Along with Adams, I agree we should have a high view of worship. I am certain that I would enjoy worshiping at his church under his leadership. But within our PCA framework, I simply define high differently than he does at points. When different royal priests with various voices read the Word in worship, it commands my attention, lifts me to the heavenlies, and causes me to thank God for the love He has shown us and for the church He is building – all to the praise of His glorious grace.

Rev. Matthew Adams has written an article in reply to my paper, “Worship in the Household of God: a defense of the lay reading of Scripture in PCA churches.” I appreciate his gracious tone and detailed consideration of several of my arguments. This is the sort of dialog we need more of across the PCA as we sharpen one another in pursuit of truth (BCO Preliminary Principle 4), hoping for light rather than heat to do its work.
Adams1 is to be commended for plodding through my lengthy paper (written on study leave) and for writing his own substantial response. Adams makes a good case for his position, particularly given his understanding of what “high worship” requires. He offers substantive responses in several places (e.g. I Cor 14). In some others he appears to miss or sidestep the thrust of my arguments (e.g. worship as a family gathering, per Gaffin et al), in order to make his own. That said, I appreciated Adams’s exegetical contributions from various commentators and believe those are helpful to the discussion as sessions and presbyteries navigate the issue.
At the risk of starting a tract war of “bloody tenent made yet more bloody” proportions, I would like to offer a brief(ish) response on several points in the hopes of sharpening the discussion and discovering the real points of disagreement.
But before that, there are many things we agree on and these should not go unappreciated:

First, Scripture alone must be our final rule.
Second, neither side is crazy. All are attempting to follow the good and necessary inferences from Scripture as best we understand them.
Third, we believe in learning wisdom from our Reformed forefathers as well as our brothers in sister NAPARC churches. (After all, many of my arguments came from a report issued by the OPC.)2
Fourth, we believe in the doctrine of ordination and the general distinctions between the ruled and rulers – and that pastors are to lead in worship. But that still does not answer this particular question.3
Fifth, we should have a high view of worship that includes reading and hearing the Word of God with a “reverent esteem” (WLC 157). Some PCA churches (including mine at times) could do better at this.
Sixth, we agree that the PCA’s Directory of Worship has relevance and should be “taken seriously as the mind of the Church.”4
Seventh, there are limits as to who should be invited to read Scripture in worship. The question is the proper extent of those limits and why we each draw them where we do.

Finally, we agree that uniformity on this issue within the PCA most likely requires a Constitutional amendment process. Such a process would be lawful. The question is whether such amendments would be wise – and whether there is enough Biblical warrant for the effort, an effort which may well splinter the PCA, akin to the old school/new school split of the 19th century.
So here are a few responses to Adams’s article in the form of questions to help us formulate our thinking on this issue for the PCA. These are not every question we could ask, but several that Adams’s article helpfully raised:

We all agree that we must adhere to the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW), and that reading Scripture is a required element of public worship (WCF 21). But is the reader integral to the element itself, or is the reader better understood as a form or circumstance of worship?5
Is reading qualitatively different than preaching? Can the average worshiper tell the difference or not?
If the reading of Scripture is infallibly authoritative in and of itself, what gives the reading that authority – the Word itself or the reader’s person or office?6
If the infallible authority is connected to the office of the reader, what happens to the Word’s authority outside of public worship? Is it somehow changed or lessened if a layperson reads it?
If one agrees that the read Word is its own authority, both in and outside of public worship, does it not then become a matter of good order – rather than unbending theological principle – of who may read Scripture in worship?
Is there enough Biblical evidence that limiting the reading of Scripture in worship to elders (and candidates) is not only “good” but a “necessary” inference from Scripture (WCF 1.6)? If so, what is that Biblical evidence?
Are there other reasonable interpretations of those same texts that raise enough doubts about the wisdom of requiring a denomination-wide conformity on this detail of worship?
How does a plain reading of I Timothy 4:14 preclude those other than Timothy from reading scripture in the worship services he led?
Did lay prophets and prophetesses in the New Testament churches undermine the creation order of gender roles? If not, how do lay readers undermine elders’ authority or the creation order today?
In terms of what constitutes “high” worship, has there been enough attention paid to the differences between Old and New Covenants (cf. WCF 7.6)?
How much of what we understand to be a “high” view of worship is culturally conditioned rather than Biblically informed?
If we require a positive warrant for each form of each element in worship from the New Testament, what positive warrant is there for other common PCA practices such as instrumentation, choirs and robes? In other words, is it possible that we might be inconsistently “biblicist” on some issues, but not others?
What are we to make of the evident existence of an unordained “office” of reader in the early church (and in Reformation Scotland)? What can PCA churches which allow for lay readers learn from this “office” and the care with which it was handled?
Given his understanding of the RPW, Adams contends that missionaries should share in the Sunday School hour rather than worship.7 That is reasonable, but is he then willing to legislate that across the PCA, changing this common practice? If not, why legislate who may read Scripture but not other such violations of the RPW? Where are the amendments forbidding choirs or soloists since those are nowhere found in New Testament worship?
Whatever our view, as our Constitution now stands, may our courts require our pastors and churches to hold to a narrow view of WLC 156, a view that in effect requires subscription to words that are not actually in the text?

