Preaching the Law or Only Talking About It?
I am now proceeding on to Chapter Seven of "An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount" by Arthur W. Pink
One of the things that endears me to Pink's writing is its candor. Unlike the overwhelming majority of today's "Christian" preachers, Pink was no word-mincer. He had a very keen perception of the state of professing Christendom in his day and was not afraid to express the unpleasant truth about it. He understood that Protestantism had, to a large degree, apostatized by the mid-twentieth century and he didn't shrink back from saying so.
Another thing that makes Pink's writing particularly valuable is that he lived near enough to our own time that almost all of his observations about modern pseudo-Christianity still apply today -- only to an even greater degree. Certainly, one can find many things said about the professing church in older writings, such as those of the Puritans, that are still applicable. And I believe that there are traits which are common to all forms of apostasy in all ages. Nevertheless, every age has its peculiar religious tendencies, and just as every physical disease has particular characteristics by which it can be identified, so does every spiritual malady have marks by which it is known. The outstanding trait of today's disease-ravaged religion of Evangelicalism is licentiousness, and it is doubtful that anyone since Pink's departure from this world (1952) has so clearly and thoroughly testified to the fact. The spirit of lawlessness had become dominant among the professing churches in his day, and I believe that it has proceeded since that time to the extent that it has thoroughly pervaded every part of what today identifies itself as the Evangelical Church.
But now I return to Pink's exposition on the following passage of Scripture:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Mat. 5:17-20)
Pink begins his commentary in this chapter with a few statements that could not be altered to more accurately express the attitude of today's professing Christians:
"We are not unmindful of the fact that the passage now before us is one which will possess little attraction for the great majority of professing Christians in our degenerate age, and possibly some of our own readers would be better pleased if we superficially summarized its teaching rather than endeavoured to give a detailed exposition of its weighty contents. Those verses which contain God’s promises are far more acceptable in this day of self-pleasing and self-gratification than those which insist upon our obedience to the Divine precepts."
Pink then proceeds to explain that it ought not to be this way because the promises and the commandments are all part of God's Word and both are much needed by Christians. And, of course, these words were spoken by Christ Himself who always sought the glory of God and the good of men's souls.
He observes that a healthy Christianity can only be maintained by a proper balance of Law and Gospel. The Law must be faithfully exposited and its demands pressed upon the conscience, and the Gospel must be tenderly preached as a balm applied to stricken hearts.
"Where the former predominates to the virtual exclusion of the latter, self-righteous pharisaism is fostered; and where the proclamation of the Gospel ousts the requirements of the Law, antinomian licentiousness is engendered."
Pink believed that the latter error was far more prevalent in his day, and he estimated that during the one hundred years prior to his writing only one sermon had been preached on the Law for every fifty that had been preached on the Gospel. The result was, in his own words, "disastrous and deplorable" and had produced "a light and backboneless religion, with loose and careless walking."
Now, here I interject some of my own observations regarding the preaching of the Law as it is done today (or, to state the case more accurately, as it is not done today). There are some contemporary preachers who talk about the Law and the Gospel and how they go hand-in-hand. And these men would certainly disagree with my belief that the former is not being preached. But in order to determine whether it is, we must first inquire into what it really means to preach the Law.
In order for a preacher to claim that he is properly preaching the Law, his preaching must include, as Pink rightly states, "a faithful exposition of the holy Law of God and a pressing of its claims upon the conscience." Faithful exposition of the Law of God consists of clear definitions and particulars, rather than mere vagaries and generalities. And to press the claims of the Law upon the conscience is to apply the specifics of the Law to the hearers in such a way that it convicts them of their sins.
That is not faithful preaching which only talks about the Law in the abstract. That is not faithful preaching which talks about the necessity of obedience to the Law but never gives specifics about how one can obey it or fail to obey it. And that is not faithful preaching which gives specifics about the Law and its transgressions but does so in a mealy-mouthed way by speaking to its audience in indirect first or third person terms ("we" or "they" instead "you"), by avoiding certain prevalent sins, or by omitting a clear and direct call to repentance.
And in this, I believe, today's preaching is severely lacking. It might make a man yawn because of its long-windedness, it might make him laugh because of its amusing anecdotes, and it might even perk his intellect because of its theological weight. But it doesn't cut him to the heart, as the apostolic preaching did (Acts 2:37, 5:33, 7:54). It doesn't prick his conscience with the guilt of his own sin, nor does it confront him with his need for repentance. It doesn't do these things because it only preaches the Law -- if it does so at all -- in a vague, general, indirect, or otherwise non-convicting way that doesn't produce repentance in its hearers.
And because the Law is not properly preached, it is not possible for the Gospel to be properly preached. "The balm of the Gospel" cannot be applied with any effect where there is no wound in the conscience. There is no point in preaching about God's forgiveness to those who have not been broken in heart over the guilt of their sin. Repentance is a condition of forgiveness. But how shall it be produced where there is preaching that doesn't send a clear message of its need?
