RESULTS IN THE PULPIT
In the preceding pages the consideration of the lay reader has been
in the foreground, though the ministry has not been out of mind. But
in what follows the writer ventures to address his brethren of the
ministry, especially his younger brethren, most particularly. In vain
we seek to interest the people in Bible study in any permanent or
general way except as they are stimulated thereto by the instruction
and example of their ministers.
[Sidenote: A Vitiated Taste]
There must be even more than an example. In connection with a Bible
conference in a city of the Middle West, a private gathering of
pastors was held, at which one of them arose and with deep emotion
said: "Brethren, I have a confession to make. I know not whether it
will fit in with the experience of any others, but I have been guilty
of cultivating in my people _a vitiated taste_ for preaching, and
henceforth, by God's help, I intend to give them His own Word." To
search the Scriptures on their own account, the people of our
churches must acquire a taste for their contents. They must be
constantly fed with the bread of life to have an appetite for it.
They will "desire the sincere milk of the word," if so be "they have
tasted that the Lord is gracious." But to what extent do they "taste"
it in the ordinary pulpit ministrations of the day?
[Sidenote: Secretary Shaw]
The Honourable Leslie M. Shaw, Secretary of the Treasury, gave an
address recently in Washington, on the occasion of a Sunday school
jubilee, which interested the writer deeply. He was pleading for the
Sunday school on the ground that it was the only place at present in
which the Bible was taught. "It is not now taught in the public
schools," said he, "nor am I here to say that it ought to be taught
there. In our busy life it is not taught in our homes. The head of
the family ought to be a priest, but the Bible is seldom read, much
less taught, in the home. _It is seldom taught in the pulpit._ Not
that I am criticising the ministry. But take up a paper and see what
the sermons are to be about. You will learn about the plan of
salvation if you listen to the sermons, but you will not know much
about the Bible if you depend on getting your knowledge of it from
the pulpit." He then went on to say that "the only place on this
earth where the Bible is taught is in the Sunday school." When,
however, we consider the character of the average Sunday school, the
scraps and bits of the Bible there taught, the brief period of time
devoted to the teaching, the lack of discipline in the classes, and
the inadequate training and preparation of the average teacher, we
begin to inquire, Where is the Bible taught? and wonder whether we
have fallen on the times of the prophet:
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a
famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for
water, but of hearing the words of the Lord; and they shall wander
from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall
run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find
it.--Amos 8:11, 12.
[Sidenote: Professor Mathews on the Sunday School]
I am with Professor Shailer Mathews, D.D., in some of his strictures
on the modern Sunday school, if only it be allowed that there are not
a few blessed exceptions to the rule he lays down. I do not know how
we should agree as to a remedy for present conditions, but one remedy
would be, where there is a Bible expositor in the pulpit, to do away
with certain features of the Sunday school altogether for the time
being. The infant or primary departments might be retained as they
are, and possibly the Bible classes for older adults, but the
intermediate classes would do well to be gathered together under the
instruction only of the pastor himself. In time, such a plan would
beget enough teachers of the right quality and spirit to return to
the former method if desired. The cabinet officer's warning and
appeal are timely, for an awful harvest of infidelity and its
attendant evils must be reaped in the next generation should the
Church fail to arise to her responsibility as to the teaching of the
unadulterated Word of God in the present one.
It is for this reason that the writer pleads with his brethren to
make expository preaching the staple of their pulpit ministrations.
Should they have read the previous chapters in a sympathetic spirit,
they will begin to do this without much urging even where they have
been strangers to it hitherto. But if otherwise, then a further word,
before our concluding chapter, as to the history and practicality of
that kind of preaching, may throw them back on what has been said
before in such a way as to catch the spirit of it and be influenced
by it.
[Sidenote: Expository Sermons Defined]
Expository sermons differ from the textual not so much in kind as in
degree. For example, the text is usually longer, and more attention
is given to the explanation of the words. The text, indeed, may cover
several verses, a whole chapter, or parts of more than one chapter.
And the treatment need not necessarily be confined to the definition
of words, but include the adjustment of the text to the context, and
the amplification and illustration of the various ideas suggested.
Dr. James W. Alexander, from whose _Thoughts on Preaching_ I draw
generously in what follows, says:
[Sidenote: The Notion of a Sermon]
"Suppose a volume of human science to be placed in our hands as the
sole manual or textbook to elucidate to a public assembly, in what
way would it be most natural to go to work? Certainly we would not
take a sentence here, and another there, and upon these separate
portions frame one or two discourses every week! No interpreter of
Aristotle or Littleton would dream of doing that. Nor was it adopted
in the Christian Church, until the sermon ceased to be regarded in
its true notion, as an explanation of the Scripture, and began to be
viewed as a rhetorical entertainment, which might afford occasion for
the display of subtlety, research and eloquence."
