In standard evangelical church services these days (at least the ones I go to) it is usual practice to read the Bible only from the passage to be preached on. It is rare to have an accompanying reading from the other testament, and unheard of to have a Psalm.
I think myself this is terrible. If you pop into a more Catholic or more liberal church - one supposedly less commited to the authority of the Scriptures, you will get in fact a feast of scripture. I went to church at an Anglo-Catholic parish in Cornwall and this was in fact the case. It was brilliantly read. (Fortunately, there was no sermon: the effect may have been spoiled!)
Why is this so? Is there are fear of unexplained readings? In which case, what kind of doctrine of Scripture are we practicing? Or is it that reading aloud well is a lost art? Have we fallen for a new kind of clericalism? I think there is a tendency for evangelical ministers to treat their congregations like idiots. They forget that we can absorb far more than one point on any given Sunday. And they don't trust us to hear the word of God for ourselves. It is unprotestant!!
What we lose is the rich symphony of scripture week by week, and all those passages that will never get preached on.
What can be done to arrest this dumbing-down? Who will join me in the campaign to get the BIBLE BACK INTO CHURCH??
23 comments:
I don't think anyone could dispute we're losing public reading of Scripture in evangelical churches. I'm not so sure the sky is falling though. Surely a large part of the public reading of Scripture in evangelical churches was a function of illiteracy? How do you minister the word to a largely illiterate society - by having the word publicly read (morning & evening too - not just Sundays). Does it matter if we lose the corporate reading of Scripture if we read the Scripture at home/in the family? Like to post more but hard with two boys wriggling on my lap...
Michael K
I agree with what anon said.
I thought the same when I read the article that Bishop Glen Davies wrote about this very thing. One of the 39 Articles of faith is that the service must be done in the public tongue, I think this also includes that the church service needs to be done in a way that is culturally relevant to society. Today most Christians are more well versed with biblical thoughts and knowledge and I think it is more relevant to have the scriptures that are read out to have something to do with the sermon. For myself, if a psalm is read out that has nothing to do with the sermon, then I might be caught up with the psalm and not be listening to the sermon, or I might not follow through with my thinking about that psalm, instead get caught up with the sermon......
Michael, I think you make an excellent point. I love that phrase "a feast of scripture".
I would like more public reading of scripture, but with this proviso - it must be *well* read.
We had a guy at church do a dramatic reading through Micah last year - it was utterly gripping.
but what's the mark of a good a feast Michael?
Is it the amount of food consumed or the quality of the cooking? ;-)
I think that if 50% of contemporary evangelical churches read a passage from scripture and then have an exposition from it, then it would be a great victory!
I've been to churches where "worshiptainment" is so prevalent that they have no bible readings and no sermons based on scripture.
I think if the pastor/minister wants more of the Bible read than just those passages read on Sunday, then he should encourage the church members to have regular quiet times.
And if 50% of members of contemporary evangelical churches had quiet times, that would be a victory too!
At Moore College Chapel we have three readings every day. It doesn't take long actually. AND I am amazed at how the spirit works in the word. I am amazed at how the narrative of Scripture unfolds in unexpected ways. I am delighted because it is invigorating, even stimulating to be there and have heaps to think about.
Why do we deny our parishioners this experience? Michael K, my experience is that many intelligent people in mid-life find sermons generally stupefyingly dull...and they could cope with the word of God coming at them from more angles.
To use a bible verse out of context: the word of God is not bound, so why do we bind it?
Oh: does it matter if we lose corporate reading of scripture?
YES. It is the one thing we know the early church did together apart from eat! Besides which, the location of the reading of scripture in the church's liturgical life is crucial to us understanding what role it has in our lives anyhow.
Should the lectern be higher than the pulpit? YES.
I was shocked to hear that most of the (non-Anglican) evangelical churches in Darwin don't have any Bible reading at all, unless the preacher particularly wants one.
I'm joining your campaign, Michael.
http://alastair.adversaria.co.uk/?p=187 makes some interesting points about the private reading of the Bible versus having it read as part of corporate worship.
