Should laymen preach the word on the street?

[KMK]

Dr. Godfrey wrote this in his article entitled "Friend or Foe: The Mission and the Confession of the Church" in the most recent issue of 'Evangelium':

I was intrigued recently, while having dinner with three other people. Two of them told the story of how close relatives had been saved by street preachers-by the Lord, of course, but through street preachers. We all know street preaching is a waste of time. That it's just an embarrassment. That it's not clever. We couldn't do that, especially if you are a Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed. And I thought, isn't that amazing? The Word showed its power! God honored the preaching of His Word. Maybe the preaching wasn't very good, maybe it wasn't very wise, maybe it wasn't very sophisticated. This kind of preaching almost sounds like the kind of people, Paul says, the Lord calls to himself. Do we have confidence that the Word of God gives us everything we need for worship and fror ministry and for life in the church of Christ?

I think what Godfrey is trying to get across is that God's Word is more powerful than we are foolish. The confessions say that preachers should be approved by the church that they are 'called', 'fitted, and 'gifted'. But that does not mean that, like everything else, the preached Word is not powerful when we foolish humans do things that are not 'ideal'. But this truth should not embolden us to continue in our foolishness.

I think when the confessions speak on ecclesiology it is in the spirit of a 'best case scenario' that won't be fully realized this side of glory.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

What dost thou think of John Bunyan?

Should the tinker have been stopped and warned that he was not a Preacher? J

ohn Owen sure thought he was gifted in Preaching.

*bump*

I have heard some preachers that are ordained who should never preach. They would bore bark on a tree to death.

And I have heard some young men in Baptist churches through the years who are not ordained but were wonderfully gifted and right on.



Again, What think ye of our old Puritan Bunyan?

Spurgeon never went to seminary either.

 

[Pergamum]

Lay Preaching

 

[raekwon]

That's a good point, Ken. I wasn't as careful as I should have been in my reading.

So, now I'll say that I disagree with the LBCF's wording as well . . . approval and calling by the church are good and important. The church is the means by which God calls men to the service of the preaching of the Word. I don't deny that by ANY means. What I deny (like I said earlier) is the idea that the power and authority of preaching come from that ordination. They do not.

I appreciate the candor.

However, if I may be so bold to point out that what you say above is exactly what I think the LBC is getting at: a denial that power comes from the church (because it comes from the HS), but that the church is the vehicle for recognizing who has been empowered with 'calling', 'fitting', and 'gifting'.

For example, when you were ordained, it was not the church vesting you with giftedness, calling, and fitting. Your ordination was in fact the church publically recognizing that you had been gifted, called and fitted by the power of the HS.

This is true, but a church's recognition of a man's calling and giftedness to preach isn't always tantamount to ordination. For example, churches often allow men who are either in or preparing for seminary to preach occasionally. The church isn't ordaining them to office by this action, but in this instance, such men are still "approved and called by the church", as the Confession states.

Other than that small point, I'm pretty much in agreement with you. What I'm railing against is the idea that without ordination, preaching has no -- or less -- power (or that it shouldn't be called "preaching" at all, but rather "exhortation"). It makes no sense to me.

 

[KMK]

That's a good point, Ken. I wasn't as careful as I should have been in my reading.

So, now I'll say that I disagree with the LBCF's wording as well . . . approval and calling by the church are good and important. The church is the means by which God calls men to the service of the preaching of the Word. I don't deny that by ANY means. What I deny (like I said earlier) is the idea that the power and authority of preaching come from that ordination. They do not.

I appreciate the candor.

However, if I may be so bold to point out that what you say above is exactly what I think the LBC is getting at: a denial that power comes from the church (because it comes from the HS), but that the church is the vehicle for recognizing who has been empowered with 'calling', 'fitting', and 'gifting'.

For example, when you were ordained, it was not the church vesting you with giftedness, calling, and fitting. Your ordination was in fact the church publically recognizing that you had been gifted, called and fitted by the power of the HS.

This is true, but a church's recognition of a man's calling and giftedness to preach isn't always tantamount to ordination. For example, churches often allow men who are either in or preparing for seminary to preach occasionally. The church isn't ordaining them to office by this action, but in this instance, such men are still "approved and called by the church", as the Confession states.

Other than that small point, I'm pretty much in agreement with you. What I'm railing against is the idea that without ordination, preaching has no -- or less -- power (or that it shouldn't be called "preaching" at all, but rather "exhortation"). It makes no sense to me.

I think Godfrey would agree with you.