Those are some of the technical questions that I believe are worth exploring together. When I joined the PCA and worked towards ordination in the early 1990’s, these were the sorts of intramural debates and discussions that were encouraged among candidates and elders.
My rather old-school polity professor, T. David Gordon, took several exceptions to the Confession himself, and taught us that presbyteries should make sure that men were sincerely reformed, committed to the unity of the church, and could make substantive Biblical defenses of where they may differ with our tradition (my words).8
We understood that most debates for greater purity and better order should be done within the church – not by trying to push one side out by pursuing unseasonable reform through continual legislation. One of my mentors, Terry Johnson, made much the same argument about a decade ago when he wrote an article about “both sides” of the PCA (more reformed and more evangelistic) needing one another.9
It may be true that on the subject of worship the PCA is a 50-year experiment and that the experiment is now fraying, at least on the edges. But am I the only one observing that those “edges” are growing larger and beginning to crowd out many of us simple means-of-grace guys in the middle – those who wish to major on the grace rather than the means?
What has happened to our majoring on the majors of the Good News the Reformed faith famously champions? To speak plainly, and perhaps inappropriately, is the alliance between the Redeemer NYC network of folks and the Twin Lakes Fellowship men done? Or has its voice simply been more muted in the midst of others?10
Meanwhile, along with Adams, I agree we should have a high view of worship. I am certain that I would enjoy worshiping at his church under his leadership. But within our PCA framework, I simply define high differently than he does at points. When different royal priests with various voices read the Word in worship, it commands my attention, lifts me to the heavenlies, and causes me to thank God for the love He has shown us and for the church He is building – all to the praise of His glorious grace.
Christopher Hutchinson is Senior Pastor of Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Blacksburg, VA and the author of Rediscovering Humility: Why the Way Up is Down (New Growth Press, 2018). He has been ordained in the PCA since 1998. This article is used with permission.

1 I appreciate the honorific “Rev.” but will resort to the more standard reference of last name only. I mean no disrepect to either one of us!
2 I think it is unhelpful to raise the issue of pride regarding the PCA’s variety on this issue. One might equally (and unhelpfully) ask if it is prideful to learn only from Reformed giants. Even giants might get things wrong. While good to be introspective, it is better to lay aside such suggestions of pride in others and look at the exegesis and theology itself with as fair a mind we can muster, willing to yield wherever we find greater wisdom than our own.
3 Adams appears to make the fallacy of the excluded middle when discussing family worship as an analogy. It does not follow that if a father is to lead his family in worship that he cannot on occasion ask other members of the family to read the Bible. This does not mean that he is no longer head of household or leading the proceedings.
4 Adams misreads my paper when he writes, “Another misguided aspect of Rev. Hutchinson’s paper is his statement that our BCO’s Directory of Worship has no ‘constitutional relevance.’” This is simply incorrect on his part. The footnoted quote comes from page 22 of my paper in which I am discussing the Westminster Directory for Public Worship from 1645, not the PCA’s BCO.
5 This is probably the key question within the PCA, and one it seems to me good men may disagree on without disparaging the one side as legalistic or the other as violating the RPW. Even if one argues (as I do) that the reader is a form or circumstance, this does not mean “anything goes.” Forms and circumstances must still be suitable, wise and God-honoring. For the distinction between Elements, Forms and Circumstances of worship, and the need for both wisdom and liberty on the latter two, see this helpful lecture by Ligon Duncan.
6 So Adams: “Through the Word of God read and preached, we have God speaking. Both are authoritative actions, and yet only one of those actions is infallible. The infallible act is the reading of the Word. Therefore, shouldn’t we be even more careful with who should read the Scriptures in the Public Worship of God? In the art of prophesying, these go hand-in-hand. Through the Word of God being read, the Holy Spirit penetrates the hearts of the hearers so they might be sanctified (Jn. 17:17). That is the effect of Scripture, which flows from its very nature:  the Word of God’s perfection, purity, and eternality.”
7 I largely agreed with this section and appreciated its wisdom. In our worship services, we always ask visiting missionaries only to share prayer requests in worship so that we may pray for them. We believe prayer is an element of worship. Reports (and fundraising) are not.
8 On this specific issue, Gordon believes that only ministers should read Scripture in worship. But that also helps make my point. See his article on legislating change within the PCA as opposed to patient persuasion.
9 As referenced by Rick Philips at Reformation 21. Rev. Johnson, of course, is well known for advocating traditional Reformed worship and more uniformity in worship across the PCA. As a former member of Independent Presbyterian, my own preferences are for the styles he advocates. But, of course, I try to carefully distinquish between my own preferences and what I can prove from Scripture.
10 Here I do not think it is inappropriate to list the names of the people who authored the PCA’s (non-binding) 2017 Women in Ministry report cited in my paper: TE Leon Brown (Advisory), TE William Castro (Advisory), TE Jeffrey Choi, TE Dan Doriani (Advisory), TE Ligon Duncan, TE Irwyn Ince, Mrs. Lani Jones (Advisory), Mrs. Kathy Keller, Mrs. Mary Beth McGreevy, TE Bruce O’Neil, TE Harry Reeder, TE Roy Taylor (Advisory).
Related Posts:

