Gospel Preaching and the Carnegie Approach (Part 5) (by J. Curtis Manor)

The previous article of this series was devoted to examining some of the objections usually voiced by the advocates of the Carnegie system or some similar technique of diplomacy in an effort to discredit the straightforward approach in preaching the Gospel. There remains one objection which I consider worthy of a closer examination than the space limitations of our last study would allow.

This is the argument advanced by the more scholarly and "reasonable" of our brethren who can see through all the farce and emotional drivel of the usual objections to "hard" preaching. They will say: "You have to be patient with people, and give, them time to develop a capacity for receiving the more difficult parts of the Gospel. You know, even after three years of teaching, Jesus said to his disciples: 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now' (John 16:12). And remember that Paul said to the Corinthians, even after they had been Christians for several years: 'I fed you with milk, not with meat; for ye were not able to bear it: nay, not even now are ye able' (1 Cor. 3:2). So you've got to go slow with people; give them time; and don't try to force too much on them at one time. Feed them with milk until they will take the meat."

This reasoning is sound, logical, and good�except for one fatal oversight: It was the "milk," not the "meat" of the Gospel which aroused such fanatical enmity to the faith in the time of the apostles; and it is the milk, not the meat, that so often drives people away today. It is the milk that is so distasteful to the denominational world. Comparatively few of the "meaty" portions of the word have become "bones of contention" in the present-day religious dogfight, and where they are contested, they seldom arouse the bitterness of opposition that characterizes the fight over the milk.

Read carefully Hebrews 5:12-6:2, and notice what Paul regards as the milk of the word:

1. "Repentance from dead works." -From the way men react when this saucer of milk is pushed at them, you'd think it came straight from the onion patch. Repentance has been called the hardest of God's commandments, because it strikes at the very heart of man's pride, and truly, man will resort to all manner of ridiculous devices to try to "save face" and avoid it. Now, just the word "repentance" isn't so bad�but don't you dare go messing around with much teaching about the "before and after" of it. And if you have any ideas about Winning Friends and Influencing People you'll let those "dead works" remain strictly dead unless you want to say something about the dead works of some of our more distant neighbors. "If we have any dead works�now, mind you, I'm not saying we have�but if we have, you just let us decide what they are, and we'll do our own repenting when, as, and However we see fit."

2. "Faith toward God." � Now this saucer of milk is all right, provided it has been Pasteurized to have all objectionable elements removed. There must be no trace of criticism toward other faiths, because "one faith is as good as another; you have yours, I have mine; we can't all believe alike, but we are all going to the same place." So be sure that the "one faith" bacterium (Eph. 4:5) is either completely strained out, or so weakened that it will not be noticeable. And don't forget to eliminate anything that would repulse the delicate taste of a "faith only" gourmet. Otherwise the milk will be considered sour, and the people's appetites will be dulled. They may even refuse a second helping!

3. "The teachings of baptism."�It's over this bowl of milk that many a docile puppy becomes a snarling, skulking hound. "Well, if that's the kind of milk you're going to serve around here, I'll get my food somewhere else. I'll never swallow that stuff!"

4. "Laying on of hands." � "What? don't you tell me I can't speak in unknown tongues and heal the sick by the power of the Holy Ghost, just because no apostle has laid hands on me!" Ever try to feed a spoonful or so of this "milk" to a Pentecostal or some other "Holy-Ghost-filled" fanatic?

5. "Resurrection of the dead." � Not much controversy here, unless you get to teaching what the Bible says about "Who," "When," "How," for "How Long," etc. But most anybody will swallow just a few drops of this milk nowadays. Not in the time of the apostles, though (Acts 17:32).

6. "Eternal judgment." � Careful here. This milk curdles easily, especially when placed before folks who are satisfied with their present way of life, others who deplore any reference to God's threats in turning men to righteousness "wins 'era with love and heaven," and adherents of the "annihilation" theory.

If, by feeding people with milk until they were able to stand meat, Paul was seeking to give them what they wanted and would receive, in the hope that they would cultivate an appetite to desire the more disagreeable, he undoubtedly started at the wrong end. At any rate, it seems that we today would do well to start with the meat, for if there is any portion of God's doctrine that the modern world finds frankly nauseating, it is the "sincere milk" of the word, the "first principles" of the doctrine of Christ (Heb. 6:1).

