Who may (or ought to) read scripture in public worship is severely limited by the words and implications of our standards and even sanctified common sense. And I hope PCA officers will consider that our fathers in the faith may have been right about these things.

The reading of scripture in public worship is an essential, though undervalued, part of worship for confessional presbyterian churches, whose greatest distinctive (aside from their eponymous form of government) is their doctrine of worship. Reading is an element of Reformed worship, meaning it cannot be omitted and must be done properly.1 The Westminster Divines understood this and evidently they believed that the weightiness and importance of public scripture reading meant that not just anyone could do it:
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.—Westminster Larger Catechism 156
For 300 or more years after John Knox began reforming the Scottish church, all presbyterians understood that trained, ordained men (or those being trained) ought to read scripture in public worship services. This fact is obvious to any fair-minded student of ecclesial history. There have been no presbyterian Shakers or Quakers…at least not until recently.2 So it must be that either our forbears were wrong or that things have changed.
It’s a rare week when I don’t receive a message from someone in the conservative Presbyterian and Reformed world reporting a practice that the scandalized sender has witnessed in a NAPARC3 church. Often the report is of females reading scripture or leading some other part of worship, such as the call to worship, confessions, “pastoral” prayer, distributing Lord’s Supper elements—pretty much anything except sermon and benediction. Unsurprisingly, these reports usually concern PCA churches—unsurprising, I say, for two reasons. First, the membership of the PCA makes up about two-thirds of the 600,000 members in NAPARC churches, so there are proportionally more PCA churches to, well, do stuff. Second, there is simply more diversity of practice (i.e., doing stuff) in the PCA. This diversity of practice, some will aver, is because of the diverse geographical and cultural contexts that PCA churches and church plants inhabit compared to their stodgier NAPARC cousins. Missional faithfulness, some will say, requires contextualization, and contextualization requires adjustments. But the question may be asked: What is the real (or first) context that ought to govern practice in a presbyterian church?
I would argue that the primary and governing context of a confessional, constitutional presbyterian church is…the confessional, constitutional presbyterian church and her standards. Church websites often extol a congregation’s unique “DNA,” but all presbyterian churches in a given denomination have the same DNA: their biblical (not to say biblicist) confessions and constitutions. Such a presbyterian church ought not be so “outward-facing” (a popular concept) that it turns its back on its confessional-constitutional core. Nor should it be pharisaically legalist…but more about that below.
The Fifth Commandment enjoins us to honor our fathers and mothers, and the Westminster Standards apply the commandment to the honoring of our betters and our elders more generally. As presbyterians who stand on the shoulders of five centuries of churchmen in our tradition, the principles of the Fifth Commandment imply that we should consider what our faithful fathers in the faith found in the scriptures and passed on to us.4
The PCA Historical Center has done helpful work which allows us to trace the mind of the presbyterian churches on the matter of public scripture reading. This is the Historical Center’s data, presented in reverse order (compared to the original article) with bolding added:
The Directory for the Publick Worship of God; agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, 1645, III-1 & 2Reading of the word in the congregation, being part of the publick worship of God, (wherein we acknowledge our dependence upon him, and subjection to him,) and one mean sanctified by him for the edifying of his people, is to be performed by the pastors and teachers.Howbeit, such as intend the ministry, may occasionally both read the word, and exercise their gift in preaching in the congregation, if allowed by the presbytery thereunto.
PCUSA, 1786, DfW, 2d DraftThe reading of the Holy Scriptures in the Congregation, is a part of the public worship of God; and ought to be performed by the Ministers and Teachers.
Read More
Related Posts:

Preaching that presents not law as the food for faith but Christ crucified as found in the gospel: In other words, not mere teachings that are more at home in a seminary class. Not sermons that are mainly admonitions to being more faithful and obedient. Not primarily moral examples from the Bible to imitate. But a clear presentation from Scripture of the sinful plight of fallen man and God’s free offer of salvation in Christ to all who believe the gospel. Again, this never gets old. All of scripture points to Jesus Christ. And all the Church needs is Jesus Christ.

