>"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). Here is another one. >"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Timothy 2:12-14). I asked my mom once about this and she explained that when the holy spirit descended, both men and women received it. And this gives us many different gifts such us prophesying, singing and preaching. I understood her but what I could not ask her was that, Corinthians and Timothy came after the holy spirit descended in Acts. In Africa you cannot keep on asking challenging questions to the elderly as it might be seen as disrespect. Someone help me here.

Does "gospel-preaching church" have a shared meaning among Christians? What is it supposed to mean, and what are the signs of this "gospel-preaching church"? Is the term a tautology? Or is the negation of the term a way to criticize and slight other types of Christians or denominations that one group of Christians may disapprove of or dislike? If possible, where did this phrase come from, and by whom is this phrase typically used?

Before Antichrist, Elias and Enoch will preach for 1,260 days: Apoc. 11:3 : >And I will give unto my two witnesses [Elias and Enoch], and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in sackcloth What exactly will their preaching look like, according to Catholic commentators? Will it involve modern communication technologies like the internet, radio communication, etc.? Or will it be strictly word-of-mouth preaching?

What is the Biblical basis for preachers to be paid from members' tithing?

For the first five years of my Christian life I was blessed by the expository preaching of a U.K. Baptist minister. Sermons were usually 45 minutes in duration and the word of God was preached without apology or excuse. Application of Scripture and biblical principles within our Christian lives was made clear. Often I would feel distinctly uncomfortable as I realised that there were lessons there which I had to apply in my life. Sadly, since moving away, I have been unable to find a church that applies the same rigorous teaching programme aimed at the congregation. ***I believe that preaching is central to Christian worship.*** Yes, there is a place for singing hymns and praying, but hearing the word of God is why I go to church. The evangelical Baptist church I now attend seems to think that most of the time should be devoted to singing bland songs, repeating the simple tunes over and over and over again. Why, last Sunday, the visiting preacher only had 20 minutes left to deliver his message. It was hardly worth getting out of bed for because the preaching of the word of God was not the focus. My question is aimed specifically at Evangelical Protestant churches. I would like to know if expository preaching is the norm or if it's become a thing of the past. My question is inspired after reading this article which comes from a Southern Baptist source: [The Sheer Weightlessness of So Many Sermons—Why Expository Preaching Matters](https://albertmohler.com/2013/08/21/the-sheer-weightlessness-of-so-many-sermons-why-expository-preaching-matters) . I realise that evangelical churches in other continents may have a different take on Expository Preaching, so allow me to narrow the field. How do U.K. and European Evangelical Protestant churches define expository preaching, and how does that differ from modern-day evangelical preaching? EDIT: Subsequent to the posting of this question, I have found a Reformed Protestant article which teaches that Scripture should interpret Scripture. https://www.theopedia.com/analogy-of-faith

Cardinal Manning , *The Eternal Priesthood* p. 175 claims: >In the beginning it was the Bishops alone who preached. The needs of the faith compelled them to delegate this, their chief office, to the priesthood. Did only bishops preach in the early Church?