I think the answer to your rhetorical question of whether we have forged a new kind of clericalism is a resounding yes. Congregations aren't idiots (mostly!).
Greg Anderson
PS And Annette is standing next to me (I've just read her the post) jumping up and down and saying "Yes! Yes! Yes!"
Greg again
So Michael, is the early church practice normative or informative? If its normative shouldn't you also start a campaign to bring back eating together?
Don't get me wrong. Being brought up in Baptist and independent churches, perhaps the greatest joy of Anglicanism for me was the rich liturgy of College Chapel, BCP & AAPB, with their inherent commitment to the systematic reading of Scripture. So corporate reading of Scripture is good but I don't think essential - just like eating together each week.
I've been in church meetings that have weekly readings and meals together, and others without either. I think there is genuine Christian freedom for churches to differ in 'liturgical style' and still be faithful - how we read the Bible, how we eat together can & should vary. If we need a kick up the pants from you & Glenn Davies (& a recent Briefing I seem to recall) about whether we give sufficient weight to public reading of Scripture and not dropping it too lightly, so be it. But I'm not yet convinced we are dealing with substance rather than style. And as much as I love the style of AAPB if it isn't going to reach my pagan peers with the gospel musn't I change the style to do that? To use another bible verse out of context: I become all things to all men in order to win some...
Michael K
Granted, the early church's alleged normativity isn't the knock-down argument; and of course there is freedom. I am only arguing within the ambit of a freedom to do liturgically what every man sees is right in his own eyes.
But I don't think the changes in style to a more laid-back dumbed-down service actually have anything to do with pagan peers really... So many liturgical changes have been argued on behalf of the outsider, and yet I don't see them rushing through the doors on this account. Many of them aren't idiots either actually! I dont see how having so few readings and badly done at that is becoming all things to all men really... It is an abdication of our own ecclesial identity as a body form by the Word of God!
SO MK? can we expect to see a programme of OT and NT readings at your church from now on? ;-)
why do you go to church?
to be encouraged, edified etc.
This is done by the teaching of the bible not the reading of the bible.
God talks to us when we read his words however I would argue although a public reading is nice done well it is far better to have the pasage explained.
Then god is talking to us in an intimate way, directing us etc.
I not sure that happens in a mere public reading
Moore college is not church of course.
"why do you go to church?
to be encouraged, edified etc.
This is done by the teaching of the bible not the reading of the bible."
Huh? Why is the reading of the bible not encouraging and edifying? Why do the words of the preacher have more to say to us than the very words of God's own prophets, Christ's own apostles? Weren't, for example, the epistles written for the very purpose of encouraging the churches?
I also fear we may have introduced a new form of clericalism if we start to think our exposition and teaching of the Bible is what edifies us rather than the simple reading of the words of scripture.
The difference is andy someone else is reading it and you aren't studying it merely hearing it if that.
It is completely different if you are reading it.
The epistles did encourage the churches because they were read AND discussed ie taught.
Wow, I thought only 'the problem with music at church is...' discussions created such passion.
So Michael... the liturgical choice you give me is betwen dumbed down and laid back which will only reach true idiots OR a feast of rich narrative that upholds an Evangelical doctrine of Scripture? I'll get back to you after I've finished writing my stupefying dull sermon;-)
In the meantime, if you have time, what do you think about the argument that public reading of Scripture was a pragmatic response to illiteracy? (Another response was to teach all children to read - I remember Melanchton or Bucer somewhere (?) pushing for all children to be taught to read - he fought against those who couldn't see the point of educating girls) I remember doing a mission at an aboriginal mission where none of the kids could read. We had to throw out the plans we had and start again - it just made me think that literacy is something we take for granted in church. Without it, public reading seems absolutely essential to the gathering. With literacy maybe things change? You could certainly say that people are largely 'biblically illiterate' and that public reading helps combat that. If there is also a message that the Word of God is powerful and effective and doesn't need to be mediated by a preacher thats a good thing too.