[Sidenote: Inspired Sermons]
The same author recites some interesting facts that might be summed
up under the general head of the history of expository preaching. For
example, he reminds us that as early as the time of Ezra we find the
reading of the law accompanied with some kind of interpretation. See
Nehemiah 8. In the synagogues, moreover, after the reading of the
law and the prophets, it was usual for the presiding officer to
invite such as were learned to address the people, and it was in
this way that our blessed Lord Himself--as well as His apostles,
subsequently--was given the opportunity to open up the Scriptures.
See our Lord's discourse in the synagogue at Nazareth, reported in
the fourth of Luke, and observe that it was an expository treatment
of Isaiah 61. Notice, also, the discourses of Peter and Paul in the
book of the Acts.
[Sidenote: The Christian Fathers]
The early Christian assemblies adopted this method in their religious
services, as we may judge from allusions and examples in the writings
of Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine and Chrysostom. Their homilies,
especially in the instances of the last mentioned two, were usually
of the nature of "a close interpretation, or running commentary on
the text, followed by a practical application." Chrysostom, quoted by
Neander, says: "If anyone assiduously attend public worship, even
without reading the Bible at home, but carefully hearkening here,
he will find a single year sufficient to give him an intimate
acquaintance with the Scriptures." In how many of our churches could
the same be said to-day? But ought it not to be said in all?
Dr. Alexander is further sponsor for the statement that it was about
the beginning of the thirteenth century when the method of preaching
from insulated texts came into vogue, and the younger clergy adopted
subtle divisions of the sermon. And he says, too, that it was warmly
opposed by some of the best theologians of the age, as "a childish
playing upon words, destructive of true eloquence, tedious and
unaffecting to the hearers, and cramping the imagination of the
preachers." He is not prepared to entirely accept this criticism of
the theologians, however, nor am I, believing that both the topical
and the textual methods of preaching have their attractions and
advantages. [Sidenote: The Reformation Period] Nevertheless, it is a
pleasure to record that "when the light of divine truth began to
emerge from its long eclipse, at the Reformation, there were few
things more remarkable than the universal return of evangelical
preachers to the expository method. Book after book of the Bible was
publicly expounded by Luther, and the almost daily sermons of Calvin
were, with scarcely any exceptions, founded on passages taken in
regular course as he proceeded through the sacred canon. The same is
true of the other reformers, particularly in England and Scotland."
In the times of the Nonconformists the textual method came into
practice again; but, notwithstanding, exposition was considered a
necessary part of ministerial labour. Matthew Henry is a conspicuous
example of this, who, although he frequently preached from single
texts, yet "on every Lord's day morning expounded a part of the Old
Testament, and in the evening a part of the New, in both instances
proceeding in regular order."
[Sidenote: Modern Examples]
In modern times Charles H. Spurgeon has followed the example of
Matthew Henry to a great extent. He preached topically, with great
interest and power, but at almost every service the exposition of
Scripture was made a distinctive, and always popular, feature of the
exercises. The late Dr. Howard Crosby was heard to say that, in the
course of his pastorate in New York, he had thus given instruction to
his people on every verse in the Bible. The writer, also, can add his
testimony to the fact that this method of preaching is delightful
both to pastor and people. Both need training for it, but when once
the taste has been acquired it demands constant gratification.
Let me now supplement these observations on the nature and history of
expository preaching with some remarks upon its practicality and
value.
[Sidenote: The Easy Way]
In the first place, when the art is learned, it is the easiest form
of preaching; and this is saying a good deal in an era of the
conservation of energy. The other day my attention was called to an
announcement of a series of Sunday evening discourses by a city
pastor, on "The Gospel in Recent Fiction," in the course of which he
proposed to speak of the spiritual and ethical teaching of some
half-dozen of the popular novels of the day. I could not but think if
he had put the same time and interest into the reading and analysis
of as many books of the Bible, he would have worked less and
accomplished more. It might be said he would not get as many people
to hear him, but I doubt the truth of that statement, if it were
known what he was going to do, and if he did it well. Moreover, there
is another side to the question. The _Watchman_ says: "Time and again
we have seen Sunday congregations increased greatly under the
stimulus of what is called 'up-to-date' preaching, but the church as
a spiritual body, effective for achieving the true ends of a church,
became progressively weaker. The outsiders said that it was doing a
tremendous work, but really it was not doing anything like the work
it did in the days of its comparative obscurity."
At the risk of enlarging upon this idea beyond its due proportion, it
is difficult to resist the temptation to quote a further paragraph
from the _Interior_, to the effect that "nothing is of less value to
the church than a full house--except an empty one. We happened the
other morning," says the editor, "--it was Monday--to meet the
treasurer of an important city church whose doors had been crowded
the night before. We congratulated him upon the success of his pastor
in 'filling the pews.' 'Yes,' was the hesitating reply, 'he has
filled the pews, and filled the vestibule, and filled the pulpit
steps--but he has emptied the collection baskets. We have the biggest
audience in the city, and will soon have the biggest debt.' In
another city two thousand miles distant, and in another denomination,
we came upon a church from whose doors hundreds were turned nightly
away. Three years later we asked the principal layman how the church
was doing now, and he replied, with a tinge of sadness, 'We had a
grand debauch under Brother X., and we haven't quite recovered from
it yet.'"
