# Directory for Family Worship and home bible studies



## daveb (Dec 5, 2006)

Hello,

These to points were brought to my attention in regards to home Bible studies and I thought I'd see if anyone could offer some insight.



> 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.



I would say that the context is _family_ worship and that a home Bible study would not fall under the concern of this point.



> VII. Whatsoever have been the effects and fruits of meetings of persons of divers families in the times of corruption or trouble, (in which cases many things are commendable, which otherwise are not tolerable,) yet, when God hath blessed us with peace and purity of the gospel, such meetings of persons of divers families (except in cases mentioned in these Directions) are to be disapproved, as tending to the hinderance of the religious exercise of each family by itself, to the prejudice of the publick ministry, to the rending of the families of particular congregations, and (in progress of time) of the whole kirk. Besides many offences which may come thereby, to the hardening of the hearts of carnal men, and grief of the godly.



This is more interesting to me. It seems to be saying that there was a time when different families would gather yet that practice should not continue. Could this be applied to a home Bible study with families from various congregations? Or is this like point VI only referring to family worship and so a Bible study would not fall under this point.

Cheers.


----------



## ADKing (Dec 5, 2006)

Although I agree that family worship is what is directly in view there are probably some principles that carry over from the directory to home Bible studies. Particularly section III:

_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._

and V

_V. Let no idler, who hath no particular calling, or vagrant person under pretence of a calling, be suffered to perform worship in families, to or for the same; seeing persons tainted with errors, or aiming at division, may be ready (after that manner) to creep into houses, and lead captive silly and unstable souls._

The point I think is that care should be taken even in home Bible studies that certain "leaders" not usurp the proper teaching function of the minister and especially self-appointed teachers who have no calling from God or the church to teach. I am highly in favor of home Bible studies conducted by a minister. 

Prior to and during the reformation, often times bands of people would gather together because they had no minister in Romanist areas and this was the only way in which goldy assemblies could take place. I think what the Westminster divines were getting at was that in their day people had much freer access to gospel ministers (kirks being in every parish) and such an arrangement was not only no longer necessary but tended to draw unqualified and unappointed "teachers" who usurped the place of the local minister. 

There are all sorts of practical ways, I suppose, to guard against these dangers. However, I still think it is important that we recognize that it is the minister's calling to teach and that if at all possible we seek for him to be the one to teach.


----------



## daveb (Dec 6, 2006)

Thanks for your comments, I certainly agree. 

I take it you see that there's nothing in the directory that would prohibit Bible studies, given they're done properly?


----------



## ADKing (Dec 6, 2006)

daveb said:


> Thanks for your comments, I certainly agree.
> 
> I take it you see that there's nothing in the directory that would prohibit Bible studies, given they're done properly?



No, I do not think the directory rules out the concept of a Bible study per se. If done properly, they can be helpful and an extension of the minister's teaching function in yet another context.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 6, 2006)

I agree with Pastor King, especially concerning the important distinction between Bible studies in home lead by a minister vs. Bible studies not lead by a minister or, in the case of family worship, a head of household. There has been a previous thread on this subject. 

I would add the following. Bible study, per se, is good. The Directory for Family Worship encourages private and family reading of God's Word. It also encourages "godly conferences" and catechism. The framers, however, were aware of the dangers posed by assemblies for religious exercises, including Bible study, outside of the context of oversight by a head of household (ie., family worship) or the church (ie., small groups meeting to worship or study without the leadership of the minister). These types of meetings / studies work to the "prejudice of the publick ministry" and to the detriment of family worship, and, typically, the promotion of error and schism. The last paragraph affirms this: "...under the name and pretext of religious exercises, no such meetings or practices be allowed, as are apt to breed error, scandal, schism, contempt, or misregard of the publick ordinances and ministers, or neglect of the duties of particular callings, or such other evils as are the works, not of the Spirit, but of the flesh, and are contrary to truth and peace."