When God creates us to reflect his image to the world, the first way that happens is through dominion. Dominion is a strange word for us, so what exactly does God mean? Dominion isn’t a word we use very often. Dominion means benevolent rule, stewardship, or care. It means work. We have been created for dominion—for work. Our creativity, our management, our organization, our labor– all of this reflects God to the world. We’ve all had a taste of this. We’ve all done work that was meaningful, that we took a sense of pride in.

I do my job just to get by.
-Three in ten American workers

My job is just a stepping stone for something better.
-Two in ten American workers[i]

Half of America agrees: work is a curse. This Monday we celebrate Labor Day. For many, the best part of Labor Day is that they don’t have to labor. And isn’t that what the Bible teaches? After Adam and Eve rebel, God levies this curse on Adam:

[C]ursed is the ground because of you;in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;and you shall eat the plants of the field.By the sweat of your faceyou shall eat bread,till you return to the ground…[ii]

Work is a curse. Historian Roger Hill agrees:
 “From a historical perspective, the cultural norm placing a positive moral value on doing a good job because work has intrinsic value for its own sake was a relatively recent development… Work, for much of the ancient history of the human race, has been hard and degrading… the Hebrew belief system viewed work as a ‘curse devised by God explicitly to punish the disobedience and ingratitude of Adam and Eve’… Numerous scriptures from the Old Testament in fact supported work, not from the stance that there was any joy in it, but from the premise that it was necessary to prevent poverty and destitution.”[iii]
There you have it. Work is a curse. And haven’t you felt the curse of work? Haven’t you felt the thorns, thistles, and sweat?
I’ve held a number of jobs: umpire, swim coach, fast food restaurant cook, I’ve worked at a deli, worked at a call center, been a Detention Officer, worked landscaping, worked in fundraising, and, of course, as a pastor. And every one of those jobs had thistles and sweat. They were all hard in their own way. No one has a job without thistles and sweat.
There’s a scientific theory that I think sums up this “thistles and sweat” reality of work well: entropy. Entropy is the phenomenon that things break down from order to disorder. Why did our air conditioner break only two and a half years of installation? Entropy. Why does the sliding glass door stick? Entropy. Have you ever put earbuds in your pocket?
Read More
Related Posts:

Culture and even the church, has been influenced (propagandized) through television, music, films, and public education by claiming that homosexuality is not sin and should be accepted. It’s now just another legitimate choice. Not only is it possible, but it is entirely likely, that candidates for church office may not even consider their views to be contrary to our Standards. The notion that homosexuality is to be considered sinful is no longer an issue, thus the wording of O29 would be satisfied nicely. Thus, O15, with its clarifying wording, is needed to ensure that candidates for church office must examine their character based on Scripture and not common cultural definitions.

In a recent article (https://www.semperref.org/articles/why-i-am-voting-against-overture-15), Pastor Jim Weidenaar gave his reasons for voting against Overture 15 on the grounds that it “is too general and undefined to offer constructive guidance here. Beyond this, the addition of Overture 15’s language [“Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.”] to the Presbyterian Church in America Book of Church Order (BCO) would be destructive by wrongfully depriving the church of godly and qualified shepherds, by creating an atmosphere which stifles rather than guides biblical repentance and fellowship among those who experience this category of sinful temptation, and by encouraging the church’s ordained elders to model a heretical understanding of the gospel in which the spiritually mature have moved beyond the need to confess sin.”
He begins by asking four questions about another overture, specifically, Overture 29, since it deals with the same topic of qualifications for church office. He asks, “What does Overture 15 add to Overture 29 that makes it a necessary addition to the BCO?” His four questions, which are actually objections, are:

Is it the literal use of the term homosexual in his description of himself? 
Is it the fact that the candidate tells anyone about this aspect of his sin/temptation/sanctification experience? 
Is it to single out this sin (or, that someone has this sort of temptation experience as opposed to any other)?
Is it about ontology?

