# Women Open-Air Preaching -Authority over Men?



## swilson (Nov 18, 2008)

I would like to get your impressions. If a woman open-air preaches the gospel to a group of people that include men, is she violating I Timothy 2, in regards to women not having authority over men?


----------



## TimV (Nov 18, 2008)

Any reason you skipped the word teach from the passage?


----------



## Herald (Nov 18, 2008)

Ed, is she in violation? Yes. Why? Preaching is a function of duly ordained and trained men. Preaching includes teaching the word of God. The two cannot be separated.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 18, 2008)

swilson said:


> I would like to get your impressions. If a woman open-air preaches the gospel to a group of people that include men, is she violating I Timothy 2, in regards to women not having authority over men?



What does "open-air" have to do with it? The answer is still the same.


----------



## Jared (Nov 18, 2008)

I have wondered this too. What's the difference between a woman who has a larger audience and the woman at the well who went and told all the people in her village? Or a woman who shares the gospel with male co-workers? I won't believe that a woman whould teach men or have authority over men, but I am not sure when it comes to this issue. I think that it is usually not needful since there are men who fill this role. But what about a woman who steps up and shares the gospel in a place where men are not willing to do so? Surely the cause of the gospel would be more important than upholding the normal standard of gender roles in this instance.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 18, 2008)

First, sharing the gospel (one on one) is no sin by anyone. But that's not what we're talking about here. The question was asked concerning "open air preaching" - which I assume means taking on a mantle of authority to preach the Word. Gospel-sharing isn't quite what I had in mind when I read the OP. 

So, if a woman is frustrated that Christ isn't being shared, she's certainly free to share the Gospel - but can she take it upon herself to stand in the place of a preacher in the open air? Assuming you believe that a woman taking on such a role is contrary to Scripture, then I ask - is it EVER ok to disobey God, for whatever "good" end you have in mind? Surely this isn't that hard to answer.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 18, 2008)

How about open-air exhorting....or open-air proclaiming of the Gospel.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Nov 19, 2008)

So it's a sin for a woman to tell an unsaved man to repent and believe the gospel?

Edit: And what about Christian women missionaries?


----------



## charliejunfan (Nov 19, 2008)

Ideally=men
special cases=women that's what i think anyways


----------



## swilson (Nov 19, 2008)

It is amazing to me, how on this site, very few people can respond with an answer...everyone seems to like to respond to a question with a didactic question.

I do not believe that a woman sharing the gospel one-on-one is wrong, but I am not sure what I think about a woman standing and preaching to a crowd. If I had an opinion, I wouldn't have bothered to ask your thoughts.

My question is this: is a woman open-airing to a crowd, in a position of authority, as Paul spoke to Timothy about in I Tim 2? 

By the way, I completely reject the argument that the woman at the well telling the people in her town, "Come meet a man who told me all that I've done" - is the same as preaching/teaching the gospel...to me, it is absurd to even bring that circumstance into the discussion...she did not preach repentence and faith, or teach the word of God, she simply told people what happened in her conversation with him.

And in regard to me leaving out the word teach...no, there was no reason, no, sly, underhanded reason for leaving the word "teach" out - but thanks for answering my question.

Steve


----------



## TimV (Nov 19, 2008)

> And in regard to me leaving out the word teach...no, there was no reason, no, sly, underhanded reason for leaving the word "teach" out - but thanks for answering my question.



I needed to know that before I asked the second question before I tried to answer you. Sometimes if a question is too general it can't be answered responsibly, right? If I ask you "Will my well run out of water?" and you know nothing of my situation what will answer me?

The second question is, given your hypothetical question, is the woman in your example teaching? I promise I'll give a direct answer to your original question if you answer me this one last diagnostic question.


----------



## Tim (Nov 19, 2008)

Simply_Nikki said:


> So it's a sin for a woman to tell an unsaved man to repent and believe the gospel?



Please, let us remember that the subject of the original post was "preaching".

From Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English:



> To pronounce a public discourse on a religious subject, or from a subject, or from a text of Scripture. The word is usually applied to such discourses as are formed from a text of Scripture. This is the modern sense of preach.



Westminster Larger Catechism question 158:



> By whom is the Word of God to be preached?
> Answer: The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office.
> 
> Scripture references: 1 Timothy 3:2, 6; Ephesians 4:8-11; Hosea 4:6; Malachi 2:7; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Jeremiah 14:15; Romans 10:15; Hebrews 5:4; 1 Corinthians 12:28-29; 1 Timothy 3:10; 1 Timothy 4:14; 1 Timothy 5:22.



I think if you take these two things together, the answer is clear. The location or context is irrelevant.