Doug Comin has this to say (_Returning to the Family Altar: A Commentary and Study Guide on the Directory for Family Worship_, pp. 53-54): 



> These wise and godly men clearly perceived the danger of multiplying meetings "under the name and pretext of religious exercises" which would be apt to result in the fragmentation of the Church and contempt for God's appointed ordinances and ministers. They sought to guard the Church against this danger by exalting the ordinances that God has ordained and demonstrating the wisdom of His design. The simple and Biblical model of individual, family and corporate worship, with careful attention given to the relationship between the family and the congregation, protects the Church from the destructive influences of individualistic autonomy, on the one hand, and heavy-handed authoritarianism, on the other. Sadly, the sage counsel and perceptive warnings of the Directory for Family Worship have not been heeded by succeeding generations. While family worship has been more and more neglected, we have seen the dawning of youth groups, age-segregated "Sunday Schools", children's church, women's meetings, men's meetings, small group meetings, singles meetings, and virtually every other kind of meeting the imagination can devise. Let the discerning reader judge for himself how prophetic was the concern of the esteemed authors of the Directory that "under the name and pretext of religious exercises, no such meetings or practices be allowed, as are apt to breed error, scandal, schism, contempt, or misregard of the publick ordinances and ministers, or neglect of the duties of particular callings, or such other evils as are the works, not of the Spirit, but of the flesh, and are contrary to truth and peace." Instead of the endless fragmentation of the Church under the guise of religious meetings, the Church of Scotland upheld the centrality of the family, and the daily gathering of the family for worship as God's appointed method of edifying His people and maintaining the unity of His Body.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 6, 2006)

Actually, I think that home bible study is pretty much in view in the DfFW. The larger gathering beyond simply the immediate family for Family Worship had been useful to the Scots Presbyterians in Northern Ireland but with the sects and Independent view of the the church to some extent being exported from London to Scotland in the 1640s the Scottish Assembly took a dim view of the practice of families gathering beyond the natural bounds for private worship. Call it an overreaction perhaps. See this thread; there may be others but I forget.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 6, 2006)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Actually, I think that home bible study is pretty much in view in the DfFW. The larger gathering beyond simply the immediate family for Family Worship had been useful to the Scots Presbyterians in Northern Ireland but with the sects and Independent view of the the church to some extent being exported from London to Scotland in the 1640s the Scottish Assembly took a dim view of the practice of families gathering beyond the natural bounds for private worship. Call it an overreaction perhaps. See this thread; there may be others but I forget.



I was going to add a similar remark. If I recall correctly, in Thoughts on Family Worship, J.A. Alexander gives some clear remarks about the worship in the home - that all who are guests in the home should be brought into the family exercises, under the headship of him who is head of the home. His remarks in that book would seem to take into account regular gatherings of friends, and bible study exercises that were ideally part of everyone's evenings. Today the fact that we have groups who gather in our homes on a weekly (or biweekly) basis for Bible Study would seem (I think), to the 17th century Christian, an oddity due to the infrequency of our modern practice. 

Todd


----------



## daveb (Dec 7, 2006)

Thank you all for your replies, they are good for me to consider. Also, those previous threads are very helpful indeed. I certainly share the concerns expressed regarding Bible studies in that they are often lead by unqualified individuals and can be a source of schism within a church undermining the role of the minister. I've seen this first hand which makes me wary to begin with.

My main concern was with whether or not the DfFW prohibited a study which it does not seem to. However, it provides excellent guidelines as to how one might be properly done, namely, by the minister. In my immediate context we have no minister to perform such duties and so the elders are looked to. I am also considered as someone who could lead studies having been taken on by the presbytery as a student minister in training and overseen by the elders and presbytery.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 7, 2006)

This info may or may not add much but I roughed it out for Doug Comin some years ago on bbwarfield list when he was getting his work on the directory ready for publication. I don't believe I've posted it here, so see at this link. DV, I may try to fill this out for an Antiquary entry for _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal someday when I finish my effusions on T & J Swords.


----------



## daveb (Dec 7, 2006)

NaphtaliPress said:


> This info may or may not add much but I roughed it out for Doug Comin some years ago on bbwarfield list when he was getting his work on the directory ready for publication. I don't believe I've posted it here, so see at this link.



Thank you brother, that is helpful.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 12, 2006)

daveb said:


> My main concern was with whether or not the DfFW prohibited a study which it does not seem to.



To me, this is a weird thread. First, since the concept of people getting together to study the Bible and pray at someone's home is not unbiblical, I fail to see what the controversy is. 

Secondly, since when does a Directory for Public Worship (or family worship, or other permutations of same) have authority to prohibit anything? Isn't the idea behind these sorts of documents to present pious advice for consideration on various subjects, on pretty much a take-it-or-leave-it basis? These documents don't have the same authority as Scripture nor, in my opinion, as the Confession and Catechisms, which are derived from Scripture.

