Synopsis⤒🔗

Preaching, involving proclamation of the Word of God and an appeal to the hearers, is at the heart of the church's life. Scripture regards it as Christ addressing us through those called by the church; the Reformed confessions understand it this way too. The direct, personal address that preaching entails is congruous with the revealed nature of God the trinity, the incarnation, the nature of humans, the gospel, and human language. The act of preaching has no intrinsic power to change people's hearts, for this is dependent on the Holy Spirit. However, the Spirit and the Word, while distinct, are inseparable. Therefore we can be con­fident that the preaching of the Word of God will accomplish the purpose the Spirit has for it. This should be a source of encouragement to us all.

Introduction←⤒🔗

J. Gresham Machen famously declared "Chris­tianity begins with a triumphant indicative."¹ The foundation of the Christian gospel is what God has done for our salvation in Christ, his Son. It is a sovereign work of the holy trinity. From this it follows that what the church is to do is at root an announcement, a declaration. It is good news. That good news is to be announced like a herald. Upon this all subsequent action by the church rests.

What is Preaching?←⤒🔗

Preaching can be understood in a variety of ways, corresponding to the terms used in the NT for the preacher.² At root, it is possible to boil everything down to two major, indispensable aspects:

1. Proclamation of the word of God, which is foun­dational, and
2. Appeal to the hearers.

1. Proclamation←↰⤒🔗

For Barth, proclamation is integrally connected with the lordship of Christ; he declares, "preach­ing does not put it into effect; preaching declares and confirms that it is in effect."³ In turn, Stott states, "the preacher does not supply his own message; he is supplied with it."⁴ This fol­lows from Machen's "triumphant indicative." Christianity is not a method of self-help; it is a manifestation of the grace of God. Hence, in the public teaching of the Christian faith, the primary weight falls on declaring what God has done to save his people from their sins. As Barth puts it, proclamation "is directed to men with the defini­tive claim and expectation that it has to declare the Word of God to them ... in and by which God Himself speaks like a king through the mouth of his herald, and which is meant to be heard and accepted as speech in and by which God Himself speaks."⁵ In short, all comes from God to human­ity. The message, and consequently the medium, is prescribed for us.

In the light of this, Barth continues in his inimita­ble style, "God may speak to us through Russian Communism, a flute concerto, a blossoming shrub, or a dead dog. We do well to listen to him if he really does. But unless we regard ourselves as the prophets and founders of a new Church, we cannot say that we are com­missioned to pass on what we have heard as independent proclamation."⁶ Rather, true preaching is "the attempt by someone called thereto in the Church, in the form of an exposition of some portion of the biblical witness to revelation, to express in his own words and to make intelligible to the men of his own generation the promise of the revelation, reconciliation and vocation of God as they are to be expected here and now."⁷ This definition of Barth's lacks the element of appeal – it is simply a declaration, an exposition, a making intelligible. This is both necessary and primary and – as Stott remarks – if one or other of these elements only were present it would be best that this be the one. Without the proclamation and content we would be left with emotional manipulation but without the appeal we would not have a sermon but a lecture.

On the other hand, Barth's threefold form of the Word of God provides some helpful ways of considering the question. His proposal of the perichoretic interpenetration of the revealed Word, the Word written, and the Word proclaimed points us in the direction of an integrated grasp of the relation­ship between Christ, the Bible and preaching.⁸ We should see these three as interconnected. Christ, the living Word, is the central theme of Scripture (Lk. 24:25-27, 44-45, 1 Pet. 1:10-12) and thus of preaching. The written word testifies of Christ and is the basis of preaching. Preaching itself must be grounded on Scripture and testify of Christ. Not only are the three integrally intercon­nected but they are inseparable. No one element can be excluded without undermining the whole.

