God’s Word for God’s People: Lay Readers in Worship
by John Pennylegion, Senior Pastor, Christ the King Presbyterian Church, Roanoke, VA
Lay Scripture Readers
For anyone who has been mildly paying attention to the chatter in the PCA, it’s clear that a recent topic of intrigue centers around the Directory of Worship and the various worship practices in the PCA. Without going into great detail about the different perspectives, let me summarize the debate as those who desire to have a more extensive binding Directory of Worship as opposed to the view that what we have is sufficient. Of course, there are many who exist at various points along this spectrum. For the time being, it seems that a pause will be made on this debate as we await the Ad Interim committee’s report concerning a Directory of Worship. Having said this, the purpose of this article isn’t to discuss the benefits or drawbacks of a constitutionally binding Directory of Worship. Instead, I want to give an account of my church’s recent liturgical addition of a lay scripture reader. I realize that there are a variety of opinions about this practice within the PCA. There are those in the PCA who believe that the reading of Scripture within the context of corporate worship should be limited to elders. Others in our denomination hold a view that the reading of Scripture can be done by non-ordained leaders within the guidelines given in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. I’m happy to live and minister in a denomination where there would be differences of opinion on this. My goal here isn’t to debate the various perspectives but to describe the process my church went through to add this practice and why we’ve found it to be edifying.
How we got here
In April of 2023, my session began reading the “Ad Interim Committee’s Report on Women in Ministry.” Shortly after it was received by the 45th General Assembly, we had discussed some of the particulars and read it separately, but hadn’t taken the time to delve into the depths of the report. Thus, we decided it was important for us to review this report and wrestle through the particulars. Before our monthly meeting, we all read a portion of the report and come ready to discuss it. Slowly, we worked through it, taking our time, asking questions, reading the pertinent portions of the confession, and scripture passages. After a year of reading and discussing the report, we started asking the question, “How should the things we’ve read inform our practice?”
Coming out of our discussions, we decided that it would benefit our Sunday worship practice to include an additional Scripture reading. It would be easy for an observer to hear this and conclude that we decided to do this simply to get more lay people up front. However, before we discussed who would do the reading, we discussed the benefit of having more Scripture in our service.
Like many PCA churches, we preach through entire books of the Bible. This means that we may spend months or even over a year in a particular book. For instance, when I preached through 1 Samuel, it took us twenty-seven weeks to get through the book. Add to that, we spent that summer in the Psalms, and followed our series in 1 Samuel with the book of Ruth; thus, we spent the entire year in the Old Testament. Now, of course, there’s nothing wrong with this. After all, the Old Testament is Christian Scripture. However, it meant that on a Sunday morning, we only heard from the New Testament in the call to worship or the assurance of pardon, if the liturgy happened to include that Testament. We realized we were going months without hearing from both Testaments. We decided we wanted more of God’s Word in our worship.
We came to the conclusion that it would be good for our worship service to include a reading from the other testament from what we were preaching from. If the sermon was from a New Testament passage, we had a corresponding Old Testament reading, and vice versa. Honestly, this was an easy decision. After all, who would think more Scripture is bad?
The next question we took up was who would do this reading? On most Sundays, I preach the sermon, while our Associate Pastor leads us through the liturgy. Our elders distribute the elements of the Supper, and one of the Ruling Elders leads us through a prayer for the church and the world. Thus, our ordained leaders are actively involved in the service every Sunday. When we considered who should do this additional reading, we asked, “Should it be a ruling elder, a deacon, or a pastor?” Of course, they could, but could we include a non-ordained member of our congregation? Our answer was, “yes.”
We came to this answer after having considered the pertinent biblical passages and the confession. As I already said, we had been reading through the Women in Ministry report, and that report wrestles with this allowance. Since the report deals with many of the difficult texts, I don’t intend to rehash the arguments here. Instead, what follows is a brief overview of how we approached 1 Corinthians 14 and the Larger Catechism as it relates to public reading of the Scriptures. For those interested in reading the report for themselves, something I would encourage, you can find it here.