Michael K
P.S. One campaign I would start is get POWERPOINT OUT OF CHURCH. Nothing duller. Nothing that so hopelessly tries to pander to people and fails. Nothing that so distracts from the Word of God.
Well that is true, but then I think it is probably an instrument we don't yet know how to use. It could certainly save a lot of paper if we put liturgy/songs/readings on there instead of handing people a collection of bits of paper at the door.
I do speak as the preacher of many stupefyingly dull sermons meself of course! I just think we should allow more entry points for people to hear and encounter and respond to the word of God. I would wholeheartedly disagree with the argument given above about 'discussed = taught'. What the...? 'New clericalism' is right.
I don't disagree that studying the scriptures, teaching the scriptures and discussing the scriptures are all encouraging activities. But you seem to be suggesting that merely reading the scriptures out loud without any of the other accompanying activities is not productive of encouragement for the church. That's where I don't agree with you.
I'm also not sure that the epistles were intended to be read AND discussed - I thought they were primarily written to be read to the churches. The meaning of most of the epistles I think would have been abundantly clear to their original audiences, even without further explanation.
sorry, lest there be any confusion, my last comment was directed to "Bring Back ep at lp"'s last comment. hadn't seen the other 2 comments posted in the meantime ...
back to your discussion ...
more entry points for people to hear and encounter and respond to the word of God.
I think this point stands together with the point on public reading was addressing the problem of illiteracy - we're just addressing a different problem nowadays... an illiteracy based on something other than ability to read.
I don't quite follow the literacy point... Protestants were great encouragers of literacy and personal bible ownership and reading in the 16th Century.
I don't think that private Bible reading and the public - liturgical if you will - reading of the Bible is the same thing really. It is a different act: an act of corporate listening to the voice of God...
Are we as a church embarrassed by God's word? Or do we think it is no longer relevant for the life of the church? Or do we see more value in the words of a preacher (however faithful) than in the living oracles of God? That is essentially what we are saying when we drop the Scriptures from the church and confine them to daily (or, I suspect, not so daily) personal "Quiet Times".
The *church* and not just the individual (in his or her "Quiet Time") needs to hear the "thus the saith the LORD" that comes from the reading of the Scriptures and which good preaching (for all its benefits) is but a pale reflection. Individual reading of the Scriptures is good and to be encouraged. But it is no substitute for the reading of the Scriptures as a church. Maybe we think that because we can all read for ourselves now (or at least most of us) that we know longer need to hear the proclamation of Scripture in church. Or maybe we think to be seeker-sensitive we need to tone down the "thus saith the LORD" part of church. But this is rank pragmatism. First, I suspect that most Christians don't read their Bibles nearly as much as they ought (especially those 'difficult' Old Testament passages). So for that reason alone we need to hear the Scriptures proclaimed in our assemblies. Secondly, it ignores the fact that the Scriptures speak not just to individuals but also to the covenant community -- the church, the body of Christ. Thirdly, it downplays the power of God's word. Fourthly, it ignores the fact that outsiders/ visitors etc. need to hear God's word. I could go on but I think four points are sufficient.
"And there, in the presence of the people of Israel, he wrote on the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he had written. And all Israel, sojourner as well as native born, with their elders and officers and their judges, stood on opposite sides of the ark before the Levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, half of them in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded at the first, to bless the people of Israel. And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them." (Joshua 8:32-35)
Evangelicals -- and especially evangelical Anglicans -- have been quite adept at selling their birthright for a mess of pottage. It's time we stood up and did something about this. So yes Michael, you are right: The lectern should be higher than the pulpit. It's time we did something about restoring the place of the lectern in the church.
Oops. Sorry for the typo -- if you can call it that ("know longer" instead of "no longer"). I was at one stage literate but of late I think I have engaged in too much learning for that :-)
You might have already seen this, since I think there's more than a few links to it around the place, but here is a length blog entry on liturgy and Bible reading in church services. Liturgy is the true expression of justification by faith, since even the language we use to approach God comes from outside!
The author is our long-winded (but highly articulate) Barthian friend from Mandy's blog.
Post a Comment