If a group of Christians wants to get together at a private home to study the Bible, this is, to me, a completely normal and uncontroversial thing to do. Remember, Christ Himself said that if only as few as two people were gathered together in His name, He is there among them.

If some Christians in the 17th century disapproved of home Bible studies (or are interpreted by some as disapproving) - well, that's not _our_ problem.

Or am I missing something here?


----------



## ADKing (Dec 12, 2006)

bookslover said:


> Isn't the idea behind these sorts of documents to present pious advice for consideration on various subjects, on pretty much a take-it-or-leave-it basis? These documents don't have the same authority as Scripture nor, in my opinion, as the Confession and Catechisms, which are derived from Scripture.
> 
> Or am I missing something here?



No one in this thread has been saying that the Directions for Family Worship document has the same authority as scripture. I suspect you know this and were trying to make a rhetorical point. However, neither is it pious advice that can be followed or not in some denominations. In the WPCUS we have adopted it as part of our constitution and believe it should be followed along with the Confession, catechisms and all the other documents of the Westminister Assembly. Granted, many American Presbyterian denominations have long since dropped such documents. I was presuming that this discussion was taking place among those who thought it still had validity. 

Secondly, you bring up something that seems to be too common among presbyterians today. That is the idea that the Westminster standards (or whatever part of them one happens to adopt) are merely pious advice. Rather, even as the title of the document suggests this is "_*Directions* Of The General Assembly,Concerning Secret And Private Worship, And Mutual Edification; *For Cherishing Piety, For Maintaining Unity, And Avoiding Schism And Divisio*n." _ The Standards were meant to be standards of uniformity in the churches.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 12, 2006)

I agree with the thrust of what Pastor King has said. However, just as a point of clarification, the Directory for Family Worship, drafted by Robert Blair, I believe, and adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, was not a product of the Westminster Assembly, even though it is often printed with the Westminster Standards. It is, though, an excellent and godly document which is worth heeding even in the 21st century.


----------



## ADKing (Dec 12, 2006)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> I agree with the thrust of what Pastor King has said. However, just as a point of clarification, the Directory for Family Worship, drafted by Robert Blair, I believe, and adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, was not a product of the Westminster Assembly, even though it is often printed with the Westminster Standards. It is, though, an excellent and godly document which is worth heeding even in the 21st century.



Correct, I should have been more clear on that point. With its adoption by the GA of the Church of Scotland it became part of the standards of uniformity advanced by the church.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 12, 2006)

ADKing said:


> Secondly, you bring up something that seems to be too common among presbyterians today. That is the idea that the Westminster standards (or whatever part of them one happens to adopt) are merely pious advice. Rather, even as the title of the document suggests this is "_*Directions* Of The General Assembly,Concerning Secret And Private Worship, And Mutual Edification; *For Cherishing Piety, For Maintaining Unity, And Avoiding Schism And Divisio*n." _ The Standards were meant to be standards of uniformity in the churches.



Yes, but "directions" doesn't imply "directions for all times and places." After all, wisdom did not stop with Christians in the 17th century. If a modern-day conservative Reformed denomination was of a mind to do so, it's perfectly free to come up with it's own directory for worship (adhering to biblical principles and guidelines, of course). I sincerely doubt that the formers of this document expected Christians living 300 years later to adhere to it, down to the last comma!

I have a high admiration for what the Puritans and others accomplished, but sometimes I think that we Reformed 21st century folks get stuck in the 17th century.

As a friend of mine once put it, ironically, "Sometimes I think we can't choose a color to paint the outside of the church with without wondering if John Owen would approve!"

We should read the Puritans, and take the best from them without slavishly following them (and I'm *not* accusing you of this, naturally). But God gave minds to us, as well as to them, and we should us them for His glory in our day just as industriously as they did in theirs.

Hurray for the Puritans! But, hurray for us, too!


----------



## daveb (Dec 12, 2006)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> the Directory for Family Worship, drafted by Robert Blair, I believe, and adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, was not a product of the Westminster Assembly, even though it is often printed with the Westminster Standards.



Because of its inclusion with the Westminster standards it's certainly assumed by most it was a product of the assembly (I've actually never heard otherwise). Would you have any reference where this is stated explicitly? Thanks.


----------



## MW (Dec 12, 2006)

The Free Church position is well expressed in the "Act and Declaration anent the Publication of the Subordinate Standards, and other Authoritative Documents of this Church." Edinburgh, 31st May 1851. Session 19.



