Gospel Preaching and the Carnegie Approach (Part 3) (by J. Curtis Manor)

How Did The Apostles Preach?

In our last discussion of this series it was pointed out that much of the preaching of Jesus was in direct antithesis to the accepted rules of successful human relations as embodied in Dale Carnegie's modern book, How to Win Friends and Influence People. Let us now consider the preaching of the apostles and other inspired men of the New Testament era in the light of the Carnegie system.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter, having received power from on high, preached the risen Christ to a multitude of Jews, and the manner and content of his speech were such that his hearers were "pricked in their heart" (Acts 2:37). Does anyone honestly suppose that this pricking of the heart was something similar to a gas pain, possibly caused by an overexpansion of their feeling of importance as it swelled nigh unto the bursting point in response to the blandishments of the apostle's sermon? Read what he said to them, and imagine the effect of it upon your own self-esteem if it had been said to you.

Or, take the case of Stephen, who displayed such a notorious lack of tact that he alienated his entire audience and so enraged them that his sermon cost Him his life. Yet he is said by the scripture to have spoken by the Spirit and wisdom (Acts 6:10). Now, wonder if the Spirit didn't know enough about Winning Friends and Influencing People at least to enable Stephen to save his life, not to mention restraining Him from "driving away" all those "prospects."

The "Errors" of Stephen

Notice the blunders of Stephen, as measured by the Carnegie system:

1. He was a debater. He argued his point, and refused to conciliate. He contradicted the opponents, and "shot their arguments full of holes." Who knows? he may have even "proved them to be non compos mentis." The scripture says:" . . . There arose certain of them . . . disputing with Stephen" (Acts 6:10). Now, if Stephen had had the wisdom and tact of many of my present-day brethren, he would have sat down right then, saying, "Well, I don't believe in debating; I didn't come here to argue; disputing a question never does any good, and about the only thing ever accomplished by debates is to drive people farther apart. Debating makes enemies; let's be friends." But instead, poor, crude fellow that he was, having only the Spirit of God to guide Him, entered into the dispute with such gusto that"they were not able to withstand the wisdom and Spirit by which he spake" (v. 10).

2. He criticized their ancestors, thus assailing their pride of heritage (Acts 7:39-49).

3. He implied that their temple, the pride and joy of every Jew, was not what they conceived it to be, a fitting habitation for the God of Jacob (v. 47-49).

4. He told them they were wrong, and not very indirectly, at that. He flatly accused them of :

a. Stubbornness�v. 51.

b. Resisting the Holy Spirit�v. 51.

c. Being as sinful as their ancestors�v. 51, 52.

d. Betrayal�v. 52.

e. Murder�v. 52.

f. Failure to honor a sacred law�v. 53.

5. He broke the "all-important law of human conduct." He did not make them feel important.

The net result of his accumulated bluntness was that his hearers were thoroughly aroused. That "dangerous spark" of criticism found an explosive spot in the "powder magazine" of their pride, and their anger exploded upon Stephen with a ferocity unequaled even by the murderers of Jesus some time before. Not bothering to legalize his execution by an appeal to the Roman authorities, as they had done in the case of Jesus, they took matters into their own hands, "gnashed on (Stephen) with their teeth," cast Him out of the city, and stoned Him to death!

Now, as the life is battered out of his body by the stones of Jewish resentment, Stephen looks eagerly toward the heavens where he beholds Jesus standing by the throne of God and watching the scene, and he calls out in pitiful agony, "Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit." Can you envision a disapproving frown on the face of that Glorified One, and a finger pointing down in accusing condemnation toward Stephen, as the Savior replies: "Why should I receive thy spirt, oh thou who hast by the insolence of thy tongue stirred up hatred against my church! Knowest not that the fire thou hast kindled this day by the perverse power of thy witless words shall not be quenched until many who call upon my name shall have been put to death by the Jews, and those who remain shall be scattered as sheep? Thou hast brought reproach upon my kingdom, and besides this also, thou hast by thy speech hardended the hearts of those who heard thee this day, so that many of them may never again give ear unto my Gospel. Their blood shall be upon thy head, for thou hast driven them beyond further reach of the word of salvation. Thou shouldst have known, oh vain man, that even the word of truth requires adaptation to the feelings of men, lest their pride be wounded and they turn away their ears from the hearings of faith. Verily thou hast spoken the words of the Spirit, but thou wouldst have done well to have translated them into the more diplomatic terms of men."

What? You can't imagine Jesus greeting his first martyr with such a speech? Neither can I, but I have heard dozens of those who claim to be his followers, and to imbibe freely of his Spirit regarding their attitude toward the souls of men, express all of these sentiments toward Gospel preachers who, like Stephen, spoke the truth too plainly for the taste of some hearers.

The Polish of Paul

But let's turn to the preaching of Paul.

Here is a man who unquestionably demonstrated a knowledge of applied psychology, and who showed himself, on various occasions, to be a master of the Carnegie approach�centuries before Carnegie was born. His personal dealings with men becoming "all, things to all men that by all means he might same some (1 Cor. 9:22), his adroit manipulation of men before the Jewish council (Acts 23:6-10), the skill of his defense before Felix and Agrippa (Acts 24:10-21; 26:1-29), and of his address from the castle stairs up to the mention of that critical word "Gentiles" (Acts 22:1-21)�all reflect an uncommon genius for diplomacy and tact when such was expedient to the purpose in hand.

