Criticizing the evangelist, his handbills, sermon topics, equipment, appeals, approaches, follow-ups, and converts, appears be a favorite pastime, or should we say the her constant avocation, of not a few talented ivel-chair critics. Some of the complaints emanate from the college classroom, others from the executive office, some from professional musicians, and still others from the editorial sanctum. A few come from the pastor's. study.
Some tell us they do not like the wording of the evangelist's sermon titles. They wish plain, simple, unadorned topics—topics suitable for the Sabbath church service, the camp meeting, the college chapel hour, or Seminary vesper service—where loyal members come to hear, topic or no topic, irrespective of the speaker. Or they wish topics suitable for the lesson heading of a teaching syllabus for classroom use—where daily attendance is assured by the teacher's relentless record book, topic or no topic. It might be observed that if the tame, lifeless topics preferred by such—without appeal or pull, without attraction or power to arouse an interest—were used, handbills would be valueless, and attendance from the general public would be nil.
This journal does not condone sensationalism or justify tricks. It believes in dignity and honesty. It speaks out frankly and frequently against unsound and unworthy methods, as our files through the years will abundantly attest. But we do contend for an appeal that will grip, for topics that will make men say, "I must hear that, whether or no." And the contention that our topics should be so conservatively designed as to appeal to the university professor, the judge, and the elite, is utterly misconceived. Such would rarely come to an evangelistic service in tent, tabernacle, or theater under any conditions. They would not come irreective of the topic—even with engraved invitation cards, accompanied by reserved-seat enclosures. That argument is not valid.
To appeal to the populace we must meet them on common ground. There can be force without cheapness, and attraction without sensationalism. But do let us have the breath of life in an appeal to the world. Do let us deal with vital themes, effectively phrased. Dead titles rarely draw living people. Dull, prosaic topics—and preachers —are a total misfit on the evangelistic platform. There are appropriate evangelistic topics. Let us toil until they are wrought out.
Some claim they do not like the evangelistic song or chorus employed in evangelism. Staid, stately hymns and religious classics, and conservative anthems with their frequently "vain repetitions," are urged. But only the studio theorist or professional musician who has his assured congregation at the stated worship periods of the church or institution would advocate such a procedure. This type of music will never succeed in welding together the diversified and discordant elements that come from every sort of background, unifying and attuning them to the message of God for the evening. We have a message to give in song, a testimony to give, an appeal to make, as well as to worship through the congregational hymn.
We hasten to add that we, too, deplore the cheap, syncopated songs that have sometimes crept in to disgrace some of our evangelistic services. We have lifted our voice against them, and had part in bringing the representative Gospel Melodies into being. But indiscretions by some do not justify blanket condemnation of the wholesome message-song that changes hearts and provides a genuine evangelistic message or appeal. Oratorio solos or choruses and most church anthems do not convert souls. They may edify and uplift the saints, but they do not bring decisions for God and righteousness from the sinner. The churches of the world employ them to the full. But they lack a transforming message from God. They are not our pattern.
Other critics fulminate against the evangelist's equipment, his charts, prophetic symbols, slides, or other paraphernalia to illustrate and impress truth. Why not simply preach the Word, they ask, as the college professor would teach his class? Why not depend on the Holy Spirit instead of on human devices? We do need to be on guard against leaning on devices instead of on God; yet some who criticize have neither the divine energy to move men, nor the evangelistic aids to make their presentations effective. (Many of our church members attest that it is a weariness of the flesh to listen to them.) And the public would not come back to hear them the second time if they tried the evangelistic platform.
Oh, that we would differentiate between the evangelistic service, with its burning message of life and death, and the pastoral instruction hour. If God has given a man the gift of powerful, persuasive evangelism, let us rally around him, pray for and support him, and help him to improve—not criticize and pick him to pieces. We have an imperative message to give to the masses in our great cities. Who is sufficient for the task? Rarely the swivel-chair critic. Too many have made the evangelist the object of their criticisms.
