# May laymen preach/exhort/read in public worship?



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 19, 2010)

References: London Baptist confession of 1689

The Church

13. Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.

Savoy Declaration of Faith (1658)

The Church

11. Although it be incumbent on the pastors and teachers of the churches to be instant in preaching the Word, by way of office; yet the work of preaching the Word is not so peculiarly confined to them, but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Ghost for it, and approved (being by lawful ways and means in the providence of God called thereunto) may publicly, ordinarily and constantly perform it; so that they give themselves up thereunto.

Please give Scriptural backing for your view, if you are able.


----------



## Herald (Jul 19, 2010)

The 1689 LBC adequately explains the circumstances wherein an non-ordained man may preach the word. However, in a church with a fully functioning eldership the necessity for an non-ordained man to preach should be infrequent.


----------



## White Knight (Jul 19, 2010)

Who can, and is commanded to preach the Word?
->Those who are approved and called by the church.

Who is approved and called?
->Those who are gifted and fitted by the Holy Sprit.



Herald said:


> The 1689 LBC adequately explains the circumstances wherein an ordained man may preach the word. However, in a church with a fully functioning eldership the necessity for an non-ordained man to preach should be infrequent.



Agreed. Wonder what it would be like to have too many people who are gifted to preach though. Usually it is a lack there of. 

Just for clarity, at the end of the LBCF, "may, and ought to perform it." If God has gifted man in anyway, it is there to glorify God and to deny said gift, it is very bad. Very bad indeed.


----------



## bug (Jul 19, 2010)

Herald said:


> The 1689 LBC adequately explains the circumstances wherein an ordained man may preach the word. However, in a church with a fully functioning eldership the necessity for an non-ordained man to preach should be infrequent.


 
Except perhaps to determine and develop gifts?


----------



## torstar (Jul 19, 2010)

You didn't put up the option that one would require smelling salts to return to earth after reading the question.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 19, 2010)

I still don't get the distinction between "preaching" and "exhorting." How does the person in the pew differentiate between the two? Seems like an unnecessary division to me. If a man has the gift and calling to do one, he can (and should) do both (as if he could do one without the other!)


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 19, 2010)

kainos01 said:


> I still don't get the distinction between "preaching" and "exhorting." How does the person in the pew differentiate between the two? Seems like an unnecessary division to me. If a man has the gift and calling to do one, he can (and should) do both (as if he could do one without the other!)


 
Well then I guess choice #3 is not for you!


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jul 19, 2010)

I believe #2 is in line with the 1689, and I am in line with that. (just about!!)

I'm pretty sure the whole preachings vs exhorting thing has been done many times on the PB. How we miss Andrew Myers and his instant summaries of past threads!


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 19, 2010)

Herald said:


> The 1689 LBC adequately explains the circumstances wherein an ordained man may preach the word. However, in a church with a fully functioning eldership the necessity for an non-ordained man to preach should be infrequent.


 
Thanks, Elder Bill. I'm really interested to get into the historico-grammatical Scriptural evidence for your position, or against it. What do you have?

---------- Post added at 02:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------




torstar said:


> You didn't put up the option that one would require smelling salts to return to earth after reading the question.


 
Please do explain! Did I touch a hot button?


----------



## torstar (Jul 19, 2010)

[/COLOR]


torstar said:


> You didn't put up the option that one would require smelling salts to return to earth after reading the question.


 
Please do explain! Did I touch a hot button?[/QUOTE]


Sorta, but not really. I couldn't fathom a layman getting up there during a worship service.


----------



## Herald (Jul 19, 2010)

White Knight said:


> Who can, and is commanded to preach the Word?
> ->Those who are approved and called by the church.
> 
> Who is approved and called?
> ...



Zach, it is the responsibility of elders to identify those men qualified to preach and call them to do so. In that way the gift is recognized and the individual is encouraged to use it.


----------



## Herald (Jul 19, 2010)

bug said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > The 1689 LBC adequately explains the circumstances wherein an ordained man may preach the word. However, in a church with a fully functioning eldership the necessity for an non-ordained man to preach should be infrequent.
> ...