While I am a fan of Catholic theology particularly and religious sciences and philosophy of religion generally (For example, I am trying to read journals such as [Theological Studies](https://journals.sagepub.com/home/tsj) from cover to cover, though, I don't always have enough time for that.), I have always been a little bit suspicious about the homilies in my local parish church or in televised Masses celebrated by my metropolitan's bishop. Sometimes such homilies don't take into account the exegesis and philological and historical studies Testaments. Sometimes they take one position in issues that are scientifically contentious. To be honest, the homilies with only spiritual content are the best ones. They leave room for practical interpretation and implementation to individuals according to each one's life experience and wisdom. But Catholic homilies in Covid-19 times are too much for me - from local parishes up to the Pope. The talks are only about helplessness, about prayers, about discovery of meaning, about coming back to religion and so on, so on. What I would like to hear: - **More emphasis on what we can do.** E.g. Both these following articles: [Coronavirus treatment: Vaccines/drugs in the pipeline for Covid-19](https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/analysis/coronavirus-mers-cov-drugs/) and [Coronavirus Covid-19 outbreak: Latest news, information and updates](https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/special-focus/covid-19/coronavirus-covid-19-outbreak-latest-information-news-and-updates/) are a life list of vaccines and therapies developments. There are still open calls for more funding, especially by CEPI which focuses on worldwide availability of therapies (opposite to usual operation of commercial drug firms). If we have tools and if we (as a society) have the skills and funding capacity to fight the virus, then we are bound by the threat of sin to use our capabilities for the greater good. If we are not trying to see our capabilities and if we are not reflecting about our capabilities and our duty to use those capabilities, the this is sin. I think that such reflection gives some depth to spiritual life. It makes spiritual life live and there should be place in homilies about that; - **More emphasis of what we had to do.** The *Guardian* has articles about development of adaptable vaccines (including mRNA vaccines) and the stories are the same - they have been started during previous epidemics (Ebola, H1N1, MERS), but with the epidemics' ends funding dried out (from private investors, from government agencies) and progress has not been fast enough. So - due to lack of enough funding - we are having the first clinical tests of next-generation mRNA vaccines now although tests of similar mRNA vaccines could happen earlier. mRNA vaccines are adaptable and it would be far easier to adapt existing mRNA vaccine with existing experience. So - we should reflect about this sin of Humanity as well - we had money to build big villas and big yachts but we didn't have enough money to fund preparedness for new epidemics and to honor victims of previous epidemics in such a way. Great theme for a homily and for the spiritual growth and life, isn't it? - Current homilies are speaking **about finding new meaning.** Well - I am not having a happy enough life. I have seen hardships in the lives of working men and women. I am not ignoring news from developing countries. While it can be hard to bear this, it gives one nice ray of light in my life - I have meaning! I have hobbies (robotics and AI) that develop tools to ease working life, to accelerate the development of therapies and discoveries. I have no other meaning in life than to help us in an intelligent, meaningful, most optimal way. I have this outlook and homilies can not say anything new. I don't need to search for meaning. Caritas, help for others - what else can there be? But such caritas and help is very practical - some software, some tools in robotics, some software and molecular modelling code for the automatic discovery, some mathematical advancements for AI for automation of the service sector. So - maybe homilies should put more focus on the wider outlook what we as a society can do to help others in intelligent, effective way, using the appropriate tools from science and technology? - And the previous 3 points leads to the **issue of discovering/rediscovering faith**. The current paradigm is that people are feeling helpless and they are discovering faith in such a way. But - as I stated in the previous 3 points - there is no ground to be absolutely helpless. Yes, we can not be sure, but there is a mix of **helpless-uncertainties-accidence/capabilities-duties-faith_in_action-living_actionable_faith**, there is a mix of what we can definitely leave to the God and what we have to do as our duty, duty bound by conditions of sin. I think that is it very important to put any reflection of faith in such a context, otherwise - if absolute helplessness is the only precondition of the discovery of faith, the such faith will not be strong (even more, even the absoluteness of the physical death is not the fact anymore: [The Rejuvenation Roadmap](https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/) . So - I have stated some issues which I would like to hear in homilies and which I would like to enliven in my life and my guess is that any knowledgeable and reasonable human being would do the same. My feeling is that priests and even bishops and the Pope are not informed enough about science. E.g. [Pontifical Academy of Life](http://www.academyforlife.va/content/pav/en.html) does not mention the development of therapies. [Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS)](http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/events/2020/coronavirus.html) in contrast clearly states the need for science, basic science and for funding them. So, in theory, PAS has done at least something to inform the Pope and bishops and priests, but still - nothing from that has gone to the reflection and homilies in parish churches. So - my question is - **what is the most effective way to inform the parish priest and the local bishop (and maybe even the Congregations of the Holy See) about developments in science and about reasoning of the ordinary man. And in such a way to guide the priests and bishops in a more reasonable attitude against the Covid-19 pandemic?** So far I have tried to put some (quite short) Facebook comments under announcements made by priests or bishops, but all of them have been ignored. It was the opposite to the local Protestant community in which I suggested to pray for the development of vaccine and for everyone who aspires to become a scientist and develop vaccines, for their efforts - such a prayer suggestion was liked in the Protestant community.

The original context of the question is Acts 2:11 (ESV): > 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—**we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God**.” Some claim that the apostles were "preaching in tongues" here. To me and others, this looks more like a case of praising (see my reasons [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/56226/38524)) . However, I've heard some affirm that "preaching is praising, always", as if the two concepts were synonymous, and, therefore, that we should draw the conclusion that the gift of tongues is intended for "preaching the gospel" to foreigners. But going beyond the motivating context of tongues, I would like to ask a more general version of the question. What is the difference between praising God and preaching the gospel? Are they synonymous concepts? Are there either subtle or major differences?

