Preaching to People

There is a little couplet that goes like this: I shot an arrow in the air,

                                            It fell to earth I know not where.

This seems to be a fairly accurate description of some preaching. I remember, too, at one school that I attended which had some rather eccentric teachers this question was asked, ‘Where did the Germans drop most of their bombs?’ The answer was, ‘At random!’

After I retired we attended a number of churches before we moved away and quite often I found the preaching disappointing. It was not that there was any doctrinal error or incorrect exegesis, but often it is was worthy but uninteresting and did not seem to connect with the congregation. Reflecting, too on my own preaching and its inadequacies I think that often I did not take into consideration as I should have done who it was I was preaching to and try to make sure I had something important to say to them all.

Learn from everyone, but copy no-one!

There is a telling comparison at the beginning of chapter 6 of Wiersbe’s excellent book Preaching and Teaching with Imagination. The chapter heading is Skeletons in the Pulpit, Cadavers in the Pew and the contrast is between 2 sermons from Genesis 9. The 1st is entitled ‘God Talks to Noah’ and has this outline 1. Creation Presented; 2. Capital Punishment; 3. Covenant Promised; 4. Carnality Practised; 5. Consequences Prophesied. The 2^nd has the title ‘Always look for the rainbow’ and began like this; ‘Storms are a part of life; God made it that way, but I’ve learned a secret that’s helped me all these years, and is still helping me: Always look for the rainbow.’ The difference in approach is obvious.

1.       Communication

The words that the Bible uses for ‘preach’ often only capture part of the truth so we need to consider them all: ‘herald’; ‘evangelise’ or ‘tell good news’; ‘announce’; ‘declare’; ‘testify’. Some words involve the hearers: ‘reason’; ‘persuade’; ‘explain’; ‘prove’; ‘commend’; ‘demonstrate’. Jesus often addressed his hearers like this: ‘I say to you’. The people in front of him were in his mind and the ones he was addressing at the time. While this should be how we view preaching, speaking to actual people in front of us, it is not necessary to say ‘You’ in every case; often ‘We’ is better, it all depends on what we are saying.

Preaching is communication; so it involves reception; impression; understanding; conviction; response. A great deal of speaking involves ‘speech acts’; i.e. not the mere impartation of information, but speech which does things or intends to bring about certain responses. Preaching intends to do things: to bring about changes in people’s lives; to promise, to warn, to lift up, to inspire, to humble, to provoke, to awake, to stir up – and so on. So preaching intends to bring about certain responses: to cause people to repent, to trust, to worship, to sorrow over sin, to rejoice in the Lord, to obey, to serve, to pray – the list is endless. Preaching is never simply about giving information; we must never think that that is sufficient.

2.       Attention

This has to be gained, especially when considering the people we most want to reach. These include unbelievers; young people, perhaps present under duress; those who are sceptical; visitors; backsliders; elderly; weary; down-hearted.

Is it true we have only three minutes (or so) to capture a person’s attention? Sometimes you can see people visibly switching off. In the past I sometimes began a sermon like this: ‘We can all see that this is a very difficult passage, but it is part of the Word of God and therefore we need to look at it, so we must concentrate very hard and give our utmost attention to what it says!’ Far better to say something like this: ‘You might think this looks a very difficult passage but I have discovered several gems of truth here and I can see that God has something to say to us all from it.’

Having gained attention we then have to hold it! Often we need to show that what we have to say is relevant and important. You will find Dr Lloyd-Jones doing this, especially in the early part of his evangelistic sermons.

We need also to connect with the congregation. My wife and I were once listening to a sermon which was correct and yet rather dull and people were sitting expressionlessly. Then the preacher mentioned he had briefly put on the TV the evening before and used an illustration from what he had seen and immediately everyone sat up, people began to smile – they had seen it too; he had suddenly connected with them in a way he had not previously.

We must do our best to be interesting. Spurgeon, when a SS teacher: ‘If I was ever a little dull, my scholars began to make wheels of themselves, twisting round on the forms on which they sat. That was a very plain intimation to me that I must give them an illustration or an anecdote; and I learned to tell stories partly by being obliged to tell them.’ We must try our utmost so to speak that no-one wants to miss what we are saying.

3.       Declaration

Now I want to think about how we speak. At one school I attended we had an annual festival. One of the events was Declamation. Contestants had to declaim a speech, usually from Shakespeare. Everyone had the same words, but this was a test of fitting the voice to the words. One young man was brilliant and I can still hear in my mind one of his perorations. Yet I’ve heard people read the Scriptures and flatten and miss the flow of words of some of the most glorious passages. How you speak is important. We also had a Lecturette, a brief lecture, perhaps a maximum of 4 minutes on a subject chosen by the contestant. Again there was one fellow who was absolutely brilliant. On reflection, what made his so much better than any other was the organization of words, the timing, and his conclusion. He aimed at making what he had to say memorable – and he did.