Yes. If there is one man who handles most of the preaching, then the other elder(s) should be provided the opportunity to exercise their gifts for the sake of the body. If the elders recognize the gift of preaching in another man, then may be called to ministry. The calling is not a "right-now" license to preach. The candidate for ministry must be theologically educated and learn how to preach/teach.


----------



## JennyG (Jul 19, 2010)

Please could someone explain what separates preaching and exhorting? If you were exhorting but not preaching (for example), what exactly might you be saying?


----------



## Herald (Jul 19, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > The 1689 LBC adequately explains the circumstances wherein an ordained man may preach the word. However, in a church with a fully functioning eldership the necessity for an non-ordained man to preach should be infrequent.
> ...



btw, in your OP you referenced paragraph 13 of chapter 26 of the 1689 LBC when it should be paragraph 11.

Riley, the first part of my response has to do with those who are lawfully able to preach. The second part is my opinion, but it's based on reasonable church order, and employing the already identified gifts possessed by the existing elders. 

Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14; Acts 6:6-6 are passages that support the ordination (the setting apart) of certain men for ministry. This is common practice for both Baptists and Presbyterians. 

One of the qualifications of an elder is that he should be "apt to teach" (2 Timothy 2:24). In a church that has a fully functional eldership, ordained men that are qualified to teach, they should either share the preaching duties or preach when the pastor or regular teaching elder is absent from the pulpit. Un-ordained men, especially those who are untested, would not normally bypass qualified elders. However, there are always extenuating circumstances. There may be a small church without qualified elders that would require, out of necessity, a lay person to preach in the absence of the pastor or teaching elder.


----------



## Herald (Jul 19, 2010)

JennyG said:


> Please could someone explain what separates preaching and exhorting? If you were exhorting but not preaching (for example), what exactly might you be saying?



Jenny, I really think that categorical difference is a Presbyterian thing. A Presbyterian in the know needs to answer Jenny's question.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 19, 2010)

I was reading Edersheim, yesterday, in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. He described the historic background behind Jesus being invited to preach at the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-22.) He said that the practice in the synagogues was that first, a priest would read, then a levite, then several unordained male Israelites who had been invited to read. The unordained Israelites were permitted to preach, according to Edersheim. And preaching sermons was held in extremely high regard. They always preached under the immediate supervision of the priest and ordained elders. Ordination was not required to preach, but only to rule in the synagogues, according to Edersheim. He makes a confident statement that in Luke 4, Jesus was called upon to preach last. Usually this would mean that he was the fifth in a series of preachers, according to Edersheim. 

Then I looked up this passage:

1 Corinthians 14:26-33 26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 

It seems clear form this passage, that in that in the New Testament church, unordained men were allowed to bring God's word to one another, and to the congregation, under the supervision of the elders. Does this confirm the synagogue pattern of unordained men being allowed to preach with supervision? Ought this to inform our understanding of what is permitted for laymen? Why or why not?


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jul 19, 2010)

JennyG said:


> Please could someone explain what separates preaching and exhorting? If you were exhorting but not preaching (for example), what exactly might you be saying?


 
Jenny, I am not sure what the difference is either. I had never heard of the distinction before I got involved in the PCA. In Scotland, in Presbyterian circles, it is quite common for a layman to preach in a church in the minister's absence.


----------



## White Knight (Jul 19, 2010)

Herald said:


> White Knight said:
> 
> 
> > Who can, and is commanded to preach the Word?
> ...


 
Alas...my clarity only caused confusion.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 19, 2010)

No bites? Is everyone scared to address this question biblically, or what?


----------



## Herald (Jul 19, 2010)

Riley, you don't think the confession you quoted doesn't explain it biblically?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 19, 2010)

Herald said:


> Riley, you don't think the confession you quoted doesn't explain it biblically?


 
Well, Elder Bill, no offense, but neither of these are my confession, so before I would believe what they are saying, I would need to be sure it is grounded in sound and exhaustive exegesis. I was hoping someone would comment on the Luke 4 and 1 Corinthians 14 passages. Or even better, show why the "preaching laymen" position is either correct or incorrect through some foundational biblical theology. Me being from the Westminster Stds Position, I have to assume that the LBCF and SDOF are both wrong on this, and I'm hoping someone will prove it to me from the Bible.  But if not, prove that the LBCF and SDOF are right! Anyone?