With such a proven ability, then, to persuade without offense when occasion demanded it, Paul's apparent disregard of the salesman's approach in the ordinary course of his preaching is nothing short of startling. Notice:

In Damascus, he confounded the Jews with his proofs concerning Christ. He won their friendship to the extent that they tried to kill Him (Acts 9:22, 25).

In Jerusalem he engaged in that nefarious business of debate. "He spake and disputed against the Grecian jews (Acts 9:29). They, with the characteristic appreciation of those who have been melted with sugary words, "were seeking to kill Him."

On Cyprus he showed sufficient regard for the self-esteem of an opponent to call Him a son of the devil" and to denounce Him, not too indirectly, as an enemy of righteousness and a perverter of the right ways of the Lord (Acts 13:10).

At Antioch of Pisidia he was considerate enough of the Jews' religion to intimate that they could not be saved by it (Acts 13:39), and that unless they believed what he was telling them they would be regarded as ?despisers," and would "perish" (v. 41).

In Iconium he preached so inoffensively that there was a plan set afoot to stone Him (Acts 14:5).

At Lystra he assailed the local religion as "vain," and besought the people to "turn from" it. It was here that he was later stoned and left for dead (Acts 14:15-19). Really Influenced People here.

The Model Speech on Mars' Hill

Paul's address to the philosophers on the Areopagus has often been touted as a model of diplomacy representative of the "psychological approach," because of his complimenting the men of Athens as "very religious," and of his quotation from the writings of one of their own poets. But, let's just see how that sermon measures up by the Carnegie yardstick:

I. He alleged that they worshipped God in ignorance (Acts 17:23). (Now that should really make them beam with smiles of appreciation!) It will be protested that Paul was merely referring to an inscription on their own al.-tar-one that they had written and that they acknowledged, and that therefore Paul's statement could arouse no resentment. Well, that's good logic, and it ought to hold, but it won't. Humans just aren't put together that way. Otherwise Why does, for example, a Methodist resent a Gospel preacher's calling Him a Methodist, since that's what he calls himself? And Why does he resent your inferring to an inscription in his own book, the Discipline�an inscription that Methodists have written and that they acknowledge as representative of their religion? It's the old idea of "I can say it about myself. but don't you say it to me or about me, and don't you even say that I said it about myself!" Logical? Of course not. but remember what Carnegie said: "When dealing with people, let us remember that we are not dealing with Creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion .... bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.',

2. Not only were they ignorant, but Paul was not. In other words, he knew more than they did, and he was going to teach them something (v. 23). Carnegie calls this "a sure way of making enemies." Instead, he recommends the advice of Lord Chesterfield: "Be wiser than other people if you can; but do not tell them so."

3. In the midst of a concentration of temples possibly unequaled for number and variety in any other city on earth, he boldly asserts that the true God does not dwell in such places (v. 24). Could there be any plainer method of telling a man that his religion is wrong? So Paul has ignored another of the basic rules for changing people's minds: "Never tell a man he is wrong."

4. He tells them that they ought not to do exactly what they are doing: "We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man" (v. 29). Surely a close student of human relations should know better than thus to criticize the established religion of his audience, if he expects the utmost success in Winning Friends and Influencing People.

5. Again he refers to their ignorance (v. 30), obviously encompassing the matters of religion he has just discussed, and be it remembered that it was their religion he was thus belittling. It would seem, from the human relations point of view, that he had not learned "properly to deal with" that most important of words, "my."

6. He implies that their ignorant religion is (a) out-of-date (v. 30), (b) not acceptable to God, (c) incompatible with righteousness (v. 31), and (d) must be repented of.

7. He warns of God's impending judgment as a motivation for their repentance, thus indicating that, in their present state, under their present religion they are unprepared for it.

8. He represents God, who to them is a virtual stranger, as issuing commands to them. ("No one likes to take orders"�Carnegie.)

9. After this kind of an introduction, which, as anyone can readily see, was hardly calculated to mollify any innate hostility in his audience, Paul springs upon them a doctrine which is to them so alien that their reaction to it is largely one of ridicule. We cannot conclude that Paul was unaware of their opinion of the doctrine of the resurrection, because he had preached enough already in the city for his teaching to have become a topic of discussion (v. 18). Why, then, if he were trying to make the best possible impression, did he so soon, so obviously, and so directly introduce this strange doctrine that was so nearly certain to be a stumbling block to them?

Why, since he was so capable of doing so, did he not concern himself for a while with winning their friendship, and with the discussion of truths that would be more agreeable to them, and leave the more disagreeable parts of the word of Christ for their future enlightenment, after they should have become established as friends of the faith?

Why, indeed, if it were God's will that all men should be persuaded to be Christians, did all the inspired men of whom we have record�and, ultimately, the Holy Spirit who inspired them � so often and so steadfastly avoid the most effective means of persuasion, employing instead a line of approach that almost always resulted in the making of more enemies than friends, more dissenters than disciples, more counterworkers than converts?

Our search for an answer to this vital question must be reserved for a future study in this series. Next month: "Common Objections to 'Hard' Preaching."

Preceptor � June 1954