----------



## Herald (Nov 19, 2008)

Simply_Nikki said:


> So it's a sin for a woman to tell an unsaved man to repent and believe the gospel?
> 
> Edit: And what about Christian women missionaries?



Nikki, the OP asked about preaching, not sharing. One-on-One's are typically thought of as sharing. I think that's a completely different situation.


----------



## Herald (Nov 19, 2008)

swilson said:


> It is amazing to me, how on this site, very few people can respond with an answer...everyone seems to like to respond to a question with a didactic question.



Ed, I think you received a very clear response:



> Ed, is she in violation? Yes. Why? Preaching is a function of duly ordained and trained men. Preaching includes teaching the word of God. The two cannot be separated.


Can she preach? No. Why? Preaching includes teaching (the two cannot be separated).


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 19, 2008)

Simply_Nikki said:


> So it's a sin for a woman to tell an unsaved man to repent and believe the gospel?



Nobody who's responded on this thread has said so. 



> Edit: And what about Christian women missionaries?



That's a different question. What does a Christian women missionary do? If she's leading worship services and training local men in the upbuilding of a local congregation, (i.e. function as what many might call an 'evangelist') then categorically yes, I would say she's in violation of Scriptural precept. If she's merely pointing people to the gospel and then guiding them to seek teaching from an appropriate church entity (i.e. a male missionary, existing congregation, etc.) then I don't think there's a problem, as long as she herself doesn't function as the people's teacher of the Word. 

In all of this, recall that there is a difference between sharing the gospel, which all are called to do, and teaching/preaching the Word of God.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

Let's start a post and define these words:

Sharing, telling, testifying, witnessing, praying, preaching, teaching, announcing, proclaiming, etc


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

How about women linguists? They translate but this involves telling people what the Word ofGod says.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Let's start a post and define these words:
> 
> Sharing, telling, testifying, witnessing, praying, preaching, teaching, announcing, proclaiming, etc



If by this sideways method you're implying that we should throw up our hands and declare that there's no distinction to be made, and that Christian women missionaries delivering the Word of God as a teacher/preacher/pastor to an 'unreached people group' is legitimate, then I guess there's no convincing you.

I'm sure you've seen "effective work" by Christian women missionaries working near you, Perg. That effectiveness doesn't change the fact that many or most of them might be working in actuality as though a pastor, contrary to the revealed word of God. Are they serving as the authoritative contact, the teacher, for these people, to teach them the Word of God and preach it to them? I think it wise to think carefully about what is being done, and whether it in fact runs afoul of the Word. 

I may be wrong in my assessment of what you're saying, though, and if so I apologize. Why not offer the first set of definitions, then?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Let's start a post and define these words:
> ...



What's with the accusations of "side-ways" methods. "Throw up out hands" ??? Why the rhetoric?

Women excel in languages and literacy courses, which are huge in world missions. 

Most try to guard against being "pastors" and local leaders - though ignorant - usually lead the "church" and the linguist stays in the background.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

I also agree that women should not "preach" in whatever context. 

But I would like a list of evangelistic activities and their definitions, or else the line between preaching, evangelism, witnessing, sharing and iving a testimony can become gray.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 19, 2008)

I realize that some here on the PB think that 1 Tim 2 is a declaration about how all of life should be ordered, but I think it is clearly contextually limited to how things in the church should be run.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 19, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> I realize that some here on the PB think that 1 Tim 2 is a declaration about how all of life should be ordered, but I think it is clearly contextually limited to how things in the church should be run.



My understanding is something like this as well. An exercise of ecclesiastical authority or control. So, if a woman "preaches" to her children at home or "shares" the Gospel with someone (man or woman) privately or even shares a testimony, even in a church setting, it is not a biblical violation.

Of course, having a rebellious attitude toward God, her husband or men in general is sinful, but that is another matter.

I don't think these occassions contradict the principle that men ordinarily are created by God to lead and serve, women to follow and help, either. There are exceptional situations also.

Knowing what I now know of the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture God's will, a woman intentionally preaching to a crowd of men, ordinarily would be sinful, even in an "open air" setting. There might be some extraordinary situation where that might not be the case, but that is not your question here.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 19, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> I realize that some here on the PB think that 1 Tim 2 is a declaration about how all of life should be ordered, but I think it is clearly contextually limited to how things in the church should be run.



Except that 1 Tim 2 proves the church order by pointing to the created order. It basically says that since women are under the authority of men in creation they are also to be under that authority in the Church.


----------



## satz (Nov 19, 2008)

larryjf said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > I realize that some here on the PB think that 1 Tim 2 is a declaration about how all of life should be ordered, but I think it is clearly contextually limited to how things in the church should be run.
> ...