I am thankful that at college we had speech training and in one church there were 3 therapists. This was very helpful. There is a danger of straining the voice, relaxation is very important. Clarity of articulation – often the problem with the hard of hearing is that they just hear a noise; the words are not clearly articulated. My tip for ensuring everyone hears you is to look at the person furthest from you in the congregation and imagine you are speaking to him/her. In any case always look at the congregation, but never look too long at any one person or part. Looking helps to establish a rapport, there is nothing worse than a preacher who looks at the ceiling at the walls on either side but never looks at the people he is supposed to be speaking to.

Avoid dropping the voice at the end of sentences; a common fault. Also learn to whisper so that everyone can hear.

Pitch, emotion and manner must arise out of the words being spoken. Remember what you are saying. Take special care with sensitive subjects; the blood of Christ; hell.

Never shout. If you see people with hearing aids and using the loop system suddenly wince you’ll know you’ve been too loud! Never rant.

Always remember you are speaking to the actual persons who are sitting listening to you. I would add this is important not just when we are thinking of speech; I’ve heard men preaching and have been sure they are really aiming at some people who have made public statements recently and who, of course, aren’t in the congregation at all (I’ve probably done this myself).

4.       Comprehension

Spurgeon: ‘Jesus said, Feed my sheep, not feed my giraffes.’ So don’t preach over the heads of the congregation. According to Hywel Jones Calvin’s preaching was very homely; he simply took the Greek or Hebrew into the pulpit and preached more or less extemporaneously in language everyone could understand. People must be able to understand, and if you have young people they too must especially be able to understand otherwise they will turn off, and even more so if you have children present all the time. Many churches now have people from other countries and with limited English; e.g. Malaysians, Koreans, Japanese etc.; this calls for simple, basic straightforward English using well-known words. In one church the brightest young person always asked me what a word he did not understand meant. I was very surprised that he asked so often. Remember the KISS principle – keep it simple, stupid.

This raises the question of accent. I have always been glad that when I was young my mother did her utmost to prevent me from using slang and also adopting a Dorset (Do’zet) accent. It is customary to despise what used to be called BBC English these days, but at least it is understood (if not always appreciated) throughout Britain. Of course, light accents give colour to speech and don’t hinder comprehension but some preachers are difficult because their accent is too pronounced. On the other hand if you know your local congregation you will find it enhances rapport to use local words. I would use words like sneap, pothery and mither in the Potteries.

It is surprising how many preachers get confused over difficult biblical words and names. Work out beforehand what seems the most likely way to pronounce them and just stick to that – who really knows precisely how they were pronounced at least two millennia ago?

Avoid both long convoluted sentences and, at the other extreme machine gun-like sentences. You need balance for ease of comprehension.

5.       Adaptation

The first sermon I ever preached was in a little Methodist chapel in the village of Rosenannon in Cornwall. My recollection is that there were about 7 or 8 elderly ladies present. I was still not 19 and I doubt if what I had to say was at all suitable as a message for elderly ladies – I still have the notes – but perhaps the Lord mercifully over-ruled.

I remember a visiting preacher in our church. It was summer time and not far away there was a Christian camp with I think about 100 boys in it – and they all came into our congregation. So the preacher scrapped what he had intended to preach and preached a simple gospel message from the exodus of Israel. He adapted himself to the circumstances and the opportunity.

Jay Adams has some helpful things to say about adaptation. ‘Adaptation is not accommodation… The accommodator changes God’s message to conform to the listener… The speaker who takes the time to adapt his message doesn’t change the message at all; he changes his own ways and in every circumstance adopts the best possible method of conveying that message to others. He changes himself, not the message; he, himself, becomes flexible and mouldable in order to meet each situation and/or group of persons to whom he is speaking.’   Truth Apparent, p.32,33. Good men have preached their churches almost into extinction because of an unwillingness to adapt – I can think especially of two.

There is no doubt this can be very difficult and it gets more difficult as you get older, in spite of experience, because you get settled in your ways. It is important to learn to be flexible, if necessary to drop out or off a point or two if you are going to be too long. Better to hold people for 20 minutes than bore them for 40.

6.       Connection – and realisation

We have to connect with people; we have to do so, as far as we can, in the right way, but to do so we have to realise the different sorts of people who are before us. All the different sorts of temperaments are likely to be represented; the larger the congregation, the more diverse it is likely to be. We cannot assume that certain types of people are not present in any reasonably sized congregation.

Most congregations have people who are psychologically fragile, if not more seriously affected. There are nearly always depressives and people prone to illnesses of one sort or another. There are nearly always people needing encouragement and help. There will be people who have sexual struggles of one sort or another; more women than you realise have suffered sexual abuse and you only find this out after years of pastoring. There will be those who have been divorced and many others

There is sometimes a great difference between the way we would speak to some of these personally and the way in which we do speak when preaching. We make assumptions that certain types of people are not present when they may be. We must preach as pastors, as shepherds. It is true that Jesus was very straight with the scribes and Pharisees but we do not usually have their equivalent in our congregations. Those most likely to be touched by Pharisaism may be our own members.

