Decline in the public reading of the Scripture?

[RTaron]

But as we have gradually moved to the Reformed position, our Scripture reading has increased. [snip] read a chapter per week through a book (currently Isaiah) and then read the passage for the sermon.

I agree, you are following principle and wisdom outlined in the Directory.
1. It is a separate part or element of worship and
2. it is one mean sanctified by God for the edifying of his people, "that the people may be better acquainted with the whole body of the scriptures."

One thing we have tried to do often is teach the congregation why this is important. I will routinely review our order of worship for the congregation and give them the reasons behind what we do.

Amen, may the Lord bless your endeavor to Worship Him in spirit and truth.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Rowland Ward writes (in Richard A. Muller and Rowland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation & the Directory for Worship, pp. 121-122):

Of Public Reading of the Holy Scriptures

This section of the directory states that reading belongs to the ministerial office. The Scottish Church had been used to readers for the earlier part of the service. By the 1640s they were mainly men who had the ministry in view. The directory permits such to occasionally read and preach, if allowed by the presbytery. This was a concession compared to the norm of Reformed churches, judged by practice in Europe, but more strict than the Independent view. The Independents were in favor of greater lay participation; indeed, the Scots were fearful that the liberty granted to expound would provide an opportunity for lay preaching.

The directory anticipates that the canonical books will be read in order so that "ordinarily, where the reading in either Testament endeth on one Lord's Day, it is to begin the next." The value of this, particularly given low levels of literacy, is obvious. More frequent (additional) reading of books like the book of Psalms is recommended. Any exposition is to follow the reading, not to be interspersed with it. This statement was not a direction to add expository comments, but was soon elaborated in Scotland to an extended lecture/commentary distinct from the subsequent sermon, a practice already common among the Independents in England. In effect the "double sermon" embodied two traditions -- the exposition of Scripture favored by the early Reformers and a doctrinal discourse on an isolated text more usual in the pre-Reformation context.[23] Indeed, strange as it may seem, reading of Scripture as a distinct element in worship was widely absent from Scottish services until the nineteenth century, being swallowed up by expository comments -- hence the direction of the Established Church of Scotland Assembly in 1856.[24]

[23] This is the hypothesis of Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures, 5:28-30.
[24] In 1856 ministers were enjoined "to observe the recommendations contained in it respecting the reading of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments at each diet of worship," and the hope is also expressed "that the principles maintained in that Directory will be duly observed."

 

[RTaron]

Rowland Ward writes (in Richard A. Muller and Rowland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation & the Directory for Worship, pp. 121-122):

Indeed, strange as it may seem, reading of Scripture as a distinct element in worship was widely absent from Scottish services until the nineteenth century, being swallowed up by expository comments -- hence the direction of the Established Church of Scotland Assembly in 1856.[24]

Andrew, this sweeping assertion that they did not read as a distinct part of worship from to 1856 is really hard to believe.

If they would scruple to line out the psalms, which was against their normal practice, and that only a temporary requirement in the DPW, how could this direct requirement be widely absent?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Andrew, this sweeping assertion that they did not read as a distinct part of worship from to 1856 is really hard to believe.

If they would scruple to line out the psalms, which was against their normal practice, and that only a temporary requirement in the DPW, how could this direct requirement be widely absent?

I think the key phrase to note here in what Ward is saying (and please note that I am neither supporting nor arguing against his assertion or his wording of the asssertion but rather seeking to clarify) is "being swallowed up by expository comments." He is not saying that reading the Scriptures didn't happen. He is saying, I think, that the plain reading of Scriptures was "swallowed up" by expository comments so much so that it became a "double sermon," rather than a plain reading of Scriptures distinct from the preaching of the Word. Does that make sense?

 

[Grace Alone]

Our pastor is reading through the whole Bible by reading one chapter each Sunday before the sermon. He is nearing the end of Exodus. Then for the sermon, he usually reads a full chapter of whatever book he is preaching in, plus many verses throughout the sermon. So we generally have two full chapters read to us during a service. He only says a couple of introductory sentences about the Exodus chapter he reads and of course gives an expository message on the chapter he reads for the sermon.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

C.W. Baird (Eutaxia, or the Presbyterian Liturgies: Historical Sketches, 1856) and W.D. Maxwell (An Outline of Christian Worship, 1936) both comment on the 1856 recommendation of the Assembly and note the decline in reading as a distinct element of Scottish Presbyterian worship which preceded it.

 

[RTaron]

Andrew yes, I see that makes sense. His emphasis is on the over abundance of comments.

Thanks for the quote. And for those other links you posted. I read through some of them and found an interesting page by a Canadian Reformed minister defending their form of worship.
The Beauty of Reformed Liturgy

He says:

Although this reading of Scripture stems from Old Testament times, we do not propose to do it the same way, i.e., a continuous reading according to a one or three-year program. The minister selects the passages in harmony with his text and sermon. The rule should be at least two passages, one from the Old, one from the New Testament.

I think it would be crossing the line and becoming leagalistic to argue that this practice is wrong. However, I am curious to know if this was the standard practice of the continental churches during the reformation and following?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Rick -- You are welcome. I'm glad that made sense. I have some thoughts on this (I think the Continental Reformed practice historically has favored lectio continua Scripture readings over lectio selecta albeit with certain exceptions to the rule such as the Ten Commandments or on the occasion of holy days) but I would think some Dutch members might want to weigh in here (I came across comments on this subject in book review by Danny Hyde, for instance) and perhaps comments on the outworkings of this historically in Continental Reformed worship. Meanwhile, there is also this recent blog post by Lane which may be of interest:

Lectio Continua Scripture Reading « Green Baggins

 

[RTaron]

Right on Lectio Continua Scripture reading !!

What's up Continental guys--- lets get with it! What is the problem?

(hoping to stir something up)

 

[RTaron]

Thanks! to everyone who commented about their various reading practices.

I learned a fancy word--- Lectio Contiua--- thanks to Green Baggens blog post.

Unless the Dutch guys have anything to say about why they don't Lectio Continua, I guess we are done here.

My goal was to draw some attention to this important part of our worship and stir us all up to a more perfect way.
I also thought I might learn something about why the practice is different in various churches.

Have a great Lord's Day everyone!