----------



## Herald (Jul 19, 2010)

If the 1689 LBC is not your confession, why did you reference it and the Savoy? Was your intention to throw adherents of the 1689 LBC under the bus? If you know you're going to disagree with Baptists on this topic, why include us? 

As to proving it from the bible, I provided you passages in Acts and 1 Timothy that clearly indicate ordination (setting apart), and that elders should be apt to teach. Additionally, Paul tells Timothy:



> 2 Timothy 4:1-4 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.



Who did Paul charge? Timothy. What did he charge him to do? Preach the word; as well as reprove, rebuke, and exhort. What was Timothy's qualification to do these things? He was gifted by God and ordained by the elders of the church (1 Timothy 4:14). Furthermore, the Lord has given these ordained men to serve the church in the capacity in which they are called:



> Ephesians 4:11-12 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:



So, the bible _clearly _teaches that the emphasis on preaching and teaching within the church is to be vested in the office of the pastor/elder. Since 1 Timothy 4:14 requires of an elder that he be apt to teach, how are we to know whether the perspective elder is apt? We know by giving him opportunity to preach under close observation of the elders. While scripture doesn't explicitly say that, it's a reasonable deduction from the the text.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 19, 2010)

Elder Bill,

I didn't start this thread to state or argue my position, much less to "throw [someone] under the bus", but rather to share some biblical passages I've been struggling with as they relate to this issue, and ask other knowledgable souls for what biblical support they can provide one way or the other. I quoted from the LBCF and the Savoy because they support the position of lay preaching. The Westminster Confession is largely silent on the issue, although I think the FOPCG (one of the other WStds) has more to say about it. It's okay for us to discuss our differences sometimes.

Thanks much for your insight. It seems that you take the position that laymen may preach as a means of testing their potential fitness for office. Do I understand that right? You seem to have a fairly conservative position regarding lay preaching. Would it be true to say you're not comfortable with the Savoy on this?

So what about Luke 4 and 1 Corinthians 14, where I quoted them. Do you think they inform this topic? 

Where is Rev. Wintzer when I need him?


----------



## Herald (Jul 19, 2010)

Riley, in Luke 4 the NT office of elder had not yet been inaugurated. That said, I don't believe Luke 4 has any bearing on preaching in the church.

1 Corinthians 11 is dealing with spiritual gifts and their administration in the assembled church. Strictly speaking this was not preaching. So, once again, I think this passage does not deal with preaching or teaching. 

For the record, if you go back to my earlier comments, there are other times when a non-ordained man may preach. If a church does not have qualified elders then it may be necessary for such a man to preach the word of God. This does happen in smaller churches where there may be a pastor but few, if any, elders. Perhaps this is where the difference between preaching and exhortation come in. If I was going to be absent from the pulpit, and I only had a non-ordained man to deliver the message, I would meet with him to discuss the subject, relevant text(s), and how he intends to deliver the message. This may be construed as exhortation rather than preaching, but it's still delivering an authoritative message from the word of God.


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 19, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> Where is Rev. Wintzer when I need him?


 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/preaching-men-not-ordained-16085/

---------- Post added at 09:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 PM ----------

A well-kept secret on the Puritanboard is that you can use the Advanced Search feature to search through all the posts by an individual user.


----------



## rbcbob (Jul 19, 2010)

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Many Baptist churches understand the biblical norm to be for men to be trained _in house_ for public preaching and/or the eldership. The modern preference for an institution detached from a local church and its elders is problematic.

The New Testament seems to better support a generational perpetuation of trained men within churches.


----------



## Herald (Jul 19, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> 2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
> 
> Many Baptist churches understand the biblical norm to be for men to be trained _in house_ for public preaching and/or the eldership. The modern preference for an institution detached from a local church and its elders is problematic.
> 
> The New Testament seems to better support a generational perpetuation of trained men within churches.