[Sidenote: The Proper Way]
It is not only the easiest but the most appropriate form of
preaching, _i.e._ it assumes and compels on the part of the preacher
a large knowledge of the Word of God and aptness in imparting it. As
was remarked in part, before, in another connection, where no
extended exposition is attempted the preacher is naturally induced to
draw upon systematic treatises, philosophical theories, works of mere
literature, or his own ingenuity of invention and fertility of
imagination; with the result that the rhetorical aspect of preaching
attracts undue attention, and the desire to be original, striking,
ingenious and elegant supersedes the earnest endeavour to be
biblical. There are few ministers, honest with their own souls, who
will not admit the truth and the seriousness of this implication.
Here, too, is how heresy comes to raise its head and grow apace. The
biblical preacher is always orthodox and evangelical, and has no
trouble in remaining so.
And this is the same with his congregation, for here we have a rule
that works both ways. A biblical preacher comes, in time, to make a
biblical church, and should that not be the aim of every minister?
Should not his example be that of Paul, "teaching every man in all
wisdom, that he may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus"? The
truth, however, is, as the authority quoted above says, that "the
scriptural knowledge possessed by our ordinary congregations, amidst
all our boasted light and improvement, bears no comparison with that
of the Scottish peasantry of the last generation, who, from very
infancy, were taught to follow the preacher, in their little Bibles,
as he expounded in regular course." Why hear we so much in these days
of Bible Training Schools and Bible Conventions, and Union Bible
Classes and the like? They are good signs of the times, and bad
signs. They demonstrate a hunger on the part of some of the people
of God for His Word, and an inability to have it satisfied in the
place where they naturally belong. Every church should be more or
less truly a Bible Training School, and the pastor the head of it.
It is the most useful form of preaching. Dr. Alexander has some
excellent observations that fit in under this head, every one of
which I have experienced to be true in my own ministry, and earnestly
recommend to the prayerful consideration of my brethren.
[Sidenote: The Useful Way]
For example, expository preaching affords inducement and occasion to
the preacher to declare the whole counsel of God. It keeps him from
neglecting many important doctrines and duties which otherwise
would almost necessarily be overlooked. It gives a symmetry and
completeness to his pulpit efforts. It promotes variety and enables
him to escape ruts. To how many people are such biblical truths as
predestination and election unwelcome! Yet, how important they are,
how necessary to be discussed and explained by the minister of the
Gospel, and how likely to be avoided nonetheless! But let him be
expounding Romans, and he must deal with those difficulties, and
glorify God in the doing of it. I say glorify God; for the reason
that those doctrines, and some others, are abhorrent to the popular
mind, is chiefly that they are usually set forth in their "naked
theological form," and not in their scriptural connection.
And then, too, there are certain sins which every pastor feels he
ought to inveigh against once in a while, but from which he is
prevented either from delicacy, or through fear of being considered
personal in his remarks. Let him adopt the expository method of
preaching, however, and his hesitation in these respects will be
removed as he comes across the very themes that should thus be
touched upon, in a natural way.
[Sidenote: The Popular Way]
It may become the most popular form of preaching. Indeed, it should
become so. The fault is ours, _i.e._ the ministers', if such is not
the case. We should keep at it till we learn to do it well. We should
besiege the throne of grace for power and wisdom to do it well. Who
doubts that the Author of the Holy Scriptures would answer such
entreaties? Chalmers' lectures on Romans, Archbishop Leighton's
lectures on First Peter, F. W. Robertson's on First Corinthians, are
old, but standard types of what may be done in this respect. I doubt
not that Archbishop Trench delivered the substance of his book on the
_Epistles to the Seven Churches_ to his congregation before it
appeared in print; and so in the case of Bishop Ryle and his
_Expository Thoughts on the Gospels_, and Dr. Moule and his _Studies
in Philippians_. I, myself, have seen large congregations held from
week to week in city churches, where the chief attraction was the
exposition of the Bible text. God wrote the Bible for the "common
people," and it is irreverent to suppose that they cannot be
interested in the reading and explanation of it. There is no other
book in the world which sells like God's Book; it leads the market!
How short-sighted, then, are we ministers who fail to take advantage
of the fact, and utilise it to draw our audiences, and interest them,
and nourish them with the bread of life! [1]
[1] A part of what the author has here written on the subject of
expository preaching formed the substance of a previous communication
from his pen in _Current Anecdotes_, a monthly magazine for
ministers, F. M. Barton, Cleveland.
EXPOSITORY OUTLINES