# Authority to Preach



## reformedcop (Feb 4, 2011)

I would like to pose a question regarding the authority to preach. A brother and I have been having a friendly argument on this matter. He would say that any man who has the desire or calling to preach/proclaim the Gospel in the public square (e.g. a street preacher) should be able to. My position is that a man should be examined and ordained before he should be able to preach in the public square. 

In the course of the argument my friend has brought forward some proofs, some of which I find compelling, others not so much.

His most compelling proofs are Apollos:



> And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. {Christ: or, is the Christ}



Another pretty good argument for his position was in Luke 9:49-50:



> And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great. And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.



And a third argument he gives is the 70 disciples found in Luke 10.

What say you? Are these good arguments for allowing a possibly unsent, unexamined man to preach in the open air? I am fully aware that there are many rogue “preachers” out on the streets in this country who don’t submit to any type of church authority. For the sake of this discussion, I would like to talk about those who are part of a church and submit to its authority.


----------



## KMK (Feb 4, 2011)

The two of you must come to an agreement on what the word 'preach' means or you argument will never get anywhere. (As is demonstrated by countless similar threads in the PB archives)


----------



## Herald (Feb 4, 2011)

Interesting topic. I know a gentlemen who used to"preachl on the street corner. He told me that he wasn't preaching, he was simply declaring the Gospel. 

Sent from my most excellent Android device.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 4, 2011)

Dan,
Your moniker there indicates that you are in law-enforcement. You have a commission from the state to enforce certain laws, and you have arrest-power.

Probably, there are occasions when an ordinary, non-commissioned citizen can make an arrest. I think that's called "citizen-arrest" (if I'm not mistaken). But, pretty much, within your jurisdiction and according to the rules that are far more "liberal" that what I can do as a private citizen, you can make stops or arrests in conjunction with your calling and commission. If I tell "so-and-so" to hand over his drivers license, on my own authority, he's got the right to tell me to go jump in the lake.

There will be times where a person's moral authority calls forth proclamation from his lips. In fact, we could even say that in our ordinary course of life there are countless occasions to tell others of the wonderful work of Christ, and even to warn men from the wrath-to-come. But just like you with the uniform and badge telling someone not to cross that line carries the weight of ordained authority, so too the Christian minister has ordained authority, through Christ's delegated organ: the church.

A person has every right to question your credentials, to ask if you really do have the authority you may be claiming (especially as you might be off-duty, or dressed non-uniform) to tell them what they must do. So also, as regards Jesus ministers: we who are ordained not only have a "right" to proclaim the truth, but a commission and a duty, something that lends "weight" to our words--weight that a non-ordained man lacks.

A citizen has the "right" to tell the fellow who parks, and refuses to mind the handi-cap sign, or the parking meter, "Hey buddy, you're wrong, you'll have to pay one way or another." Whereupon he'll likely get ignored or get the bird. You in your uniform may warn the guy too, and if he flips you off, he's just aggravated his offense. Because he just flipped-off the governor, the constitution, everything that you, the badge, and the uniform stands for. Yes, there IS more to that than ignoring the busy-body citizen who said something (even helpful) to him.

If a man sees himself as one possessed of gifts to preach, to proclaim, and to do so vocationally (and not just whimsically), then let him attend to the church for its authorization. Let him attempt ordination. Why not seek the approval of Christ, by the authority he's vested in his church? Typically, people today don't care about the government of Christ, through his agents/ministry. They assert an "unmediated" relationship to God, by which I mean they do not acknowledge that the church is of divine institution and authority--authority that commands respect for office. I do not mean that there is no "priesthood of all believers," etc., but that phrase does not have a plastic meaning, that authorizes anyone to "do what is right in his own eyes."

The biggest problem with the man-without-authorization getting up to proclaim, as though he HAD that authorization, is not in the individual who acts (who may be pious and orthodox, generally). Just like the citizen, who is not trained in law or law-enforcement--but he knows that fellow shouldn't be spraying graffiti, and feeling compelled to speak out, he confronts the man. Emboldened by this encounter, he begins to see that he needs to be correcting people left and right. How long before his ignorance catches up with him? How about when his own tendency to speed gets him stopped by a real policeman, right in front of the guy he confronted yesterday?