2. Appeal←↰⤒🔗

By this we do not mean the kind of evangelistic call associated with the Arminianism of preachers like Billy Graham, which presupposes some form of autonomy in the human subject. Rather, it is an appeal by the preacher to the consciences of the hearers, whether they are believers, covenant children, or unbelievers. It is an appeal to sub­mit to the word of God, to trust in Christ, to be obedient to his call. It is an integral part of what makes preaching what it is. As Stott says, "the herald does not just preach good news, whether men will hear or whether they will forbear. No. The proclamation issues in an appeal. The herald expects a response. The Christian ambassador, who has announced the reconciliation which God has achieved through Christ, beseeches men to be reconciled to God."⁹ Since in preaching God di­rectly confronts men and women with himself, it follows that he expects faith and obedience to re­sult. We find in all Biblical sermons, and in every Biblical book, a demand for change by those who hear or read. Declarations of truth are followed by searching calls for repentance or discipleship. These appeals are most urgent entreaties to people to get right with God – "nothing less fervent would be appropriate to one who labours 'on behalf of Christ' and Him crucified."¹⁰ The proclamation comes first¹¹ but without an appeal it is not biblical preaching.¹² Stott cites Richard Baxter, who wrote, "I marvel how I can preach ... slightly and coldly, how I can let men alone in their sins and that I do not go to them and beseech them for the Lord's sake to repent ... I seldom come out of the pulpit but my conscience smiteth me that I have been no more serious and fervent ... it asketh me: 'How could'st thou speak of life and death with such a heart?"¹³

Inherent in the appeal are searching diagnostic questions. The interrogative is an essential element of true preaching, as Carrick insists.¹⁴ As much as the preacher is to indwell the Word he proclaims¹⁵ he is to get under the skin of those to whom he preaches. There is to be an engagement with the Word and the world, with Christ and his church. The preacher is to grasp both of these elements and not to let them go, rather like a dog gnawing at a bone.

3. Necessity←↰⤒🔗

Calvin regards preaching as at the heart of the church's life. He states that "doctrine is the mother from whom God generates us (Doctrina enim mater est, ex qua nos Deus generat)".¹⁶ Again, in the Institute he affirms that "the saving doctrine of Christ is the soul of the church (salvifica Christi doctrina anima est Ecclesiae)." The context indicates that he is writing about preaching, for a few lines later he mentions "the preaching of doctrine (ad doctrinae praedicationem)."¹⁷

Reformed theology has consistently maintained that the ministry of the Word and the sacra­ments together are the outward means God uses to bring his people to salvation (WSC, 88: WLC, 154). Yet the Word has priority over the sacra­ments; the sacraments are nothing without the Word (WCF 27:3, WLC, 169)¹⁸ As Barth says of the Reformed, "they could not and would not assign to the sacrament the place which falls to preaching according to Roman Catholic dogmat­ics" for "the former must exist for the sake of the latter, and therefore the sacrament for the sake of preaching, not vice-versa."¹⁹ Yet the sacraments are to be together with the Word, if under it.

A number of Biblical passages reinforce this claim. In Romans 10:14, where Paul insists on the urgency of preachers being sent to his com­patriots, the Jews, the subjective genitive is to be preferred, yielding the clause "how are they to believe him whom they have not heard?" (my translation). In short, Christ is heard in the preaching of the gospel.²⁰ When the Word is truly preached, Christ is present.²¹ That Paul refers to the preacher as sent indicates the ministerial nature of preaching; the preacher is subservient to the Word and is commissioned by the church.²² In Ephesians 2:17 Christ is said to have preached peace to the Gentiles at Ephesus: "he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near." Jesus never vis­ited Ephesus; Paul refers to his own preaching in founding the church. In Paul's preaching Christ himself preaches. In Luke 10:16, Jesus sends the apostles to preach and heal, saying "the one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me." The apostles were Jesus' special representatives in their preaching ministry; their preaching is his own, their words will be his. Their acceptance or rejection is the acceptance or rejection of Jesus. The intrinsic quality of their preaching is not in view – their status depends on their having been commissioned by Jesus. In John 5:25 the voice of the Son of God raises the dead. This means spiritual resurrection in the present rather than the physical resurrection in the future mentioned in vv.28-29. Already present ("and now is"), it comes through hearing the voice of the Son of God, or hearing the word of Christ and believing (v. 24). Finally, Paul states in 2 Corinthians 5:19-20 that God makes his appeal through us. Paul and all true preachers are ambassadors of Christ, so possessing the authority of the one they represent. Behind this is the figure of the shaliyach, a personal emissary, who the Talmud considered to carry the authority of the one who sent him.

In line with this, Calvin regarded preaching as both a human and divine activity, the Holy Spirit working in sovereignty through the words of the preacher.²³ As such, he states that "God himself appears in our midst, and, as author of this order, would have men recognize him as present in his institution."²⁴

Why is Preaching Necessary?←⤒🔗

A number of factors underlie this commitment, all of which in inseparable combination force the conclusion that preaching is the appropriate means by which the decisive acts of God for us and our salvation are to be transmitted.

