May laymen preach/exhort/read in public worship?

[Willem van Oranje]

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.

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 ----------

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 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?

Last edited by Willem van Oranje; Today at 11:28 PM. Reason: provided Greek snippet

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

"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]

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

 

[Willem van Oranje]

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]

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!!

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]

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!!

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.

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

 

[JML]

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]

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]

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.