I submit myself to be considered vile...

Have at it, dear brothers; what does it look like today?

Trey, While I certainly understand what you're talking about and sympathize with your position to an extent, I think that we have to be able to say that there are legitimate circumstances for preaching and evangelizing people without the authority (or shall we say permision) of the church. For instance, think of Paul. Had he not, in some sense, broken away from the authority of the church, would Gentiles have ever been evangelized? Had Peter and Paul listened to the overwhelming number of Jewish believers who wanted the Gospel only delivered to the Jews, where would we be today? Now, of course you can say that Paul and Peter were apostles and thereby had the authority of the church no matter where they went, and you would probably be right. However, they still were acting outside the prescribed limits of where the Church was working. Moreover, I do not know how we as Protestants can even justify our existence without first saying that there are times and circumstances when breaking with the Authority of the Church is necessary. Even though Benny Hinn and George Whitefield are similar in tactics, I think that we can all agree that there is a Grand Canyon of difference between their attitudes and beliefs. Moreover, it can be said that Luther and Whitefield TRIED to get the established church on board and were shot down.

Brandon, Your argument is inherently flawed. Paul, THE APOSTLE, by definition, could not be beyond the authority of the Church since the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). It was the so-called "Super-Apostles" who operated outside the sanction of the Church (with forged letters of authentication, to boot!--2 Cor. 3:1-2). No, Paul is clear that even he, as an apostle was under authority (2 Cor. 10:7-18), and that he did not desire to operate where another's sphere of influence was. The authority with which he spoke and wrote was properly delegated to him by God, (and which he could delegate to othes the way he did with, e.g., Tiomthy and Titus) unlike the self-assumed "authority" of those who tried to undermine Paul's ministry to supplant it with their own. This couldn't be more appropriate to the discussion about proper ecclesiastical authority. Ross wrote: "And what is the difference between your view and the view of the Catholic Church that it alone has the keys of the kingdom?" Well, for one thing, i don't claim that my own ecclesiastical institution *IS* Christ's Church, apart from which there is no Church. But the truth is that the Church alone *DOES* have the keys to the Kingdom. How can that be disputed? The question that we must deal with is how to return from the anarchy our schism has created to a properly established and universally recognized Church authority? I truly believe that the road back is to return to the national Church model that so marked the Reformation Churches. Does that mean "persecution" of those who diverge from the properly established authority? Well, persecution is in the eye of the beholder, i guess. Do we "persecute" the Neo-Arian Watchtowerites by opposing them and denouncing them for the interlopers and cultists that they are? Well, that's the way they'd tell it. But i don't think anyone is happy with the current ecclesiastical situation where it is an ecclesiastical free-for-all. It really doesn't bother me who has hard feelings over this. Making sure that ministers and ministries have properly authorized authority is the model that the Apostle Paul left us with (cf., 2 Corinthians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, &c.).

Brandon, The point has nothing to do with whether the Church was operative in a particular area when the apostles were "sent out" to work in those areas. The point is that they *WERE* the Church, so that, by definition, the Church had the authority to work in those areas, delegated that authority by Christ himself. Again, we can't justify upstart preachers' tactics just because we like their theology. If it is fine for Whitefield to ignore the authority of the Church, then why is it bad for Hinn? Sure, their theology is worlds apart, but that's not the issue. The issue is where they got their authority to do what they do. To give a different answer for one than the other is what we call special pleading--otherwise known as a "double standard." Moreover, our existence as Protestants is owing to the fact that there is such a thing as a bishop who claims to have authority over all others, which is unprecedented in Christian history outside of the Roman bishop's usurpations. All bishops have equal authority and standing; none have authority over the others. This is precisely the basis for synodical government of the Church. So, just as we should oppose those up-start ministers who attempt to usurp authority not given to it by preaching in places they have not been invited or assigned, so we should oppose those up-start ministers who attempt to usurp authority not given to it by making the even grander claim that he has authority over other ministers, all ministers, in fact, everywhere.

