I consider "Who ought to read scripture in public worship?" to be somewhat of a tempest in a teapot. The Scripture itself carries the authority, not the one who reads them. For many years, our PCA church had various men, some elders and some laymen, both read Scripture and pray in our morning worship service. Our pastor chose to do this because he saw the value of tapping into the strengths and abilities of congregation, notwithstanding the tradition of the PCA.
We recognize that the grace and efficacy of a sacrament is independent of the piety or intention of the one administering, and is totally dependent on the work of the Spirit. We should similarly recognize that the grace and efficacy of the Scripture is independent who is reading it, and is totally dependent on the work of the Spirit,
Let the Scripture be read by anyone who can read clearly and accurately. The Word and the Spirit say come!
Ok but where in the scriptures themselves does it prohibit women from publicly reading scripture? If the confession adds to scripture that is unscriptural itself - right ?
Good and necessary inference. If the reading in public worship is an authoritative act...and even if only speaking Paul's prohibition may come into play.
If our Lord Jesus stated that women must remain silent servants in worship, I have yet to find the chapter and verse - and I have searched for it even in the apocryphal books.
Frankly, there are a lot of elders (and even some ministers) who don't read well, or know how to read well (or pray) in public. And a lot women who do. If a man, because he's ordained as an officebearer stumbles over reading Scripture in the congregation, that's not particularly edifying. And if a woman can do it flawlessly, with good diction and inflection, appropriately observing the punctuation and getting across the meaning of what is read, then what's the problem? (I've observed this happening quite a few times over the years.) That anybody objects to such a thing I find, well, amazing. And simply wrong.
How this relates, if at all, to "responsive readings" of Scripture by the entire congregation would be of great interest to me---e.g., what's the biblical, historical, and confessional support for this practice (where unordained men, women, boys, and girls all read the Scripture in unison after a minister (usually) reads a verse/line).
I know some proponents of the RPW---which we all must be (even as we debate application and some of the tougher questions on circumstance vs. element) as those who submit to the teaching of Scripture distilled in the Westminster Standards---say that since the reading of Scripture is an element of worship linked to the office of the pastor/minister, that therefore congregational responsive readings are out of order.
If someone has some resources or insights on this, please note them for our benefit. Thanks!
“Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching (τῇ ἀναγνώσει, τῇ παρακλήσει, τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ). Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.” (1 Tim. 4:12-14).
I like this post. It’s silly to have anyone other than ordained men read scripture to the congregation. It’s why I refused to do “advent” readings as a family when asked during that time of year. Keep pushing this please it will iron out other problems at the same time.
"Silly", is it? Our PCA congregation has had women's studies leaders do Advent readings in the past: I'm here to testify that the lectern never caught fire, and no one caught Hades after the fact. The classic nuclear family -- devoid of The Alphabet Society -- plays a major role in anchoring and growing our churches. I'm disheartened that women are relegated to children, coffee etiquette, and "sexregated" study groups, thus fulfilling Driscoll's Declaration... (Look it up.)
The PCA has already placed many unordained woman experts above all officers except their immediate peers who collaborated to produce the DASA report. This report amounts to authority laundering, as it indicates elders are beholden to submit to its teachings on account of its self-styled faithfulness to, or true interpretation of, the Westminster standards.
Note: the theological section was written by a TE. Women were invited to contribute to the writing based on their area of expertise. The committee itself was made up of TEs and REs, who unanimously voted to approve the report and it's advice. Since there were no recommendations offered to the Assembly, the report remains the "pious advice" of a duly appointed ad interim committee of the General Assembly. I can see no breach of authority here. Everything was done decently and in order.
If the children of God have listened to their fathers in faith, they know that "the word of God is the only rule to direct us" and are constrained by the 5th commandment to heed the pious advice of elders.
The DASA report claims to be an expression of scriptural ethic and the Westminster Standards. Those officers who read it are gently reminded of their vows on the subject of standards. Yet, to heed would necessarily have officers coming under the authoritative declarations of expert women, since their contributions were regarded as essential and cannot be separated from the content or the declarative portions of it.