1 Tim 2 uses creation for the explanation of why the church order is as it is. There is no reason to assume, without further bible references, that the verse should be applied to other spheres of life.

(Just to clarify, I do believe "preaching" in an authoritative role is outside of a woman's role and that applies both in doors and outdoors)


----------



## larryjf (Nov 19, 2008)

satz said:


> 1 Tim 2 uses creation for the explanation of why the church order is as it is. There is no reason to assume, without further bible references, that the verse should be applied to other spheres of life.



Except that, as you say, it uses creation for the explanation. It is for this reason, because the order is found in creation, that it can be applied to the broader spectrum of all spheres of life.


----------



## satz (Nov 19, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Except that, as you say, it uses creation for the explanation. It is for this reason, because the order is found in creation, that it can be applied to the broader spectrum of all spheres of life.



Larry,

Because Adam was over Eve in creation does not imply every man is over every woman in all spheres of life. We are reliant on the revelation of the bible to tell us how we should apply the truth of creation.

As I see it, Paul first gives the prohibition on women's authority in v12. He then goes on in v13 "For Adam was first formed...". The reason women should not be in authority over men in the church is, by Paul's revelation, because of what happened in creation.

Paul never says that creation demands that women are not to be in authority in other spheres, so there is no reason for us to imply that into this verse.

In any case, we know the verse is not of all-encompassing application because the bible gives us examples of women teaching or in authority in other spheres, be it mothers over their male children, wives over their servants, female heads of households, or women teaching men in informal situations like Priscilla teaching Apollos or Abigail teaching David.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 19, 2008)

satz said:


> Because Adam was over Eve in creation does not imply every man is over every woman in all spheres of life. We are reliant on the revelation of the bible to tell us how we should apply the truth of creation.


He is not using Adam and Eve as simply the first created people, but brings the creation account up to show the created order of the genders. It is because God created a particular order between the genders at creation that we are to keep such orders in our churches.



satz said:


> In any case, we know the verse is not of all-encompassing application because the bible gives us examples of women teaching or in authority in other spheres, be it mothers over their male children, wives over their servants, female heads of households, or women teaching men in informal situations like Priscilla teaching Apollos or Abigail teaching David.



It does not give us examples of women having this kind of authority over men.
Mothers over children certainly has nothing to do with them being over men.

As far as the other examples that you give it's not easy to give an answer to without the passages that you are referring to.

I presume the Apollos passage you refer to is...
_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. (Act 18:26)
_
And if it is, i see no reason why you think it points to Priscilla having any kind of authority over Apollos. The word "expounded" can also be rendered "declared"...and there is nothing wrong with a woman declaring the Gospel to others.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 19, 2008)

I believe that women are not to teach Christian men the Word of God...period. I don't care where it is. Can a woman teach non-believing men? Yes...that's sharing the Gospel. Can a woman teach a man how to cook or learn a different language? Yes. Can a woman share and debate with men? Yes. But none of those things contain authority over men in the church or home.


----------



## satz (Nov 19, 2008)

larryjf said:


> He is not using Adam and Eve as simply the first created people, but brings the creation account up to show the created order of the genders. *It is because God created a particular order between the genders at creation that we are to keep such orders in our churches.*



Larry, I completely agree with your statement, particularly the part you bolded. I agree thats exactly what Paul is saying in 1 Tim 2. What is disagree with is that Paul intended, in this verse, to dictate what should happen in other spheres of life. Paul has a particular purpose in bringing up creation, which is to support his point on authority in the church, not make a blanket statement on all of life.

I am open to the arguments about other spheres, but I believe it is a wrong method of bible interpretation to apply 1 Tim 2 to other spheres without other verses to support the point.



> I presume the Apollos passage you refer to is...
> _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. (Act 18:26)
> _
> And if it is, i see no reason why you think it points to Priscilla having any kind of authority over Apollos. The word "expounded" can also be rendered "declared"...and there is nothing wrong with a woman declaring the Gospel to others.



Let me just address this part first. 1 Tim 2 addresses both teaching and authority. So if 1 Tim 2 has a blanket application in life, both teaching and authority are wrong in any and all senses. So my point in using that verse was not to say that Priscilla (or Aquila) had any authority over Apollos, but rather that Priscilla (together with her husband) was teaching Apollos, which I believe is the correct context of the passage, as their were correcting his deficient understanding of the truth to let me know the truth more perfectly. 




> It does not give us examples of women having this kind of authority over men.
> Mothers over children certainly has nothing to do with them being over men.



I should have clarified I meant adult children. And again, these can refer either to authority, or teaching. The verses I had in mind are Gen 27:8, Prov 1:8, 6:20, 31:1-2.



> As far as the other examples that you give it's not easy to give an answer to without the passages that you are referring to.



Here are the verses I had in mind:
Wives over servants: 1 Sam 25:18-19, 2 Kings 4:24, Esther 4:17 ( that last one is a little different, but still an example of authority) 
Female heads of households: Lydia (Acts 16:15, 40) and the Elect Lady (2 John1:10).
Informal (i.e. not in a official preaching capacity) teaching of men: 1 Sam 25:32-35, Acts 18:24-28.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 19, 2008)

satz said:


> Here are the verses I had in mind:
> Wives over servants: 1 Sam 25:18-19, 2 Kings 4:24



Just looking at these first two I disagree that this shows they have some kind of authority in the context. It would be like saying that because my wife says, "pick up some bread at the supermarket" that she has authority over me.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



I apologize if my bluntness caused offence. I admitted I might be wrong in my assessment of your aim in posting what I thought was a very odd way of entering the discussion. You asked for a definition of a large number of words which evidently lie along some continuum in some people's thinking. I read that question as you approaching the issue from a different angle, meaning to promote the 'continuum' idea, and say ultimately that we are going to come up with different thresholds for violation depending on how we interpret those words. I saw that (again, if that wasn't your intent, I apologize for ever asking) as a "sideways" approach, and that approach as a statement that one shoud "throw up his hands" in trying to come up with some dividing line.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

oh,

I do believe that there are dividing lines...some of mine are just a little fuzzier than others...


One point, however, is this: we stress so strongly what women cannot do; I often wonder if we are communicating well enough what they can do and are we empowering them to do these things?

Example: I know a lady who was selected to teach a sunday school class full of very very young boys and she resigned and her and others felt convicted about her exercising authority over males. I think her and others were pushed too an overly conservative position due to a steady date of hearing the limitations of females.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 19, 2008)

Open Air to me means simply sharing the gospel, giving the message that all are damned to Hell under the law of God, followed by what God did to provide a way of salvation from such a condition. Any who respond to such a "proclamation" should then be encouraged to attend the church of the proclaimer or to meet with the proclaimer and his or *her* Pastor. 



> I realize that some here on the PB think that 1 Tim 2 is a declaration about how all of life should be ordered, but I think it is clearly contextually limited to how things in the church should be run.



I agree with this. Calling men unto repentance is not the same as leading and teaching men within the Church.


----------



## Neopatriarch (Nov 19, 2008)

satz said:


> What is disagree with is that Paul intended, in this verse, to dictate what should happen in other spheres of life. Paul has a particular purpose in bringing up creation, which is to support his point on authority in the church, not make a blanket statement on all of life.



Doug Wilson has some interesting things to say about this idea and, although it is in an article about Sarah Palin, I think the main point he is making is relevant here. See:

The Creation Order and Sarah (esp. the third paragraph).


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 19, 2008)

I think what Pergy is getting at is, at what point does sharing turn into preaching, or where do you draw the line?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 19, 2008)

I think you draw the line at gospel "proclamation". If one is "drawn" by the Spirit because of such, this person will surely have deeper questions at which time the proclaimer (male or female) could direct them to literature from their Church which would include a phone number for the Pastor (which could be highlighted). 

Unlike Arminians we don't have the desperate need to get the person to instantly say the "sinners prayer" in case we lose them. If the Holy Spirit uses a woman's proclamation of the Gospel to pierce the heart of a man she does then not have to "teach" him. If he refuses to attend service or call a pastor it's likely his ears and eyes were not truly opened to the good news she shared. Just how the disciples RAN to the tomb when they heard the woman's good news!


----------



## reformedcop (Nov 20, 2008)

Lately, I have come to the conclusion that any Open Air Ministry should ideally be under the authority of the church which would make clear that no woman should participate in the actual preaching aspect of said ministry. 

I do kind of see where the confusion, or gray if you will, comes from when broaching this subject. I have personally on many occasions hit the streets specifically for the purpose of witnessing and handing out tracts. Some the brothers I go out with are open air preachers. Anyway, when we go out, we usually engage in many one-to-one encounters. But, sometimes the one-to-one encounters turn into one-two or one-to-ten. And when that happens, I find myself having to raise my voice so that everybody can hear. So, when does sharing the Gospel become preaching? Is it the decibal level of one's voice that makes it preaching? I think there is a line somewhere in this regard; I’m just not exactly sure where that line is. Is it intent? If a woman goes out with the intent to share in one-to-ones and ends up surrounded by listeners, should she cease and desist? I’m not sure.

Also, it seems that there is somewhat of a distinction between expositing Scripture for the Saints during Lord’s Day worship and a preacher raising his voice calling for repentance and faith among a crowd of unbelievers complete with scoffers and hecklers. Now just because there seems to be a difference doesn’t mean that a woman should take part in the latter.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 20, 2008)

> Also, it seems that there is somewhat of a distinction between expositing Scripture for the Saints during Lord’s Day worship and a preacher raising his voice calling for repentance and faith among a crowd of unbelievers complete with scoffers and hecklers. Now just because there seems to be a difference doesn’t mean that a woman should take part in the latter.



I believe you're right, I believe there is a vast difference and call unto repentance is not "teaching", at least not in the way women are instructed not to do. In the very least, if you conscience bothers you about it couldn't a woman go out to do this with a man and they each deal with their perspective sexes?


----------



## paulkaiser (Nov 20, 2008)

As of late I too have come to a very similar conclusion in regards to Open Air Ministry - It should be in the context of the church. Now how to make this the normative practice is beyond me.

I have been an active street/campus preacher for several years now and I have preached with women in the beginning, however today I do not see it to be biblical for a woman to preach in the open air, but before we get to my conclusion let's make some distinctions that we can all agree with.

*One on One Witnessing:*

One on One is permissiable for all Bible Believing Christians to do. We are commanded to "Go and Preach". A woman sharing the Gospel in this context is not in question, although if we are to be consistent, sharing the Gospel will always include some type of teaching.

If someone can offer an example of sharing the Gospel without some element of teaching I would welcome it and stand humbly corrected.

One on One witnessing will not always be to just one person. Anyone who is active in public evangelism will know this. When we appraoch a family, a group out on the town, or even one person there is usually more than one hearer of the conversation. When this happens we may raise our voices but this is not Open Air Preaching.

Please allow me to clarify by way of example:

I know of a woman who commutes on the bus for two hours each day and she is very active in witnessing each way and makes a consious effort to sit next to someone new each way. In doing so she often finds herself sharing with the person next to her but also to those in the adjacent seats at the same time if they are attentive to the conversation. She raises her voice so those listening within earshot can hear the Gospel as well. Would this be preaching - I would unapologetically say no.

Now let's take this one step further... During her evangelism she is made aware that the person is a church going Arminian. Is she to abruptly end the conversation? Is she not to instruct (teach) the Arminian in Sovereign Grace? Should she hand them a tract and a Pastor's phone number? What if the person reads the tract and has questions? Should she not answer, instruct, and exhort?

Now one may argue that Priscilla is an example, but this woman I am speaking of rides the bus alone and is unmarried. Should she not "expound"?

Again, I unapologetically say no... She is not preaching or exercising authority but sharing the Gospel with those around her. However we cannot get around the fact that the sharing of the Gospel requires teaching at one level or another.

*Open Air Preaching:*

In the context of an Open Air meeting there are some general things that take place more often than not:

1) The preacher uses elevation of some sort. It may be a stool, a low wall, steps, or a park bench.

2) The preacher preaches with authority and boldness confronting sin in the market palce.

3) The preacher (like the one to one evangelist) teaches and instructs in right doctrine and in the law of God. Although this is done in an authoritive manner rather than just by casual conversation.

4) The preacher often has believers in the audiance and is also exercising authority over them. Often believers will stop listen and even give out an AMEN! Just like in the church setting.

Open Air preachers teach of the fall, the reality of Hell, the requirements of the Law, and the justice of a Holy, Righteous and Just God. Many ask questions and listen intently to the proclimation of the Gospel as the preacher tears down any stronghold that exhaults itself against the throne of God. 

Open Air preachers are heralds of the Gospel message and spend much time reasoning and teaching unregenerate and regenerate alike. They call sinners to repentance and faith in Christ with authority. There is no waivering in this call, but rather a call with all determination and earnestness and just like it was said of Christ - They speak as one having authority.

Many times throughout the preaching you will be confronted by well meaning Christians who will tell you what you are doing is wrong. In this situation we are to gently admonish and rebuke for opposing the preaching of the Gospel. We examine and warn those who are in error. Again they exercise authority over one who belongs to the local church.

It is because of these reasons that I say a woman biblically has no business preaching in the open air.

That's my 

P.S. Reformed Cop: There... I posted! Happy now!


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 20, 2008)

Mr Kaiser,

You are a deep thinker and careful to apprehend God's truth, revealed through His Word.

This puts you in good stead here, and I look forward to reading your contributions.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 20, 2008)

Tim said:


> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> > So it's a sin for a woman to tell an unsaved man to repent and believe the gospel?
> ...



These are helpful guidelines as we try to apply biblical principles to a myriad of hypothetical situations.

It seems to me that preaching and even exhorting, are to be done by men only, according to the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture, at least in contexts that are:

1) public
and
2) authoritative

Certainly this includes ordinances of public worship. We often use the term "corporate" synonymous with public, so we understand this to be corporate worship.

We, of course do not want to be more restrictive, nor less restrictive than God's Word commands. 

I also have the sense that Scripture would not restrict us sharing the Gospel or application of or discussion of God's Word in the ordinary course of life. This would seem to include chance encounters and would not prohibit private sharing, discussion, even "teaching" and "preaching" privately, even if others are listening.

Perhaps, intent is important here (as well as effect). If a woman intends to preach or teach publically and authoritatively it is a usurpation according to Scripture. If a woman does not intend to do that, it might not be.

The original post question seems to assume an intention to publically and authoritatively "preach" and that's way so many of us clearly see it as contrary to Scripture.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 20, 2008)

reformedcop said:


> Lately, I have come to the conclusion that any Open Air Ministry should ideally be under the authority of the church which would make clear that no woman should participate in the actual preaching aspect of said ministry.
> 
> I do kind of see where the confusion, or gray if you will, comes from when broaching this subject. I have personally on many occasions hit the streets specifically for the purpose of witnessing and handing out tracts. Some the brothers I go out with are open air preachers. Anyway, when we go out, we usually engage in many one-to-one encounters. But, sometimes the one-to-one encounters turn into one-two or one-to-ten. And when that happens, I find myself having to raise my voice so that everybody can hear. So, when does sharing the Gospel become preaching? Is it the decibal level of one's voice that makes it preaching? I think there is a line somewhere in this regard; I’m just not exactly sure where that line is. Is it intent? If a woman goes out with the intent to share in one-to-ones and ends up surrounded by listeners, should she cease and desist? I’m not sure.
> 
> Also, it seems that there is somewhat of a distinction between expositing Scripture for the Saints during Lord’s Day worship and a preacher raising his voice calling for repentance and faith among a crowd of unbelievers complete with scoffers and hecklers. Now just because there seems to be a difference doesn’t mean that a woman should take part in the latter.



I would suggest that it is the authority behind the proclamation that is the dividing line between preaching and sharing the Gospel.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 20, 2008)

When I lived in NYC and would take an early AM subway to work, there was this elderly woman (70s, 80s?) on the train boldly bearing witness to Christ, His sovereignty, His salvation, and the coming judgment. She was telling the good news.

Will fault be found with her?


----------



## larryjf (Nov 20, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> When I lived in NYC and would take an early AM subway to work, there was this elderly woman (70s, 80s?) on the train boldly bearing witness to Christ, His sovereignty, His salvation, and the coming judgment. She was telling the good news.
> 
> Will fault be found with her?



As long as she didn't try to take authority over the men on the train i wouldn't find any fault with her.
All of us are to boldly proclaim the Gospel.


----------



## reformedcop (Nov 20, 2008)

larryjf said:


> I would suggest that it is the authority behind the proclamation that is the dividing line between preaching and sharing the Gospel.



Yes, I would agree with you.


----------



## paulkaiser (Nov 21, 2008)

larryjf said:


> As long as she didn't try to take authority over the men on the train i wouldn't find any fault with her.
> All of us are to boldly proclaim the Gospel.



We will have to define our terms a bit... What is your understanding of "taking authority over" and could you please help clarify by way of example.

I think this is where much of the indicision is regarding this subject. Would saying to a man, "I have shown you clearly through Scripture that you are guilty before a Holy and Just God and if you do not repent and and believe the Gospel you will perish", be exercising authority?

Thanks for the clarification...


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 21, 2008)

I don't think that's exercising authority at all, it's pointing him toward the truth. Once the truth is accepted you direct him to where he can get his teaching.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 21, 2008)

paulkaiser said:


> We will have to define our terms a bit... What is your understanding of "taking authority over" and could you please help clarify by way of example.
> 
> I think this is where much of the indicision is regarding this subject. Would saying to a man, "I have shown you clearly through Scripture that you are guilty before a Holy and Just God and if you do not repent and and believe the Gospel you will perish", be exercising authority?
> 
> Thanks for the clarification...



That would not be taking authority over them as it is simply the proclamation of God's Word.

It might be best to show this authoritative preaching by way of example...

If someone is proclaiming God's word to repent and be baptized, but does not have the authority to baptize those he/she is speaking to, then they are not preaching in authority. If they do have the authority to baptize then they are preaching in authority.


----------



## paulkaiser (Nov 22, 2008)

larryjf said:


> If someone is proclaiming God's word to repent and be baptized, but does not have the authority to baptize those he/she is speaking to, then they are not preaching in authority. If they do have the authority to baptize then they are preaching in authority.



brother. Larry,

This begs the question and brings us right back to square one... So if a woman steps up on a stool in the public market place and does not call people to be baptized but rather raises her voice, gathers a crowd, confronts sin, admonishes inconsistent Christians, and only calls people (men and women, boys and girls) to repentence and faith but does not preach on Baptism is it permissiable and more over Biblical in your view?

How about if she did this from the pulpit from a church? Would the setting make a difference?

I would say it is not and a woman preaching in any context (open air or pulpit) is not a Biblical practice. If our (men and women) authority derives from the being able to administer the Ordinances of the church then it would tend that if people aren't called to those things open air preaching would be okay and quite possibly taking the pulpit as well.

If A + B is true and C + D derives from A + B, then C + D must also be true...

Hope I didn't loose anyone... Sometimes I over think things...


----------



## Leslie (Nov 22, 2008)

From what has been written, it seems that Johanna Veenstra who evangelized and discipled the Reformed church in Nigeria the first half of the 20th century, had no business doing so. It was fine for her to present the gospel to the Nigerians but once they were converted, she should have left them in ignorance of the scriptures. No Christian men came forward to live, work, and teach under the conditions, so was the teaching better left undone? This seems to be the logical conclusion.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 23, 2008)

paulkaiser said:


> brother. Larry,
> 
> This begs the question and brings us right back to square one... So if a woman steps up on a stool in the public market place and does not call people to be baptized but rather raises her voice, gathers a crowd, confronts sin, admonishes inconsistent Christians, and only calls people (men and women, boys and girls) to repentence and faith but does not preach on Baptism is it permissiable and more over Biblical in your view?
> 
> ...



Women are permitted to proclaim the Word of God which is different from preaching. The difference lies in the authority. The example i gave was just that, one example to clarify where the difference lies in practice.

There is nothing wrong with a woman proclaiming that one must be baptized, that's simply proclaiming the Word. But she as no authority in it, so she can't baptize those she is proclaiming the message to.

In the end it's a question of how you define "authority." I've given examples but not a definition-type response.

I guess i would say that preaching is done in the authority of Christ, which is reserved for men. As if the Christ Himself were speaking through the preacher.

Proclaiming the Word is done in a way where the believer is speaking as a disciple of Christ on the authority of Scripture.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 23, 2008)

Leslie said:


> From what has been written, it seems that Johanna Veenstra who evangelized and discipled the Reformed church in Nigeria the first half of the 20th century, had no business doing so. It was fine for her to present the gospel to the Nigerians but once they were converted, she should have left them in ignorance of the scriptures. No Christian men came forward to live, work, and teach under the conditions, so was the teaching better left undone? This seems to be the logical conclusion.



Since the CRC came to Nigeria in 1904 and Johanna was there in the 1920's, i'm not sure how you can say that no men came there to work in those conditions?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 23, 2008)

ALL ABOUT JOHANNA VEENSTRA - Christian Reformed Church


----------



## paulkaiser (Nov 23, 2008)

larryjf said:


> I guess i would say that preaching is done in the authority of Christ, which is reserved for men. As if the Christ Himself were speaking through the preacher.
> 
> Proclaiming the Word is done in a way where the believer is speaking as a disciple of Christ on the authority of Scripture.



Larry,

To that we can both agree!




Leslie said:


> From what has been written, it seems that Johanna Veenstra who evangelized and discipled the Reformed church in Nigeria the first half of the 20th century, had no business doing so. It was fine for her to present the gospel to the Nigerians but once they were converted, she should have left them in ignorance of the scriptures. No Christian men came forward to live, work, and teach under the conditions, so was the teaching better left undone? This seems to be the logical conclusion.



Leslie,

Although if something is found to be unbiblical (which is yet to be proven - just thinking in advance) and though God in His providence uses it for good doesn't make it right. Kinda like Booth and The Salvation Army!

You bring up a very good argument! I will enjoy looking into that...


----------



## larryjf (Nov 23, 2008)

Taken from Address data base of Reformed churches and institutions

*Christian Reformed Church of Nigeria*


> The Church came into existence in 1904 through missionary efforts of the Sudan United Mission (SUM) —British Branch. From 1920 to 1993 Johanna Veenstra, a Christian Reformed woman, worked for the church. Her witness had a deep impact on the life of the church. She was joined by other missionaries of the Christian Reformed Church, and in 1940 the Christian Reformed Church made an official com-mitment to this activity by joining the SUM as the CRC branch. Nigerian converts, such as Timon Mamma Irmiya, Filibus Ashu Angyu, Simon Atajiri, and others, made an important contribution to the evangelistic work. In 1951 the church was officially established. It is today rooted in Gongola State, and in parts of Benue State and Borno State, but it has also spread to the Federal Capital Territory.



So the church was already in existence when she got there. And, if i'm not mistaken, it was SUM who sent here there as well.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 23, 2008)

Wikipedia

This site says she was the first to Nigeria. 

If not the first, I doubt if the "church" was very widespread, plus Nigeria is a big place, isn't it?

We should give honor to whom honor is due.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 23, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Wikipedia
> 
> This site says she was the first to Nigeria.
> 
> ...



Acutally, it says she was the first missionary of the CRC to go to Nigeria.

Thomas Freeman was the first missionary from England to go to Nigeria.

The first Church Missionary Society (Anglican) missionary came to Nigeria in 1842.

So there are many "firsts" but it's important to be clear about the extent of such.


----------



## Leslie (Nov 23, 2008)

Your point is well taken. Disobedience is not justified by good having come out of a prior, similar disobedience. I think it is a larger issue also--to what extent does one consider the context of commandments? In the case of Paul writing to Timothy, the form of his admonition is stating his practice. It seems to be a lower-level command than the decalogue. In this case, obviously there were men available to teach. In the absence of qualified men one could make an argument that teaching is a higher priority. On the other hand, once one starts that kind of reasoning, in the pre-AIDS era someone could have argued that the prohibition against adultery was written in the pre-antibiotic context and now that STD's are treatable, adultery is acceptable. None of us would buy into that.



paulkaiser said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > I guess i would say that preaching is done in the authority of Christ, which is reserved for men. As if the Christ Himself were speaking through the preacher.
> ...


----------



## rgreen (Nov 23, 2008)

Women have the very important and privilaged position as "support workers" in a variety of contexts.

God has mercifully and abundantly compensated us for any difficulties that we may face as the "weaker vessels" by appointing us to tasks suited to our constitutions.

I willingly submit to my husband's authority in the family, because I know, and am so greatfule, that I have been placed in the very best place that I could be, by the One who knows me, and to Who's will I gladly submit.

Similarly, the public preaching of The Word is simply not a task assigned to us, and so we don't do it. 

We can rest assured that God will send who He will send, if it is something that should and must be done.

Lloyd-Jones said that a "need" does not constitute a "call". Many may perceive a need, but not all, and perhaps not any, may be called to meet it.

What a blessing it is to have the assurance that all things are indeed working together for the good of God's people, and what a joy it is, for every one of His men, women and children, to submit to His will for them, and to acknowledge that everything of theirs is truely His.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 23, 2008)

If we are counting any missionaries, than the Catholics beat everyone by hundreds of years:

Christianity came to Nigeria in the 14th century through Augustine and Capuchine monks from Portugal. The first mission of the Church of England was, though, only established in 1842 in Badagry by Henry Townsend.

http://www.cbcn.org/aspscripts/page1.asp


So, it does not matter who was first, Johanna Veenstra is praiseworthy for her efforts.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 23, 2008)

Well, I know what it is I believe and how I see scripture in regard to that. Interesting discussion though.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 23, 2008)

Women make about about 65% of all foreign missionaries.

They excel in linguistics and in teaching of women and children as well as humanitarian, medical, orphan, etc, relief...

I know of not a single women preaching in the whole province where I am at, despite many many women missionaries.

Relating this to the OP, there are many things that women CAN do without open -air preaching.


----------



## TimV (Nov 23, 2008)

> So, it does not matter who was first, Johanna Veenstra is praiseworthy for her efforts.



If it doesn't matter, you shouldn't have brought it up.

The woman was know for medical work and preaching. The medical work should be praised and the preaching should be condemned.

It's not a big race. There is no contest between God and Satan to collect as many souls as possible before the end, and God certainly doesn't need us at all. If you keep that in mind, then there's no need to defend a woman or a man for doing things they shouldn't. 

God is gracious to allow us to serve Him to bring about His Kingdom, and He has given us an instruction manual to guide us. God is eternally content, and isn't anxious about having His elect die before they hear the Gospel.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 23, 2008)

Johanna Veenstra was brought up. Getting facts as to what she did or didn't do is relevant to the OP. Whether she was the first in Nigeria or the 2nd or third matters little to this OP however.


----------

