Who should read the Bible in church?

Who should read the Bible aloud in church as part of our services? Should the preacher do it, or someone else? Is it more important that it is done well, or that our readers are representative of the community? How are they perceived beyond the church, and does that matter?

In an online discussion group I am part of, someone raised the question about who should read the Scriptures as part of the public service of worship. (Note that, to communicate what this is about, I used the title ‘read the Bible in church’, though I don’t like using the phrase ‘in church’ as there are better ways of talking about who we are as the gathered people of God!)

The person asking the question noted that, in Scripture, reading is often done by someone of standing, and that, as preacher, they like to read the passage they are preaching on.

On the first question: because our Bibles are less of a single book and more of a library of books developed over time, we do have reference within Scripture to the reading of Scripture—that is, reference in later parts of Scripture to the reading of earlier parts.

• Moses commands that the law he has been given by God is read aloud to all the people (Deut 31.11).
• After the destruction of Ai, Joshua renews the covenant with God, and this includes reading all of the law of Moses (Joshua 8.34).
• When the ‘book of the law’ is rediscovered under the reign of Josiah, it is read in public (2 Kings 23.1–2).
• After the return and rebuilding of Jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah, a key moment is when the book of ‘the law of God’ is read to all the people (Nehemiah 8.8).

What is striking here is that, on each occasion, the reading is done by a key figure of importance—the Levites in Deut 31.8, Joshua, the king Josiah, and Ezra. The importance of the reading is signified by the importance of the reader.

However, these are special occasions, and the reading of Torah became a regular habit in second temple-era synagogue worship. So in Luke 4.16, Jesus stood up to read from the scroll that the synagogue assistant handed him. (It is worth noting that, in this case, the reader and the ‘preacher’ are the same person…)

We know from Acts that it was the practice to read from both the law (Torah) (Acts 15.21) but also from the prophets (Nevi’im) (Acts 13.15), and so likely also from the third section of the Hebrew Bible, the writings (Ketuvim). It is not specified who did this, but it is likely that it was by respected adult males, organised by synagogue officials. Visiting teachers, like Jesus and Paul, were invited to then speak.

Given the importance of this practice in a Jewish context, it is then striking that it became the practice of the early Jesus communities to treat Paul’s letters in a similar way: Paul commands in the strongest terms that his letter is read to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 5.27); the letter to the Colossians should also be read aloud by the nearby Laodiceans (Col 4.16); and John assumes that his apocalyptic prophetic letter will be read next each assembly in a similar way (Rev 1.3). These letters sit alongside the Scriptures as being read in the assemblies.

Revelation gives us the clearest insight into the social dynamics of the reading of Scripture, though it is slightly obscured in older translations.

Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near. (Rev 1.3)

The word ‘aloud’ is omitted in some translations, but this must be what John means. The verb ἀναγινώσκω means ‘to read,’ but in cultural context this would be assumed to be ‘aloud’ because reading silently to oneself is a modern practice in an era of widespread literacy. And in Rev 1.3, there is ‘one’ person who reads, and many who hear it.

It is usually argued that formal literacy in the Roman Empire was around 10–15%, but this all depends on what you mean by ‘literacy’. A trader who could not read formal scrolls would need to be able to keep accounts—does that count as ‘literate’? And religious groups, like Jews, would be highly literate in their own religious texts.

But overall, first century culture was much more corporate and oral than ours. Written texts were hard to read, since (for reasons of economy), there would normally not be spaces between words and paragraphs, as we have in modern writing. So both writing (by trained scribes like Tertius, Rom 16.22) and reading (by lectors) would be specialist activities.

But in an age of widespread literacy today, does the same apply?

First, we need to do it! We need to have scripture read aloud when we meet together. This might sound a bizarre comment to make—but I continue to be astonished to find, as I travel from one church to another, what a rare and a stripped down is our practice of reading scripture.

In more ‘traditional’ services, there would often have been three readings in the past, including a reading from the Old Testament, an epistle, and a gospel reading. Nowadays, many ‘evangelical’ churches have just one reading, and it is often short! We need to take more seriously again Paul’s injunction to Timothy:

Devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture… (1 Tim 4.13)

There are many reasons for us to listen to the scriptures being read aloud, rather than reading them. For one, Jesus’ teaching in the gospels when first given was done orally. And then the summary account of the gospel was also delivered orally, as were Paul’s letters and the other writings of the New Testament. That means that they were written to be delivered in this way! So we miss the impact of them if we do not hear them read.

Why, then, do we put the text on projection screens? These serve to fragment the text, decontextualise it, and prevent us engaging with the person reading. Much better to read from our print Bibles; better still simply to listen. From a view point of neuroscience, something different happens to us when we listen to something being read (well) compared with when we read it ourselves. Think of the experience of going to the theatre compared with reading the script of a play!