 
Bob, but ordained nonetheless, right?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 19, 2010)

Herald said:


> Riley, in Luke 4 the NT office of elder had not yet been inaugurated. That said, I don't believe Luke 4 has any bearing on preaching in the church.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 11 is dealing with spiritual gifts and their administration in the assembled church. Strictly speaking this was not preaching. So, once again, I think this passage does not deal with preaching or teaching.
> 
> For the record, if you go back to my earlier comments, there are other times when a non-ordained man may preach. If a church does not have qualified elders then it may be necessary for such a man to preach the word of God. This does happen in smaller churches where there may be a pastor but few, if any, elders. Perhaps this is where the difference between preaching and exhortation come in. If I was going to be absent from the pulpit, and I only had a non-ordained man to deliver the message, I would meet with him to discuss the subject, relevant text(s), and how he intends to deliver the message. This may be construed as exhortation rather than preaching, but it's still delivering an authoritative message from the word of God.


 
Seems like you're giving short shrift to the Jewish roots of the church office of elder, and the synagogal roots of Christian worship, in my opinion. But thanks for answering the question.

So "every one of you has a teaching" [εκαστος υμων ...διδαχην εχει] is not talking about teaching? How would it then function in the church today? Or why shouldn't it?

---------- Post added at 11:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 PM ----------




rbcbob said:


> 2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
> 
> Many Baptist churches understand the biblical norm to be for men to be trained _in house_ for public preaching and/or the eldership. The modern preference for an institution detached from a local church and its elders is problematic.
> 
> The New Testament seems to better support a generational perpetuation of trained men within churches.


 
So does this preclude lay preachers? Why or why not?

And if not, what rules should govern lay preaching?


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 20, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> I was reading Edersheim, yesterday, in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. He described the historic background behind Jesus being invited to preach at the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-22.) He said that the practice in the synagogues was that first, a priest would read, then a levite, then several unordained male Israelites who had been invited to read. The unordained Israelites were permitted to preach, according to Edersheim.


 
I just wanted to point out that Jesus was a Rabbi.


----------



## rbcbob (Jul 20, 2010)

> Quote Originally Posted by rbcbob View Post
> 2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
> 
> Many Baptist churches understand the biblical norm to be for men to be trained in house for public preaching and/or the eldership. The modern preference for an institution detached from a local church and its elders is problematic.
> ...



*As Bill mentioned above:*



> Zach, it is the responsibility of elders to identify those men qualified to preach and call them to do so. In that way the gift is recognized and the individual is encouraged to use it.



Consider these passages:

Acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them.

Acts 11:19-21 Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only. But some of them were men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.

1 Peter 4:10-11 As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 20, 2010)

austinww said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > I was reading Edersheim, yesterday, in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. He described the historic background behind Jesus being invited to preach at the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-22.) He said that the practice in the synagogues was that first, a priest would read, then a levite, then several unordained male Israelites who had been invited to read. The unordained Israelites were permitted to preach, according to Edersheim.
> ...


 
Basically just meaning he had followers, right? I didn't notice any formal training or collective recognition in the gospels prior to his rabinnical teaching.

---------- Post added at 07:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 AM ----------




rbcbob said:


> > Quote Originally Posted by rbcbob View Post
> > 2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
> >
> > Many Baptist churches understand the biblical norm to be for men to be trained in house for public preaching and/or the eldership. The modern preference for an institution detached from a local church and its elders is problematic.
> ...


 
The Acts passages you quoted could perhaps be different situations, because they were "preaching" to unbelievers, not in a church. The last is most certainly pertinent. Care to expound and show how it would apply in the church today? (Explain and apply.)

It has just occured to me that 1 Peter is a catholic epistle, addressed to several churches, which would potentially have several ministers of the word to which this instruction could be intended.


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 20, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > Willem van Oranje said:
> ...


 
Certainly having disciples was a big part of it. Being a traveling preacher and miracle-worker didn't hurt either. For one reason or another, Jesus was addressed as "Rabbi" wherever he went; not only by his disciples, but by the Jewish religious leaders as well. He gave public lectures. As for training, all we get to see is his Q&A session in the Temple (catechising?), but we're also told that later he "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." Whether further training happened or not, the point is that Jesus is not your average Joe, but recognized as a Teacher of Israel everywhere. Nicodemus calls him such as early as John 3.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 20, 2010)

The various presbyterian bodies do allow lay-preaching. The FC of S, PCA, ARP, C of S, PCC, etc. Some OPC's claim that they do not, but in practice they do allow it.

