Gospel Preaching and the Carnegie Approach (Part 4) (by J. Curtis Manor)

So far in this series of discussions it has been freely acknowledged that the principles of persuasion outlined in Dale Carnegie's book, How to Win Friends and Influence People comprise the most effective known system for getting results in the realm of human relations. These fundamentals of influencing human behavior were known and sometimes utilized by Christ and the apostles, but the general course of their preaching shows such a glaring disregard of these fundamentals as to preclude any possibility of accident or oversight. It had to be by deliberate design. So the following question was raised at the close of article No. 3 of this series:

If it were God's will that all men should be persuaded to be Christians, Why did all the inspired preachers of whom we have record in the scriptures so often and so steadfastly avoid the most effective means of persuasion in their preaching, employing instead a line of approach that almost always resulted in the making of more enemies than friends?

"We Must Use Common Sense"

"The Why's are not for us to say," many brethren have answered. "Those men were guided by the Spirit of God, and therefore knew how, when, and to whom to speak in plain, sharp words. God has not given us today direct guidance as he gave them, but he has given us a measure of good common sense, and he expects us to use it in exercising our best judgment when we address people with the Gospel. In the absence of miraculous guidance, it just isn't good sense to preach even the truth today in such a manner that people will resent it and be prejudiced against it. Remember that the purpose of the Gospel is to draw men to God; not to drive them away."

The facts cited in the observation above are not to be questioned, but the conclusion drawn from them leaves me cold. It may be that the Lord, in bestowing upon me that "measure of good common sense," saw fit to use a spoon instead of a measuring cup, but for the life of me I can't see how my good judgment can be any more wisely exercised in preaching than by following the examples of those who were directly guided. After all, if the Holy Spirit did not know how to please God and accomplish his purpose, how can you and I, with our puny human wisdom, hope to reason out a more excellent way? (1 Cor. 2:11-13). And if, as we teach, the Spirit did know the mind of God, who are we to set ourselves up as improvers of his way. Can we do any more wisely than Paul admonished the Philippians to do- "The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do" (Phil. 4:9)? Do you think that he really meant for them to imitate his private life, but not his manner of preaching? Then Why didn't he say so ? Were the Thessalonian brethren being presumptuous and demonstrating a lack of good judgment when they "became imitators" of Paul and his company in their "sounding out the word of the Lord?" (1 Thess. 1:5-9). What manner of approach was used by this man of whom they became imitators as they took up the banner of Christ and began to sound out his word?

"Oh, you've ruined your position now!" someone cries. "Paul says to them, 'We were gentle in the midst of you, as when a nurse cherisheth her own children' (1 Thess. 2:7) � and that's exactly how Gospel preachers ought to be today. No wonder Paul thanks God that they imitated him. We would do well to do the same."

Granted: but to whom, to what extent, and in what respect was Paul gentle among the Thessalonians? To whom ?�"We were gentle in the midst of you (v. 7) . . . toward you that believe'' (v. 10). To what extent ?�"Nor seeking glory of men . . . when we might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ (v. 6) . . . working night and day that we might not burden any of you (v. 9) . . . (behaving ourselves) holily and righteously and unblamably (v. 10) ... exhorting you, and encouraging you, and testifying, to the end that ye should walk worthily of God, who calleth you into his own kingdom and glory" (v. 11-12). In what respect? �"Being affectionately desirous of you, we were well pleased to impart to you, not the Gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were become very dear to us" (v. 8).

But what of his "entering in among them," while they were yet in the world? How was his "gentleness" shown then? "We waxed bold in our God to speak unto you the Gospel of God in much conflict. For our exhortation is not of error, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile . . . Not as pleasing men, but God, who proveth our hearts. For neither at any time were we found using words of flattery, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetousness, God is witness" (v. 2-5). "Oh, but," some will protest, "that doesn't mean he offer people or hurt their feelings. You can preach the truth just like that without driving people away." Can you, really? Then wonder Why Paul didn't do it? Read Acts 17:1-10, and see how some of those folks at Thessalonica were affected by this "gentleness" Paul is writing about. In just a few weeks he made so many violent enemies with his "gentle" preaching that the church was persecuted and mobbed, its leaders accused of treason and fined, and Paul had to flee the city. If he had really wanted to Win more Friends and Influence more People, it seems that he would have clone well to have been not quite so "bold," more wary of "conflict," not quite so dogmatic concerning the possibility of being in "error;" and instead of being quite so frank, he might well have used a little diplomatic "guile," and a few well-chosen words of "flattery.� In short, he should have made his "exhortation" in such words, and in such a manner, that he might speak "as pleasing men."