The Nature of God←↰⤒🔗

The Christian doctrine of God is summed up by the doctrine of the Trinity. This is the new cov­enant name of God.²⁵ The revelation that God is trinitarian is the culmination of God's progressive self-revelation throughout the OT. It entails that God is one indivisible being, three irreducible persons. All three persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – exhaustively participate in the one being of God. Neither are any more God than the others, nor are the three together greater than any one. In keeping with this, the three mutually indwell each other, occupying the same infinite divine space.²⁶ The eternal life of the holy trinity is one of indivisible union, marked by love between the three. At the heart of this is commu­nication.

God is relational and personal. Jesus talks of the glory he shared with the Father in eternity (Jn. 17:22-24). The Father advances his Kingdom through the work of the Son, for it is his will that the Son should have pre-eminence in all things (Col. 1:19). We read of the Father's love for the Son (Jn. 3:35, 17:23-24, Rom. 8:32). The Son brings honour to the Fa­ther (Jn. 17:4). The Holy Spirit glorifies the Son (Jn. 16:14-15). The eternal generation of the Son by the Father tells us that God is not at all lonely even without the world and us.²⁷ Apart from the generation of the Son creation would be inconceivable.²⁸ The eternal vibrance of the living holy trinity - an indi­visible union of life communicated, received and mutually possessed, as instanced in the relations of the three, in eternal generation and procession – grounds the free and sovereign determination of the trinity to bring into existence what is contingent and other. God is life itself, overflowing vitality, inherently fecund.²⁹

In short, God is indivisible and personal – com­munication is at the heart of who he is and what he does. It is in keeping with who God is that in dealing with humanity, who he created in his own image, that communication is basic.

The Incarnation←↰⤒🔗

So much is evident when we consider that, while Adam was created in the image of God, the second Adam, the Word became flesh, is the image of God (2 Cor.4:4, Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:3).³⁰ In the incarnation, the eternal Son took our nature into union. Con­sequently, in answer to the question as to the per­sonal identity of Jesus of Nazareth (exactly who is Jesus Christ?), the reply given by the church is that he is the eternal Son of the Father.³¹ This Cyrilline Christology was affirmed at Chalcedon (see the repeated "the same" in its Definition) and even more emphatically at the second Council of Constantinople (553 AD).

Old is correct when he recognizes that the Pauline statement that faith comes through hearing the word of Christ – and thus Christ speaking through his Word – follows from the doctrine of grace. God saves us because he loves us, and has spoken to us, revealing himself and opening up communion with himself.³² This is nowhere more evident than in the incarnation, in which our humanity has been taken into permanent, personal union by the eternal Son.

The Personal Nature of Man←↰⤒🔗

The incarnation establishes the point that humans are personal beings. While this is a constantly elu­sive concept, it indicates that we have been made by God for partnership, fellowship, communion and union with himself. From this, it underlines the reality that preaching is the means God uses to bring the good news of salvation, as personal address is utterly suitable for the purpose.

Preaching as personal communication is located at the heart of God's covenant. Central to the whole flow of the history of the covenant of grace is the constantly repeated promise, "I will be your God, you shall be my people" (Gen. 17:7-8, Jer. 11:4, 24:7, 30:22, 32:38, 31:33, Rev. 21:3).³³ This is clearly established in the Biblical record. Verbal communication was necessary even before the fall. It provided the meaning of creation and the purpose of human existence³⁴ God, having created man, announced to him the nature of his task (Gen. 1:26-29), instructed him about his agricultural responsibilities – a function which may well have been both priestly and kingly³⁵ – and the outcome if he proved disobedient (Gen. 2:15-17). From the description of the aftermath of the fall, where God was walking in the garden and calling out to Adam, it appears that such communication was a regular feature in the original setting of creation.

Thereafter, this is pervasively evident. In the OT, preaching became embedded at the heart of worship. The prophets constantly engaged the community by word written or spoken. Old remarks that over the centuries preaching developed "both theological depth and literary refinement."³⁶ In the NT, more than thirty verbs describe it.³⁷

We recall that once upon a time, documents such as the NT Gospels and letters were read aloud in public to groups. This was the case in the primi­tive church. Later, with the invention of the printing press and the wider spread of books, reading became increasingly a private, individual and silent matter. However, in earlier days, preaching would have regularly accompanied the reading of the Biblical books.

