# A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism, Part 2



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 20, 2009)

In *Part 1* of this series, I tried to provide some examples of Reformed leaders and scholars who seem inclined to define the life and ministry of a local church more narrowly in terms of _what happens in the pulpit on Sundays_ rather than more broadly in terms of _what happens in the pulpit, pew, and outside the church all seven days of the week_. Healthy church life and ministry is construed mainly in terms of “the preached Word and sacrament” rather than holistically, in terms that give proper place to lay-ministry and lay-evangelism. Defending lay-ministry will constitute the burden of this segment of our study. 

*Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism, Part 2*

Enjoy!

Your servant,


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 20, 2009)

Thanks for your link, Bob.

Would your view of ministry allow for (1) laymen praying for the elements of the Lord's Supper, and (2) a layman baptizing his own son or daughter?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 20, 2009)

Gomarus said:


> Thanks for your link, Bob.
> 
> Would your view of ministry allow for (1) laymen praying for the elements of the Lord's Supper, and (2) a layman baptizing his own son or daughter?



Jim,

Good questions. First, we allow laymen to lead the rest of the congregation in corporate prayer (1 Tim. 2:8), including the elements of the Lord's Supper (though usually it's a deacon or elder). Second, we usually have the pastor officiate the administration of the sacraments. In the case of the Lord's Supper, a pastor officiates and deacons assist in the distribution of the elements. In the case of baptism, we've always had a pastor baptize the confessor. Nevertheless, the NT provides an example of a layman, Philip, administering baptism to professing believers (Acts 8:12, 38). 

Some might argue that Philip occupied the offices of deacon and/or evangelist at this point. I would respond by noting that the men who were appointed to serve tables in Acts 6:1-6 are not yet called "deacons." They no doubt were "prototypes" for the office, but I doubt whether we can be dogmatic that Acts 6:1-6 assumes an already existing office. Moreover, Philip is not called an "evangelist" till much later in the narrative (Acts 21:8). I suspect that the conferred status of "evangelist" followed the church's recognition of Philip's evident gift and God's blessing on his labors as seen in Acts 8.

Interestingly, the 1689 LBCF omits the statement in the WCF and Savoy that limits the administration of the sacraments to the ordained clergy. 

Hope this helps.

-----Added 4/20/2009 at 12:30:54 EST-----

A. J.,

Great question. The answer is "yes" to all, that is, leading in corporate prayer, leading in corporate song, helping with the administration of the sacraments, and preaching or teaching the word publicly (LBCF 26.11), provided that they are qualified to engage in these roles: ESV Romans 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

ESV 1 Peter 4:10 As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace: 11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies--in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.​So we don't allow just any layman to minister the Word in a public meeting. Only those with gifts judged adequate by the eldership. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## A.J. (Apr 20, 2009)

Dr. Gonzales, I deleted my earlier post because I found out _after_ writing it that you actually addressed my first question somewhere in your blog post. I should have read your article first. My mistake. Anyway, thank you for the answer.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 20, 2009)

I printed this out, as I did Part 1 also. My queue of to be read things is generally a couple weeks out but I am looking forward to reading your articles.

I wanted to say that the font on a printout is tiny. If anybody else plans to read it later you might be better off doing a cut and paste into a word doc so the font is normal.

Thanks for what I am sure will be a good essay.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 20, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Good questions. First, we allow laymen to lead the rest of the congregation in corporate prayer (1 Tim. 2:8), including the elements of the Lord's Supper (though usually it's a deacon or elder). Second, we usually have the pastor officiate the administration of the sacraments. In the case of the Lord's Supper, a pastor officiates and deacons assist in the distribution of the elements. In the case of baptism, we've always had a pastor baptize the confessor. Nevertheless, the NT provides an example of a layman, Philip, administering baptism to professing believers (Acts 8:12, 38).
> 
> Some might argue that Philip occupied the offices of deacon and/or evangelist at this point. I would respond by noting that the men who were appointed to serve tables in Acts 6:1-6 are not yet called "deacons." They no doubt were "prototypes" for the office, but I doubt whether we can be dogmatic that Acts 6:1-6 assumes an already existing office. Moreover, Philip is not called an "evangelist" till much later in the narrative (Acts 21:8). I suspect that the conferred status of "evangelist" followed the church's recognition of Philip's evident gift and God's blessing on his labors as seen in Acts 8.



No one in Acts is called a “deacon”. However, whatever they were, they were not “laymen” (as we use the term). They were chosen, called, and ordained to a particular service by the laying on of hands by the apostles. Philip carried out the work of an evangelist from the beginning (Acts 8:5). 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Interestingly, the 1689 LBCF omits the statement in the WCF and Savoy that limits the administration of the sacraments to the ordained clergy.