"They Had Miracle Proofs"

Another objection I have often heard against "hard" preaching in the present age is this: "Well, the apostles and others of New Testament times had miraculous powers to back up their words with divine proof. We don't, so we can t afford to be so dogmatic as they.

Well, now! I have always been taught that compared to their's we today have a "more excellent way (1 Cor. 12:31). Are we to conclude that "that which is perfect� and which remains, is less reliable than that which was "in part," which was "done away" (1 Cor. 13)? Is the scripture "inspired of God" less authoritative as proof of God's will than the temporary "signs and wonders" with which God bore witness to the early disciples in the absence of a full and complete record of his revelation such as we have? Or does the scripture furnish the man of God "completely unto every good work," but not for "reproof" or "correction" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). When the late H. Leo Boles was questioned regarding some firm stand which he took concerning a disputed issue, he once quoted the scriptural passage which taught the position in question, and commented "As long as that passage is in the Bible, I can afford to be dogmatic�must be dogmatic."

"Everyone Doesn't See it Alike"

It is quite true," Others sometimes object, "that we have the Bible as the full, complete and authoritative word of God, but the Gospel preacher should know that everyone doesn�t interpret the Bible in the same way. Men agree on what the Bible says, but not always on what it means. If you go insisting that your interpretation is right and the others are wrong, the hearer will say, 'Well, I'm just as intelligent as you are; I can read too, and I think it means thus and so.'" Quite true, so we must be careful to allow the scripture to "interpret" itself. Usually, an honest person who misunderstands the meaning of a passage does so through a failure to consider other passages which have a bearing on the same topic. Therefore the Gospel preacher must be thorough in the presentation of the word � sometimes to the point of being considered by the indifferent as ,'tedious" and "longwinded." Naturally, this doesn't help Him too much in Making Friends with some People. But notice how Jesus assailed the Sadducees' "interpretation" of the scriptures: "Ye do err," he said, "Not knowing the scriptures . . .� (Matt. 22:20). He then proceeded to show them some things in the scriptures that they had overlooked. His interpretation was right, their's was wrong. "Oh, but he was the Son of God!" cries an objector. "He had a right to talk to them that way?' Yes, he was the Son of God, but that didn't help the effectiveness of his relations with them, because they did not regard Him as divine, therefore their reaction to his words was the same as though he had not been. If he had wanted to win them with diplomacy, he would have had to approach them in a manner in keeping with what they conceived Him to be�-just another human teacher of the law.

"Just Tell Them What God Says, and They Can't Get Mad at You"

"Well, even so," another frequent protest goes, "too many of our preachers try to cram their own conclusions clown people's throats. That's what folks resent. We ought to just stick with what the Bible says, and keep ourselves out of it. People won't get offended if you tell them what God says, but they will resent what you Say."

This last observation is fine, beautiful and good. The only trouble with it is that it isn't so.

Why do you suppose the people so Often vented their spleen on the apostles when these Holy men sought to declare to them the counsel of God? Why was it the preacher that always got stoned, or chased out of town, or beaten? Why didn�t people throw their rocks at God, since it was his word, and not the preacher's, that so stirred them up? Was it because the apostles preached too much of themselves, and not enough of God's message? Was Paul simply expressing his own delusions when he said of his preaching: "And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you save Christ and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1 Cor. 2:1-5). It was this kind of preaching that "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6); that made the apostles to be "hated of all men" for the name of Christ (Matt. 10:22); but be it never forgotten that it was also this kind of preaching that yielded the greatest fruitage of faith that the world has ever seen. The world hates God�it always has and it always will. It hates God; it hates God's word; and it hates God's people (John 15:18-24). That's Why Paul could declare of his preaching, "If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ" (Gal. 1:10). You can't please both by the same procedure. So it is those who strive to edit, disguise or euphonize the Gospel with "excellency of speech," "persuasive words of wisdom," or some sort of streamlined "approach" who are really preaching more of themselves than of God.

