# Private Interpretation...or not?



## Arch2k (Dec 7, 2005)

This is a question that I have had for some time. 

The Directory for Family Worship states:



> 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.



How does the bolded section jive with the Reformation principle of private interpretation?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 7, 2005)

Actually, the remainder of the para. rather supports the principle of private interpretation, properly understood. That principle states that the Scriptures are understandable, as opposed to arcane; and that by the due use of ordinary means (including teachers), any Christian can come to a right understanding of it, he being possessed of the same Spirit who inspired the Bible originally. This is not saying that all parts are equally clear, or that he will gain an exhaustive comprehension of any given partof it. But that which is necessary for his salvation will certainly be made plain to him.

The principle of private interpretation supports, then, the family (and individual) reading of Scripture. This para. is especially drected against the creation of pseudo-churches, private gatherings where self-styled leaders emerge and charismatics gather a following. The dir. for worship is hostile to any Bible-study _outside a God-ordained structure like the family_ that exists outside of a church-government framework. In other words, in teaching gatherings, oversight is demanded. The elders and minsters are to be involved in direct monitoring (if not actively leading) such.

I do not think the DoW prohibits Joe from witnessing to Sam, or pulling out his Bible and showing Sam what it says, even if this is a regular habit. But it does indicate that Joe has a duty to direct Sam to the church for regular care and instruction, and not set himself up (on his own authority) as Sam's spiritual mentor. Joe can do this most easily by frequent reference in conversation to his own regular instruction in the Word--Christian education in the church.

Private interpretation does not mean autonomous interpretation.


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 8, 2005)

Thanks Bruce!


----------



## Scott (Dec 8, 2005)

R. Scott Clark has mentioned the idea that ministerial interpretations from the pulpit have mor judicial authority than private judgments. Perhaps that is what also this means.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2005)

From _Returning to the Family Altar: A Commentary and Study Guide on the Directory for Family Worship_ by Douglas W. Comin:



> The Directory is careful to stress the fact that the content of family worship is not to be seen in the same light as the preaching of the Word from the pulpit. The ministerial calling is to have a special place in the estimation of the saints, since Christ has gifted His Church with pastor-teachers whose appointed role is to labour in the Word (Ephesians 4:11-12). Family worship, then, is not to be a challenge to the pulpit, nor is the father to set himself up in his family as one called to the preaching of the Word. This caution is necessary for two reasons. First, because the office of pastor and minister of the Word is a special calling from God which no one is to pretend to occupy without the approval of the Church. Second, because the authority of this calling is easily disparaged by a spirit of egalitarianism which, in seeking to maintain the "priesthood of all believers," reduces the esteem of the pastor in the eyes of the people. The task of the father in family worship is to help his family to understand and apply the specific exhortations and comforts of the Word to their particular situations, but he is to do so in such a way that he is not seen to be undermining or usurping the role of the minister in the midst of his household. The character of family worship, described in the Directory, is therefore more in the form of a "conference" presided over by the head of the household, than a sermon preached by the father to his family.


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> From _Returning to the Family Altar: A Commentary and Study Guide on the Directory for Family Worship_ by Douglas W. Comin:
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the quote Andrew. I would like to get a copy of this commentary for myself someday.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Thanks for the quote Andrew. I would like to get a copy of this commentary for myself someday.



You're welcome, Jeff! It's definitely worth getting, and it's available at Crown & Covenant Publications.


----------



## Scott (Dec 13, 2005)

Andrew: That is a helpful quote. I did not even know there was a commentary on the directory.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Andrew: That is a helpful quote. I did not even know there was a commentary on the directory.



It's been a very helpful resource for me as well. I highly recommend it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 13, 2005)

*\"Directions\" for Secret and Family Worship*

Bit of trivia. The Dunlop edition of the standards (1719) was evidently the first to title the _Directions of the General Assembly, concerning Secret and Private Worship,_ as _The Directory for Family Worship._ See _Antiquary,_ "The Development of the Traditional Form of the Westminster Standards," in the 2005 issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal (more here). 

One of the contexts of the drafting of the _Directions_ was the growth and spread of Independency. This is the reason the Assembly writes against the gathering of mutliple families for family worship in section 6.


> VI. At family-worship, a special care is to be had that each family keep by themselves; neither requiring, inviting, nor admitting persons from divers families, unless it be those who are lodged with them, or at meals, or otherwise with them upon some lawful occasion.


Such larger family conferences actually had been of great benefit to the Presbyterians in Ulster earlier when Livingston and Blair ministered there before the massacres by the Catholics in 1641. What is interesting is that Blair was the author of the draft of the _Directions._

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 13, 2005)

Chris,

That is a most helpful piece of history. I think it helps to understand that independancy is one of the battles the DFW is addressing. 

Thanks!


----------

