# Godly Conference, especially on the Lord's Day



## Afterthought (Mar 7, 2017)

One of the duties of the Lord's day is "godly conference" (although, interestingly, not mentioned in the Larger Catechism as a duty; perhaps I mispeak in calling it a "duty"). For some, this seems to be easier to do than others. For some, it is easier to have godly conference with certain persons and harder with others. So let's discuss....

1) How might one get better at "godly conference," especially when one tries to speak of spiritual matters but the conversation is shut down immediately (or almost immediately) by silence on the other person(s)'s end?

2) What are some things one might keep in the back of one's mind to discuss, as an aid to beginning a spiritual conversation or to turn a conversation that has diverted to one about worldly matters?

3) It would seem to some degree, conversation about other matters ("how are you?" "how was your week" etc.) are necessities, especially when getting to know someone. What are some strategies for keeping the conversation from dwelling in these sorts of matters and turning it to more spiritual matters?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Mar 7, 2017)

Afterthought said:


> What are some strategies from keeping the conversation from dwelling in these sorts of matters and turning it to more spiritual matters?



Good questions, Raymond. I would just note that taking an interest in other people's well-being and health is a spiritual matter in itself. 3 John 2.

Reactions: Like 6 | Edifying 1


----------



## earl40 (Mar 7, 2017)

Not to sound off, but trying to steer a conversation toward a direction the other person wishes not to go will be looked at as some type of trap. Of course we can try, but once resistance is met it is time to be kind and understand most of our cultures today think little to nothing about The Lord's day as being special.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 7, 2017)

MW said:


> Good questions, Raymond. I would just note that taking an interest in other people's well-being and health is a spiritual matter in itself. 3 John 2.



Indeed, though talking about our prostrate problems ad infinitum wears me out.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Afterthought (Mar 7, 2017)

MW said:


> I would just note that taking an interest in other people's well-being and health is a spiritual matter in itself. 3 John 2.


Good point. Of course, by "spiritual matters," I mean the sorts of things that, say, Thomas Watson outlines: http://www.apuritansmind.com/purita...y-and-holy-conversation-by-rev-thomas-watson/

He doesn't seem to leave room for having a conversation that dwells only on taking an interest in other people's well-being and health. He could be wrong, of course, or just incomplete--addressing matters in his own context and day that are different from our own.




earl40 said:


> Not to sound off, but trying to steer a conversation toward a direction the other person wishes not to go will be looked at as some type of trap. Of course we can try, but once resistance is met it is time to be kind and understand most of our cultures today think little to nothing about The Lord's day as being special.


It would seem to depend on how the coversation is done; there are some who do this better than others. And it takes more than one to converse, and it is a basic fact that conversations are steered one way or another (unless they are just left to the whim of whatever the people are thinking at the moment).


----------



## Cymro (Mar 8, 2017)

Hi Raymond, your denominational heritage supplies the answer. It was and is the age old practice still in the Isle of Lewis to gather in homes after the evening service, particularly following the four days of the communion weekend. There can be three or four present or twenty four, the 'chair' being filled with a senior man usually an elder. The fellowship would start off by the sermon being discussed and any points of blessing or difficulty being contributed from anyone. It could then enlarge to a doctrinal issue which exercises the minds of some present. The senior man quietly steers the gathering away from any looseness of talk, but it still involves cut and thrust, deliberate red herrings to provoke thought, and godly humour. It all concludes with family worship using the men present for precenting, reading and prayer.
Many confess that it is sometimes the case that they get more from such meetings than the sermon they heard. Iron sharpens iron, and it is a means of developing not only ones doctrinal understanding, but of strengthening the bond between the saints. These meetings are common to the other Presbyterian denominations there, indeed that is where they originated. As for one to one conversation, don't let it degenerate to common place talk, but wisely turn it back to those things that are good for the soul. The person will show where their desire lies by the responses forthcoming. If you can have one or two of the same mind to share with,it invariably draws others to want to talk and meet.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 2


----------



## Steve Curtis (Mar 8, 2017)

earl40 said:


> our prostrate problem


Difficulty lying down?


----------



## py3ak (Mar 12, 2017)

Many people are, sadly enough, not used to a context where it is acceptable to discuss spiritual matters. The privatization of American religion means that it's often an expectation to keep that "side" of your life discreetly out of view, even while at church. A lot of times it will be up to you to make the first attempt.

But one gentle way to give a conversation a spiritual turn is after hearing about some difficulty to express the intention to pray about it. That opens the door for the other person to share not only the circumstance, but also the struggles of their heart in facing it. Sometimes this is all that it takes. You can lead in this area also by saying that something in today's sermon was beneficial to you because of _________________.