 “These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.” (28:2)

The LCF drops all the sacramental language.


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 20, 2009)

Dr. Gonzales,

Would you mind interacting with Jer. 3:15 (It seems that you would have the sheep be shepherds) and Ezek. 44:23-24 (It seems that the “they” --Levites, which I believe we must understand to be pastors-- and “my people” do not seem to be distinguished in your view)?

In Acts 20:28, it is the shepherds who feed the flock. And we must give an account. Would your lay preachers have to give account (Jam. 3:1; Heb 13:17)?

What do you see when you compare 1 Cor. 4:1 (actually all of chapters 3 and 4 are relevant) with Titus 1:7 (I’m focussing on the word steward)?

I’m particularly concerned that such an important thing as a seal of our redemption (Rom 4:11) would be entrusted to unordained men, especially as the sacraments have been so twisted and abused historically, and as they are mysteries in need of careful explanation.

Heb. 13:7 commands the church to imitate their leaders’ faith, not their calling. 
What are we told the early church devoted themselves to in Acts 2:42? 

1 Thes. 5:12 seems to indicate that not all are engaged in this labor, oversight and admonishment.

I apologize for the machine gun approach. I’m not trying to pick a fight, so much as get your interaction with these verses. If I had more time, I’d give you a more carefully reasoned and more irenical response.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 20, 2009)

tcalbrecht said:


> > No one in Acts is called a “deacon”. However, whatever they were, they were not “laymen” (as we use the term). They were chosen, called, and ordained to a particular service by the laying on of hands by the apostles. Philip carried out the work of an evangelist from the beginning (Acts 8:5).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess if one insists that only ordained men may baptize or preach a sermon to the congregation, which a WCF adherent must do, then he must find a way to make Philip an ordained preacher or he must assume that all other references to men gifted with the ability to teach or preach the word are addressing ordained men. I don't believe such a view is demanded by Scripture (cf. 1 Pet. 4:10-11; 1 Cor. 14:26). Of course, anyone engaged in ministering publicly in an official church gathering or in an outreach sponsored by the church should do so under the oversight and approval of his eldership (Heb. 13:17). 

Thanks for the input.

-----Added 4/20/2009 at 07:47:50 EST-----

Clark,

Good questions. I'll try to answer your them soon. My family's waiting for me to join them for some family time. 

Your servant,


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 20, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> Dr. Gonzales,
> 
> Would you mind interacting with Jer. 3:15 (It seems that you would have the sheep be shepherds) and Ezek. 44:23-24 (It seems that the “they” --Levites, which I believe we must understand to be pastors-- and “my people” do not seem to be distinguished in your view)?



Brother, thanks again for the good question. To answer the one above, I'll simply cite from the essay I posted: 
"Pastors like myself distinguish between clergy and laity and acknowledge that not all laypeople are sufficiently gifted to teach the word publicly at the level and frequency of a trained pastor and teacher. We’re even willing to allow that the English term “ministry,” like the corresponding Greek word, may have a more technical meaning that denotes a specially assigned task or vocation and a less technical meaning that denotes a more general function of service assigned to all God’s people. Indeed, we’ll even speak of “the centrality of preaching,” thinking of the pulpit “ministry” as the hub around which the spokes and wheel of church “ministry,” i.e., all other kingdom endeavor carried out by both clergy AND laity turns. Hence, we’re not denying or denigrating the strategic place of what Charles Bridge’s in his pastoral theology calls _The Christian Ministry_.[15] We’re simply trying to make room, in light of the biblical data, for “The Christian’s Ministry” too."​


> In Acts 20:28, it is the shepherds who feed the flock. And we must give an account. Would your lay preachers have to give account (Jam. 3:1; Heb 13:17)?



Yes, anyone who propagates the gospel must give an account for the way he interprets and applies it, whether the ordained minister or layman (Matt. 12:36). But that fact did not stop early Christians from sharing the gospel or teaching each other (as non-clergy). It should not stop God's people either. What it should do is motivate shepherds to instruct their people well and motivate God's people to learn how to interpret and apply God's word accurately. 



> What do you see when you compare 1 Cor. 4:1 (actually all of chapters 3 and 4 are relevant) with Titus 1:7 (I’m focussing on the word steward)?



That the apostles and the overseers both have a special stewardship from God that exceeds that of the lay-person. That fact, however, does not lead me to deny the important place the lay-person has in proclaiming his faith (i.e., "evangelism") and contributing to the edification of the church (i.e., "ministry"). 



