Worship: the Heart of Religion - Who Should Lead in Worship?

In our last blog post we looked at how the word of God always has the priority in reformed worship.  The modern church has replaced the word with music and entertainment.  The worship band rather than the word of God is central to most of our churches.  Nashville rather than the Scriptures are our inspiration for how God is to be worshiped.  If it sounds good and makes us feel good, we sing it.  That was not the position of those who composed the Westminster Confession and the subordinate standards.  The question in the modern Free Church is, 'do we still adhere to these standards or do we know better?'

In our last post we turned to a book published in 1993 'Crown Him Lord of All - Essays on the Life and Witness of the Free Church of Scotland.'  We took a lot from the chapter by Rev Hector Cameron 'Worship: the Heart of Religion.'  Rev Cameron reminds us in that the Westminster Divines believed that no worship is acceptable unless it is prescribed by Holy Scripture.  As reformed Christians we gently but firmly believe in Biblical principle not pragmatism.  The issue in worship is not what is acceptable but what is Biblical.  

In his essay, Rev Cameron reminds us that the Westminster Divines believed there were 6 parts or divisions belonging to public worship:

• Prayer

• The reading of the Word

• Sound preaching

• Conscionable listening to the Word

• The singing of Psalms

• The administration of the sacraments

Rev Cameron goes on to explain these parts of worship outlining the reformed, and until recently, the Free Church position.  A very live issue in many reformed circles at the moment is who should participate in worship.  This is where the subordinate standards are so helpful and instructive.  To the reformers and (most) Puritans, the worship of God was so important that only those appointed and approved were to be allowed to conduct public worship.  

Pulpit versus Audience Participation

While the congregation are to be involved, the Free Church have always maintained that an ordained and/or qualified and approved preacher should lead, read and preach.  We are not Cromwellian Independents.  We do not believe that every member should take to the pulpit to lead, pray, read or preach.  The person leading must be qualified and recognised as suitable.  It is not the role of the service to display the priesthood of all believers.  This is a spiritual status to be taught and lived out in our corporate church life but Presbyterians have traditionally believed that only those who are approved and appointed should lead in public worship.    

Most commonly this has been manifested in recent years in the public reading of scripture which has been opened out to ordinary members both male and female.  There was some debate at the Westminster Assembly as to who could publicly read the Scriptures and preach with the Scots Commissioners wanting the office of 'reader' to be retained from the Reformation as well as 'pastors and teachers'.  The Directory allows for a divinity student to be involved to test his gift for the ministry.  The Scottish church have generally  interpreted 'teacher' to include lay preachers, missionaries and elders who need to be 'apt to teach' as part of their qualification.  Presbyteries have, in the past, created lists of men (normally elders) who are qualified and able to preach so there is a recognition of their gifts.

The Bible seems clear about women leading in public worship in 1 Timothy 2.  But those who promote the view of woman leading in worship quote verses such as Acts 18 v 26, Colossians 3 v 16 and refer to women being involved in worship in the Corinthian church.  I would argue that Acts and Colossians are simply talking about private discussion at most in the context of a fellowship. If my wife, over dinner, suggested to the preacher (a modern day Apollos) that he might want to consult the reformers or puritans to enrich or correct his theology, I don't see how this is a justification for her publicly reading the scriptures which is a public ordinance.  It clearly says that Priscilla and Aquilla 'took him aside' after he preached.  

So what about Corinth?  Surely that is a justification for women at the very least reading the Scriptures?  The situation in Corinth was chaotic and is not to be taken as a model for church.  As Cameron points out in his chapter (emphasis is my own):  'The Corinthian Church, instead of being seen as representing an early stage in the establishment of Christianity, and as a Church besides where many of the cannons of apostolic teaching and practice were being transgressed, is taken to represent the model Church service scene, normative for today.'  

The Corinthian church was the embryo of the church where the charismatic gifts were still being used and people were involved that God had not ordained to be used at all times and in all situations.  Hector Cameron quotes Dr James Bannerman and again the emphasis is mine:  '[These] formed no part of the ordinary equipment of the Church of Christ or the ordinary staff of office-bearers by which the affairs were to be administered.  Their use and function ceased when the church of Christ through their instrumentality had been finally settled and fully organised and when it had attained to the condition of its ordinary and permanent development.' (The Church of Christ, vol 1, pp 215-16).  

Aside from minor differences in the past over reader, pastor and teacher, the position of the reformed church in Scotland for the last 450 years has been that an ordained and qualified man leads the worship, publicly reads the scriptures, prays and preaches.  The minster leads for the edification of the congregation.  As Cameron says:  'This accords with the Reformation dictum that the ministry is for the sake of the Church, and not the other way round (Philippians 2 v 17).  In any event wider leadership arrangements are seen neither to be needed nor valid for the normal service of worship.  Among exceptional situations would be the Communion service where ruling elders assist the minister in distributing the bread and wine.'

The 8 short essays in Crown Him Lord of All  is a reminder of a very different Free Church, one that still valued its distinctives and was not embarrassed to be different.  We have a glorious heritage that we are in danger of squandering as we grasp at the trinkets and gimmicks of modern evangelicalism.  We mustn't be frightened of suffering for principles that our forefathers fought and suffered for. They may not be popular today but if they are Biblical, they will stand the test of time.  We forget that there have been many periods in history where reformed worship and practice have not been popular.  We need to hold our nerve and trust the Lord and his unfailing word.  

In his Moderators Address in 1920 entitled ‘The Outlook in Regard to the Maintenance of the Reformed Faith’ Rev John Macleod said; 

‘Holding to the historic faith and worship of Scotland’s Reformed Church, she is content in a day of reproach to share the reproach of a despised Evangel, and look for her vindication not only to the day when the Church’s reproach will be forever removed; she also cherishes the hope that with a glorious revival of true godliness the people of the land of covenants and martyr’s will yet retrace the steps of which they strayed from the good way and that will be a vindication of her contendings.’  

For further reading on who should read the scriptures publicly you might find these articles helpful.  They are all American but I couldn't find anything that covered it from a Scottish or UK perspective.  

The Public Reading of Scripture - Presbyterian Style

The OPC Report on Unordained People Reading the Scriptures in Public (1991) 

Who is Permitted to Read the Word Publicly to the Congregation in the PCA?