Another way is that if people are unwilling to get personal, whether for good or bad reasons, still profitable matters of doctrine and history can be discussed without seeming invasive. Sometimes conversations that become profitable start off with what can sounds like unhelpful expressions, so it's important to be patient. For instance, when you mention the sermon to someone their immediate response may not be positive but an expression of frustration. Yet that might be an opportunity for you to be of service to them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 12, 2017)

Cymro said:


> Hi Raymond, your denominational heritage supplies the answer. It was and is the age old practice still in the Isle of Lewis to gather in homes after the evening service, particularly following the four days of the communion weekend. There can be three or four present or twenty four, the 'chair' being filled with a senior man usually an elder. The fellowship would start off by the sermon being discussed and any points of blessing or difficulty being contributed from anyone. It could then enlarge to a doctrinal issue which exercises the minds of some present. The senior man quietly steers the gathering away from any looseness of talk, but it still involves cut and thrust, deliberate red herrings to provoke thought, and godly humour. It all concludes with family worship using the men present for precenting, reading and prayer.
> Many confess that it is sometimes the case that they get more from such meetings than the sermon they heard. Iron sharpens iron, and it is a means of developing not only ones doctrinal understanding, but of strengthening the bond between the saints. These meetings are common to the other Presbyterian denominations there, indeed that is where they originated. As for one to one conversation, don't let it degenerate to common place talk, but wisely turn it back to those things that are good for the soul. The person will show where their desire lies by the responses forthcoming. If you can have one or two of the same mind to share with,it invariably draws others to want to talk and meet.



How would this be consistent with the Directory for Family Worship? See:

"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."


----------



## Cymro (Mar 12, 2017)

Perhaps I should not have said "family" worship, sorry. It is worship of the saints concluding the fellowship, generally taken by the Ministers if present, or led by an elder.Because it is in the home I misapplied the circumstance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 12, 2017)

There was a specific historical context for this; the spread of sectarianism from England. If that had not been occurring I doubt you'd have seen this added as it was recognized that gathering of families had been useful in Ireland (under John Livingstone's ministry) and it was disallowing that practice. That's from memory; I think Baillie discusses this.


TheOldCourse said:


> How would this be consistent with the Directory for Family Worship? See:
> 
> "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."


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 12, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> There was a specific historical context for this; the spread of sectarianism from England. If that had not been occurring I doubt you'd have seen this added as it was recognized that gathering of families had been useful in Ireland (under John Livingstone's ministry) and it was disallowing that practice. That's from memory; I think Baillie discusses this.



That's interesting, but it seems like the next statement, quoted below, makes it more of a general, standing principle. Certainly they were responding to a context in which the Independants had subverted the public ministry through private gatherings, but the point that it tends "to the hinderance of the religious exercise of each family by itself" seems to transcend the immediate context, no? In my reading, Livingstone would have been considered under "times of corruption or trouble" wherein such gatherings were commendable.

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.​
Do you recall where in Baillie he talks about it? I searched for it for awhile and, while I found some comments about the Independants spreading error and opposing lawful ministry in private gatherings in his A Dissuasive from the Errours of the Time, I didn't find anything that was directly to the point.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 12, 2017)

I'm thinking Letters and Journals; but see my old post here: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ectory-for-family-worship.81520/#post-1026297


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 12, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm thinking Letters and Journals; but see my old post here: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ectory-for-family-worship.81520/#post-1026297



Thanks, fascinating stuff. The article by Stevenson that you mention in that thread as not having access to can be read here: https://archive.org/stream/rschsv018p2stevenson#page/99/mode/2up

I'll have to track down his "The Radical Party in the Kirk, 1937-45" too, as that may shed more light on the matter.

It's interesting that the DFW uses very similar language to the royalists in condemning private assemblies for worship with exceptions for visitors sharing home or meal. If that's the case it's still hard for me to see the prohibition as being narrowly contextual in intent by the Assembly. It seems rather that the allowances for such assemblies are contextual.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 12, 2017)

Thanks for that link; that was interesting. I wish Stevenson had been more clear about some things but it is a good resource. Can you unpack what you say below some more? Do you mean Directory for Worship or for the Directory for Family Worship?