One of the things that endears me to Pink's writing is its candor. Unlike the overwhelming majority of today's "Christian" preachers, Pink was no word-mincer. He had a very keen perception of the state of professing Christendom in his day and was not afraid to express the unpleasant truth about it. He understood that Protestantism had, to a large degree, apostatized by the mid-twentieth century and he didn't shrink back from saying so.
Another thing that makes Pink's writing particularly valuable is that he lived near enough to our own time that almost all of his observations about modern pseudo-Christianity still apply today -- only to an even greater degree. Certainly, one can find many things said about the professing church in older writings, such as those of the Puritans, that are still applicable. And I believe that there are traits which are common to all forms of apostasy in all ages. Nevertheless, every age has its peculiar religious tendencies, and just as every physical disease has particular characteristics by which it can be identified, so does every spiritual malady have marks by which it is known. The outstanding trait of today's disease-ravaged religion of Evangelicalism is licentiousness, and it is doubtful that anyone since Pink's departure from this world (1952) has so clearly and thoroughly testified to the fact. The spirit of lawlessness had become dominant among the professing churches in his day, and I believe that it has proceeded since that time to the extent that it has thoroughly pervaded every part of what today identifies itself as the Evangelical Church.
But now I return to Pink's exposition on the following passage of Scripture:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Mat. 5:17-20)
Pink begins his commentary in this chapter with a few statements that could not be altered to more accurately express the attitude of today's professing Christians:
"We are not unmindful of the fact that the passage now before us is one which will possess little attraction for the great majority of professing Christians in our degenerate age, and possibly some of our own readers would be better pleased if we superficially summarized its teaching rather than endeavoured to give a detailed exposition of its weighty contents. Those verses which contain God’s promises are far more acceptable in this day of self-pleasing and self-gratification than those which insist upon our obedience to the Divine precepts."
Pink then proceeds to explain that it ought not to be this way because the promises and the commandments are all part of God's Word and both are much needed by Christians. And, of course, these words were spoken by Christ Himself who always sought the glory of God and the good of men's souls.
He observes that a healthy Christianity can only be maintained by a proper balance of Law and Gospel. The Law must be faithfully exposited and its demands pressed upon the conscience, and the Gospel must be tenderly preached as a balm applied to stricken hearts.
"Where the former predominates to the virtual exclusion of the latter, self-righteous pharisaism is fostered; and where the proclamation of the Gospel ousts the requirements of the Law, antinomian licentiousness is engendered."
Pink believed that the latter error was far more prevalent in his day, and he estimated that during the one hundred years prior to his writing only one sermon had been preached on the Law for every fifty that had been preached on the Gospel. The result was, in his own words, "disastrous and deplorable" and had produced "a light and backboneless religion, with loose and careless walking."
Now, here I interject some of my own observations regarding the preaching of the Law as it is done today (or, to state the case more accurately, as it is not done today). There are some contemporary preachers who talk about the Law and the Gospel and how they go hand-in-hand. And these men would certainly disagree with my belief that the former is not being preached. But in order to determine whether it is, we must first inquire into what it really means to preach the Law.
In order for a preacher to claim that he is properly preaching the Law, his preaching must include, as Pink rightly states, "a faithful exposition of the holy Law of God and a pressing of its claims upon the conscience." Faithful exposition of the Law of God consists of clear definitions and particulars, rather than mere vagaries and generalities. And to press the claims of the Law upon the conscience is to apply the specifics of the Law to the hearers in such a way that it convicts them of their sins.
That is not faithful preaching which only talks about the Law in the abstract. That is not faithful preaching which talks about the necessity of obedience to the Law but never gives specifics about how one can obey it or fail to obey it. And that is not faithful preaching which gives specifics about the Law and its transgressions but does so in a mealy-mouthed way by speaking to its audience in indirect first or third person terms ("we" or "they" instead "you"), by avoiding certain prevalent sins, or by omitting a clear and direct call to repentance.
And in this, I believe, today's preaching is severely lacking. It might make a man yawn because of its long-windedness, it might make him laugh because of its amusing anecdotes, and it might even perk his intellect because of its theological weight. But it doesn't cut him to the heart, as the apostolic preaching did (Acts 2:37, 5:33, 7:54). It doesn't prick his conscience with the guilt of his own sin, nor does it confront him with his need for repentance. It doesn't do these things because it only preaches the Law -- if it does so at all -- in a vague, general, indirect, or otherwise non-convicting way that doesn't produce repentance in its hearers.
And because the Law is not properly preached, it is not possible for the Gospel to be properly preached. "The balm of the Gospel" cannot be applied with any effect where there is no wound in the conscience. There is no point in preaching about God's forgiveness to those who have not been broken in heart over the guilt of their sin. Repentance is a condition of forgiveness. But how shall it be produced where there is preaching that doesn't send a clear message of its need?
posted by Stuart DiNenno at 12/03/2004 06:00:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home