Is It a Sin To Preach the Gospel ?
I am a teacher. That means my role is to present
information, explain ideas, and urge my students to think about them and
draw their own conclusions. I consider this a ministry, but I confess my
model in this ministry is at least as much Socrates as Jesus. Still I am
comforted that Jesus, too, was in the habit of being Socratic, answering
a question with a question and nimbly tossing the ball back into his
inquirer's court with a " What do you think?" (Matt. 21:28, Luke
10:26).
I teach
religion, and some people tell me that religion should be indoctrinated,
not taught. Students, they say, should be catechized, not challenged. Of
course this is not so. An unexamined faith is no more worth believing
than an unexamined life is worth living.
But I am also an
ordained minister. Most of my work in this area has been as a campus
minister, leading discussions, organizing events. Essentially my
approach to "preaching" is the same as teaching. Much preaching, even
expository preaching of the Bible, is in essence teaching.
But what about
preaching the gospel? How easily can one head wear the two hats of
academic teacher and evangelist? I have known seminary professors who
seemed to balance both caps rather deftly: they press for repentance in
the pulpit, yet present theologies for detached scrutiny in the
classroom. Too often, though, the hats slip and theologies, biblical
interpretations, or apologetics thought to be more conformable to
denominational orthodoxy wind up being preached as the gospel. Only
"unbelieving" scholars, "the Liberals," or "the critics," hold other
views. Perhaps they will one day repent and switch theories.
My problem is
tending to let the hats slip the other way. I cannot help presenting the
gospel for scrutiny, for calm and thoughtful consideration. Furthermore,
I have come to wonder if it is a sin to do otherwise.
As I step into
the pulpit I must preface my preaching with this proviso: I preach the
gospel as I understand it. There are various ways to understand
it, after all, and why take for granted that the one most often heard or
most loudly shouted is the definitive version? The Bible is inspired; I,
its interpreter, am not. And thus I must speak with appropriate
humility.
James warns his
readers that few should dare to teach (James 3:1-2) lest (to switch
texts) they find their necks being measured for millstones (Mark
9:42). There is less danger to teaching, however, if both the
preacher/teacher and the hearer know that truth is not so cut-and-dried
that the preacher must be either exactly telling it or perniciously
distorting it. "Let the hearer beware" is my motto, or as Jesus put it
in one of his more Socratic moments, "Why do you not judge for
yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57)
A congregation
always has the responsibility to hear and weigh what a preacher says. In
one early saying not in the Bible, Jesus admonishes his hearers to "be
wise money changers." It's good advice even if it is not
canonical: we need to be on the lookout for doctrinal wooden nickels.
It is incumbent
on me as a preacher, therefore, not to try to bypass my congregation's
critical faculties. I have no right to cajole, to manipulate, to
threaten, or to use God to intimidate them. All these techniques cloud
the issue. They seek to short circuit the process of intelligent
decision. Much, probably most, evangelism sees its task as winning the
hearer's decision in any way short of out-and-out deception (though
this, too, may be used on occasion, as it is by those evangelistic
door-openers that pose as secular "surveys"). This kind of evangelism
differs in no real sense from sleazy salesmanship. I would hesitate to
make this comparison if it were not explicitly drawn by some evangelists
themselves. Zig Ziglar's Secrets of Closinq the Sale offers
persuasion tactics guaranteed to sell a car or make a convert. And many
preachers admit to using the tactics of door-to-door peddlers in their
evangelism. What's the difference? A decade ago, Bill Bright hired
Coca-Cola's ad agency to design the "Here's Life, America" campaign. So,
"Things go better with Christ?"
But I wonder if
this is all sinful. A choice of beliefs is a decision which has a
rational component; it should be an intelligent decision, one you can
give reasons for. No sensible voter concludes that one political
party has a firmer grasp of the issues than the other because it
feels good; rather, we expect people to be able to say why they have
such beliefs, to give reasons. Candidates try to con and
maneuver voters emotionally, but we condemn this, don't we?
People do not
usually change important beliefs because they fear being damned to
eternal torture if they don't. Even if, like poor Winston Smith in
1984, we must pretend to believe that two plus two equals five to
avoid torture, we can only pretend to believe it. RealIy
to believe something, one would have to be shown reasons. If you went
ahead and believed anyway, without any reasons, you would be
intellectually dishonest. We have no more right to believe something
without sufficient grounds than we do to kill someone without sufficient
reason. Both are moral choices.
I suspect that
many preachers avoid giving a fair presentation of the gospel, relying
instead on histrionics and emotional pressure-tactics, because they fear
that clear-headed consideration of their gospel would produce few
converts. The Apostle Paul may even have felt this way about it on
occasion (l Cor. 2:1-5). He wanted the Corinthians to have a firmer
faith than rational argument alone could produce. Those who choose their
beliefs intelligently must also regard it as a matter of conscience to
remain open to reason. And thus it is always possible one
may come to accept a different belief if a new belief seems to have more
to commend it. Paul apparently wanted to avoid this.
But that hardly
means we preachers should abandon reasoning. Wouldn't it be better to
abandon a gospel which we doubt will stand up to intelligent scrutiny
and start preaching one that will? Paul, on occasion, saw this side of
the dilemma, too. He says he has renounced all shameful and underhanded
practices and instead commends himself to everyone's conscience by a
plain presentation of the truth (2 Cor. 4:2). The preacher who sells the
gospel with a sugar-coating of promised prosperity, or drives it home
with threats of hell-fire, is not letting the gospel stand or
fall on its own merits. Such a preacher is tempting the hearer to commit
the sin of mindless belief, irresponsible decision. And this, too, is a
grave responsibility. Preaching false doctrine is perhaps not the only
crime that merits a millstone. There are other ways of causing the
little ones, one's hearers, to sin.
If I preach the
gospel, I must explain my understanding of it, the "gospel according to
me," as clearly as I can. I should try to hide neither its possible
problems (like places where it fails to apply to modern life) nor its
unpleasant features (like bearing the cross). I must invite my hearers
to consider its merits and to count the cost of accepting it (and
Christ).
And I think I
must not offer an evangelistic invitation. I must not attempt to force a
decision, because to do so would simply be another way of choking off
the serious consideration this momentous decision requires. Surely more
time is needed than the thirty minutes or so of a sermon, or the five
minutes it takes to read a tract. Accepting the gospel should not be a
case of "impulse buying.”
But what if your
unsaved hearer leaves the church yet undecided and is struck by a drunk
driver or perhaps by lightning or a meteor? All this intelligent
deliberation will only have won him a place in hell's chain-gang. All I
can say is that such a scenario assumes an odd idea of divine justice.
If you believe in hell, you had better also believe in God being, just,
and perhaps in a divine providence that can avoid this kind of tragedy.
Does all this
sound a little tepid? Where are the tearful crowds thronging the altar?
Where is the dynamic preaching of yesteryear? I ask in return, where is
your faith in the gospel and its ability to commend itself to an honest
mind? If it can't compel assent without your help, it isn't worthy of
either your help or your belief. You, too, must be intellectually
honest. Otherwise it just might be a sin to preach the gospel.
By
Robert M. Price