As you prepare, think of those who will be present; think of their needs, their problems, their weaknesses, their aspirations etc. and do your best to say something to the hearts, not just the minds – aim beyond the mind – of your hearers.

7.       Illustration

Illustrations shed light on truth, perhaps especially truth that is difficult to grasp. Windows are valuable, but not greenhouses. Many of us struggle greatly with this. Why?

a)       We tend to read ‘utilitarian prose’; commentaries, newspapers, textbooks, biographies.

b)       We tend not to read poetry, literary works of the past: but we do read the Bible.

c)       It requires effort to come up with suitable illustrations.

Where can we get suitable illustrations? Suitable; that is, ones that actually illustrate; ones that people understand; ones that connect in some way with those present.

a)       Bible; retell rather than quote – but only use well-known events.

b)       Everyday happenings; ordinary things. Jay Adams (p.58.) ‘Look at things you never noticed before (in your study) – cracks in plaster, holes in rugs, scratches in the desk; they all contain messages if you will only read them carefully… Now, each day, write down… at least one illustration from your study…’ And you can do that anywhere. The whole chapter is well worth reading.

c)       Use imagery; the Puritans were very good at this. Cf. ‘The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold…’

d)       Use your imagination and appeal to their imagination.

e)       Beware of; using too many personal illustrations; referring too much to your own interests (football!); talking about things you don’t understand. – e.g. medical matters.

8.       Application

Preaching is application; the application of the truth of God in the Bible to the 21^st century hearer.

So the first question is: What was the application that the writer intended? Jay Adams has another book entitled ‘Preaching with Purpose’ in which he makes this very point: What purpose did the writer intend in this passage?

And the second question is: how does that apply to the people of today, and in particular the people you will be addressing?

It is a mistake to leave all the application to the end – for several reasons. People learn to switch off as the end approaches. Many points of application are likely to be missed. It makes the whole sermon relevant to the congregation. Scottish lady: ‘It was a good sermon except for the trash of duties at the end.’

Application needs to be made to different sorts of hearers, and not just believers and unbelievers.

9.       Conclusion

When you’ve finished what you have to say, stop!

Word and Spirit

The following fraternal paper was given some time ago, but the issue is still relevant. Stuart Olyott's Banner article was some time ago, but quotations give the gist of what he had to say.

‘Did Luther get it Wrong?’ Stuart Olyott on Word and Spirit

In the December issue of The Banner of Truth magazine Stuart Olyott wrote an article entitled ‘Where Luther got it wrong – and why we need to know about it’. In it he quoted Luther’s well-known words, which I think come from his Table Talk: ‘I opposed indulgences and all papists, but never by force. I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s Word: otherwise I did nothing. And then, while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip of Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that never a prince or emperor did much damage to it. I did nothing: the Word did it all. Had I wanted to start trouble…I could have started such a little game at Worms that even the emperor wouldn’t have been safe. But what would it have been? A mug’s game. I did nothing: I left it to the Word.’

From this Stuart deduces Luther fell into the error that he calls ‘mediate regeneration’, a view which he believes has done and is doing enormous damage and if we do not take heed ‘gospel work in this country will be ruined’. He describes the view like this: ‘The work of the Spirit is so intimately connected to his instrument (i.e. the Word, the Holy Scriptures), that we can say that the Word of God actually contains the converting power of the Holy Spirit. If you let the Word loose, you are letting the Holy Spirit loose.’ Although he does not say so, what he is criticizing is the view associated with the Proclamation Trust and the Evangelical Ministry Assembly. Quite some years ago I was on a theological committee that tried to arrange a meeting with some of those associated with the Proclamation Trust to discuss this very point, so there has been a long-standing concern on this particular issue. Not surprisingly, Stuart’s article has stirred up a debate resulting in feedback which appears in the Banner magazine for January and various contributions among the bloggers.

It seems to me, without prejudging the issue at this stage, that this raises one of the most important issues for pastors, perhaps particularly in our present situation. It is surely a fact that, by and large, preaching today is not having the effect on congregations that we would like to see and which we know has been the case in days gone by, and indeed, in other parts of the world at present. Moreover, although this might seem to be a rather abstruse question, the whole relationship between the Bible and the work of the Spirit is surely a vital matter. If we are wrong here this may be having serious effects, it may explain the lack of conversions, the lack of power in preaching and many other weaknesses in our churches today. If Stuart is right, and ruination follows if we get this wrong, we must give urgent, prayerful attention to the subject.

