We continue today our look at the Directory for Private (Family) Worship. While I think we can commend the idea of church authorities encouraging families to develop the discipline of regular private worship, there seem to be a number of times where, (according to my cultural sensibilities) the church authorities who have written this directory are potentially overstepping the bounds of their realm of government. Today is another case of this I think.
VII. Whatsoever have been the effects and fruits of meetings of persons of divers families in the times of corruption or trouble, (in which cases many things are commendable, which otherwise are not tolerable,) yet, when God hath blessed us with peace and purity of the gospel, such meetings of persons of divers families (except in cases mentioned in these Directions) are to be disapproved, as tending to the hinderance of the religious exercise of each family by itself, to the prejudice of the publick ministry, to the rending of the families of particular congregations, and (in progress of time) of the whole kirk. Besides many offences which may come thereby, to the hardening of the hearts of carnal men, and grief of the godly.
So what does this mean in more current language? As I understand it, this rule begins with noting that in the past, when the church has been troubled, multiple families have gathered together to worship, and that God has indeed blessed this. However, in times of peace, they believe this ought not to be the normal situation. Why? Firstly, it can hinder the religious exercise of each family. My guess is that when you have a big gathering of families, it might be harder for the father to help individuals in his care than when families meet on their own. The second reason they give for this not being helpful is that it can prove to be to the prejudice of public ministry. In other words, it can cause division and families can tend to sense they do not need the local church when they band together regularly. It can lead to further error and hardening of hearts.
Now once again I see the points that these leaders were making, but I am not sure that this is something we should be making a rule against. Yes, families should be part of a local congregation, and the banding of families together ought to be in the context of a local church. Yes I think there are dangers in the denigration of the public ministry when families think they can replace the local church, but at the same time there are regularly times in Church history when the church is governed by men who do not love Christ, or who are teaching what is not true. It is in these times when rules against families banding together for worship are problematic.