The Suitability of Speech←⤒🔗

Hence, speech is the normal means God uses to communicate to us. This is in marked contrast to the ideas of Gregory of Nyssa, in his Answer to Eunomius' Second Book, 44, where he argues for the primacy of sense knowledge over the intellec­tual, of the visual in creation over words, which, he suggests, are inherently ambiguous.

...all that appears, or that is conceivable in respect to us, depends on a Power who is inscrutable and sublime. This is not given in articulate speech, but by the things which are seen, and it instills into our minds the knowledge of Divine power more than if speech proclaimed it with a voice. As, then, the heavens declare, though they do not speak, and the firmament shows God's handiwork, yet requires no voice for the purpose, and the day uttereth speech, though there is no speaking, and no one can say that Holy Scripture is in error – in like manner, since both Moses and David have one and the same Teacher, I mean the Holy Spirit, who says that the fiat went before the creation, we are not told that God is the Creator of words, but of things made known to us by the signification of our words...³⁸

Indeed, Gregory continues, visible objects are more readily comprehensible, while God needs no words to make known his mind.³⁹ Gregory's argument has had ongoing effect in the Eastern church, where worship is very strongly visual, with icons everywhere, the comings and goings of the priest into and out of the sanctuary symbol­izing Christ coming to feed his people, the en­trance into the kingdom of heaven, the opening of the gates of paradise, and so on.⁴⁰ However, this is counter to the normal way God communicated to his people. In reference to his appearance to Israel at Sinai it is recorded that "the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice" (Deut. 4:12).

Whereas the visual can be evocative, it is inher­ently ambiguous. If the President of the United States was to declare war on a particular country it is unlikely he would disclose this to the na­tion by means of a troupe of dancers, or actors performing a skit. A matter of such seriousness would demand direct, personal, verbal address, with dear explanations.

Speech-act theory reinforces this argument⁴¹ words are uniquely adaptable. Any number of illocutions – types of speech – are available. Words can promise, warn, encourage, rebuke, inform, elicit, express sorrow or thanksgiving, praise, ad­vise or command – and many such things besides. In turn, words can effect actions and bring about change; what are termed perlocutions. The urgent shout, "fire!" will usually result in a rapid exodus from a building; an inconsiderate comment will produce anger or bitterness; a tenderly, soothing whisper, "I love you," will sometimes accomplish the intended aim.

How far is there Confessional Support?←↰⤒🔗

The French Confession (1559), 25, in which Calvin played a central role, stresses the importance of preaching in no uncertain terms: "...we detest all vision­aries who would like, so far as lies in their power, to destroy this ministry and preaching of the Word and sacraments."⁴²

The Scots Confession (1560), 18, drawn up by John Knox, asks "Of the Notis, be the quhilk the trewe Kirk is decernit fra the false, and quha sall be judge of the doctrine" and answers "The notes therefore of the trew Kirk of God we beleeve, confesse, and avow to be, first, the trew preaching of the Worde of God."⁴³

The Belgic Confession (1561), 29 agrees stating that "The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein…"⁴⁴

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), 65, places preach­ing in the context of our deliverance from sin. "Since, then, we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, whence comes this faith? A. The Holy Ghost works it in our hearts by the preaching of the holy Gospel, and con­firms it by the use of the holy Sacraments."⁴⁵

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566), 1:2, declares in a celebrated passage,

Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is preached, and received of the faithful (credimus ipsum Dei verbum annunciari et a fidelibus recipi); and that neither any other Word of God is to be feigned, nor to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the min­ister that preaches; who, although he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God abides true and good.⁴⁶

There is here a marginal reference – praedicatio verbi Dei est verbum Dei (the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God). We note the important point that the efficacy of preaching is not dependent on the minister but on the Word of God itself. Another significant stress here is on the lawful calling of the preacher. Therefore, there is a twofold check, preventing the idea that any fool standing up and spouting off about the Christian faith can say that they are preaching the word of God. First is the comment "when this Word of God is now preached" which directs us to the content of the preaching; it must be within the boundaries of the rule of faith. Second, it is done "by preachers lawfully called," referring to at least licensure and probably ordination, and thus church authority. In this, it is in harmony with the NT correlation of the Holy Spirit and the church, as in Acts 13:3-4, where the sending of Paul and Barnabas by the church is equated with their sending by the Holy Spirit, and the com­ment of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:28, that "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), 1.1 refers the propagation of the truth, later defined as through the ministry of the Word, to the revelation by the Lord which has been committed wholly to writing in the Scriptures: "it pleased the Lord ... to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards, for the bet­ter preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church ... to commit the same wholly unto writ­ing." In this the preaching of the church, properly understood, is not to be seen in detachment from the Lord's revelation of himself and his will to the church, nor from the written record of that revela­tion in Scripture, which in turn is wholly identi­fied with that prior revelation.