> I’m particularly concerned that such an important thing as a seal of our redemption (Rom 4:11) would be entrusted to unordained men, especially as the sacraments have been so twisted and abused historically, and as they are mysteries in need of careful explanation.



Are you talking about "circumcision" by referencing Romans 4:11? Who actually circumcised the male children in the OT? Is that what you're asking? Or are you referring to baptism? Was Philip an ordained pastor-teacher when he baptized in Acts 8? If he was merely a deacon, are deacons allowed to baptize? Is there clear teaching in the NT that the administration of baptism must only be conducted by the pastor-teacher?



> Heb. 13:7 commands the church to imitate their leaders’ faith, not their calling. What are we told the early church devoted themselves to in Acts 2:42?



I agree with you that we're to imitate our leader's faith. I also think we ought to imitate their concerning for the lost (1 Cor. 11:1). That doesn't require every believer to become an ordained minister. In Acts 2:42, the newly formed congregation devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching. I'm not sure what bearing that question has on the topic of discussion.



> 1 Thes. 5:12 seems to indicate that not all are engaged in this labor, oversight and admonishment.



1 Thessalonians 5:12 encourages believers to respect their overseers. 1 Thessalonians 5:14 encourages believers to engage the work of ministry. 



> I apologize for the machine gun approach. I’m not trying to pick a fight, so much as get your interaction with these verses. If I had more time, I’d give you a more carefully reasoned and more irenical response.



No problem with "the machine gun approach." Let me know if my answers leave you with further questions. 

Your servant,


----------



## KMK (Apr 20, 2009)

tcalbrecht said:


> “These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.” (28:2) The LCF drops all the sacramental language.



Dr. Gonzalez, could you interact with this portion of LBC 28:2 cited in a previous post?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 20, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I guess if one insists that only ordained men may baptize or preach a sermon to the congregation, which a WCF adherent must do, then he must find a way to make Philip an ordained preacher or he must assume that all other references to men gifted with the ability to teach or preach the word are addressing ordained men. I don't believe such a view is demanded by Scripture (cf. 1 Pet. 4:10-11; 1 Cor. 14:26). Of course, anyone engaged in ministering publicly in an official church gathering or in an outreach sponsored by the church should do so under the oversight and approval of his eldership (Heb. 13:17).
> 
> Thanks for the input.



I don't think it is a matter of insisting. Rather, you seem to be ignoring the “ordination language” in Acts 6 wrt Philip and the others. 



> 3 Therefore, brethren,* seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business*; 4 but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word." 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 *whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them. *



As I said, we can debate over what office it was that Philip et al were set aside to fill (by the affirmation of the congregation), but the language seems pretty clear that it was some real office. It is no stretch therefore to see Philip carry these official duties over into his missionary/evangelist activities. 

You also did not respond to my puzzlement over your comments that the LBC permits baptisms to be performed by “laymen”. I don't see that in 28:2.


----------



## MW (Apr 21, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> *Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism, Part 2*
> 
> Enjoy!



Dear brother,

Even when I disagree with you I usually find something to enjoy in what you have written, and in this latest post it is a delight to see a conglomeration of biblical statements which speak to the point of actively living for Christ in the church and in the world; but there is nothing which even slightly touches on the specific position you are seeking to maintain. You clearly state one important principle of hermeneutics:



> To summarize, “ministry” refers to some form of assistance, help, and/or service, the nature of which is defined by the context.



But one looks in vain throughout your article to find a single "context" in which the two criteria of "word-ministry" and "lay-persons" are associated together.

1 Peter 4:10 begs the basic questions as to who speaks and what is spoken. If the passage were referring to the specific ministry of the word, it does not open the function to non-ordained persons. But the fact is the passage speaks to Christians as to the life they are to live within the context of a persecuting world. Of course Christians speak to one another and to people in the world; this passage prescribes the manner in which they are to speak. They should seek to communicate such things as God would communicate and in such a way as God would communicate them.

Romans 15:14. Everyone accepts that brethren are to teach and admonish one another, i.e., mutually, and as equals, as a part of the responsibility involved with loving as brethren; but there is nothing in the context to indicate anything like the authoritative exposition which is properly associated with "word-ministry."

1 Corinthians 14:26 is descriptive, not prescriptive, and describes a chaotic situation where the revelatory gifts of the Spirit were understood to be operative, but which have since ceased. It goes without saying that any context which is open to the idea that a man might receive a direct message from God does not require "ordinary authorisation."