Why Did Christ "Send Not Peace, But a Sword?"

By now it should be quite evident to all but the most blinded that the principles of human relations set forth in How to Win Friends and Influence People is not in harmony with New Testament methods. The question that remains before us is: Why?

I think the answer lies in the principle quoted by James, and demonstrated so often in the record of God's dealings with men: "God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble" (Jas. 4:6). Therefore any concession to human pride, or an appeal to man's vanity as a motivation for Gospel obedience works against the very aim of the Gospel, which is to humble man's pride in order to sincere repentance and unconditioned obedience to God's will. Obviously, since by Carnegie's own explanation the system in question amounts to building pride up, and God's will as touching the Gospel requires tearing it down, both the Carnegie system and the Gospel of Christ suffer abuse when preachers attempt to mix the two.

When a man hears the Gospel preached plainly and fully, with no smoke-screen or camouflage, he is able to understand it and to make an intelligent evaluation of it in his own mind. If he is one of those rare individuals who, like the three thousand on Pentecost, are willing to receive it gladly at the first hearing, he obeys it "with his eyes open," without the danger of later finding that he was "taken with guile" without realizing what he was getting into. He has begun his new life on a sure footing, under conditions which favor the development of steadfast loyalty to Christ, his word, and his church.

If, However, like most people, he does not accept the word at first hearing, he may reserve his decision until he has time to consider it further. In this category we find the Jews at Berea (Acts 17:11). As he deliberates and studies the Gospel as compared with his previous schooling and beliefs, he is able to make a fair comparison if he wishes to do so, without the deluded idea that "there's not much difference," and if he does eventually surrender to the truth, he is not nearly so likely to retain many of his former false concepts, thus putting his new wine into old bottles and risking not only the corruption of his own faith, but that of the church as well, to the extent of his influence.

On the other hand, if he is one of those many people of violent reactions, it is true that he may become an immediate and implacable enemy of the truth. There is a strong possibility that he will, as Carnegie points out, be driven to try to justify himself, and condemn what he has heard. If he undertakes a study of the scriptures for this purpose, the battle is almost won, for if he is honest in his belief and in his respect for the authority of God's word, and is sufficiently aroused to make a thorough investigation, the conclusion is inevitable, and when he obeys the Gospel he will stand for it like a rock. But if he is dishonest with the truth and with himself, and expresses his opposition by "opposing himself and blaspheming" like the Jews of Acts 18:6, he will do the cause of Christ more good as its enemy than as its friend.

In either case, it will do neither the cause of Christ nor the man's own soul any real good to maneuver Him delicately into an outward form of obedience by pampering his prejudices, hoping to accomplish a genuine surrender to God's will later on. For while you are avoiding the sort of teaching that this man needs, but won't accept, by the same token you are depriving the rest of your audience of the same needed instruction. You are thus starving the whole church by feeding it on an improperly balanced diet. The inevitable result will be a generation of undernourished Christians, weakened in faith, not completely furnished unto every good work, and unable to meet the opposition of false doctrines. So in the process of soothing the sentiments of one half-converted man you are risking the souls of dozens of other people who may be more humble and more honest than he.

Is The Bible Still Sufficient?

In the matters of spreading the word, church organization, care of the poor, and congregational worship, we have been accustomed to contend that approved apostolic example represents God's will, and that, regardless of man's scale of values and measures of success, God's way as thus exemplified will accomplish God's will to God's satisfaction, even in this advanced century. Accordingly, we propose to "call Bible things by Bible names, and do Bible things in Bible ways." But if apostolic example is a safe guide for all these other things, Why is it not equally so as a pattern of approach in preaching?

But if, as some say, human nature and human needs have so changed that the scriptures are no longer able to furnish the man of God completely "unto every good work," then it is time to quit the sham of empty pretensions, abandon the Bible as the inadequate document of an outmoded era, and openly join hands with those "enlightened" souls who prate learnedly of "a new Gospel for a modern world."

Preceptor � August, 1954