My LCMS church uses lay readers, including women, and I just assumed it was a general LCMS practice. I am from a conservative presbyterian background. I had never considered the legitimacy of using lay readers, but having women up in front of the church reading the Scripture always troubles me. In over five years of attendance, it still makes me uncomfortable every time it happens, as I believe it to be a violation of Scripture.
Thank you for this post. A question, and forgive my ignorance, I’m still learning: When you mention that laypeople are not permitted to read the Scriptures in the Divine Service, does that also include deacons? I ask because in Karl Pieprkon’s Manual for the Conduct of the Divine Service, which seems to me to be quite faithful to orthodox liturgy and practice, he states that deacons may read the Scriptures in the liturgy. Could you please clarify this for me? And again, thank you for the post.
"Deacon" isn't a synodically defined office in the LCMS. Some of the districts have a definition and process for deacons (and until a recent Convention tightened the practice, some of them were basically serving as pastors without the name). And some individual congregations also have deacons to assist with distribution of the Sacrament, and sometimes also with the readings. I had such a position before I went to seminary. At most congregations (including my own now), the Elders end up assisting with Communion as _de facto_ deacons, and so the need for an official "deacon" office is sidestepped. But vicars and seminary students at field-work assignments are also functioning in the role of deacons. So it's all rather undefined, but yes, deacons are an exception.
Thank you very much, Pastor Eric. Your answer is exactly what I imagined, except that the post does not make the distinction, even though it is certainly an ambiguous issue. However, women as readers is something very questionable, even though this practice is widespread in the Synod. In the Hispanic context, this issue is a shame. Again, thank you for your answer.
I would have liked a dive into the arguments for lay readers, such as implied by the subtitle "stage for participation". I haven't heard any arguments for it beyond that (i.e., greater lay participation in the Divine Service), which so often seems to be the argument for so much innovation in the Divine Service. I've never quite understood the view that, "People will get bored with the Divine Service if we don't get them involved and engaged with different roles or otherwise adapt the Divine Service to serve the desires of the congregation." The congregation has a role and plenty to do in its role. I wonder if there are other proffered reasons for wanting to allow lay readers while the pastor sits there and listens.
And I do think that it can be somewhat jarring when there are lay readers, particularly when they switch them up to have multiple lay readers (one for the old testament, one for the epistle, and yet another for the new testament). Part of what I like about the pastor doing the readings is that he sort of blends more into the background if you will. I don't notice him as much as I do what he's saying or doing because I've gotten use to him filling the role.
But what I can't stand when I've gone to a church that does have lay readers is when the pastor is anything less that sitting in rapt attention as the Word is being read. Just because there is a lay reader doesn't mean someone isn't looking at you, and if you look lost in thought or bored or whatever, it is a terrible message you are sending to the congregation. I understand that perhaps you have read it many times in preparation for your sermon, but that's no excuse. It isn't break time for you just because you got someone else to do it.
Pastors, please also talk to your acolytes before the service as well to remind them that they are more visible than when they are in the pew, and that when they are up at the Altar they can think of themselves as soldiers attending the King's throne.
Not to mention, reading is the first level of interpretation, which is the pastors duty. Reading is not neutral. To be sure, a pastor should eliminate lay readers if he is called to a parish with that practice. But he should do so as soon as possible, preferably before he even arrives, to stem the likelihood the lay readers will take it personally.
My LCMS church uses lay readers, including women, and I just assumed it was a general LCMS practice. I am from a conservative presbyterian background. I had never considered the legitimacy of using lay readers, but having women up in front of the church reading the Scripture always troubles me. In over five years of attendance, it still makes me uncomfortable every time it happens, as I believe it to be a violation of Scripture.
Thank you for this post. A question, and forgive my ignorance, I’m still learning: When you mention that laypeople are not permitted to read the Scriptures in the Divine Service, does that also include deacons? I ask because in Karl Pieprkon’s Manual for the Conduct of the Divine Service, which seems to me to be quite faithful to orthodox liturgy and practice, he states that deacons may read the Scriptures in the liturgy. Could you please clarify this for me? And again, thank you for the post.
"Deacon" isn't a synodically defined office in the LCMS. Some of the districts have a definition and process for deacons (and until a recent Convention tightened the practice, some of them were basically serving as pastors without the name). And some individual congregations also have deacons to assist with distribution of the Sacrament, and sometimes also with the readings. I had such a position before I went to seminary. At most congregations (including my own now), the Elders end up assisting with Communion as _de facto_ deacons, and so the need for an official "deacon" office is sidestepped. But vicars and seminary students at field-work assignments are also functioning in the role of deacons. So it's all rather undefined, but yes, deacons are an exception.
Thank you very much, Pastor Eric. Your answer is exactly what I imagined, except that the post does not make the distinction, even though it is certainly an ambiguous issue. However, women as readers is something very questionable, even though this practice is widespread in the Synod. In the Hispanic context, this issue is a shame. Again, thank you for your answer.
Right. Women have been deaconesses in the Church, but never deacons. The public reading of Scripture in the worship service is an authoritative act.
What is your opinion about women reading Scriptures during Bible Study?
I would have liked a dive into the arguments for lay readers, such as implied by the subtitle "stage for participation". I haven't heard any arguments for it beyond that (i.e., greater lay participation in the Divine Service), which so often seems to be the argument for so much innovation in the Divine Service. I've never quite understood the view that, "People will get bored with the Divine Service if we don't get them involved and engaged with different roles or otherwise adapt the Divine Service to serve the desires of the congregation." The congregation has a role and plenty to do in its role. I wonder if there are other proffered reasons for wanting to allow lay readers while the pastor sits there and listens.
And I do think that it can be somewhat jarring when there are lay readers, particularly when they switch them up to have multiple lay readers (one for the old testament, one for the epistle, and yet another for the new testament). Part of what I like about the pastor doing the readings is that he sort of blends more into the background if you will. I don't notice him as much as I do what he's saying or doing because I've gotten use to him filling the role.
But what I can't stand when I've gone to a church that does have lay readers is when the pastor is anything less that sitting in rapt attention as the Word is being read. Just because there is a lay reader doesn't mean someone isn't looking at you, and if you look lost in thought or bored or whatever, it is a terrible message you are sending to the congregation. I understand that perhaps you have read it many times in preparation for your sermon, but that's no excuse. It isn't break time for you just because you got someone else to do it.
Pastors, please also talk to your acolytes before the service as well to remind them that they are more visible than when they are in the pew, and that when they are up at the Altar they can think of themselves as soldiers attending the King's throne.
Not to mention, reading is the first level of interpretation, which is the pastors duty. Reading is not neutral. To be sure, a pastor should eliminate lay readers if he is called to a parish with that practice. But he should do so as soon as possible, preferably before he even arrives, to stem the likelihood the lay readers will take it personally.