Colossians 3:16 is of the same nature as Romans 15:14, in terms of brotherly and mutual oversight of one another; or may in point of fact be restricted to the matter that is sung in the congregational service of song, as per the exclusive psalmody position, when taken in conjunction with Ephesians 5:19.

Ephesians 4:11-12 is debated and so for the sake of the argument I am not going to dispute your interpretation; but even on your interpretation these two points are worth considering. (1.) At no stage have you established that the text associates "the work of the ministry" with lay persons. It is undeniable that "pastors" will need to be raised up from within the body of Christ. What forbids the understanding that one of the functions of the pastor/teacher as he seeks to perfect the saints is to nurture individuals for pastoral work? According to 2 Timothy 2:2 this is one important duty of a preacher of God's word. (2.) You have made no attempt to show that the work of the ministry is a ministry of the word. The text says nothing to the point. So even if the picture of verse 16 did indicate that the apostle envisaged every joint supplying "ministry" to the whole body, it begs the question as to whether "word-ministry" in particular is the function of every member. Hence this debated passage says nothing to the point you are seeking to prove.

Blessings!


----------



## PresbyDane (Apr 21, 2009)




----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 21, 2009)

tcalbrecht said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > I guess if one insists that only ordained men may baptize or preach a sermon to the congregation, which a WCF adherent must do, then he must find a way to make Philip an ordained preacher or he must assume that all other references to men gifted with the ability to teach or preach the word are addressing ordained men. I don't believe such a view is demanded by Scripture (cf. 1 Pet. 4:10-11; 1 Cor. 14:26). Of course, anyone engaged in ministering publicly in an official church gathering or in an outreach sponsored by the church should do so under the oversight and approval of his eldership (Heb. 13:17).
> ...



Tom,

I apologize for not being more clear. You are correct to point out that Acts 6:6 clearly uses the language of "ordination." Philip and the six others were ordained to administrate the "daily ministry" of food provision. Hence, I think it's likely that we have the beginning of the deaconate. That's actually the position I take. Just didn't want to be dogmatic since the term "deacon" doesn't appear. So when answering Jim's question above, I shouldn't have implied that Philip was simply a layman. On the other hand, there's no indication that he was an ordained minister. Yet he preached the Word and baptized. 

The Baptist Confession 28.2 reads, "These holy appointments are to administered by those only, who are qualified and thereunto called according to the commission of Christ." 

You'd like me to respond to your "puzzlement." Well, admitting that my area of expertise is not historical but biblical theology, I'll try to offer a few observations that may help: (1) the framers of the Baptist Confession omitted the following, which is found in the WCF and Savoy: "neither of which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word lawfully ordained ["called," Savoy]." This, taken with the fact that the Baptist Confession authorizes lay-preaching (26.11) leads me to believe that the early Baptists made allowance for unusual circumstances in which the sacraments might be administered by someone other than the "minister of the Word." (2) I'm not sure if the proof texts in the Baptist Confession provide much specific help. The first is Matt. 28:19 refers to the Great Commission which was given to the apostles and, by way of extension, to the church. This would certainly demand, at the minimum, that the sacraments are to be administered by those authorized by the church to do so. 1 Corinthians 4:1 speaks of the apostles as stewards of the mysteries of God [i.e., divine New Covenant revelation]. The NC sacraments are part of that divinely entrusted stewardship. Once again, I suppose that by way of extension the batton is passed from the apostles to the church as a whole. His is why the saints must "earnestly contend for the faith" (Jude 3). So once again, this text would require, at a minimum, that the sacraments be administered by those authorized by the church to do so. (3) As noted above, Philip was ordained to administer the distribution of food. Yet he "preached" (_kerusso_) the gospel and administered baptism (Acts 8). The very fact that Philip's task to which he was "ordained" in Acts 6 is contrasted with the apostolic ministry of "the word" (6:4) leads me to believe Philip was not an ordained minister of the word. So at best, Philip was an ordained deacon who preached the word and baptized. 

I hope this helps to clarify my remarks above. Once again, I apologize for not being clearer. Keep in mind also that Baptist church operate under the priniciple of indendency. In other words, we don't require a presbytery of churches (plural) to approve or authorize a layman to preach in a particular local church. That decision is left up to the leadership of the local church itself. 

I am curious to know, in light of the example of Philip, whether the Presbyterian or Reformed churches allow ordained _deacons_ to preach the word and administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Table? 

Your servant,


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 21, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Tom,
> 
> I apologize for not being more clear. You are correct to point out that Acts 6:6 clearly uses the language of "ordination." Philip and the six others were ordained to administrate the "daily ministry" of food provision. Hence, I think it's likely that we have the beginning of the deaconate. That's actually the position I take. Just didn't want to be dogmatic since the term "deacon" doesn't appear. So when answering Jim's question above, I shouldn't have implied that Philip was simply a layman. On the other hand, there's no indication that he was an ordained minister. Yet he preached the Word and baptized.