TheOldCourse said:


> It's interesting that the DFW uses very similar language to the royalists in condemning private assemblies for worship with exceptions for visitors sharing home or meal. If that's the case it's still hard for me to see the prohibition as being narrowly contextual in intent by the Assembly. It seems rather that the allowances for such assemblies are contextual.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 12, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Thanks for that link; that was interesting. I wish Stevenson had been more clear about some things but it is a good resource. Can you unpack what you say below some more? Do you mean Directory for Worship or for the Directory for Family Worship?



I agree re: Stevenson. I'm hoping that the other article I mentioned but that I don't have access to at home may shed a little light in areas where he was vague.

I meant the Directory for Family Worship (DFW). I found the statement in the DFW, together with your work on its background and Baillie's comments:

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.

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.​
to be similar in many ways to Stevenson's report of the proceedings of the Privy Council in 1924 (p. 104):

The sort of fears raised by the activities of the dissidents are shown in a proclamation against private meetings published on 10th June 1624. This related that some “affecting hypocriticallie the glorie of puritie and zeale above others” cast off obedience to the king and ministers, abstaining from worship “and in end, numbers of them have assembled themselfs in private houses in Edinburgh, and other places, to hear from intruding ministers, preachings, exhortations, prayers, and all sort of exercises fitting their unrulie fantasies”. Moreover they did this in time of public
worship in the kirks, and gave their seditious conventicles the name of congregations. This introduced corruption in church government, and previously “such pernicious seeds of separation, singularitie of blind or fained zeale, have brought furth damned sects of Anabaptists, Familie of Love, Brounists, Arminians, Illuminats, and many such pests, enemies to religion, authoritie, and peace, and occasioned the murther of millions of people, and infinite other disturbances”. Such meetings were therefore forbidden, except for religious exercise in families, which might be joined by any visitor eating or lodging with the family, but by no other stranger.​This suggests to me that, while careful to make exceptions for times of trouble as in the case of Rutherford or Livingstone, the Assembly's work in the DFW was reiterating a set of fundamental concerns regarding the impact of private gatherings on the peace and sufficiency of the public ministry of the church. The language is moderated and somewhat more limited in scope in the DFW, but it seems that a similar set of concerns was on the authors' minds. There was sufficient evidence of the potential usefulness of private gatherings for them to adopt a clearer _abusus non tollit usum _qualification if that had been their intent. It's disappointing that Stevenson suggests that those in favor of private gatherings won the battle at Westminster with the support of meetings for "mutual edification" (I assume referencing WCF 26) but doesn't interact with the DFW at all.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Mar 13, 2017)

TheOldCourse said:


> That's interesting, but it seems like the next statement, quoted below, makes it more of a general, standing principle. Certainly they were responding to a context in which the Independants had subverted the public ministry through private gatherings, but the point that it tends "to the hinderance of the religious exercise of each family by itself" seems to transcend the immediate context, no? In my reading, Livingstone would have been considered under "times of corruption or trouble" wherein such gatherings were commendable.
> 
> 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.​
> Do you recall where in Baillie he talks about it? I searched for it for awhile and, while I found some comments about the Independants spreading error and opposing lawful ministry in private gatherings in his A Dissuasive from the Errours of the Time, I didn't find anything that was directly to the point.



In reading this thread, and particularly this section, the thought occurs that perhaps the popular US practice of home groups/small groups on Sunday PM's in leiu of Sun PM worship might tend toward producing some similar problems: undermining the sufficiency of public worship, the authority of the elders, the purity of doctrine, or the peace of the church. 

Just a stab at a similar modern application. This has been a helpful thread, as the great majority of Christians don't keep the Sabbath or understand such a practice as godly conference.


----------



## MW (Mar 13, 2017)

With regard to the sidelight-question on the Directory, there is a section in William Wilson's Defence of the Reformation Principles against Mr. Currie, which bears on the interpretation of this part of the Directory, besides showing that the words of the Directory tend to be understood in different ways. One of the points I recall is that Wilson rejected the idea of interpreting the later Act of Assembly in light of the earlier issue over fellowship meetings, especially considering the prelatic spirit behind the earlier issue. William Hetherington makes a similar point in his History of the Church of Scotland.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 13, 2017)

MW said:


> With regard to the sidelight-question on the Directory, there is a section in William Wilson's Defence of the Reformation Principles against Mr. Currie, which bears on the interpretation of this part of the Directory, besides showing that the words of the Directory tend to be understood in different ways. One of the points I recall is that Wilson rejected the idea of interpreting the later Act of Assembly in light of the earlier issue over fellowship meetings, especially considering the prelatic spirit behind the earlier issue. William Hetherington makes a similar point in his History of the Church of Scotland.



Thanks Matthew, I'll be interested to take a look at that.


----------