But if we are going to take listening seriously, then it means that the reading needs to be done well. Why do we find it so easy to make the Bible sound boring when read aloud? Did anyone ever accuse Jesus (or Paul, or John) of being boring?! Reflection on this some years ago made me take a very different approach to reading a long passage (Matt 25.31–46, the so-called parable of the sheep and the goats) to an all-age congregation.

It looked far too long to just read, so I decided to do what Jesus did—to simple teach, to ‘perform’ the passage. I set aside an hour and a half on the Saturday evening to learn the passage, and on the Sunday morning simply removed my collar, rolled up my sleeves, and without any announcement, started: ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and his angels with him…’ I learnt four important things:

• Jesus’ teaching is far from dull! Everyone was gripped; those on my left were particularly engaged by the second half of the passage. The children did not move a muscle.
• Jesus’ teaching is very easy to memorise, because it is very carefully structured. The ‘least of these my brothers and sisters’ are described by six terms, which come in three pairs, and are referred to with increasing brevity in the four repetitions (two by the king, two in response by each of the groups of sheep or goats).
• It is easier to remember things than I thought. Nearly 20 years on, I can still remember the passage more or less word for word. Memory is a muscle which gets stronger with use.
• Memorising the passage was a powerful way of dwelling in it, and as a result I completely changed my mind on what the passage was all about, as I explain here.

All these things came from ‘reading’ well, and my preparation for it.

This, then, brings us back to the question of doing it well. For those leading our sung worship, we assume that they have had some sense of vocation, that they have been trained, and that they have gained a level of competence so that it is done well, and in such a way as to enable the congregation to worship in song without drawing undue attention to the musicians.

So why don’t we think the same way about the reading of Scriptures? 

Why don’t we offer training in how to do this well? There are some great resources out there, including this Grove booklet, How to Read the Bible in Church. In the blurb we read:

Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God – yet often the way we approach it in church does not reflect that high importance. The readings may sound boring, be inaudible, or be read without expression or any understanding of the context of a passage. This ‘how to’ booklet looks at the whole range of ‘why’s and ‘how’s of reading the Bible in church. It offers an exciting range of creative approaches – all tried and tested – as well as careful training on the basics of reading well. It will be of interest to anyone concerned that Scripture should be ‘alive and active’ for those listening.

I am curious as to why there is less interest in this kind of thing now than there has been in the past. I wonder why?

Three final questions arise. The first is to note that, outside the church, people take notice of those who have roles within the church. If someone is known as a person who has the responsibility of reading the Bible in public in worship, others will assume that they are trusted and respected in the community of faith—and so to some extent they are seen as representative. We need to take that seriously when thinking about who is reading.

Secondly, where our church communities are diverse in terms of culture, ethnicity, age, and background, we should surely want those involved in ‘up-front ministry’ to reflect this. So we will need to think about whom we call, train, and deploy in this ministry of reading Scripture.

Thirdly, in our discussion online about who should read, and in light of the tendency in some traditions for the pastor or preacher to read the Bible passage as part of their address, Jeremy Duff made a really important point about separating the reading of Scripture from its interpretation.

Focusing on the question of whether it should be the *preacher* or not (which is different from the ‘qualifications’ or otherwise of the person who reads) I would strongly say NO.

It is vital that we maintain and teach our folks the difference between the scriptures and our commentary on them. The preacher is the second of those. A different voice makes that difference, and indeed in traditional churches they have been read from different places to emphasise that difference even more.

I am worried when I read someone saying ‘as the preacher I know what it means and want to read it with the emphasis to support what I am going to say the passage means’. For me that is leaning towards authoritarianism and the preacher (the minister, the priest etc) controlling the interpretation of scripture and we are nudging away from our reformation heritage.

No the scripture is read. That is primary. Everyone hearing it is an equal interpretator (the ploughboy knows the scriptures as well as the pope). One authorised minister who has had the luxury of time in the week to prepare, then leads us in the interpretation (eg preaches).

But to retain the bulwark against interpreting the bible being taken from the people to be the work of an expert class, we do all we can to emphasise the distinction between the scriptures and the interpretation of them.

Even worse IMHO is the modern practice of not having a separate bible reading and the preacher just weaving it into their sermon, as if scripture is something they use to make their point.

(That is all completely separate from whether it is good or not to have certain people trained to read well. It’s about the separation on each occasion of scripture and commentary.)

And of course this argument follows exactly the practice in Nehemiah 8, where Ezra reads from the book of the law, but the interpretation is done separately by the Levites. And their goal should be ours:

…The Levites helped the people to understand the Law, while the people remained in their places. They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. (Neh 8.7–8)

As a result ‘all the people were attentive’.