Bob,

I appreciate your response. Regarding Acts 6, it’s never been clear to me whether this office to which Philip and the others were ordained was proto-diakonos or proto-presbuteros. Elders in Jerusalem do not appear formally until Acts 15, although they are mentioned in 11:30. The circumstances and later designation of “evangelist” seems to suggest the possibility that he was considered an “ordained minster” (using modern terminology). Regardless, he held an office and was not a “layman”.

BTW, it is interesting that in Acts 11 the gifts that Paul and Barnabas in Antioch collect for the physical care of the saints in Jerusalem are sent to the elders there, not the deacons. Perhaps this suggests a blurring of roles and that the seven in Acts 6 were, in fact, proto-presbuteros.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> The Baptist Confession 28.2 reads, "These holy appointments are to administered by those only, who are qualified and thereunto called according to the commission of Christ."
> 
> You'd like me to respond to your "puzzlement." Well, admitting that my area of expertise is not historical but biblical theology, I'll try to offer a few observations that may help: (1) the framers of the Baptist Confession omitted the following, which is found in the WCF and Savoy: "neither of which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word lawfully ordained ["called," Savoy]." This, taken with the fact that the Baptist Confession authorizes lay-preaching (26.11) leads me to believe that the early Baptists made allowance for unusual circumstances in which the sacraments might be administered by someone other than the "minister of the Word." (2) I'm not sure if the proof texts in the Baptist Confession provide much specific help. The first is Matt. 28:19 refers to the Great Commission which was given to the apostles and, by way of extension, to the church. This would certainly demand, at the minimum, that the sacraments are to be administered by those authorized by the church to do so. 1 Corinthians 4:1 speaks of the apostles as stewards of the mysteries of God [i.e., divine New Covenant revelation]. The NC sacraments are part of that divinely entrusted stewardship. Once again, I suppose that by way of extension the batton is passed from the apostles to the church as a whole. His is why the saints must "earnestly contend for the faith" (Jude 3). So once again, this text would require, at a minimum, that the sacraments be administered by those authorized by the church to do so. (3) As noted above, Philip was ordained to administer the distribution of food. Yet he "preached" (_kerusso_) the gospel and administered baptism (Acts 8). The very fact that Philip's task to which he was "ordained" in Acts 6 is contrasted with the apostolic ministry of "the word" (6:4) leads me to believe Philip was not an ordained minister of the word. So at best, Philip was an ordained deacon who preached the word and baptized.



If I read you correctly, I think what you are saying is that whether these folks are ministers of the Word, they are at least specially commissioned to the task and not mere “laymen”. They have recognized gifts that place them in a position to minster in a special and particular, perhaps limited, way. 

Add that to the fact that the LBC is not a sacramental confession, and it makes sense that these ordinances (not sacraments) may be administered by other than ordained ministers of the Word, since they are not in any sense a “means of grace”.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 21, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > *Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism, Part 2*
> ...



Dear Matthew, Tom, and Clark,

I'll be primarily addressing Matthew's caveats below, but I wanted to offer some general comments to all three of you since you've each raised some legitimate questions and concerns related to my essay on lay-ministry and lay-evangelism. 

First, I acknowledge that in my attempt to push the pendulum towards the center there's always the danger I could push it too far. I've clearly stated my conviction that the NT distinguishes between the more specialized ministry of the ordained man and the more general ministry of the saints. In affirming these two aspects of church life and ministry I don't meaning affirm the position of a "leveler." Once again, I do believe some men are especially gifted and trained to serve as pastors and teachers and are "set apart" by the church to engage in more specialized areas of ministry in an official sense. 

Second, historically, Presbyterian and Reformed churches have placed a greater emphasis on the importance of a well-trained ministry. If I'm not mistaken, most Presbyterian churches require a minister of the Word to earn the minimum of a Master of Divinity from an approved seminary. Of course, there's no explicit directives in the NT that dictate precisely how much training a man must procure in order to qualify for the pastoral ministry. Nevertheless, he must be trained (2 Tim. 2:2). And the question of how much training and where that training is obtained is, to some degree, a question of circumstance (at least in my thinking) which in turn is governed by the general principles of God's word (see 1 Cor. 14:27, 29, 40). In the case of Baptist churches, the degree of education required of a prospective minister is usually determined by the individual congregation. In my circles, some of our churches will require the equivalent of an M.Div. Other prefer that much but don't make it a hard-fast requirement. Men like John Bunyan and C. H. Spurgeon remind us that great gift and usefulness is not completely dependent on a formal education or academic degree. Nevertheless, as a general rule, I think the requirement of thorough training is good and healthy. That's why RBS steers those who would labor in word and doctrine to our M.Div. degree, believing in the need for a well-rounded and thorough education. Baptists should learn from Presbyterians in this respect. 