The questions that need answering

As I see it there are a large number of questions that coalesce around this issue which need consideration and answers; though I do not intend to try and answer them all on this occasion. They are:

1 Is the Word/Spirit distinction that we often make a useful one, or even a biblical one? And as a subsidiary question to this, what do we make of the letter/Spirit distinction, e.g. in 2 Corinthians 3?

2 How are we to understand the relationship between our preaching and the written Word?

3 What are we actually to rely on when we come to preach?

4 What is the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the preacher?

5 What is the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the hearer/congregation?

6 Should we make a distinction between the usual work of the Spirit and the special work of the Spirit?

The material used

For today’s purposes I am using three articles or chapters.

The first of these is obviously Stuart’s article.

The second is an essay by John Woodhouse in When God’s voice is heard: Essays on preaching presented to Dick Lucas (IVP, 1995). This essay is entitled ‘The Preacher and the living Word: Preaching and the Holy Spirit’ and sets out, I think, the view that Stuart so objects to.

Thirdly, I have also turned back to Dr Lloyd-Jones’ book, Preaching and Preachers, and the last chapter, ‘Demonstration of the Spirit and Power’.

There are many other books which could be used, I am sure. For example, there are two books which explore Dr Lloyd-Jones’ teaching on the Spirit; firstly, Baptism with the Spirit; The teaching of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, by Michael Eaton (IVP, 1985), secondly, The Sacred Anointing: The Preaching of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, by Tony Sargent (Hodder and Stoughton,1994). These both benefit and suffer from being based on academic theses. Mentor Books have published two books which are also on the general theme but I haven’t had time to refer back to them. Firstly, Power Preaching for Church Growth: The role of preaching in growing churches by David Eby (1996), and secondly Spirit Empowered Preaching: Involving the Holy Spirit in Your Ministry by Arturo G. Azurdia lll (1998).

Where Luther got it wrong

Personally, I think it a pity that Stuart started off with the quotation from Luther because I am not sure that Luther was actually saying what Stuart says he was. In the first place Luther is contrasting ‘force’ with the ‘Word’. He could have started trouble, he says, perhaps by rousing the passions of many ordinary people, but in fact he did nothing of the sort: ‘I left it to the Word’. His contrast is not Word and Spirit but Word and force, so the question is: what did he mean by Word? Did he actually mean anything more than, ‘God did it by the preaching of his Word’ leaving open the relationship between the activity of God by his Spirit and the preaching of the Bible? Here is a quotation from Dr Skevington Wood which I think demonstrates that Luther’s view of the Word was not simply that which Stuart credits him with, though perhaps it needs further elucidation:

‘In describing Luther as essentially a biblical preacher, we must not overlook his broader conception of the Word. He did not equate the Word of God with the Bible, although he accepted the Bible as the Word of God. For Luther the Word of God was not static, but active. It could never be imprisoned in a book – not even in God’s book. The Word is God speaking. It is God confronting man in personal encounter… Now this meeting between man and God can take place – indeed must take place – through the medium of Scripture. But it is in no passive sense that the Bible is the Word of God, according to Luther. It is as the Spirit who inspired it breathes upon it afresh, and applies it to the reader, that God speaks again through the Scriptures, as he spoke when they were first set down. But for Luther, it is supremely in preaching that the Word of God in the Scriptures is made alive in the present. The living Word of God, once spoken through the prophets and apostles, now recorded in the Scriptures, speaks again through his servants who are called to preach’ (Captive to the Word, Martin Luther: Doctor of Sacred Scripture, Paternoster Press, 1969; pp.89,90).

Stuart, however, is not really concerned with Luther; he is concerned with a present teaching. One way he explains that teaching is this: ‘the Spirit, or the principle of new life, is shut up in the Word, just as the life-giving germ is shut up in the dry seed. Just sow the seed and people will get converted!’ He maintains ‘that the Holy Spirit does not work through the Word… normally his operation accompanies the Word… The Word and the Spirit work together.’ Or, to explain it in another way, ‘A person hears the gospel proclaimed to them from the Bible. While this is happening, God works directly in their soul.’ So it seems to me he is saying, the Word comes from without, and the Spirit works within. This seems to involve a complete disjunction between the Word and the Spirit. There are two distinct acts; the Word comes to the mind and the Spirit works in the will, and if the Spirit does not work in the will nothing can be accomplished by the Word.