In his first objection, Pastor Weidenaar claims that Overture 29 (O29) covers what is required in the character of an elder. According to him, all Overture 15 (O15) adds is the word homosexual and a few other phrases. But his objection rests upon a like-minded culture shared by the church and the culture at large. That may have been generally true 40 years ago. But over all these years, there has been a shift in how homosexuality is defined and accepted. Culture and even the church, has been influenced (propagandized) through television, music, films, and public education by claiming that homosexuality is not sin and should be accepted. It’s now just another legitimate choice. Not only is it possible, but it is entirely likely, that candidates for church office may not even consider their views to be contrary to our Standards. The notion that homosexuality is to be considered sinful is no longer an issue, thus the wording of O29 would be satisfied nicely. Thus, O15, with its clarifying wording, is needed to ensure that candidates for church office must examine their character based on Scripture and not common cultural definitions.
In his second objection, Pastor Weidenaar claims that O15 is designed to silence individuals from confessing their specific sins. He claims that Paul’s example of calling himself the chief sinner is scriptural proof that we must do the same. Thus, with this understanding, not only is O15 wrong but it is heretical. My sense is that  there is some exegetical sleight of hand in using this argument. Paul’s intent is not to mention his specific sins but to express his sinful nature, much like how expressed it here: “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all” (I Tim. 1:15, NASB).
One cannot prove the specific from the general. I did find Pastor Weidenaar’s summary conclusion concerning this point troubling. He states, “And by encouraging the church’s ordained elders to model a heretical understanding of the gospel in which the spiritually mature have moved beyond the need to confess sin.” Does this mean that those who support O15 are heretics? Is this a veiled charge that serves as a warning?
In the third objection, he asks whether O15 intent is singling out one sin as opposed to other sins. The simple answer is, Yes, it is. I take great comfort in the scriptural wisdom of the Westminster Divines. Consider these two questions from the Larger Catechism:
Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?A. Sins receive their aggravations, (Reasons 1, 2, and 4 omitted here.)…3. From the nature and quality of the offense: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.
Homosexuality is an offense against the light of nature. It violates the creation ordinance concerning marriage, family, and filling the earth. It violates the seventh commandment (see Westminster Larger Catechism, question 139).
So, yes, Pastor Weidenaar, it is good and proper for the church to single out this sin, regardless of how it is accepted and defined by secular culture.
Pastor Weidenarr reserves the bulk of his article in question four. He states, “We are all familiar with the rhetoric of our culture which closely ties the personal experience of gender and sexuality to the essence of personhood.” The statement “I am,” can be a mediocre statement denoting a fact, such as “I am tired.” That has no bearing on who I am as a person. But it can be a powerful statement that communicates inner truths.
Jesus used the phrase to describe himself and to communicate deep truths about his person and work.

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst” (John 6:35).
Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life” (John 8:12).
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58).
So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep” (John 10:7).
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (John 10:11).
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6).
“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser” (John 15:1).

When I say I am an America, I’m not just saying that I was born in a certain country in North America. I’m saying that I am proud to live in this country and that I love life, liberty, and justice for all. When I say that I’m Italian, I am not saying that I was born and raised in Italy. I understand that I am proud of my ancestry; that my grandfather, as a young teen, made his way to the U.S. and made a life for his family.
Given all the lack of clarity on ethical issues in our society, a person who says, “I am gay’” or “I am a gay-Christian,” is communicating that he has chosen a certain way of life. Like Lot’s wife, who looked back to Sodom, he’s communicating where his true heart and allegiance are. To pretend otherwise is sophistry.
In his summary Pastor Weidenarr states that O15 “would be destructive by wrongfully depriving the church of godly and qualified shepherds.” This is a pragmatic rationale and must be rejected. Jesus Christ is the head of his Church and he will see to its care. I am indebted to Pastor Weidenaar for this article in that it highlighted for me how the church is losing its sense of biblical grounding. And it shows me how important it is for me as an elder to instruct the members of the church in the foundational truths of Scripture. If we fail to provide and act on this ethical grounding we will lose the next generation.
O15 is needed at this point in the history of the Church to provide clarity on biblical sexual ethics.
Al Taglieri is a Ruling Elder in the Providence Presbyterian Church (PCA) in York, Penn.
Related Posts: