(Part 1 of a Four Part Series of Articles)
In 1902, when I began as a student at Transylvania University, at
Lexington, Kentucky, McGarvey was President of the College Of The Bible.
These two institutions were on the same campus, but they were separately
organized. It was McGarvey's desire, I fully believe, that they be
separate and distinct, even though affiliated. Students enrolled in each
institution could take courses in the other. But by keeping them
separately organized, the College Of The Bible would not be involved in
such worldly entanglements as football and dances. At the recent
inauguration of Mr. Lunger as President of Transylvania, in September,
1958, one of the features of the program was an 'Inaugural Ball"
attended by President Lunger and his wife, as I recall. McGarvey would
never have tolerated such a thing as that, and he would not have been
slow in saying so. We students of the College Of The Bible were taught
that it was not right for us to go to the Theatre. I distinctly recall a
plain talk by Brother McGarvey on that matter. He tried sincerely to
make the College Of The Bible a truly spiritual institution, and to keep
it aloof from the world and ungodliness.
During the years that I
was there, McGarvey was the most influential teacher, or preacher, on
the campus. He was known all over the world as a Bible scholar.
Transylvania and the College Of The Bible had strong faculties, and were
rated high, scholastically. I was in the classes of a number of able
teachers, but McGarvey stood far above the others, both as to influence,
and as to actual merit. Nor have I ever, since that time, known any
teachers, either in or out of the Restoration movement, that had the
stature of McGarvey. Next to my parents, he has been the greatest
spiritual influence in my life.
Some of the other
professors had the "Doctor Of Philosophy" degree. McGarvey did not have
this degree, and he seemed to live happily without it. He needed no such
props, or vain appendages as that. In fact, I heard him express his
displeasure at being called "Doctor". Many preachers of today think that
they must have this degree. And, unfortunately, a College advocating
sound doctrine recently gave a list of its professors, and gave the term
"Dr." before the names of nearly all of them. That, surely, is a sign of
spiritual decay, and of departure from the simplicity of the gospel.
McGarvey needed no such trappings of scholarship. Two or three years ago
a preacher who had preached in a meeting in a northern state complained
about the amount that the congregation gave him for the meeting, saying
that he thought "a preacher should be paid according to the number of
degrees that he had" . Let me repeat it — McGarvey was opposed to all of
this hollowness, all of this bombast, and all of this vain show. And,
let us be done with it, brethren, lest we disgust sincere people.
McGarvey's scholarship was of a high order, but he was just about as
unconscious of it as Moses was of the shining of his face. (Exodus
34:29)
At that time there was
another member of the faculty who was well-known for his godliness, his
spiritual penetration into the deep things of the Word of God, and for
his unfaltering and unfeigned faith in the Bible as the infallible
revelation of God. I refer to I. B. Grubbs. But Brother Grubbs's
Biblical field was much more restricted than that of Brother McGarvey,
nor did he have McGarvey's breadth of interest. Other members of the
faculty, while having many admirable traits, had begun to capitulate
before the spirit of the age, and had gone with the tide of innovation.
They had adjusted themselves to the situation in the churches — an
increasing digression. They had lost it seemed to me, their "singleness
of heart" and were tame and unimpressive, in comparison with McGarvey.
This was because they did not have his faith and courage, nor his
convictions. Preachers who do not have strong convictions do not really
have anything to say.
Never did I hear McGarvey
take a weak position on a moral issue. He met evil head-on. I cannot
conceive of his taking a neutral position in regard to mixed swimming,
or social drinking, or naked exposure And I am less capable of thinking
of him as writing a defense of such moral leprosy. What has become of
our sense of decency, our moral protest? And, brethren, no one would
dare to defend such moral laxity, if a spiritual decline had not set in
among us.
Once McGarvey took notice
of a complaint that modernist and liberal brethren had been making about
being "misunderstood". It is a bad sign, McGarvey said, if a man is
frequently misunderstood. And he asked: "Who ever misunderstood me in
regard to the integrity of the Bible?" When preachers are often
misunderstood, it is an indication that they have been practicing
double-talk, and are guilty of equivocation. They say things that are to
be understood one way in one crowd, and another way in another crowd.
But when a man, or a preacher, stands absolutely for the right, knows
what he believes, and is not afraid to speak boldly, he is rarely
misunderstood.
Now, let us think of
McGarvey as a preacher. Robert Graham, one of his associates on the
faculty of the College Of The Bible, is quoted by Professor Morro as
saying that he had heard men who could preach greater sermons than
McGarvey, "but taking him Sunday after Sunday, week in and week out, he
was the best preacher he had ever heard." (Morro, BROTHER McGARVEY. p.
215) Moses E. Lard was preaching at Lexington for a part of the time
while McGarvey was preaching to another congregation there. On Sunday
mornings the boys at the dormitory would talk about where they were
going to attend the service that morning. One of the students expressed
the feeling of many when he said "If I knew that Lard was on his high
horse, I would go to hear him. But I am not sure that he will be. So, I
believe I will go to hear McGarvey, for he never disappoints us."
To what must we attribute
the fact that "he never disappoints us"? Or, how shall we explain his
influence as a preacher? What was the secret of his ability to edify
people? Well, it is no secret at all. I often heard him in the Chapel
service at the College, and I heard him preach at Chestnut Street. And,
even after the lapse of these many years, I can still hear the
intonations of his voice. I recall, very vividly, hearing him preach one
Lord's Day morning on "The Centurion's Testimony." (Matthew 27:54)
Those who heard him regarded him as both edifying and impressive. What
is the explanation?
First, I want to tell you
that his influence as a preacher was not due to eloquence,, or "excellency
of speech." His sermons were gracious, but they were not brilliant. For
McGarvey was not a brilliant mind. He had no dramatic talent. And I feel
sure that, if he had possessed that ability, he would have repressed it.
His grammar was good, and his use of words was correct. His manner of
speech was never careless or slovenly. But he was never flowery. He was
not a "Pulpit Orator", nor did he care to be. He would have abominated
such a thing, knowing that it would make "the cross of Christ of none
effect." A Christian's manner of dress ought to be so that it is not
noticed, either for its slovenliness, or its finery. So with a
preacher's manner of speaking, and his language. They should not be
noticed for their bad grammar, or polish. McGarvey's choice of words was
good, but he wanted to be understood, not admired. He was not striking
in his appearance as he stood in the pulpit, but his manner was earnest
and amiable. You felt that a man of God was speaking to you, and one
that wanted to see you saved. He was serious, without being stern. His
face was radiant, and often enlivened with a kindly smile. I am sure
that he did not rely upon psychology, but upon divine assistance. I
never saw about him the least pretence, or affectation, either in what
he said, or in the way that he said it. I doubt that he ever took a
course in "Speech". But, if he did, he happily forgot the most of it.
When you heard him, you were not charmed or thrilled, but you were
helped. You did not go away saying: "That preacher is a great speaker".
But you did carry away in your heart a heavenly message.
I have pointed out a
number of things which preachers often rely on, unfortunately, and have
stated that these are not the explanation of McGarvey's influence as a
preacher or a teacher. He did not want you to worship him, but to
worship his Lord. He would have been a very poor pope.
Now, let us notice the
true explanation of his ability to help us who heard him, with his
sermons. In the first place, he was natural in his manner. He had no
airs or tricks of oratory. I think of Jesus as he spoke to the
multitudes, and as he preached in the synagogue at Nazareth. And I think
that McGarvey's manner of speaking was very much like that of Jesus. He
never acted or spoke insincerely. He had no sanctimoniousness about him.
His voice did not have a "holy tone," which is supposed to befit one in
the pulpit. He was like nature unadorned. Sunshine is not noisy, but it
is effective.
Again, McGarvey's sermons
were scriptural. I have a copy of McGarvey's "sermons", but I have not
read all of them. Certainly, I don't want to preach his sermons, as so
many do, I fear. And I don't think that McGarvey would want his students
to preach the sermons of another as their own. But, if you could have
heard him, or if you will read his sermons, you will he impressed by the
fact that they are scriptural. The subjects are Biblical, the thoughts
are the thoughts of the Bible, and the very words are often those that
are used in the Bible. So, he had the gift of being able to wrap up
great thoughts in small words. He obeyed the command of Paul to Timothy:
"Preach the Word". He was never speculative. He let the Lord speak
through him. You would learn what the New Testament taught by listening
to McGarvey as he preached.
In the next place
McGarvey was diligent in the preparation of his sermons. He did not give
to his hearers an unpremeditated talk. He obeyed the injunction of Paul
to Timothy: "Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed". (2 Timothy 2:15) One of his
associates on the faculty relates that McGarvey prepared every lesson
diligently, even after he had taught these lessons for 50 years. I am
confident that he would not stand up to preach without earnest,
prayerful and studious preparation. Consequently, he did not become
stale. He was not a lazy preacher. He studied hard, but he was not
bookish.
Another characteristic of
his preaching was that he had something to say. What he said was worth
hearing. There was a great deal of solid food in his sermons. And what
he said fitted life. He reached the hearts and the consciences of us who
heard him. Here was something that we needed, and that is interesting to
hearers. For they will be listened to who speak those things "that come
home to men's business and bosoms". Recently, a preacher called my
attention to the fact that there is an overemphasis on "Speech" and the
courses teaching that, even in colleges advocating the return to New
Testament Christianity. Would it not be better, my friend asked, for
these young preachers to be taught to really have something to say,
rather than spend so much time on how to say it? Churches will starve
under such preaching. McGarvey, I repeat, had something to say,
something from God's Word something that must be said, something that
our souls needed. His sermons had the weight and impressiveness of
divine authority. You were so occupied with heavenly thoughts themselves
that you did not care to think about how it was said. Our souls are fed
by the thoughts that Christ taught, but we think nothing at all about
his gestures, or his manner of saying it. So, there was very little
emptiness, very little hollowness, about his sermons.
One more explanation
needs to be offered about McGarvey's impressiveness as a preacher, and
that is McGarvey himself. There was nothing about McGarvey, the man, to
hinder the message that he was bringing. A great writer once made the
statement that: "He who would not be frustrated of his hope to write
well hereafter is laudable things ought himself to be a true poem". We
knew that McGarvey was a godly man, and that he tried to live what he
preached. He could be at ease in the presence of the great of this
world, and he could pray at the bed-side of the most lowly Negro. He
"stooped to conquer." I never saw anything artificial about him, nor any
policy, nor any deceit. Admitting his faults, and his weaknesses, he
was, nevertheless, a living embodiment of what he taught and preached.
There was real manhood, Christian manhood, there.
Gospel Guardian,
February 1959
(To be continued)
Other Articles on the History of the Church
J.W. McGarvey - And the Course of Digression in
Lexington, Kentucky (Part 2 of 4)