Still others are prone to criticize the positiveness of the evangelist. He should be less dogmatic, they complain. He should not speak with such certainty. He should tell his hearers that the world's scholars are divided on the date of the crucifixion. He should frankly admit that expositors hold differing views on various points of prophecy. He should candidly state that historical evidence seems to be contradictory on some key dates—that we really know little about most things, or merely that the evidence would simply indicate thus and so. Some of these proponents of the noncommittal are unwilling to preach on this, that, and the other essential theme because they do not know and think no one else knows. They would refrain from preaching on many subjects for, say, ten years, until there could be special study and investigation and agreement. God pity evangelists under such inhibitions.
Has it ever occurred to such that only as one has profound personal convictions can he produce conviction in others? Only as one has a deep sense of certainty in his own soul can he instill certainty in others. The tendency of scholasticism is to regard all truth as relative, to consider all evidence as biased and inconclusive, and all conclusions as tentative. Some men study ten years on a fundamental date of prophecy, attested by repeated and explicit Spirit of prophecy declarations, and sustained by sound sources and authorities, but dare not take a positive position. Do they think that an evangelist can be noncommittal, hesitant, and tentative, and ever win men to a positive faith that will lead them to break with the world and join an unpopular movement? If Our ministers should adopt the indefinite attitude of some of the scholars, our evangelistic ministry and message to the world would be doomed. Men never go to the martyr's stake except for a profound conviction.
The most difficult, exacting, nerve-racking ministry in our entire cause is public evangelism. To draw an audience in this hurly-burly world, crowded as it is with numberless attractions, filled with competition of every sort, driven by economic pressure, crazed by pleasure or drink, distracted by grief or sorrow, and dulled by sin—calls for methods out of the ordinary, and for messages that will startle the hearers. On this we have explicit Spirit of prophecy counsel. We had better spend our time studying the blueprint and its mandates rather than criticizing the evangelist.
We suggest that some of the swivel-chair critics of our evangelists try to gather and hold a crowd one night in one of our great cities. More than that, let them attempt to get them back night after night. If some who are most vocal did succeed in gathering a thousand people for the song service, just how many would be there at the close, of the sermon, or how many would ever come back to succeeding lectures? Let us not confuse the quiet and appropriate technique of the worship service of the church, and the prosaic routine of pastoral ministry or institutional services, with the intensive evangelistic service for the public. They are as far apart as day and night.
The evangelist is on the firing line of the battle for truth. He is under constant fire from a relentless and pitiless foe that gives no quarter. Yet he is confident and content as long as there is support, confidence, and co-operation from behind the lines. He is a warrior for God, and is confident of victory and happy in the conflict if he has strong backing. But it is hard and discouraging for him to find bullets and even barrages striking at him from the rear, coming from the ranks of those who should be supporting and encouraging him in the fight. It is difficult and often disastrous to wage battle when between two fires. In war those who smite from behind the lines are regarded as aid, the enemy. Surely no fellow worker would kno ingly engage in espionage or fifth-column work.
Brethren, let us rally behind our evangelists. Let us believe in them, pray for them, help them constructively to put away unworthy methods, unsound arguments, and untrustworthy quotations, and to grow in power with God and man, doing a work for Him that most of us could never touch. Despite all his faults and failings, this journal believes in the gospel evangelist and backs him to the full. His is a divinely appointed work as verily as that of the pastor, teacher, or administrator. It is one of the gifts God Himself has "set" in the church. Let us not try to break down these distinctions and run everything through the same groove or mold.
At the same time THE MINISTRY is laboring for the evangelist's improvement and wishes him to be wholly sound in his method and true in the content of his message. We wish him to be the ideal representative of the church before the world. We have a divine blueprint for evangelism in our possession. Let us follow it. We appeal to the swivel-chair critic to study this blueprint, and he will find that much he is prone to criticize is in fact an attack upon the heavenly blueprint. Forward, then, with sound aggressive evangelism!
L. E. F.