We conclude that preaching is absolutely central to the being and well-being of the church. This is established on Biblical grounds and it has found expression in the creeds and confessions of the Reformed churches.

Apart from the Perennial Matter of Sin, what barriers exist to Preaching today?←↰⤒🔗

A point Old makes repeatedly in his massive work on the reading and preaching of the Scrip­tures in the worship of the church is that the church's health is directly related to the vibrancy of its preaching. In turn, the quality of the preach­ing is largely dependent on the level of education in society.⁴⁷ Referring to the Benedictines and their cultivation of learning, Old remarks "if the Church was to worship as it always had, there needed to be a steady supply of young men who knew how to speak in public, how to use words, and how to read and understand a written text. If there was to be a ministry of the Word, then the culture of words, the arks of literature, and the preservation and distribution of books had to be cultivated."⁴⁸ There is no point pietists praying for revival if one cannot speak the language of the people or put together a decent sentence, let alone a thought.

Besides a lack of education, there is another bar­rier to preaching in our day. This is the hostility towards all forms of authority that pervades contemporary culture. Reynolds remarks that in our age, when authority of all kinds is being re­pudiated, the monologue is anathema. However, he adds, Biblical preaching has never been accept­able to the autonomous mind.⁴⁹

However, preaching – as presented in Scripture – is not principally a monologue. It is dialogical because it is covenantal.⁵⁰ It is personal address by God that demands a response from the hearer. Hence, as Carrick sagely comments, the inter­rogative is as much a vital element of preaching as the indicative and imperative.⁵¹ We conclude that where preaching lacks this element it is on the way to losing its identity.

Indeed, as face-to-face encounter, preaching is in vivid contrast to the direction of today's social media. As Reynolds observes, these are marked by an attempt to transcend space and time.⁵² Electronic technology connects us to remote loca­tions but is in itself disincarnational. It aims to transcend the limits of human finitude but at the expense of normal human relation­ships. Recent social media have encouraged connections remotely but have undermined face to face human contact. At my older daughter's wedding in the USA a few years ago, a social media event live on Twitter and Facebook – her husband a graduate in film from the Uni­versity of Southern California, with his own film production company – friends remarked that at the reception no one on their table was speaking to each other; all were busy texting. In contrast, preaching is inescapably personal. We can dose a book, switch off the TV or computer, exit email or Twitter, but the Word of God penetrates to our innermost being (Heb. 4:12-13).

Alan Strange remarks that the plays of Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus were very popular in the ancient world but the apos­tles made no use of such a me­dium.⁵³ The same can be said for the Greek predilection for rhetoric and oratory.⁵⁴ This, as part of the trivium, was handed down by the classical educa­tional system. Paul makes a point of saying to the Corinthians that he gave no attention to such matters but rather preached simply and directly, relying on the Holy Spirit to give understanding (1 Cor. 1:18-2:5). There was plenty of intellectual content but it was shorn of extraneous adorn­ments, devoted entirely to presenting Christ in as clear and direct a manner as possible.

One of the main features of Reynolds' argument is that the medium shapes the thoughts, the actions of those exposed to it. Before the invention of the printing press, an oral culture prevailed. In NT times, Paul's letters would have been read to the assembled church. The medium brought people together in community. Once the printing press entered, and books were widely distrib­uted, reading took place privately and silently, by individuals. It shaped the society and the cul­ture.⁵⁵ Hence, we might add, the proliferation of hymns such as this, by Mary A. Lathbury, 1877;

Break thou the bread of life, dear Lord, to me...
Bless thou the truth, dear Lord, to me, to me...
Thou art the Bread of Life, O Lord, to me...
O send thy Spirit, Lord, now unto me...