Third, I can say that among Confessional Reformed Baptist churches I've never seen an instance of a non-ordained layman administering baptism or officiating the Lord's Supper. Of course, we do have our deacons and sometimes in smaller churches a mature layman assist the pastor in the distribution of the elements. As I'm sure you men are aware, ministers who had been baptized as infants but who had been converted to a Baptist view of the sacrament felt constrained in conscience to be "re-baptized" or baptized "properly" according to their understanding of the sacrament. But since in the early days, there were not a lot of other Baptist ministers around (nor Presbyterian or Congregationalists willing to indulge the Baptist convert), the early Baptists allowed for extra-ordinary situations to justify some other than ordained ministers to baptize. I think this historical expediency along with the example of Philip may account for why the early Baptists reworded their Confession, deleting the spefic requirement of the WCF and Savoy and giving a more general statement that affirmed the ordinances as belonging to the church to be conducted under the church's authorization. 

Fifth, though Reformed Baptist churches allow for lay-preaching in according with their confession and understanding of the latitude afforded by Scripture, I wouldn't want to leave the impression that this happens frequently or indiscrimminately. Normally, we provide other avenues for laymen to exercise their teaching gift (SS, jail-ministry, nursing home ministry, home Bible studies, etc.). Nevertheless, if the pastors and congregation take note of a layman who has an extraordinary gift of public utterance, who is godly in character, and who is submissive to the leadership of the church, we may and do afford him occasional opportunities to preach at the discretion of the elders. One might ask, Why not encourage such men to pursue the ordained ministry? In response, we sometimes do. In other cases, there may be providential hindrances for such a man to acquire the formal training or to receive the financial support needed to pursue that course. In any case, the preaching of a non-ordained man in RB churches though allowed is usually carefully regulated. 

Finally, I think we realize that we (as Presbyterians and Baptists) have differences in polity. My three-part essay is not intended to attack Presbyterian polity. Perhaps it comes across that way since I quote a number of Presbyterian men. In reality, though, I think some Reformed Baptists overemphasize the importance place of the pulpit and underemphasize the importance of church ministry by all God's people all seven days of the week. Of course, I concede this is just my perception based on my limited experience in my own movement of churches, interaction with RB and Presbyterian pastors on discussion lists like this, and reading of books or essays on the subject (like the works I cited). I suspect that most if not all Presbyterian and RB pastors do not expect their congregation to be mere sponges that do nothing more than soak up truth. I suspect that most if not all Reformed ministers (whether Presbyterian or Baptist) want their people to shine as lights in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, to abound in good works, and to "bear witness to the faith and to their faith," as R. Scott Clark would put it. My concern has to do with what I perceive to be "emphasis" or "tendency." I am not calling on churches to erase the distinction between the ordained ministry specialist and the non-ordained disciple who engages in a more general kind of ministry. I'm only entreating Reformed ministers to beware of underestimating what God can and does in fact accomplish through the "ministry" or "service" of people in the pew. I think the "official" ministry of the pastor and teacher is strategic. But I feel no less about the ministry of all God's people. 

Now to Matthew's input:

You clearly state one important principle of hermeneutics:



> To summarize, “ministry” refers to some form of assistance, help, and/or service, the nature of which is defined by the context.


But one looks in vain throughout your article to find a single "context" in which the two criteria of "word-ministry" and "lay-persons" are associated together. 1 Peter 4:10 begs the basic questions as to who speaks and what is spoken. If the passage were referring to the specific ministry of the word, it does not open the function to non-ordained persons. But the fact is the passage speaks to Christians as to the life they are to live within the context of a persecuting world. Of course Christians speak to one another and to people in the world; this passage prescribes the manner in which they are to speak. They should seek to communicate such things as God would communicate and in such a way as God would communicate them.[/quote]

I argued that 1 Peter 4:10 is not referring to specific office-bearers. You seem to agree. However, it seems you'd like to construe their ministry (_diakoneo_), which is what it's called in verse 10, to non-public, informal situations. I am not aware, however, of any passage of Scripture in the NT that requires those who minister the oracles of God to be ordained pastor-teachers only. On the other hand, I can see how a Presbyterian might argue for the preferrability of such a scenario from the light of nature, Christian prudence, and the general principles of God's word (see 1 Cor. 14:27, 29, 40). But as I indicated above, it's not my purpose to debate Presbyterian polity and Baptist polity. Even if those speaking the oracles of God in 1 Peter 4:11 are doing so outside the stated meetings of the church, what they are doing is still termed "ministry" by the apostle (v. 10). 



