In Defense of Lay Lectors

To all my fellow Lutheran saints and brothers: grace and peace in Christ.

There is a small yet growing trend among the liturgically conservative in the LCMS: the abandonment of the practice of having non-ordained congregant members read aloud from the Scriptures during church. From my own personal conversations with Lutheran pastors and church workers, it seems to me that this practice is seen by some as unnecessary at best, and liturgically liberal at worst. Being conservatively minded myself, I would like to weigh in. I contend that the retention of lay lectors is the conservative approach, and that the abandonment of such is entirely novel and contrary both to the rubrics of the Church Fathers and the descriptions found in the Holy Scriptures. Beyond this, the abandonment of the practice can and has led to greater scarcity of young men looking to enter the ministry, and even perhaps a lower retention rate of children post-confirmation. While the matter on its surface may appear unimportant, nonetheless since it pertains to church order, a reasonable conclusion ought to be reached for the sake of honoring Paul’s directive for good order in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:40)

“On the day called Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those who live in cities or the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges and invites [us] to the imitation of these noble things”. (Justin Martyr, First Apology)

From the earliest recountings of the order of the Christian Mass, the Holy Scriptures have been read aloud by lectors and expounded upon by the presiding minister or deacon. In the medieval church, an Epistle reading was read by a layman called a sub-deacon, while a Gospel reading was read either by a deacon or the presiding minister. A cursory reading of Luther’s writings might suggest that he desired to do away with the practice. “The diaconate is the ministry, not of reading the Gospel or the Epistle, as is the present practice, but of distributing the church’s aid to the poor”. (Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, vol. 36) And his reasoning seems sound, seeing as the office of deacon was instituted that the Apostles might dedicate themselves “to prayer and to the ministry of the word”. (Acts 6:4) 

But we aren’t speaking of deacons (an ordained office) but of laymen serving in the Divine Service (what the medieval church called sub-deacons). Here we must note that the Bible does not limit the speaking roles in church to the ordained. “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.” (1 Cor. 14:26) Let us also consider “The Apostolic Tradition” by Hippolytus of Rome, written in A.D. 135. In this work, Hippolytus records many familiar liturgical elements like the sursum corda and early version of the Sanctus. He also preserves rites for the ordination of bishops, elders, and deacons. But of readers, he says: “The reader is appointed by the bishop’s giving him the book, for he is not ordained.” Interestingly, the text also suggests a time when the charismatic gifts, such as healing, could still be seen in the church. This means the practice of lay lectors likely pre-dates the cessation of the charismatic gifts (if you believe in such), and continued on long after. Even in Justin Martyr’s First Apology (see above quote), Justin presupposes that the “reader” and the “president” are two different people. In light of these writings, it is clear that the abandonment of lay readers is a novel idea and not consistent with how the early church conducted their worship. 

Not only is the idea novel, but it could be detrimental to the church’s future. The Benedict XVI Institute for New Evangelisation recently released a study of Catholic priests in the USA and Canada and found that 70% of all participants in the survey said they were once altar servers before becoming a priest and 61% had been lay lectors. What does this mean for Lutherans? It means that exposure to the ministry leads to a greater likelihood of young men wanting to become pastors. This shouldn’t be a surprise. Exposure to any vocational field is critical to a child’s or young adult’s discernment into whether or not he/she will pursue that vocation when they come of age. So while lectors and altar servers aren’t strictly necessary from a utilitarian point of view, the practice is absolutely essential to raising up future generations of pastors and other church workers.

So then, who, of all the laity, ought to be chosen as ideal candidates for our lay lectors? If being a lay lector aids young men in their discernment of a vocational call to the ministry, then we ought to encourage as many of our young men to participate in this way as possible. Full stop. This leads to an additional point; lectors ought to be young men. How young? I suggest a benchmark, confirmation. I suggest this for two reasons. 

First, boys younger than confirmation age are just that, boys, even if they have been admitted to the communion rail. One who is confirmed is by definition a sworn public confessor of his faith, his own faith, not that of his parents, or because his parents told him to, but because it is his confession. Therefore a confirmed male is a man by the standards of the church, and it’s high time we treated them as such. It is without doubt the treatment of our confirmands as mere girls and boys that has contributed to the problem of mass apostasy among our youths. 

Second, I believe the best way to treat our confirmed men is to give them a part to play in the life of the church. They ought to be expected to function as a member of the body of Christ like every other adult in the congregation. Full stop. Whether the newly confirmed are lectors, crucifers, thurifers, prepare coffee, bring snacks, serve in altar guild, usher, greet, sing in the choir, cantor, play an instrument, staple bulletins, prepare altar flowers, man the soundboard, or anything else, they must be given a job. I have seen this time and again in my own experience with new converts to the faith. Once new members are given a role, they feel like they matter and are part of the team, so to speak. It works no differently with confirmation. If we encourage our young men (and women) to take an active role in the congregation after confirmation and before they leave for college, we will see apostasy rates plummet. Full stop.

I believe this more than thoroughly lays out the biblical, historical, and practical reason why we ought to retain and restore lay lectors in our churches. What the medieval church called “sub-deacons” we do not need to reject as being “too catholic”, because this practice is part of our heritage too, and if we want that legacy to continue, I suggest we strongly consider bringing it back.

God’s blessings to you. Keep fighting the good fight for the gospel!