1 Corinthians 14
In 1 Corinthians 14:34, Paul says, “the women should keep silent in the churches.” With a very cursory reading, this passage would seem to indicate that women must remain silent whenever the church meets. However, a call for absolute silence doesn’t seem to be what Paul is calling for since that would prohibit women from even engaging in congregational singing, an argument I’ve never heard anyone make. Add to the difficulty of interpreting this passage the fact that men and women in Corinth were speaking in tongues and being encouraged by Paul to prophecy in the midst of the service (1 Cor 11). We resonated with the question the Study Report put forth, “How can Paul expect women to pray and prophecy (1 Cor 11:5), expect everyone to offer a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, or an interpretation (1 Cor 14:26), and yet tell women to remain silent?” Thus, we must ask, with regard to what is Paul calling the women to be silent?
Some have answered this by saying that Paul is addressing the engagement of husbands and wives. Others have said that Paul is quoting the Corinthians and seeking to correct them. While others have concluded that Paul is speaking of silence regarding the authoritative interpretation of prophecy, a practice that was to be limited to the church elders. It is this last idea that my session embraced. We came to the conclusion that simply reading a passage as part of the liturgy is not what Paul had in view in 1 Corinthians 14.
Westminster
Having considered an important text regarding the public worship of God’s people, we turned our attention to the Confession. Two questions and answers deal specifically with the reading of God’s word.
WLC 156 “Is the Word of God to be read by all?”
“Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the Holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.”
WLC 157 “How is the Word of God to be read?”
“The Holy Scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God, and that he only can enable us to understand them; with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them; with diligence, and attention to the matter and scope of them; with meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer.”
WLC 156 makes it clear that not all should read God’s Word publicly. This I can affirm without reservation. Some shouldn’t read God’s Word in the context of public worship. I think of those who don’t affirm the Scriptures as being God’s Word, those under church discipline, or people who will not give the reading of the Scriptures the reverence it’s due. However, what is interesting about this is that while I affirm this clause in the catechism, I also note that the catechism doesn’t indicate who may read the Scriptures.
Here, some will argue that the intent of Westminster was for only ministers to read from the Scriptures, and thus, the “not all are permitted” means that only ministers are to read them in public worship. However, that’s not what Westminster says. And as my friend Chris Hutchinson points out, in his comparison between WLC 156 and 158, where 158 is explicit about who may preach the Word, he says, “[Westminster] could have chosen to state it as plainly in WLC 156 if they wanted to, but for whatever reason chose not to… it does not define who the “not all” are. That is left up to our judgment; in the PCA’s case, to each Session.” Therefore, it’s incumbent upon the local Session to determine who will or will not read the Scriptures in the context of public worship.
Regarding how these passages should be read, WLC 157 is instructive. The Scriptures are to be read with reverence and prayer, among other things. What has been a beautiful and encouraging result of including others in the reading of Scripture is seeing how members of the church have taken very seriously this act of reading. Recently, a woman told me how her husband, who was doing the reading that morning, read over the passage multiple times and read it aloud the Saturday before he read during the service. Instead of being casual with the reading, he approached it with reverence, seriousness, and a desire not to distract the congregation but to exalt the Lord in this reading. This approach to the public reading of God’s Word has been evident not only with this man but all who have participated in this practice. Those who have read before the congregation have embodied WLC 157.
Benefits
Having described our understanding and application of 1 Corinthians 14 and the Confession, I want to conclude by describing some of the benefits the church has experienced by the inclusion of this reading by the laity.
More Scripture
As I already mentioned, the addition of this reading has meant that we’ve incorporated more of God’s word into our service. In addition to this, by having the reading connect with an explicit or implicit theme of the sermon text, it subtly reveals how all of God’s word is telling one story, embracing a united purpose, and moving towards a single ending.