There are a number of verses quoted in support of this, but in particular he says: ‘The Bible’s teaching on this subject is encapsulated in Acts 16:14. In Greek this verse reads like this: “And a certain woman named Lydia… was hearing us, whose heart the Lord opened by a single act, with the result that she heeded to the things being spoken by Paul.”’ When he comes to consider James 1:18; ‘of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth’ and 1 Peter 1:23; having been ‘born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides for ever’, he understands these references to be ‘not to the act of germination (where a new life comes into being) but to the moment of birth (where the new life becomes visible)’. In adopting this interpretation he is following a number of Reformed theologians as, for example, Hoekema, who says: ‘We conclude, therefore, that though God by his Holy Spirit works regeneration in the narrower sense in us immediately, directly, and invincibly, the first manifestations of that new spiritual life come into existence through the word – whether it is preached, taught, or read. New spiritual life, in other words, is bestowed immediately by God; but the new birth is produced mediately, through the word’ (Saved by Grace, Eerdmans/Paternoster, p.110). I will have more to say about this later, but for the moment I will comment that this interpretation seems to sit rather uneasily with the image of a seed, which surely is something which has the source of life within itself.

Stuart is adamant that this is not simply arguing over words. From the two positions develop two different mind-sets. The first goes like this: ‘As long as we sow the Word, concentrating on making its meaning clear, spiritual work will get done. God’s call will provoke a response in those who listen to us, except among those who persistently resist that call. It’s enough to get the Word out. As long as we do that well, what more can we do?’ It because of this mind-set, he maintains, that contemporary Christians do not regularly attend prayer-meetings, plead with God for conversions or pray for revival. On the other hand a ‘biblical mind-set’ means believers who will strive and agonise and prevail in prayer because ‘they understand too well that no spiritual work will get done anywhere, however much sowing takes place, unless the Lord himself changes rebellious hearts and gives them spiritual life and appetite.’

Resisting any temptation to comment further we turn to John Woodhouse.

The preacher and the living Word; Preaching and the Holy Spirit

This essay is headed by two Scripture quotations, one of which we have already met: ‘For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God… And this is the word that was preached to you. (1 Peter 1:23,25) We have also had the gospel preached to us… the word of God is living and active… (Hebrews 4:2,12).’

I think we have to note that this essay is not directly addressing the question of the relationship between the Word and the Spirit in the way that Stuart is, rather its background is that of the charismatic movement. Woodhouse says that the problem is not one of telling evangelicals to put more emphasis on the Spirit and telling charismatics to put more emphasis on the Word, rather it is to examine the biblical integration of the Word and the Spirit: ‘A biblical doctrine of the Word of God must necessarily be integrated with the doctrine of the Spirit of God, and, conversely, a biblical understanding of the Spirit of God is inseparable from the concept of God’s Word. The Word is the Spirit’s implement, and the Spirit is the breath of God by which God speaks.’

He starts by considering God and his Word at the very beginning, creation: ‘As he brings the world into being, God’s “point of contact” with his creation is his Word. God is not found in creation itself. Neither is God so removed from creation that there is no link. His Word is the link, the point of contact.’ This seems to me a very profound insight: ‘At the very point at which God is least like us – as creator distinct from his creatures, as the upholder in contrast to the upheld – it is the Word of God that bridges the gap. He brings into being by speaking, he shapes and forms by speaking, he upholds it all by speaking. This is no impersonal “force”, or the transcendent “other”, or one who is found by inner contemplation. It is the speaking of God which is fundamental to his creation.’

He then moves to consider Israel and the Word of God. He does not explore this in any detail but these sentences summarise what he has to say: ‘…the course of biblical history is the tracing out of the fulfilment of that promise (i.e. the promise to Abraham). God has spoken, and those to whom he spoke were now to live under his Word. What God said was to shape their lives and their destinies.’ From there he considers the Word of God in the New Testament. He emphasizes the importance of the gospel message and the way God works in the life of believers: ‘And we thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.’ ‘For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart’ (1 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 4:12). Then he considers the Word of God and human faith and concludes: ‘Where the Word of God brings about faith in God, there is biblical Christianity. Where the Word of God is lacking, there is no Christianity.’ He notes, too, the emphasis in the New Testament on believers as those who have been ‘called’; called by the gospel word to faith in Jesus Christ. ‘We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:23,24).’

Up to this point he has said virtually nothing about the Holy Spirit so he next moves to consider the relationship between Word and Spirit. In approaching this subject he acknowledges that ‘there have been times when we evangelicals have fallen into the error of studying the words of the Bible for their own sake. The words must not be separated from the Speaker and given autonomy. The words of the Bible matter, precisely because they are the words of God… We need to give proper, humble, receptive attention to the living God who addresses his Word to us.’ So far, so good; but then he says: ‘Where there is the Word of God there is always the Spirit of God.’ What does he mean by this, and isn’t this just the sort of thing Stuart is objecting to?

Woodhouse begins by reminding us that in both Hebrew and Greek the word translated as ‘spirit’ can also mean ‘breath’ and ‘wind’. He says that ‘in biblical thought the Spirit of God is as closely connected to the Word of God as breath is connected to speech’. For example, Psalm 33:6 says: ‘By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and their starry host by the breath of his mouth.’ Amongst other verses he quotes the words of Jesus in John 6:63: ‘The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’ On 2 Timothy 3:16 he says: ‘When Paul writes, “All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” he is referring more directly to the present function of Scripture than to its origin… the context suggests that Scripture is the Word which God “breathes out” today…. Precisely for this reason Scripture is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness: it is the Word that God himself speaks out today.’ Commenting on 1 Thessalonians 1:4,5: ‘our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction’ he says: ‘The gospel is never just words.’