I consider "Who ought to read scripture in public worship?" to be somewhat of a tempest in a teapot. The Scripture itself carries the authority, not the one who reads them. For many years, our PCA church had various men, some elders and some laymen, both read Scripture and pray in our morning worship service. Our pastor chose to do this because he saw the value of tapping into the strengths and abilities of congregation, notwithstanding the tradition of the PCA.
We recognize that the grace and efficacy of a sacrament is independent of the piety or intention of the one administering, and is totally dependent on the work of the Spirit. We should similarly recognize that the grace and efficacy of the Scripture is independent who is reading it, and is totally dependent on the work of the Spirit,
Let the Scripture be read by anyone who can read clearly and accurately. The Word and the Spirit say come!
Ok but where in the scriptures themselves does it prohibit women from publicly reading scripture? If the confession adds to scripture that is unscriptural itself - right ?
Good and necessary inference. If the reading in public worship is an authoritative act...and even if only speaking Paul's prohibition may come into play.
If our Lord Jesus stated that women must remain silent servants in worship, I have yet to find the chapter and verse - and I have searched for it even in the apocryphal books.
Frankly, there are a lot of elders (and even some ministers) who don't read well, or know how to read well (or pray) in public. And a lot women who do. If a man, because he's ordained as an officebearer stumbles over reading Scripture in the congregation, that's not particularly edifying. And if a woman can do it flawlessly, with good diction and inflection, appropriately observing the punctuation and getting across the meaning of what is read, then what's the problem? (I've observed this happening quite a few times over the years.) That anybody objects to such a thing I find, well, amazing. And simply wrong.
How this relates, if at all, to "responsive readings" of Scripture by the entire congregation would be of great interest to me---e.g., what's the biblical, historical, and confessional support for this practice (where unordained men, women, boys, and girls all read the Scripture in unison after a minister (usually) reads a verse/line).
I know some proponents of the RPW---which we all must be (even as we debate application and some of the tougher questions on circumstance vs. element) as those who submit to the teaching of Scripture distilled in the Westminster Standards---say that since the reading of Scripture is an element of worship linked to the office of the pastor/minister, that therefore congregational responsive readings are out of order.
If someone has some resources or insights on this, please note them for our benefit. Thanks!
“Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching (τῇ ἀναγνώσει, τῇ παρακλήσει, τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ). Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.” (1 Tim. 4:12-14).
I like this post. It’s silly to have anyone other than ordained men read scripture to the congregation. It’s why I refused to do “advent” readings as a family when asked during that time of year. Keep pushing this please it will iron out other problems at the same time.
"Silly", is it? Our PCA congregation has had women's studies leaders do Advent readings in the past: I'm here to testify that the lectern never caught fire, and no one caught Hades after the fact. The classic nuclear family -- devoid of The Alphabet Society -- plays a major role in anchoring and growing our churches. I'm disheartened that women are relegated to children, coffee etiquette, and "sexregated" study groups, thus fulfilling Driscoll's Declaration... (Look it up.)
Thankful for this post. Very much relates, it seems to me, with the WCF and WLC stating that only the minister may administer the sacraments.
The PCA has already placed many unordained woman experts above all officers except their immediate peers who collaborated to produce the DASA report. This report amounts to authority laundering, as it indicates elders are beholden to submit to its teachings on account of its self-styled faithfulness to, or true interpretation of, the Westminster standards.
Note: the theological section was written by a TE. Women were invited to contribute to the writing based on their area of expertise. The committee itself was made up of TEs and REs, who unanimously voted to approve the report and it's advice. Since there were no recommendations offered to the Assembly, the report remains the "pious advice" of a duly appointed ad interim committee of the General Assembly. I can see no breach of authority here. Everything was done decently and in order.
If the children of God have listened to their fathers in faith, they know that "the word of God is the only rule to direct us" and are constrained by the 5th commandment to heed the pious advice of elders.
The DASA report claims to be an expression of scriptural ethic and the Westminster Standards. Those officers who read it are gently reminded of their vows on the subject of standards. Yet, to heed would necessarily have officers coming under the authoritative declarations of expert women, since their contributions were regarded as essential and cannot be separated from the content or the declarative portions of it.
Can't have us learning from women... Even when vetted and approved by a committee of men.
Christ first appeared to a *woman* to make His resurrection known to the immediate world. So no way can men learn from women. Nope; can't happen.