God’s Word for God’s People
Another benefit has been how the reading of God’s Word by the laity has tacitly communicated that God’s Word isn’t only for the clergy or the ordained elders, but that the Scriptures are for all of God’s people. Of course, we believe that the preaching of the Word and the interpreting of it in the context of Worship is limited to those called to preach. However, apart from this authoritative proclamation, God’s Word is available to his people and can be read by them all. Thus, to hear an elderly man, a young mother, or a teenager read a portion of the Scriptures communicates that this Word is given to all the people of God. I’ve found this to be particularly important since so much of our service features the voices of ordained leaders. I don’t disagree with this emphasis. I believe it’s biblical for Teaching Elders to preach the sermon, and it’s good for elders to be involved in prayer and sacrament. Yet, when we have allowance to hear from lay voices, both men and women, I’ve found this to give a richness to the service that I hadn’t realized we were missing.
Along these lines is the experience of hearing different voices, accents, and emphases. I wasn’t expecting to be moved by this, yet when God’s word is read with an accent not frequently heard in South West Virginia, or to hear the awe a woman has as she reads the words before them, I find myself being moved simply by the reading of God’s word and thinking about the breadth of His kingdom.
Final Word
In describing the way my Session came to adding this practice to our service and the benefits the church has received, I do not intend to imply that all PCA churches need to adopt this practice. As stated earlier, I understand that there are a variety of views concerning this practice. I’m quite happy living in a denomination that makes room for those who may take a narrower (I’m not using this word pejoratively but simply descriptively) understanding than I do, while at the same time allowing for Sessions to come to the conclusion mine has. I believe this diversity of view and practice is not a bug—but a wonderful feature—of our denomination. For some, this may not be an addition that would be appropriate in their context, for others, such as my church, this liturgical practice has been a blessing.
Penny was born and raised in Burlington, ON Canada. He attended Lander University in Greenwood, SC. It was there, during his junior year, that Penny heard the gospel and believed in Jesus. Following college he spent four years working in college ministry at Mitchell Road Presbyterian Church. During this time he met his wife Kat and they were married in 2003. Sensing a call to pastoral ministry, Penny and Kat moved to St. Louis where Penny graduated with an MDiv (2009) and later a ThM (2017) from Covenant Theological Seminary. Prior to coming to CTK Penny served for seven years as the Associate Pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church in St. Louis. In July 2016, Penny became the Pastor of CTK. Penny and Kat have two daughters, Laine and Mead, and a son, Cole. Penny is the author of I Am: The Statements of Jesus.
Penny, I just got around to reading this. Sorry for the delay (lots happening here when this came out). Thanks for this - you said what needed to be said, with far more efficiency and grace than my long paper. Well done.
Dear brother,
In your mention of WLC 156, you did not include the Scripture references given by the Assembly. I would encourage you to read those closely. They make it abundantly clear that the statement, “all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation,” cannot be limited merely to excluding those under discipline or those who read irreverently.
The citations show that the Assembly understood the public reading of Scripture as a ministerial act. In other words, it is not for any and all, but is reserved for those who hold the office entrusted with the public ministry of the Word.
For that reason, it seems plain that WLC 156 teaches that only ordained officers are to read the Scriptures publicly in the congregation.
In this section you are making an argument from silence.
The argument claims that because WLC 156 does not explicitly state who may read Scripture, therefore it leaves the matter open for Sessions to decide.
But silence (or lack of explicitness) does not itself prove openness. The intent of the divines must be discerned from the wording and from the cited Scriptures, as well as from their broader theological and historical context.
To argue otherwise is to assume that "if it isn’t explicitly restricted, it’s permitted"—which is itself an unproven premise.
I would also note that that unproven premise is an example of the normative principle of worship.
You also seem to prop up a false dichotomy—assuming that either the Assembly would have stated it explicitly or else they meant to leave it undecided. That ignores a third possibility: they considered their wording (and Scripture proofs) sufficiently clear to imply their intent (which, honestly brother, if you look at the scripture proofs, I believe it is abundantly clear the intent). And I really think to argue that the intent is unclear, might be disingenuous.
All that said, I do truly appreciate you wrestling with this issue, but maybe the better tact would be to revise the confession to make the case you are making. To imply that the issue is open in the standards seems...well I guess I said it already...disingenuous and maybe I'd add misleading.
Thanks for writing this.