In this third and last segment of “Beggars Should Be Choosers” (Part 1 and Part 2) I lay out some thoughts on the importance of what I am calling the Lord’s Day Minimum Daily Requirement. There are essentials that make up a kind of necessary nutritional value when choosing a local church. They are gospel-centered and helped this beggar in choosing a church home in an ACNA congregation.
In Part 1 and Part 2 I gave a brief historical tour of my church experience in which I drew out several lines fundamental (IMHO) to the process of choosing a church. If you are to live the Christian life then you are meant to be a Christian in a church. You will choose a church. The thesis of this 3-part post is that when it comes to finding a local church beggars (Christians) should be choosers. It’s in the local church where, so to speak, the rubber meets the road.
Some considerations I previously laid out in choosing a local church were Christ-centered worship, a set liturgy with its roots in the Reformation, a liturgy that isn’t pared down to mere outline, a church holding to a Reformed confession, a gospel-centered worship around the Lord’s Supper, and preaching that presents not law as the food for faith but Christ crucified as found in the gospel. Let’s take a closer look.
Christ-centered worship: How does one measure that? Without any other qualifiers this descriptor ends up merely being something in the eye of the beholder. Any serious Christian church would claim to have Christ-centered worship. So, the question is how do you define this? Let me ask another question. How did Jesus define what it means to interpret and understand the written word? Two biblical texts come to mind –
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.”  John 5:39-40
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27
The minimum requirement necessary to interpret the Bible is that all of Scripture points to Christ. That is the Bible’s purpose. So to understand Scripture is not to ask does a particular passage point to Christ, but rather how does it point to Christ. To read Scripture with a different focus is to miss seeing Jesus. From start to finish the Bible shows sinners the way to God. And again and again it points to Jesus Christ.
Similarly, church worship ought to have ingredients that point to and focus on the crucified, risen, and ascended Lord Jesus Christ. To ignore that focus is to miss what the Church is about. We worship God in Christ, come to God through Christ, are cleansed of our sin by him, and are spiritually fed of him. To minimize this end is to relegate Jesus to the margins of worship or as someone phrased it – assume the gospel. It would be like holding a banquet feast for hungry people but leaving most of the nourishing food off the table, i.e. not served.
Read More
Related Posts:

The October 12, 2021, Decision and Order now prohibits the governor and any agencies or persons under her from “enforcing, threatening to enforce, attempting to enforce, or otherwise requiring compliance” with the COVID vaccine mandate. New York is also forbidden to take “any action, disciplinary or otherwise, against the licensure, certification, residency, admitting privileges or other professional status or qualification” of any of these medical professionals as a result of their seeking or obtaining a religious exemption from mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.

United States District Judge David N. Hurd has granted a preliminary injunction to seventeen medical health professionals who hold religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccines. The statewide injunction prevents New York from enforcing employers’ compliance with a “vaccine mandate,” issued on August 26, 2021. That mandate excludes exemptions for religious reasons while allowing exemptions for medical reasons. Thomas More Society attorneys initially filed for federal court relief from this discrimination and constitutional violation on September 14, 2021.
Judge Hurd’s decision holds that the health professionals are likely to succeed at trial on their claim that the mandate unlawfully forecloses the remedy of religious accommodation afforded under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a major victory for religious liberty in the face of what attorneys have labelled “draconian COVID-19 regimes,” Hurd further held that the mandate also violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because it is not a neutral law, but rather allows medical exemptions while precluding religious exemptions.
The mandate fails the legal requirement of “narrow tailoring” of non-neutral laws that impact religion because New York failed to show that less restrictive means, such as the use of personal protective equipment, were not sufficient to address the alleged “compelling interest” in limiting the spread of COVID-19. The court further noted that the mandate omitted a religious exemption that, only days before, was present in the mandate’s previous version, and that other states have mandated vaccination in certain circumstances without denying the possibility of religious exemptions.
Read More