So, in my Baptist circles, a divorced pastor causes a lot of consternation. It sort of went without saying that a minister in the midst of a divorce needed to resign, or at least take several years away from ministry. In other words, there seems to be this idea that preachers who divorce are at least temporarily disqualified from ministry, and in some cases permanently so. Andy Stanley picks up on this in his book "Deep and Wide," speaking of his father (Charles Stanley), who in 1992, underwent a very public divorce. He writes: >While most of the congregants at First Baptist Atlanta (FBA) were willing to stand by my dad no matter what, there was a group that insisted he take some time off to work on his marriage. ... In addition to the take-some-time-off group, there was an element in the church that thought my dad should resign. It was their conviction that if my mom actually went through with the divorce, he would be disqualified to serve in his current capacity. As cruel as that may sound, you need to understand that until that time, First Baptist Atlanta had never had a divorced staff member or deacon. You couldn't be elected to the deacon board if you had been divorced. So, in the minds of the resign-now crowd, they were simply applying what they had been taught. > >Stanley, Andy (2012-09-25). Deep & Wide: Creating Churches Unchurched People Love to Attend (p. 38). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. This seems related to the whole "deacons need to be the husband of one wife thing," but if this is the case, where does the chance at rehabilitation come from? **In short, what teachings would only temporarily disqualify a divorced pastor from preaching?**

I've been looking around for hard facts on the efficacy of street preaching but can't find any. Are there any hard numbers on the number of people who come to faith through this kind of evangelism? Has its efficacy changed over time? In Acts 2 Peter seems to use the same kind of technique with quite some effect. In my experience street preachers seem to be mostly met with either indifference or derision however that is entirely anecdotal. So, scientifically, how effective is street preaching as a method evangelism? --- Since I know of no studies I cannot define exactly what "efficacy" and other terms are in this instance, but I leave that to any studies if they exist.

During Jesus’s time when he preached to thousands of people with his disciples how were people able to hear him? I mean at that time there were no microphones or speakers. How were people able to hear him considering many times he preached to thousands of people at once?

I was listening to a homily and here is what the priest said: > "You would travel with your family to Jerusalem and you would have > either brought a lamb or you would have acquired a lamb and what you > do is live with that lamb in your home, the lamb would not leave your > house, the lamb had to be good, spotless, male, unblemished; **the lamb > would live in your house, typically eating from your table for one > week**. Why? So that you would begin to love the lamb, so that this is not > just some anonymous sacrifice..." My issue is about the lamb *"eating from your table"* part of that preaching. I understand that the priest was trying to make a point and the homily was great. I can take that it might be possible that, in Jewish tradition, an animal might be able to stay inside a house temporarily. However, I understand that Jewish people were obsessed with purity and it just seems fair to believe that having an animal eat from your table might have been deemed as *improper*. So my questions are: 1. Is it possible that Jewish people would keep a lamb inside their house, have them eat from their table, during one week prior to sacrifice? 2. Are there any reliable resources that support or correct this assertion?

I am wondering, today we use microphones and large sound systems to amplify someone's speaking. How did they do that 2000 years ago? Jesus spoke outside regularly before large crowds of people. I expect there were enough children, and disagreeing people, so it wasn't always quiet. Your voice won't reach very far when there are a lot of people, especially when there is a kid crying or someone having a discussion. My question is: How did the people back then hear Jesus' (or anyone else) preaching when there was a large crowd?

I've noticed that recently sermons in my local church have focused particularly on the life of Saints. I have observed this in other churches I've recently attended too (at least in 3 different churches). A friend of mine has also noted this in several churches **in a different continent** (and country, and language). (Incidentally, just yesterday I received a new edition of a Catholic magazine, and _voila_, the focus on Saints was forefront, and this seemed not connected to the upcoming feast of All Saints. Rather, it is asking the reader to write back which is his/her favourite saint(s).) All this might suggest that there was some form of informal or formal direction from the Vatican to focus homilies on the life of Saints. I've searched the Vatican website for this but cannot find anything about it. Sections of the Roman Curia I've checked include the [Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/doc_doc_index.htm) , [Congregation for Divine Worship](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/index.htm) , [Secretariat for Communication](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/segreterie/segreteria-comunicazione/index_en.htm) , and many many other (full (?) list [here](https://w2.vatican.va/content/romancuria/en.html)) . So, my questions are: 1. Have you also noticed this in your local church? 2. If so, has there been a formal/public communication from the Vatican about it? 3. If not, then this might have been a form of private communication. Is there a precedent about this type of communications **regarding homilies**? Maybe this is a specific issue motivated by the upcoming All Saints' celebration (although I observed this earlier than October), or perhaps by the [March 2018 Apostolic Exhortation](https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations.index.html#apost_exhortations) by the Pope, on the call to holiness, or both! All in all, the sudden change of focus might still indicate a formal type of direction from the Vatican.