> Romans 15:14. Everyone accepts that brethren are to teach and admonish one another, i.e., mutually, and as equals, as a part of the responsibility involved with loving as brethren; but there is nothing in the context to indicate anything like the authoritative exposition which is properly associated with "word-ministry."


As I pointed out above, 1 Peter 4:10-11 does term the "speaking of the oracles of God" as "ministry." Of course, I acknowledge in my essay that the term "ministry" may be used in a more official way in reference to office-bearers. Accordingly, my point in viewing Romans 15:4 as "ministry" is not to construe those engaged in it as office-bearers. 



> 1 Corinthians 14:26 is descriptive, not prescriptive, and describes a chaotic situation where the revelatory gifts of the Spirit were understood to be operative, but which have since ceased. It goes without saying that any context which is open to the idea that a man might receive a direct message from God does not require "ordinary authorisation."


I believe the Bible regulates worship via precept, principle, AND _precedent_. Of course, when looking at occassions of "precedent" one must distinguish between elements that were unique to the 1st century foundation-building period of the church and those that abide throughout the church age. I'm not convinced we must take every public ministry listed in v. 26 as involving a case of spontaneous divine revelation. Apparently, brothers were bringing "psalms" and "teachings" before the congregation. I'm not an exclusive psalmodist, so I don't believe the psalms in view had to come from the psalter. Even if they did, I'm not convinced is speaking only of ordained pastors leading the congregation in the singing of a psalm. The word translating "teaching" normally refers to the exposition of already revealed truth not the disclosure of new revelation. Once again, I see nothing in the context that convinces me those leading the church in song or teaching the congregation had to be fully ordained ministers of the word. The abiding principle I draw from this passage is multiple participation for mutual edification. Those who do participate in terms of public ministry must be sufficient gifted (Rom. 12:3; 1 Peter 4:10-11) and be authorized and under the oversight of the church's already established leadership (1 Cor. 14:26, 27, 29, 40; Heb. 13:17).



> Colossians 3:16 is of the same nature as Romans 15:14, in terms of brotherly and mutual oversight of one another; or may in point of fact be restricted to the matter that is sung in the congregational service of song, as per the exclusive psalmody position, when taken in conjunction with Ephesians 5:19.


In keeping with what I wrote above, I classify Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 as instances of lay-ministry in the general sense of the term according to NT usage. Even here, in the stated meetings of the church, such teaching and admonishing is conducted under the guidance and oversight of the shepherds who select the content of the praise offered to the Lord. 



> Ephesians 4:11-12 is debated and so for the sake of the argument I am not going to dispute your interpretation; but even on your interpretation these two points are worth considering. (1.) At no stage have you established that the text associates "the work of the ministry" with lay persons. It is undeniable that "pastors" will need to be raised up from within the body of Christ. What forbids the understanding that one of the functions of the pastor/teacher as he seeks to perfect the saints is to nurture individuals for pastoral work? According to 2 Timothy 2:2 this is one important duty of a preacher of God's word. (2.) You have made no attempt to show that the work of the ministry is a ministry of the word. The text says nothing to the point. So even if the picture of verse 16 did indicate that the apostle envisaged every joint supplying "ministry" to the whole body, it begs the question as to whether "word-ministry" in particular is the function of every member. Hence this debated passage says nothing to the point you are seeking to prove.


Obviously, I find the position that assigns the "work of ministry" to the "saints" who are being equipped more convincing. Assuming my view, you raise an important question: "What forbids the understanding that one of the functions of the pastor/teacher as he seeks to perfect the saints is to nurture individuals for pastoral work?" You point out that this is precisely what Timothy was commanded to do in 2 Timothy 2:2. But then you seem, in your second point, to argue that I've failed to demonstrate that "the work of the ministry is a ministry of the word. The text," you argue, "says nothing to the point." So here you seem to be suggesting two mutually exclusive options. Here's my response:

(1) Though I do believe the "work of ministry" for which the saints are being equipped is broad enough to include the training of some in the hopes of seeing them become ordained ministers, I don't believe the phrase allows for an exclusive 2 Timothy 2:2 meaning for the reasons I give in my essay: (a) "ministry" is anarthrous; elsewhere, when official pastoral ministry is in view the noun is almost always definite (at least I'm not aware of a text where it's indefinite). (b) the "work of minstry" in verse 12 is further explained in verses 15 and 16. These refer not to training for the ministry but to the general service rendered by saints on behalf of the church. 