The churchman (like the policeman) is supposed to be "above reproach." No, not every one will be so, but as a class they ought to be generally blameless, and so chosen and recognized by the church. For every half-way-decent would-be-citizen-cop wannabe, how many more could never be sanctioned by the state for the job, for all their lack of fitness? Likewise, for every self-appointed street-preacher who actually has something to say, there are a dozen who should be digging ditches. The one who should keep at it should go ahead and find a church that will call him to that task.

People who point to the success of Bunyan or Spurgeon conveniently pick the "best" examples. They also seem to forget that it was the lack of credential from the Anglican Church that scandalized some, and not a complete lack of credentials. Both of those men served actual congregations; the church called them, recognizing their gifts for ministry. The question of schismatism is not the exact same issue. One thing is sure, beware any man who "founds" a church on his own authority, by dint of his personality or ability to speak. Simply gathering a group together around him (rather than a group calling him)--especially as it remains aloof and disconnected--is the recipe for demagoguery, and genuine scandal.


----------



## Herald (Feb 4, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The biggest problem with the man-without-authorization getting up to proclaim, as though he HAD that authorization, is not in the individual who acts (who may be pious and orthodox, generally). Just like the citizen, who is not trained in law or law-enforcement--but he knows that fellow shouldn't be spraying graffiti, and feeling compelled to speak out, he confronts the man. Emboldened by this encounter, he begins to see that he needs to be correcting people left and right. How long before his ignorance catches up with him? How about when his own tendency to speed gets him stopped by a real policeman, right in front of the guy he confronted yesterday?



Bruce, I'm a believer in ordination, but isn't this a bit of a caricature?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 4, 2011)

Herald said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest problem with the man-without-authorization getting up to proclaim, as though he HAD that authorization, is not in the individual who acts (who may be pious and orthodox, generally). Just like the citizen, who is not trained in law or law-enforcement--but he knows that fellow shouldn't be spraying graffiti, and feeling compelled to speak out, he confronts the man. Emboldened by this encounter, he begins to see that he needs to be correcting people left and right. How long before his ignorance catches up with him? How about when his own tendency to speed gets him stopped by a real policeman, right in front of the guy he confronted yesterday?
> ...


Bill,
I'm offering a bad-case scenario, because its one of the parallels that is germane to the whole issue. Josh already pointed out that part of the discussion turns on the definition of "preaching." My scenario isn't meant to condemn all conversations or even warnings given. But, in the initial presentation, the argument for the fellow that just asserts his own authorization to get out there and declaim offers us not one caution. There's nothing in the argument that says to ANYONE, "Dude, maybe *he* should be talking, but *you* should definitely sit down and shut up."


----------



## reformedcop (Feb 4, 2011)

KMK said:


> The two of you must come to an agreement on what the word 'preach' means or you argument will never get anywhere. (As is demonstrated by countless similar threads in the PB archives)



Pastor Klein, thanks for reminding me to clarify this point. I think we'd both agree that preaching is the public proclamation of the Gospel which obviously involves teaching. We'd also agree that there is a distinction between standing in the open air and preaching to what is probably mostly unbelievers and preaching from a pulpit expositing the word to the saints. My contention is that one should be called, examined and ordained to either.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 4, 2011)

With regards to ordination, Bavinck states that ordination is the church outwardly recognizing what God has already inwardly done. If you agree with this, then a situation could arise where one is inwardly called and acts upon that calling without the proper outward recognition. Granted I would see this as the exceptioin, not the rule.


----------



## reformedcop (Feb 5, 2011)

Herald said:


> Interesting topic. I know a gentlemen who used to"preachl on the street corner. He told me that he wasn't preaching, he was simply declaring the Gospel.



I'm sure it was your point in posting this, but I would say that if he his on a street corner declaring the Gospel to crowds or passerby, he's preaching.

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

Josh, Thanks for your helpful responses.



Joshua said:


> This really has nothing to do with the ministry of the Word.



May I ask why you hold your opinion on this text? Is it because there is no mention of the man preaching or teaching? My thought is that there is a certain level of authority or giftedness needed to cast out devils effectively which would suggest the need for office.


----------



## KMK (Feb 5, 2011)

reformedcop said:


> I think we'd both agree that preaching is the public proclamation of the Gospel which obviously involves teaching.



You might be surprised at you don't agree on. Do you both believe preaching to be the ministry of the Word by which Christ ordinarily calls to Himself those who are given to Him by His Father? Or is it simply a bare proclamation of the Gospel?


----------