Are there any documents were he preached publicly inside? Is there a map of the points where he talked?

The church loves to use the idiom *called to preach .* It's the idea that (for the purposes of this question) God calls some people to preach or pastor and He doesn't call others. A person might say "...I felt God's call to preach " I'm not talking about the general call to salvation or that God gives certain gifts to some and not others, but about the specific colloquialism of *"...called from God to be/not be a pastor*." Where did this idea come from? 1 Timothy labels it a desire, not a calling. > **1 Timothy 3:1 KJV** This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. Most every other translation says *aspire*, not calling. Are these thing synonymous? When did it start being referred to as a calling and not a desire? --- ***Why I ask***: A "calling" from God is a highly debated thing, whereas a "desire" is something everyone knows the definition of. Some young believers may be becoming dissuaded from their *desire* to lead in their local church because they've been incorrectly convinced that they need some fantastical *"clouds-parting-in-the-sky"* experience from God.

Is it correct to say: "Today's lesson is from the first book of John, Chapter 4, verses 7 through 21"?

I swear I read somewhere some years ago that Mormons have a developed doctrine of saints in the afterlife descending to Hell in order to preach the gospel to those who are stuck there and give them the opportunity to accept Christ and repent. I find this interesting and appealing because it would neatly solve the age-old dilemma of the dude in the jungle who went his whole life without ever hearing the Gospel. He ends up in Hell, but the friendly mormon missionaries take a holiday from heaven to come and hang out with the damned where they "preach to the spirits in prison". This jungledude then has the opportunity to accept the gospel. Presumably there is no time limit set on the offer of salvation and therefore it is safe to assume that everyone will eventually end up responding positively to the gospel (either here on earth or after death in Hell). My question is, is any of what I just said accurate? Do Mormons actually believe anything similar to this? (I note that what I just described is slightly similar to the "Holy Saturday"/"Harrowing of Hades" tradition in the Catholic/Orthodox churches: this is where Jesus "descended to Hell" and busted out of hades/sheol all the righteous people from the old testament times) (Can someone please add the tag "harrowing-of-hell" or "holy-saturday" (these are basically synonymous))

Contemporary "theological liberals" have often argued that traditional doctrines about guilt and sin and repentance lead to feelings of guilt that can become pathology. This claim shouldn't be too hard to believe, because I believe it's the intended question behind a user's provocative question asked here not too long ago. >insistence on holding people to an impossible standard and then instilling guilt in their minds (sin / confess / repeat) causes psychological distress and prevents some people from reaching their potential in life Some of them have advocated this as a reason to jettison these doctrines outright. I have a strong memory of a seminary professor in ELCA Lutheranism explicitly making such a claim but couldn't find his web page, as perhaps he's now retired. I have often wondered to what extent when "extreme" guilt has happened, it can be said to be 1. The result of really bad (unorthodox, if "conservative") preaching? 2. The result of unrepentant hearts who insist on continuing the sin?, or 3. The neglect of great theological traditions in Christian theology? I am of the conviction that this question can be answered straightforwardly in terms of a non-Truth question, if it is **"How have Christians who affirm traditional sin doctrines handled 'pathological' guilt in their preaching or theological writings?"** (I'm not looking for medical diagnoses or answers of what is BEST. I am searching for what HAS BEEN SAID.)

I was raised roman catholic for the first 13 years of my life. The rest I spent agnostic of religion after I read the bible. Books like Leviticus made me very upset. Now I heard that this doesn't actually get preached in most churches, and a lot of people call themselves Christian because they believe in certain values rather than believing the bible word for word. I'm very interested in getting to know how much of what actually gets preached matches with things I believe in. I want to figure that out by going to a couple of masses. From my religious youth I have learned that everyone is welcome in a church, but a lot of things are considered rude, like wearing a hat as a male or not standing or kneeling at the appropriate times (if you're able to). Now my question is, is it considered impolite or rude in any way if I take notes during preaching? The goal of the notes is being able to study the preaching afterward. Is there any Catholic teaching that would make this wrong or improper?