Proclaimer Blog
Public reading of Scripture round two
So, here’s a thought. In many of our churches, we have reading rotas for public worship. I like hearing different voices, so I’m broadly in favour of this. But I’m also keen to do my own reading for the sermon for two reasons.
The first reason is practical. I want to read the reading the way that I – having studied it and prayed over it – believe it should be read. There is a tone or pace or emphasis I want the reading to have which befits how it will be expounded. Someone else reading the passage can (sometimes) actually work against this purpose. I know many preachers feel the same.
The second reason is theological. Do you notice how Pastor Timothy is required to commit himself to both the public reading of Scripture and to exhortation (1 Tim 4.13)? I suppose you could argue that being committed to the public reading does not mean he actually has to do it himself, but that seems to go against the grain of the passage where everything else is precisely about what Timmy must do himself. Seems odd if the public reading is not included in that list.
I wonder why that is? We cannot precisely be clear, but it must be something to do (especially in light of pastorals) with the way the Scripture itself is the thing (2 Tim 3.16-17) and preaching itself is only preaching if it is preaching of the word (2 Tim 4.2). For Timothy to publicly read Scripture shows the congregation how he himself sits under it and it is his master too.
Can encouraging others to read and being committed to public reading yourself be reconciled? I think saying that having others read is your commitment is a fudge. There’s an easier way, which most evangelicals would do well to heed. It’s a radical idea and I call it two readings. You do one. Someone else does the other.
Way out, huh?
PS I’m no Anglican expert, but I think you’ll find that in an old book called The Book of Common Prayer.