"HOW READEST THOU?"
Occasionally we publish articles of a provocative nature. Much of their content is obviously in line with what we already believe, but here and there is a certain amount of challenge. The provocative writer—by which we mean one who just makes his readers think—like the provocative teacher, is open to misunderstanding; but who wants to read only what leaves his mind unchallenged, undisturbed?
Research material, which is not easily come by, is very apt to make us stop and think. Even otherwise good, orthodox material may contain certain things with which we do not agree. The man who cannot read with equanimity some things with which he does not agree, will live in a narrow groove. Indeed, he may in time develop atrophied powers of reason. He certainly will never understand men of differing ideas and outlook.
It seldom seems to occur to the man who cannot endure to read anything except what he already believes, and who rushes in to castigate the editor in question, that both editor and author were aware of opposite points of view before they went into print.
The justification for provocative material is that: (a) too few of us really know how to think logically and deeply; (b) it may stimulate thought and help those people who apparently fall victim to anything they hear or read to analyze and evaluate; (c) many questions have more than one answer, and it cultivates the mind to examine all angles involved; (d) we should seek to cultivate a sense of discrimination in reading, so that the mind is invigorated and fortified by accepting the true and discarding the erroneous; (e) opposite schools of religious thought must be studied if they are to be understood.
H. W. L.
"PROVE THIS WRONG, OTHERWISE IT'S CORRECT"
The mail often brings strange things —"new light," mimeographed and printed, and, sad to say, once in a while a "scavenger" production whose sponsors love nothing so much as items calculated to injure the church and truth.
Before me today is a tract with these words above the caption: "Prove This Wrong, Otherwise It's Correct." How naive can these people be? If they want to shift the burden of substantiating their pet ideas onto me, they will be disappointed. I never waste a moment in such a pastime.
If I read something and I detect that it is basically erroneous, or if I am unimpressed by its logic, I am under no burden to waste time to communicate
with an author who cannot prove his own contentions. A man who expects to prove what he wants to believe is hard pressed for proof. Moreover, some things that the mail brings are so inconsequential that they are not susceptible of proof either way. Life is too short to waste on the unimportant and the inconsequential
H. W. L.
SLAVES OR SERVANTS?
A well-known preacher tells how he gave a series of Lenten talks on "Great Protestants." For his talk on Bach, the piano was pressed into service. Rembrandt was pictorially represented through the epidiascope, but for his closing talk on Luther he decided to use no audio or visual aids of any kind.
He comments thus: "I was reminded of the old preacher who was asked whether he needed a magic-lantern to illustrate his talk. 'Lantern!' he exclaimed indignantly, 'When I talk, they don't need no pictures!' "
This is an age of gadgets, some of which are admirable aids. But some of them, used too much and too long, can ruin a man's preaching. The man whose power is based on the Word, prayer, personal consecration, can use mechanical aids whenever he wishes, but the man who depends consistently on aids of any kind will become their slave. There is no real substitute for an intelligent, Spirit-filled preaching of the Word.
H. W. L.
"THE ONLY PREACHING I CAN DO"
The City Temple, London, England, has had some famous preachers. When looking for a successor to the capable Dr. Leslie Weatherhead, the church chose the Reverend A. L. Griffith, a vastly different type of preacher from his predecessor.
When asked about his type of preaching Mr. Griffith said they would have to go back to the famous expository preacher, Dr. Joseph Parker, for a parallel to his style of preaching.
"Will the City Temple under your ministry become the center of such preaching?" he was asked. "This is the only preaching I can do," he replied. "I don't know how to preach any other way. There is only one way to sustain a long ministry, and that is to let the Word of God speak. I shall continually search the Word of God for His message for the people."—British Weekly, April 6, 1961.
This man studied at a liberal seminary, only to find after graduation "that I had no gospel to preach, and I had not met Jesus Christ in a saving experience."
There are great secrets here. Biblical assurance, saving experience with a redeeming Lord—without these all preaching is vain.
H. W. L.
