Any teacher "approved unto God" is certified to the church of God. The question is, how do the churches discern this approval?

This passage has long been widely held to be a throw-away line by Paul, perhaps meant ironically or sarcastically. However, even if there is irony here, the teaching applies to "teacher certification" in the churches. The Greek word translated "approved" is the same in both passages, above.

However the churches long ago, in their dead formalism, concretized the matter of teacher certification. You send off a young man to seminary where he learns to teach (or, as we are always told, preach) sermons. The damage is two-fold, for not only are the church's teachers thereby largely limited to seminary graduates, but the sermon–the primary approved vehicle in the churches for teaching–becomes the litmus test of a teacher in the churches of God. And not only so, but a man may or may not teach in the churches only so long as he is "capable of teaching sermons." I.e., a man who teaches outside the sermon format is certified only if he can also teach sermons. By contrast, a man who never teaches sermons but only teaches outside the sermon format is suspect, particularly when he challenges the sermon-system. "I don't need to listen to him, he's not a real preacher."

One of my favorite examples of sound teaching breaks all the rules of Churchianity. It is an address by W. Carl Ketcherside called "The Clergy System." The teacher, Mr. Ketcherside, never attended seminary. He travelled widely as a teacher, just as teachers did in the first century. He regularly challenged the various tenets and traditions embodied in the clergy system. If the reader examines his address, above, he or she will find that it violates the cardinal rule of "expository teaching," so-called, which is that teaching must be based on a single Bible text or a combination of Bible texts. By contrast, Mr. Ketcherside's teaching is based on reading, and understanding, the entire Bible. The teaching is thoroughly Biblical, yet it fails the "sermon test!"

​Nevertheless Ketcherside's teaching puts to shame all the sermon-teachers who never, ever, ever, teach the New Testament doctrines and practices of the priesthood of believers. Mr. Ketcherside makes his case without seminary lore or Greek word studies which too often are designed to captivate the audience rather than teach the true meaning of ecclesia, dokimos, laos, klēros, koinōnia, diakonia, leitourgeō, etc. In so doing he upholds the original meaning of the Greek words. Mr. Ketcherside, I take it, was a "strict constructionist" concerning the Word of God. I look forward to meeting the man in heaven one day.

Of course there is a difference between preaching and teaching, otherwise why two words when one would do?

It is also true that "preaching" and "teaching" are sometimes used interchangeably in the New Testament. But this does not disparage the fact that there are distinct truths primarily associated with each word.

The distinctive truths are: preaching is to the world; teaching is to the church.

Or, variously: preaching is to the unsaved; teaching is for the saved. I am no Greek scholar. My question is, why do our Greek scholars never teach this distinction? I have never heard the distinction made in the church, but only out of it.

Now, why might this be? Logically it is because these distinctions are not actually operative in the church. Not to be pedantic, but remember, "in the church" means "in the assembly" or "the meeting of the saints." It has nothing to do with a building.

I believe it is the conservative or fundamental Baptists–brethren with whom I feel a great affinity in many ways–who most famously tout "preaching" and their "preachers." To a lesser extent most evangelicals do the same. The problem is, the saints do not need the gospel preached to them again. Once saved, forever saved. Now it is true that "Christ, and Him crucified" is the foundation of all New Testament doctrine. Nevertheless the converted do not need saving again and again.

​Now you may say, but there are unbelievers present who need to hear the gospel. Paul spoke of this in I Corin-thians 14:23-25,

However, notice, the unbeliever is not converted through hearing the gospel preached but through prophesying. In the course of the unbeliever hearing the Word of God handled as the inspired and infallible truth by believers, he is "convinced of all," i.e., convinced of the truth of the Word and that therefore he must obey the commandment of God who says "that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ," I Jn. 3:23.

I believe there are many in the churches where the true gospel is actually preached, who believe that they are somehow sanctified by hearing the gospel preached Sunday after Sunday. To this the author of the book of Hebrews said, you need to be moving on to the meat of God's Word and off the milk, cf. Heb. 5:11ff. To others in these churches, they err in believing that hearing the gospel is the same as believing the gospel, and they remain unsaved.

"Jesus Christ and Him crucified" is foundational in all speaking ministries in the church. Yes, we will hear the gospel in the course of ministering to one another. But "the preacher" and "preaching" does away with all this and puts the Word in the hands of one man. Not only so, it is imagined that this is all there is. "I've gotta get my preaching every Sunday." This is the attitude of a mere babe in Christ.

Of course many of the men called preachers actually do teaching in their churches. This, however, is only proof that they are fulfilling the office of teacher and not pastor. Thus, "After their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." II Tim. 4:3. Pastors, by contrast, while they are able to teach, have no mandate from the Word to dominate the teaching ministry in the churches.

What we have in the last days is countless teachers enshrined in the office of pastor in the churches. These teachers are called, variously, both preachers and pastors. To the detriment of the churches of God.