A Case for a Responsive Liturgy after the Public Reading of Scripture

Public Worship at Plymouth by the Pilgrims, 1877

The Public Reading of Scripture

If you have been to our church in the last few months, you may have noticed a practice we’ve begun before the sermon. We see it modeled in the Old Testament in places like Joshua 8 or Nehemiah 8. It was continued in the New Testament by Jesus in Luke 4 or by the NT Churches (1 Thessalonians 5 or Colossians 4). Paul writes to Timothy, “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching” (1 Timothy 4:13). This is where we get the language from.

We have been asking members of our church—men, women, and students—to participate in the public reading of Scripture. Each week, the reader leads us in a short call and response. Afterward, the reader says, “This is the Word of the Lord” to which the congregation responds, “Thanks be to God.” Most have enthusiastically accepted this while some have wondered why. This article seeks to answer the why. 

A Way to Disrupt Laxity

I don’t remember when I first heard about this dialogical liturgy, but I would guess, like many, it was when I was a child in the Catholic Church. For me, however, my family would go to a traditional Latin mass. Not only was I a child, not only was I not Catholic, but I also did not speak the language. So, I seriously did not understand what was going on. That is, of course, not the desired outcome for our congregation. Hence the article explaining what and why. The immediate effect is to disrupt the laxity we have when gathering on a Sunday. In many churches across America, the congregation drifts toward consumerism. This should not be the case. It is not good for our faith or family to come to church with the expectation to sit and watch. The leader-congregation exchange is an intentional disruption to refocus our minds and hearts as we transition to the preaching of God’s word.

A Regular Confession and Appreciation

Think about what the leader says: “This is the word of the Lord.” Be careful to not let this become another tradition we mindlessly repeat. Think deeply over what you are agreeing to. When we practice a dialogical liturgy, we are regularly confessing that Scripture is God’s word. We are affirming that this, the passage we just read, is indeed and in full the word of the Lord. It is not another word of man but the holy, inspired, infallible, inerrant, sufficient, and authoritative word of God.

Now, think about what the congregation says: “Thanks be to God.” Again, have you considered what you are affirming? When you respond to a claim as serious as calling something God’s word, in many ways, you are agreeing to it. If you agree, then you should do so joyfully. That is why a legal and cold response like: “We affirm and would like to proceed” is insufficient. I imagine that said with a British accent. We say “thanks be to God” because it is gratitude that we hope to produce in us. When we practice this dialogical liturgy, we are regularly appreciating God for His word.

An Historical Case

If modern Christians aren’t careful, we will believe the lie that the newest and coolest is the best. Big-Box Evangelicalism has twisted the minds of many to prefer production over to participation. Before I get carried away, I will focus in on the historicity of a dialogical liturgy. 

As early as AD 150, we read about the order of service, including the public reading of scripture and congregational response. Justin Martyr was an early church father who wrote on what takes place on a Sunday (First Apology, 67). In the 16th century, though it most likely began much earlier, there was a similar Latin rite. Verbum Domini (the word of the Lord) which would be replied to with Deo gratias (thanks be to God) after readings. This was reaffirmed by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1960s at Vatican II. Even after the Protestant Reformation, we find this call-and-response in Lutheran liturgies. It is also preserved in The Book of Common Prayer which Anglicans use to this day.

Therefore, many traditions over the centuries have practiced forms of this responsive reading. And even though the traditions that I delight in (the Puritans and the Baptists) have distanced themselves from this practice out of suspicion of being too liturgical, I am still convinced this is an historically viable option for the church body to employ.

A Biblical Case

More than tradition, however, we must anchor the practice in Scripture. There is a term in theology called the Regulative Principle of Worship which teaches that only what God instructs through His word may be used in worship. At the same time, this can be taken too far. One example would be denying the use of technology like in-ears or slide projection. We use these as instruments to better worship the Lord and more easily lead our congregation in worship. Returning to the point, the RPW certainly applies here when considering the practice of liturgies. Is there any biblical instruction to this kind of practice? Yes.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 provides a biblical grounding for the call-and-response liturgy we have been practicing as a church. It captures both the confession and the appreciation that Paul himself models and commends. He writes, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” 

Firstly, Paul thanks God. This should be our immediate response: worship. That is why the sermon and the song are both a part of the worship service; they are two sides of the same worship coin. Secondly, Paul acknowledges that “when you received the word of God.” The assumption is that they have “received” Scripture. When we gather together on the Lord’s Day, the teaching and reading of Scripture are essential. But note how Paul describes the word of God: “not the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.” After the public reading of Scripture, someone will confess that “this is the word of the Lord” and the congregation will confirm with joy, “thanks be to God.”

Thus, the template of our liturgy: Confession and appreciation.

At the Risk of Being Un-Cool

This will be very short. There are some who might look at this and think, “Ugh, that’s so boring and ancient and lame. We are called to reach the lost; this will repulse them from us.” And to that I think with the most gentle and humble posture: No, it won’t and I don’t care. The truth is, no, it will not stop God from forgiving sin and giving eternal life. Furthermore, the moment we think that we can make or break salvation is the moment we lose grip on who does the saving. And I don’t care about sounding un-cool. 

In the Event of Dead Recitation

Now, what we do not want to happen is dead recitation. To become a “have to” instead of a “get to”. Point being: if it is no longer edifying to the body, we are willing to cut it.

The practice of responsive reading during the worship service is to draw us in to deeper reverence and praise. We do not believe that there is anything inherently sacred to this act. One example would be whether someone preaches from the ESV or the CSB. Two different versions of the Bible; both good. While I prefer the ESV, if it ever becomes an idol or an obstacle, you bet I’d switch. The same will be true for a responsive liturgy after the public reading of Scripture. If it becomes an idol or an obstacle, we will stop doing it. We are not chained to it. 

For the Glory of God and the Good of Man

Finally, consider 1 Corinthians 10:31 which says, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” To the best of our ability, we seek to do all things to the glory of God. We seek to order our service for the highest glory of God and the greatest good of man. This dialogical liturgy may help with that as we disrupt our laxity, as we confess the truth of God’s word, as we appreciate God for his word, and as we stir one another up to good works.