I conclude this section with his final paragraph: ‘The call that Dick Lucas has consistently issued, and the immense help that he has given, to preachers to expound the Scriptures faithfully is nothing less than a summons to preach the living Word. This calls for humility and confidence: humility in prayer and study because it is God who breathes his Word to men and women as the Scriptures are expounded; confidence in the task, because his Word will accomplish his purpose (Isaiah 55:11).’ He does not quote this verse but you will remember that it reads as follows: ‘so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty; but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.’

So now to Dr Lloyd-Jones:

‘Demonstration of the Spirit and of the Power’

I do not intend to do more than refer briefly to his final chapter in Preachers and Preaching. His concern in this chapter is with what he calls the unction and anointing of the Holy Spirit. He asks: ‘What is this?’ And replies: ‘It is the Holy Spirit falling upon the preacher in a special manner. It is an access of power. It is God giving power, and enabling, through the Spirit, to the preacher in order that he may do this work in a manner that lifts it up beyond the efforts and endeavours of man to a position in which the preacher is being used by the Spirit and becomes the channel through whom the Spirit works. This is seen very plainly and clearly in the Scriptures.’ He then illustrates this from many passages of Scripture before moving on to church history to demonstrate the same thing.

He ends his chapter in characteristic fashion: ‘What then are we to do about this? There is only one obvious conclusion. Seek him! Seek him! What can we do without him? Seek him always. But go beyond seeking him; expect him… Seek this power, expect this power, yearn for this power; and when the power comes, yield to him. Do not resist… Let him loose you, let him manifest his power in you and through you. I am certain, as I have said several times before, that nothing but a return of this power of the Spirit on our preaching is going to avail us anything. This makes true preaching, and it is the greatest need of all today – never more so… He is still able to do “exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think.”’

It is a great, passionate conclusion to a wonderful book, but I have two comments or questions that arise in my mind. The first is this; is there too much emphasis on the preacher himself in this, does power in preaching have to come in and through the preacher? The second is this; is this anointing an ordinary experience or an extraordinary one? Loyd-Jones quotes the example of David Morgan, who said, ‘I went to bed that night just David Morgan as usual. I woke up next morning feeling like a lion, feeling that I was filled with the power of the Holy Ghost.’ But two years later he went to bed still feeling like a lion, but woke up in the morning and found that he had become David Morgan again. He lived for another fifteen years during which he exercised a most ordinary ministry. There is something of a conundrum here, but we mustn’t overlook the two years of grace and power; some of us would be glad for two Sundays like that!

Let me try and set out some sort of response to what we have seen so far:

1. The Word of God

I think that it is essential for us to consider the different ways in which the phrase the Word of God is used, both in the Bible and in theology and Christian conversation. I believe we have to recognize that while the Bible is the Word of God, the Word of God is not just the Bible. The Word of God, or the Word, is a bigger and more dynamic concept than simply the words on the pages of the Bible. In biblical usage the Word is primarily God speaking, and not just speaking but acting by speaking. We should probably, if we want to consider this theologically, understand it in Trinitarian terms, but for the moment I will simply put it in this way. When God brings to pass his purposes he does so by his Word and that means his Word has effective power and that power is the power of the Holy Spirit. So, to bring in the second person of the Trinity at this point, when we read, ‘he upholds all things by the word of his power’ that means that the Son fulfils the Father’s purpose in keeping the universe in being by the power of the Spirit. This, I think, is the basic, fundamental, biblical meaning of Word and we must never overlook this.

Several points could be made following from this. Firstly, I have little doubt that it was in this sense that Luther was using Word in the quotation we have considered earlier. ‘Word’ in that quotation was not equivalent to ‘Bible’; it was equivalent to God’s speech/act by the Spirit. Secondly, the way in which we so often divide and contrast Word and Spirit inhibits our understanding. Speech and Spirit belong together and together they constitute Word. Thirdly, this obviously raises the question of how we relate this usage of Word to the Bible itself, and I think it is here that the difficulties arise and misunderstandings and errors easily rear their heads.

2. The efficacy of the Word of God

It is of the Word of God in the sense outlined above that the Bible is speaking of when it emphasizes the efficacy of the Word. The verses are well-known; I have already quoted Isaiah 55:11 and Hebrews 4:12. Jeremiah 23:29 says: ‘Is not my word like a fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?’ Isaiah 9:8: ‘The Lord has sent a word against Jacob, and it will fall on Israel.’ Ezekiel 12:28: ‘Thus says the Lord God: none of my words will be delayed any longer, but the word that I speak will be performed, declares the Lord God.’ In Acts 12:24 we are told: ‘The word of God grew and multiplied’, and Acts 19:20 says: ‘So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.’