"Calling Names is Unscriptural"

"Well, just the same, preacher, you aren't preaching the Bible when you talk about other people's religion, and especially when you call the names of denominations," a lady once said to me. "If you would speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent, you wouldn't do it, because the Bible doesn't mention them."

Oh, but how sadly mistaken you are! Of course the Bible mentions them! Their teachers are mentioned in Deut. 18:20, in Gal. 1:6-9; in 2 John 9-11, and in Rom. 16:17-18, among many other places. And those who follow them are mentioned in 2 Tim. 4:3, 4. Moreover, I, as a Christian, am admonished to "mark" them, which is exactly what I am doing when I call them by their acknowledged names.

"But the Bible doesn't refer specifically to them. They weren't even in existence when the Bible was given, so you can't talk about them without adding to the scriptures." Well, neither were you in existence when the Bible was written. It doesn't refer anywhere specifically to you, nor does it call you by name. Neither is there any commandment or promise in the Bible given directly and specifically to you. This reasoning would make it impossible for you, me, or anyone this side of the first century to be saved!

"Oh, no, Jesus said 'Go into all the world and preach the Gospel.'"

Yes, but he said it to the apostles, not to anyone now living.

"Well, the Bible commands me to repent and be baptized."

No it doesn't. Peter commanded those people who were at Jerusalem on that remote day of Pentecost to do so.

"Yes, but then he said that the promise was to 'all them which the Lord our God shall call.' That includes me."

How could it, if God never did authorize anybody to preach to you? If you are going to disallow any teaching of the Bible except to people and about people who are expressly identified or specifically addressed, you haven't been called, because God hasn't sent anybody to call you.

It has been said that the Bible guides us by direct command, by approved example, and by necessary inference. Actually, this statement is only two-thirds correct, because we only learn the commands of God by way of approved example. They are not given directly to us. To illustrate: We read what the apostles told sinners to do to be saved. We are sinners. We do those same things, and are confident of the same results because the people of apostolic days were assured that the word of God "liveth and abideth forever." We read God's directions written to Christians in the first century. Being Christians through having followed the examples of Gospel obedience, we follow these directions also, and in doing so, we, too, please God. We read how God condemned sin and error in the days of the apostles, and how he commanded his people of that time to do so. We see the same sin and error in the world today, and since God's worst has not changed, we know that his will has not changed, and that he still condemns it. Therefore, since we are his people today, we follow their example and condemn it also, and know that we are thereby pleasing God. We read how those who taught or practiced falsehood in those days were identified by name (Matt. 23; Matt. 16:6-12; Acts 3:17; Acts 20:19; Gal. 2:11-13) that the followers of Christ might know them, or that they might know themselves. We see men teaching or practicing error today. We follow the Bible example and identify them by name, that the present-day followers of Christ may be warned, or that they may know their own errors. You may talk abstractly about false teachers all day and half the night, but if when you get through your hearers still cannot recognize the one that threatens their own salvation, your warning hasn�t done much good. Sometimes it is necessary to "mark" them by name.

"Show a Christian Attitude"

Another objection often encountered is this: "We must have a real Christian attitude. We must preach the truth, but we must do it in love."

Most certainly. But if you think you are showing love for the souls of men when you pamper their pride and pacify their prejudices with a conciliatory "salesman's approach," you need to revamp your scale of values and learn what a real Christian attitude is. True Christian love is more concerned with a man's eternal welfare than it is with his petty feelings. Is anyone so presumptuous as to say that Jesus was showing an attitude that was "un-Christlike" in his teaching of Matthew 15, in which he spoke so plainly to the Pharisees that he offended them, and, when informed of it, refused to apologize, but rather said, "let them alone?" Or was Stephen demonstrating an "unchristian Spirit" as he denounced the sins of the Jews in Acts 7? Was Paul showing a lack of Christian love toward the Athenians when he proceeded to pick their religion apart in Acts 17? If so, Why should the lives and works of these men be regarded as examples of righteousness for us to emulate? If not, Why should we be condemned as calloused and unchristian when we follow their examples?

Next: "The Sincere Milk of the Word."

Preceptor � July 1954