Women Open-Air Preaching -Authority over Men?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
I think what Pergy is getting at is, at what point does sharing turn into preaching, or where do you draw the line?
 
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!
 
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.
 
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?
 
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 :2cents:

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

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...:oops:
 
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.
 
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...:oops:

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.
 
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?
 
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!


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... :worms:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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!


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... :worms:
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top