(2) If verse 15 is properly translated "speaking the truth in love," then the character of the "ministry" of verse 16, in which every member has a part, includes ministry via word. Once again, my point is not to argue that the ministry of verse 12 or of verses 15 and 16 is the same as the official "ministry of the Word." My point is simply to underscore what I believe to be a biblical fact, viz., there are two kinds or levels of bona fide church ministry: that performed by officers and that performed by non-officers. Both are important to healthy church life. You say that my argument "begs the question as to whether 'word-ministry' in particular is the function of every member." I answer: every member (except the mute and those not mentally capable) has the authorization and the privilege to engage in "word-ministry" at some level. Nevertheless, each must soberly assess what grace he or she has been given (Rom. 12:3). Some may only have enough gift to tell others what Jesus has done for their soul and to give a very rudimentary presentation of the gospel. Some, because of sin or immaturity may not even be qualified for this (see Hebrews 5:12-14). Others may have a higher degree of speaking and teaching gift and thus allowed to minister the word in more formal and public settings (1 Peter 4:10-11). Still others are specially gifted and should be encouraged to pursue the necessary training and church's commission to labor in word and doctrine. 



> Blessings!


Blessings reciprocated!

-----Added 4/21/2009 at 11:55:49 EST-----



tcalbrecht said:


> > If I read you correctly, I think what you are saying is that whether these folks are ministers of the Word, they are at least specially commissioned to the task and not mere “laymen”. They have recognized gifts that place them in a position to minster in a special and particular, perhaps limited, way.
> 
> 
> Tom,
> ...


----------



## MW (Apr 21, 2009)

Dear brother Bob, thankyou for your response. I won't belabour my critique by offering a counter to it. I would like to simply encourage you to look a little closer at the passages you put forward and to see if you can actually find that Scripture "teaches" rather than simply "permits" what you are setting forward. It is easy in these debates, with all the use of Scripture references, to forget that the Bible is our "rule" of faith and life, and not merely a "guide." Blessings!


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 21, 2009)

I read your post in a hurry. Sorry I missed that piece where you made a distinction in the ministry. 

I'm actually not in disagreement with much of what you are arguing for, given that qualification. I do read Eph 4:11 the way you do, and found your post very helpful. I don't think the laity should be in the pulpit, nor administering the sacraments. But that does not mean they can't teach -- surely we expect every father to teach his children at the very least. And they can give charitably, rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep. Surely the mercies of God should always be on their tongue -- if that's not evangelism, I'm not sure I know what is. At the same time, I think we ought to think carefully about the nature of the distinction between ordained and lay. To say there is a distinction is not sufficient. I think I'm somewhere between you and Berkhof, et al. I think we ought to respect the regulative principle, and carefully distinguish public worship. On the other hand, I believe we are equipping the saints. They, too, have good works prepared in advance for them to do. My only criticism of your post is that it seems to pay little more than lip-service to the distinction. I'd like to see the boundary, for lack of a better word.

My Rom. 4:11 reference presupposes something on which we disagree (circumcision replaced by baptism), so I'll withdraw that one.

Good post, and good response. Thanks.

-----Added 4/21/2009 at 05:22:14 EST-----



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Those who do participate in terms of public ministry must be sufficient gifted (Rom. 12:3; 1 Peter 4:10-11) and be authorized and under the oversight of the church's already established leadership (1 Cor. 14:26, 27, 29, 40; Heb. 13:17).



Would you not consider baptism and the Lord's Supper a part of public worship? I think you identified the issue in your responses -- it's a polity matter. My concern is that even you have gradually slid away from 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> and be authorized and under the oversight of the church's already established leadership (1 Cor. 14:26, 27, 29, 40; Heb. 13:17).



to 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Nevertheless, each must soberly assess what grace he or she has been given (Rom. 12:3).



I wonder how much we are talking past one another. On one hand it sounds like you are just saying the pulpit ministry should make a difference in peoples' lives, and that they should go forth with the word of God in their hearts, on their tongues, and evident in their actions. To this I say, Amen. On the other hand, it seems that the "official" -- boy doesn't that term beg the question -- ministry of the church is diminished, which, if taken to an extreme, removes the possibility of discipline and weakens the pulpit. I appreciate your words, and hope that you recognize the dangers inherent in not making explicit and defining carefully the difference between those called to lead, and those who are led.


----------

