mimic the older language rather than use more modern terms, like "facilitator". So feel free to substitute "facilitator" for any of my uses of "discussion leader" and see if it makes more sense.


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 3, 2018)

Thanks for those definitions. 

So, are you saying that you think the Directory is forbidding fathers from urging and admonishing their families by expounding, clarifying, and illuminating the Word?


----------



## Smeagol (Nov 3, 2018)

Edward said:


> For exhort, I'll just go with the dictionary definition:
> "It derives from the Latin verb hortari, meaning "to incite," and it often implies the ardent urging or_ *admonishing* of an_ orator or_ preacher_."



You mean like this?



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> as also, *admonition* and rebuke, upon just reasons, from those who have authority in the family.




Again I am not saying that a Father is the Ordained Preacher to his family. Heads of Households are called to instruct, exhort, and admonish our families in the Word...both by the Directory and Scripture.

Again I just think you may be off base (slightly). If my daughter ask me what a bible verse or catechism question means, I am going to try to give her a biblically supported answer. If she is in sin, I am going to correct her with the word. If she does well, I will commend her with the Word. If she is discouraged, I will encourage her with the word.


----------



## Edward (Nov 3, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> You mean like this?



No.


----------



## Santos (Nov 12, 2018)

Hamalas said:


> Obviously I wasn't clear in what I wrote so let me see if I can clarify what I was aiming at in my original post.
> 
> I think my use of the word "interpret" is what's causing confusion. So let's scratch that and let me explain what I mean.
> 
> ...



Hi Hamalas,

I am a bit late to this conversation and I rarely comment here on PB however, I'm wondering if we are not to be phophet/ priest in our own homes then what does Paul mean in 1Cor 14:34-36? Or Peter In 1 Peter 2:9?

And for the folks who are talking like what Doug Wilson speaks of with regard to husband/father as prophet/priest in their "little church" in their homes is something completely foreign and contrary to Reformed thinking you might consider the sermon preached by Matthew Henry in 1704 regarding family religion. In it he refers to the "master of the family" as prophet, priest and king. Is Matthew Henry also a heratic?

http://thewestminsterstandard.org/how-to-be-a-godly-father-by-matthew-henry/

I have attached a link to a recent article on the sermon I reference by Matthew Henry located at thewestminsterstandard.org.


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 13, 2018)

Great question brother. Let me see if I can clarify my stance.

All Christians share in Christ's office-bearing in some way (this is well attested in the Scriptures and the Reformed Tradition). I think Wilson et al. takes these historic categories and uses them in new ways. So I have no issue with Matthew Henry (or William Gouge, or Richard Baxter's) use of the prophet/priest/king paradigm for fathers in the home. 

But I've seen disciples of Wilson (who I did not call a heretic by the way) use these ideas in ways that deny the authority of the church and of ordained ministers of the gospel. That's all I was trying to guard against.


----------



## Santos (Nov 13, 2018)

Hamalas said:


> Great question brother. Let me see if I can clarify my stance.
> 
> All Christians share in Christ's office-bearing in some way (this is well attested in the Scriptures and the Reformed Tradition). I think Wilson et al. takes these historic categories and uses them in new ways. So I have no issue with Matthew Henry (or William Gouge, or Richard Baxter's) use of the prophet/priest/king paradigm for fathers in the home.
> 
> But I've seen disciples of Wilson (who I did not call a heretic by the way) use these ideas in ways that deny the authority of the church and of ordained ministers of the gospel. That's all I was trying to guard against.



Thank you for the considerate response. Maybe I should have addressed my question to the group rather than you. I know that you did not call Doug Wilson a heretic and I apologize for the accusatory tone. That was not really my conscious intention. Although I may have meant it without meaning to. Regardless I apologize.

I do get a bit irrated however, when people on PB are so quick to discount everything that Doug Wilson does and says, yet they continually make excuses for or are absolutely silent with regard to Tim Keller and the likes.

I am not a Doug Wilson disciple but I will tell you that his book called Federal Husband is the best thing on the covenant family/father/husband that I have ever read. It crushed me. It destroyed my pride. And God used it to drive me to repentance. So for that I feel indebted enough to at least not allow folk to blow him off when he brings such a valuable resource to the family and church. ( And he is currently giving it away at that.)

I have never used what I have learned with regard to the federal husband/father to dismiss the authority of the the church or her ordained ministers. I have not seen that from Doug Wilson either. (I'm not saying that doesn't exsist) What I am saying is that if someone has a gripe with prophet/priest or federal husband/father in the "little church" in my house and me seeing that as my role, show me from scripture. Book. Chapter. Verse.
Peace and Grace,
Santos


----------



## sc_q_jayce (Nov 14, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> (prayer, catechizing, reading the word, exhorting them in the word, and signing psalms).



You mean like this?


----------



## Smeagol (Nov 14, 2018)

sc_q_jayce said:


> You mean like this?


of course.....duh (corrected)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sc_q_jayce (Nov 14, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> of course.....duh


I think it's pretty cool, honestly.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 14, 2018)

Santos said:


> Thank you for the considerate response. Maybe I should have addressed my question to the group rather than you. I know that you did not call Doug Wilson a heretic and I apologize for the accusatory tone. That was not really my conscious intention. Although I may have meant it without meaning to. Regardless I apologize.
> 
> I do get a bit irrated however, when people on PB are so quick to discount everything that Doug Wilson does and says, yet they continually make excuses for or are absolutely silent with regard to Tim Keller and the likes.
> 
> ...



People here are easy on Tim Keller? That's a new one to me. I would say that most on here are quite critical of both, although Wilson's compromising (or at least being weak on) justification by faith is the more serious error. I have read the Federal husband and, while I took some things from it, it also displayed his usual faults. It's a lot of nice and reasonable sounding stuff, a little provocation, a lot of culture war, but very little careful exegesis. He's a great communicator and obviously an intelligent guy but he's more a philosopher than a theologian. He takes biblical themes and general principles and runs with them well beyond anything approaching good and necessary consequence and yet practically appends a "thus saith the Lord" to them. His book on marriage, while useful in places, was similar. He tends to reason by analogy and blurs important biblical distinctions in doing so.

They are better in content than some of the pop-psychology lining Christian bookstores on these topics, but in some other ways they are worse because many of those books are at least honest about being merely (hopefully) sound advice. He presents his books as careful explications of the Bible's teaching on a subject and they are not that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Nov 23, 2018)

Historical article on Conventicles ("Conventicles in the Kirk")
https://archive.org/stream/rschsv018p2stevenson/rschsv018p2stevenson_djvu.txt

Rutherford's distinctions
https://www.reformationscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Fellowship.pdf
(The sermon mentioned above: https://www.semperreformanda.com/th...ance-of-the-kirk-of-god-by-samuel-rutherford/)


----------

