Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Every Christian should be able to give an account of why he is a Christian; but that does not mean every Christian is meant to preach.

This distinction is brought out in a most interesting way in Acts 8 in verses 4 and 5. There we are told in the first verse that a great persecution of the church arose in Jerusalem, and that all the members of the church were scattered abroad except the apostles. Then we are told in verses 4 and 5, ‘Therefore they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the Word. Then Phillip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.’ That is the King James Version translation, and in both cases you have the word ‘preached’. But in the original the same word was not used in the two verses; and this is the vital distinction. What ‘the people’ who went everywhere did was, as someone has suggested it might be translated, ‘to gossip’ the Word, to talk about it in conversation. Philip on the other hand did something different; he was ‘heralding’ the Gospel. This is, strictly speaking, what is meant by preaching in the sense that I have been using it. It is not accidental that such a distinction should be drawn there in the actual text.

That is the position then, that every Christian should be capable of doing what is indicated in the fifth verse. In the New Testament this distinction is drawn very clearly; certain people only are set apart and called upon to deliver the message, as it were, on behalf of the church in an official manner. That act is confined to the elders, and only to some of them – the teaching elders, the elder who has received the gift of teaching, the pastors and the teachers. It is clear that the preaching in the New Testament was confined to the Apostles and the prophets and the evangelists and these others.

Why do I suggest that this is important? What is the ultimate criticism of what is called ‘lay-preaching’? The answer comes to this, that it seems to miss completely the whole notion of a ‘call’. There are also other reasons which seem to me to militate against the idea. My main argument is that the picture I have already given of the preacher, and what he is doing, insists not only that this is something to which a man is called, but also something that should occupy the whole of his time apart from exceptional circumstances. It is not something that can be done as an aside, as it were; that is a wrong approach and a wrong attitude to it.

- D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching & Preachers