Historically many presbyterian churches institutionalised lay-preaching in an office of "chatechist", a non-ordained yet trained preacher, that could even accept a call, yet depended on others for the sacraments.

The preaching/exhorting issue is largely a distinction without a difference. Some use the terms to distinguish between the "authoritative exposition of the word" (preaching) as done by an ordained man only. And the "non-authoritative exposition of the word" (exhorting) as done by a layman. As is often pointed out the only way for a hearer to know the difference is to check the study wall for certificates!

Some dutchmen, and those influenced by them, object to the very idea of the laity ever addressing the congregation. This is not however a historic interpretation of the standards of either the Presbyterian or Baptist churches.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 20, 2010)

Kevin said:


> The various presbyterian bodies do allow lay-preaching. The FC of S, PCA, ARP, C of S, PCC, etc. Some OPC's claim that they do not, but in practice they do allow it.
> 
> Historically many presbyterian churches institutionalised lay-preaching in an office of "chatechist", a non-ordained yet trained preacher, that could even accept a call, yet depended on others for the sacraments.
> 
> ...


 
"Those influenced by the Dutchmen" would include the OPC, to a large extent. As far as the OPC, I've never seen a layman exhort or preach, unless you're talking about ruling elders and men under care, which I'm excluding in my mind for the purpose of this discussion. (Ruling elders are church officers, and men under care are studying for the office of minister of the word.)


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 20, 2010)

I'm really hoping some strict 3-office Presbyterian will chime in and demonstrate biblically why laymen may not preach. Anyone?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 21, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> I'm really hoping some strict 3-office Presbyterian will chime in and demonstrate biblically why laymen may not preach. Anyone?


 
C'mon, where are the other 5 who voted for number 1 above. Show me your stuff!!


----------



## JML (Jul 21, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really hoping some strict 3-office Presbyterian will chime in and demonstrate biblically why laymen may not preach. Anyone?
> ...


 

I voted for #1 but I am not a Presbyterian and you asked for a strict 3-office Presbyterian. I am a strict 2 office Baptist so I can't answer your question.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 21, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > Willem van Oranje said:
> ...


 
Don't be silly! Did you read the instruction in the OP for all voters to give biblical support for their position?


----------



## JML (Jul 22, 2010)

Well. First of all, it is an office that a man is called to (1 Timothy 3). One who has not been called to the office should not be involved in the duties of the office. One who has been truly called to the office would not be a layman. The only ones who should preach in public worship would be those who are in the office and those who 1) aspire to the office, 2) feel called to the office, 3) in whom the elders recognize gifts, and 4) whom they wish to determine whether or not they are apt to teach. I agree with RBC Bob in that the Biblical model is in house training. Preaching the Word of God in public worship is not some low task that anyone and everyone can and should do. It is a "good work" that should be done by someone who is qualified. Just as I should not walk into a hospital one day and do the work of a doctor, people who are not called and trained should not take up the duties of the elder.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Jul 22, 2010)

Might it be helpful to define "laymen"? Are all but ordained ministers considered laymen for this discussion or all except elders in general (basically those not ordained to the office, whether minister or not)? When I voted, I viewed it as anyone who was not a minister, so I chose the preaching option. I may well have misunderstood the term, which would affect my vote.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 22, 2010)

Scottish Lass said:


> Might it be helpful to define "laymen"? Are all but ordained ministers considered laymen for this discussion or all except elders in general (basically those not ordained to the office, whether minister or not)? When I voted, I viewed it as anyone who was not a minister, so I chose the preaching option. I may well have misunderstood the term, which would affect my vote.



"Layman" can mean something different according to whether or not it includes elders and deacons. For the purpose of this question, I'm considering a "layman" to be a non-office holder, not specifically chosen to pursue or test giftedness in the office of gospel ministry.


----------