It is very interesting to consider Jeremiah’s call as recorded in the first chapter of his book. In v.3 God says to him: ‘I appointed you a prophet to the nations’, and a little later: ‘Behold, I have put my words into your mouth. See, I have set you this day over nations and kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant’ (vv.8,10). Jeremiah was not, of course, going to set out either to pull down or to build up anything with his hands or any other implement. He was going to deliver God’s message and that would accomplish the pulling down and the building up. Judah and Jerusalem were indeed broken down and overthrown and nations and kingdoms fell at his word, because it was the Word of the Lord. In 31:28 we read: ‘the Lord says: And it shall come to pass that as I have watched over them to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy and bring harm, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, declares the Lord.’

It is, of course, easy to understand the efficacy of the Word when it comes to creation, or even to its fulfilment in breaking down and building up, but it is more difficult when we come to God’s words to people. Promises, warnings, commandments, pleadings and encouragements are all real and addressed to responsible agents and all call for responses, and this immediately raises the old problem of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. However, in the last analysis if we are to be biblical we must say that regeneration is a sovereign work of God, and to that we now turn our attention.

3. The Word and regeneration

At this point I think that Stuart is mistaken. It does not seem to me that it is so important to say, as he does: ‘The truth is that the Holy Spirit does not work through the Word… Normally… his operation accompanies the Word.’ To my mind this is not the salient point. I find it strange to consider that while God’s Word is addressing a sinner it is necessary for the Holy Spirit, as it were, to come quite separately from the Word and give spiritual life to enable that Word to be received. Why can’t the Holy Spirit bring the Word into the heart with winning, saving power? The Word appears to be reduced to a dead letter; it can do nothing of itself, it is not a fire, or a hammer, or a seed, it cannot do anything.

Perhaps that is putting it a bit strongly, and certainly it expresses the point negatively. Positively, I think there is much in the Bible to suggest that regeneration is by the Word, that is, by speech plus Spirit. I think that is the most natural interpretation of 1 Peter 1:23. I think other verses support it: Psalm 19:7; ‘The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul’, older versions have ‘converting the soul’, but the idea is surely of imparting life. Psalm 119:130; ‘The unfolding (or entrance) or your words gives light.’ 1 Thessalonians 1:5; ‘our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.’ Acts 14:1: ‘Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed.’ (See also 2 Corinthians 10:4-6). I also think that this best fits with the whole New Testament emphasis on effectual calling. What is effectual calling if it is not calling? Surely the very words suggest the gospel call coming with saving, transforming efficacy.

4. The relationship between Word and Bible

As I see it the real problem is trying to understand the relationship between the Word – God’s speech living and active by the Spirit – and its inscripturated form in the Bible (though the same problem arises when God’s speech is unmediated or comes orally through a prophet). Human beings can and do resist the words of God and are fully responsible – and the Bible makes this quite clear – yet salvation is solely by the grace of God who calls all his elect out of darkness and into his marvellous light. This means that while people resist his Word (we can think of Stephen’s words: ‘… you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you’), yet God does not allow his elect to continue to do that but at some point the Word breaks into their lives in saving grace and power. So I would see things like this. The Bible is the Word of God, both by virtue of its original inspiration, but also because it continues to be God speaking by his Spirit (cf. Hebrews 3:7; 9:8; 10:15) and through it God fulfils his saving purposes (I pass over possible exceptions to this such as those who die in infancy). But there is nothing automatic about this – simply preach the Bible and conversions are bound to follow. Nevertheless, in the end the Word always fulfils God’s purpose, whether that purpose is judgment or salvation: ‘For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death to death, and to the other the aroma of life to life’ (2 Corinthians 2:15,16). And regeneration is always an immediate act of the Word, that is, of God speaking by his Spirit with saving power through the gospel.

John Woodhouse may be justified in saying: ‘Where there is the Word of God there is always the Spirit of God’, but he would not be justified in understanding this to mean that the Spirit is always there with saving power. So his words are open to serious misunderstanding, but as I think can be shown, they do indicate possibility, expectation and hope.

5. Practical conclusions

The basic thrust of Stuart’s article still stands; to lay all the emphasis on clear, accurate, contemporary preaching of the Bible is a serious error, and to lay too much emphasis there is a mistake which probably is having consequences already, as he says. At the same time I have to say that from my own limited experience I doubt whether all the ministers and churches influenced by teaching along the John Woodhouse and presumably Dick Lucas line seriously overlook the importance of prayer and on the whole such ministries and churches appear to be more ‘successful’ than many Reformed churches which perhaps take Stuart’s line. I may be wrong, but to me this appears to be a fact.