A few years ago I encountered an open-air preacher on campus. Most everyone (Christian and otherwise) either hated his guts or was so apathetic as to not care. He's Pentecostal, and holiness, and does a fair bit of fire and brimstone. I talked to him and liked a lot of what he had to say though I was still befuddled by the whole idea of preaching like that (both the setting and the content). Sometime afterward he was looking for some assistance so I joined him for some Bible studies and some preaching. I wasn't very good as a public speaker, and I regret some of the things I said because they were heresy (some of them I learned from the preacher, others were just my half-baked ideas since I was a young Christian and didn't know better), but in general God blessed me greatly in growth for obeying what I thought He wanted of me at that time. Due to a temporary but serious health condition (from which he has recovered, praise God), my friend didn't do as much on campus for a while, and I drifted away, came back to the Reformed faith (praise God!), got married (praise God!), moved a couple of times, had a child (praise God!), and I've never gotten back into the open-air preaching. My reasons go along the lines of "I'm not humble enough", "I need to know my Bible better", etc, but are probably more from a desire for comfort on my part. So these questions are near to my heart. More recently, and partly due to the FV discussions, it's occurred to me that a Biblical ecclesiology may require more than simple willingness, a sense of calling, public speaking ability, and Scriptural knowledge to do that sort of preaching. Indeed, are the requirements for open-air preaching any less than the requirements for church preaching? Would I have to be ordained to preach on campus? Does it change matters that my elders (though they don't esteem open-air preaching very highly) are aware of my previous experience and are ok with my continuing it under their oversight? Blessings, Keith

Keith, My answer to you in that regard would appeal to the nature of what it means to be a kerux (preacher, herald, &c.). This is not just somebody who likes to go out and tell people about something in the open air because he happens to agree with it and wants to get people to agree with him; no, being a kerux is to be an official ambassador, a public herald with the official message of the King. In the Roman Empire, had someone taken it upon himself to give public messages as an imperial herald in the name of the Emperor without proper sanction, he would probably have been subject to being put to death. That's because the herald, as an ambassador of the King, was to be given all the honor and authority by the people (to be heard and to be respected) as the Emperor himself in whose name he spoke. When Paul particularly uses that word "kerux" or the verb "kerusso," he did it understanding the nature of such an office the way that the people to whom he spoke would understand it. So, do i believe that a person who engages in open air preaching should be ordained? Absolutely, but again, that's not the issue--and that's not enough. Whitefield was ordained. Many of Arius' followers (Arian priests in the early Church, who likewise engaged in open air preaching to spread their heresies) were ordained as well. Hinn is ordained. Kenneth Copeland is ordained. Billy Graham is ordained. Franklin Graham is ordained. Billy Sunday was ordained. D.L. Moody was ordained. For that matter, Charles Finney was ordained--by the Presbyterian Church! No, ordination is not enough. One must be given a sphere of authority, a place to practice his calling, or else be requested by those who *DO* have that sphere of authority to labor in that place for a time (e.g., guest preachers, evangelists in a certain area, assistants and interns, &c.). Luther himself had very much to say about the propriety of a call and ordination to a particular office. There were some who wanted, in the wake of Romanism, to do away with all official distinctions--no more layman/clergy distinctions--but Luther was clear that a minister who had no charge was no minister. Some appealed to the fact that all Christians are priests and called to edify one another, and while Luther taught and believed the priesthood of believers, he also said that while all Christians are priests, not all are pastors and "fathers" to the people. He absolutely denounced those ministers who took upon themselves the office of preaching and teaching without the proper sanction. My only point is that this whole idea about anybody being able to preach--whether in open air or in the Church, and really there is no difference, since the souls of hearers weigh in he balance, regardless of where we are preaching--is foolhardy. If you wouldn't commit your heart surgery to a man who likes to read anatomy textbooks and thinks he has a good grasp of what needs to be done in such a surgery, why would you go so far as to commit something more precious, more serious, and more eternal than our natural lives (i.e., your very soul and eternal destiny) to men who are similarly untrained and lacking the proper authority from God's ordinary means of salvation, the Church? And if you wouldn't do it yourself, why would you wish it upon someone else? Now, if your session sets you apart for such a task, that certainly is the Church's sanction. We can debate what level of Church authority one needs to have the proper ordination (whether congregation or presbyterial), but in either case, the Church is the one given the task of calling and charging ministers with particular tasks and spheres of ministry. No bishop (certainly not the Roman bishop) has a universal flock. Nor should we take kindly to supposed shepherds to sneak into the fold and take allegiance away from properly recognized and authorized shepherds to tend their flocks for their eternal good.