> These several formularies, – as ratified, with certain explanations, by divers acts of Assembly in the years 1646, 1648, and particularly in 1647, – this Church continues till this day to acknowledge as her subordinate standards of doctrine, worship, and government; – with this difference, however, as regards the authority ascribed to with them, that while the Confession of Faith contains the creed to which, as to a confession of his own faith, every office-bearer in the Church must testify in solemn form his personal adherence; – and while the Catechisms, with relative Larger and Shorter, are sanctioned as directories for catechising; – the Directory for Public Worship, the Form of Church Government, and the Directory for Family Worship, are of the nature of regulations, rather than tests, – to be enforced by the Church like her other laws, but not to be imposed by subscription upon her ministers and elders. These documents, then, together with a practical application of the doctrine of the Confession, in the Sum of Saving Knowledge, – a valuable treatise, which, though without any express act of Assembly, has for ages had its place among them, – have, ever since the era of the Second Reformation, constituted the authorized and authoritative symbolic books of the Church of Scotland.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 12, 2006)

The assumption is a mistake that simply because the document is commonly bound with and is an historic standard in Scottish Presbyterianism, that it originated with the Westminster Assembly. The person who wrote the draft of the Directions for FW for the Scottish GA was Robert Blair. It is not a Westminster document but a Scottish Presbyterian standard originating at the Scottish GA of 1647. See the already referenced post I made on another forum some time back. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/12264



daveb said:


> Because of its inclusion with the Westminster standards it's certainly assumed by most it was a product of the assembly (I've actually never heard otherwise). Would you have any reference where this is stated explicitly? Thanks.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 13, 2006)

daveb said:


> Because of its inclusion with the Westminster standards it's certainly assumed by most it was a product of the assembly (I've actually never heard otherwise). Would you have any reference where this is stated explicitly? Thanks.



The James Begg Society says this: 



> The Directory for Family Worship was composed by the Rev. A. Kerr. It is often found included in books of the Westminster Standards, although it was not produced by the Westminster Assembly of Divines.
> 
> Recognising its worth, the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland approved of the Directory of Family Worship in 1647, and appointed her ministers and ruling elders to take special care that these Directions be observed and followed in the households of their churches.



As an aside, I believe they are mistaken in attributing the authorship of this Directory to "the Rev. A. Kerr." In fact, I think "A. Ker" was actually a clerk for the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and his name appears on many documents and official notices from that time period.

Authorship aside, the above quote rightly notes that the DFW was not an official product of the Westminster Assembly but rather by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Perhaps some confusion comes from the fact that both groups are called an "Assembly" so it is often referred to as a product of the "Assembly." Perhaps the inclusion of this Directory in the book of Subordinate Standards by the Church of Scotland has lead to some confusion. But it should be noted that their book includes a variety of works which are not official Westminster Standards or products of the Westminster Assembly, e.g., Thomas Manton's Epistle to the Reader (authored in part anonymously by Richard Baxter as noted here), the Epistle to the Christian Reader, the Sum of Saving Knowledge, the Scottish National Covenant, etc. It is a helpful convenience for many to have these documents published together, but that does not mean they are all official products of the Westminster Assembly. 

Doug Comin, _op. cit._, p. 7:



> In fact, when all was said and done, it was only the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland which formally and officially adopted the documents produced at Westminster. These included the Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, the Shorter Catechism, the Form of Presbyterial Church Government, and the Directory for Public Worship. To this catalogue of creeds would later be added the Directory for Family Worship, produced and adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1647. Though not a direct product of the Westminster Assembly, the Directory for Family Worship demonstrates the concern of the Scottish Church to address the need for consistency in doctrine and practice at every level. The date of its composition and adoption suggests, at least, that the Church of Scotland perceived the work of the Westminster Assembly incomplete without a specific document outlining the particular duties of families with regard to the religious instruction of their children.



For further study on the official products of the Westminster Assembly, you might see John Murray's _The Work of the Westminster Assembly_ or William Hetherington, _History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines_, Chapter 6, "The Theological Productions of the Westminster Assembly" or _To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly_ (1994), edited by John L. Carson and David W. Hall, which has a chapter devoted to each official "Westminster Standard." 

A while back I started a thread on the subject of official and non-official "Westminster Standards," which may also be of interest.


----------