Just as it is wrong to lay all the emphasis on our preaching, so it would be wrong to lay all the emphasis on our praying – it can regrettably be ‘much speaking’. There is another problem here too, and that is that we desperately need the Spirit as ‘the Spirit of grace and supplications’. Our prayer meetings can be painfully ordinary, dull and dry. Moreover, real prayer is not a matter of multiplying words. I remember a very godly man years ago whose life and ministry impressed me greatly, though I doubt if any but a very few would know his name. He once prayed in a prayer meeting with such a sense of reality, with spiritual insight and power, that once he finished no-one felt there was anything more that could be added and the prayer meeting ended there and then. I was also with him just before he was due to preach and asked if he would like us to pray together. He just smiled and said, ‘No, I’ve already prayed and committed it all to the Lord’. We certainly need the presence and blessing of the Holy Spirit in all that we do, but perhaps we need to ask him to begin with our own prayer lives.

I can well understand Dr Lloyd-Jones’ emphasis on the ‘anointing’ of the Spirit, following, of course, the pattern of Christ himself: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor…’ (Luke 4:18,19). Every Christian is dependent on the Holy Spirit for holiness of life and for all Christian service of whatever kind. This is vitally true for gospel ministers because of the nature of their ministry. It is also certainly true that a preacher can be filled with the Spirit and a sense of liberty and power and can preach well beyond himself. Yet however much it is important for gospel ministers to pray for the working of the Spirit I am a little uneasy on tying that in too much with the preacher himself. Preachers are at best ‘jars of clay’ and the surpassing glory belongs to God. I wonder whether we pray enough for the hearers; that the Spirit would do his work of convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment – I’m thinking now of unconverted hearers, though perhaps we need also to pray that many believers will be awakened and stirred up as well. We might feel a little miffed if in our prayer meetings anyone prayed that God would empower his Word and use it in spite of the pastor, but if we are honest we know that that is what happens. I would prefer a greater emphasis on God the Holy Spirit himself, the Word, and those who need it, and not too much on the human instrument.

To move on to another point, though it is important to look for areas that are overlooked or out of balance, or plain wrong, we also need to make sure that our approach to our ministries is an integrated one. We must prepare our sermons well; we must seek to be faithful to Scripture, to capture attention and to use easily understood and contemporary language. But equally we must pray; for ourselves, for the hearers, for the glory of God. Moreover we must be pastors, shepherds who know and care wisely for the sheep; the aim is always, as far as possible with our own limited gifts, an all-round ministry.

Then there is the question of what is usual and what is special – or, if you like, what is ordinary and what is extraordinary. Without question Dr Lloyd-Jones often focussed on the extraordinary; he recognized it as such, but also believed that when God works in a special way much is accomplished in a short time. He did not despise the ordinary, but wanted ministers to be alive to what God was able to do, and what he has done, sometimes in very unpromising circumstances. Trying to look at this matter from a biblical perspective we can see, for example, that Paul had very varied results on his missionary journeys; there was a great difference between what happened in Athens and in Thessalonica. Are we to trace the difference to Paul – to his methods, to his spiritual condition in the different cities – or to the receptiveness, perhaps preparedness, of the populations of those cities, or to the sovereignty of God? Some passages speak of sowing and reaping and church history surely demonstrates that there are periods that are mainly sowing and there are also times of harvest. One question which troubles is whether we should always be asking for the special or praying for grace and enabling to go on faithfully with the ordinary; perhaps it is not either/or.

Finally, I think there is a danger of a crisis of hope. Gary Benfold’s blog spoke recently of ‘depressed Calvinists’. That ought to be a contradiction in terms. By that I don’t mean that Calvinists will never feel depressed, nor that, being frail human vessels, they may not sometimes become clinically depressed. Rather, that in general terms Calvinism always gives hope; it is God who saves and he can save the most unlikely of people. And it is God who completes the work that he has begun; whatever the odds, whatever the pressures, whatever the sad falls that sometimes occur, where God has truly begun a work of grace he always brings it to completion; so in spite of human inadequacy and, indeed, failure, God’s work will always go on. The prevailing attitude that Calvinism engenders ought to be one of joy, thankfulness and hope. The fact that we preach from God’s book, the Bible, should give us hope. Of course we must pray; of course we must not simply assume that preaching the Bible will automatically ensure conversions, but we know that God does speak loud and clear through the Bible, he does use the preaching of inadequate men, and that should give hope and arouse expectation. The ordinary can seem very ordinary, and breaking up fallow ground and sowing without rain or the apparent promise of it can be morale-sapping, but God can do special things, and sowing leads to reaping some day and those who go out weeping, bearing the seed for sowing – depressed Calvinists perhaps! – shall come home with shouts of joy, bringing their sheaves with them. So we can say with Paul, ‘therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart’ (2 Corinthians 4:1).