Me, me, me, me, me, my dear Lord and me. Television accentuated this individualism, and has even been shown to have a physical impact on the human brain, introducing passivity.⁵⁶ The social media and the lightning speed of techno­logical developments today are creating very new challenges to which attention must be given.

Preaching and the Holy Spirit←⤒🔗

The Reformed confessions uniformly witness to the inseparability of Word and Spirit in all the means of grace, preaching included. This is directly counter to the anabaptist separation of the two, a view that is rife in the wider evangelical world, particularly in the revivalist camp. It also stands in clear distinction from a purely instrumentalist view of preaching, often associ­ated with Lutheranism and some contemporary branches of evangelical Anglicanism. Whereas the anabaptists and revivalists tend to focus on the distinction between Word and Spirit at the expense of their inseparability, the Lutheran idea stresses that they are inseparable but tends to minimize their distinctness.

Here The Westminster Larger Catechism (1648), 155, 158-159 is of great help.

Q.155. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?

A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driv­ing them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; of building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation

Q.158. By whom is the word of God to be preached?

A. The word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office.

Q.159. How is the word of God to be preached by those that are called thereunto?

A. They that are called to labour in the minis­try of the word, are to preach sound doc­trine, diligently, in season and out of season; plainly, not in the enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power; faithfully ... wisely ... zealously, with fervent love to God and the souls of his people...

According to the Catechism, the demonstration of the Spirit and of power is evidenced by the faithful preaching of sound doctrine, wisdom, zeal and – above all – fervent love. Preaching is an effectual means of grace. The diligent and faith­ful preaching is the instrumental cause, while the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause. The two together are indispensable. The Word without the Spirit is ineffective, the Spirit without the Word is inau­dible. The Spirit is the author of Scripture and continues to speak in it today (cf Heb. 3:7, WCF 1:4, 10). The Word and the Spirit go together for that reason. However, the Spirit is sovereign and free to work as he wills. Moreover, the Word itself – whether as the text of Scripture or as the message proclaimed by the preacher – does not have power of itself.

In this, there is a contrast with the idea that the Word works grace invariably unless it is resisted, the position associated with Lutheranism. The Augsburg Confession (1530), 5 states that,

by the Word and sacraments, as by instruments, the Holy Spirit is given: who worketh faith, where and when it pleaseth God, in those that hear the Gospel⁵⁷ going on in the same article to condemn the anabaptists "who imagine that the Holy Spirit is given to men with­out the outward word." This view of the Word as the instrument of the Spirit has commonly been connected with Luther­an sacramental theology, in which grace is given objectively and is efficacious un­less there is resistance. It seems to some that this minimizes the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is held to work through the Word, rather than with the Word.

The Anabaptist and Revivalist Theology of Preaching is to be Rejected←↰⤒🔗

The Lutheran Augsburg Confession (1530), 5, strongly opposes the anabaptists "who imagine that the Holy Spirit is given to men without the outward word."⁵⁸ Theirs was a radical separation of the Spirit from the Word of God, and was adopted in order to justify claims of special extra-Biblical prophetic inspiration. In more recent times, under the impact of the revivals of the eighteenth century, a doctrine of preaching has arisen, exemplified by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones,⁵⁹ stressing the sovereign freedom of the Holy Spirit. In support of this ap­proach to preaching, the prominent British evan­gelical Stuart Olyott argues that the preaching of the gospel is often powerless, urging the faithful to "strive and agonise and prevail in prayer," to "storm the throne of grace, determined that by sheer importunity they will persuade God to ac­company the word to be preached." ⁶⁰

Lloyd-Jones makes a contrast between what he describes as "an ordinary ministry" and one characterized by an exceptional outpouring of the Spirit resulting in mass conversions and a transformation of the church. He provides a number of examples from the Welsh revivals. In each case the basis is an experience. In the story of David Morgan, it started with a certain Humphrey Jones who had a great experience of revival in the USA "who said to himself, 'I wish my people at home could experience this.'" So he returned to Wales "and began to tell the people of his home country about what he had seen and experienced."⁶¹ One night Morgan heard Jones preach "with excep­tional power" and became "profoundly affected." He went to bed that night as David Morgan and awoke "feeling like a lion." Previously "just an ordinary preacher" he began to preach with such power that "people were convicted and convert­ed in large numbers."⁶² One day some time later he went to bed feeling like a lion but awoke as David Morgan once more, and thereafter "exer­cised a most ordinary ministry."⁶³

This school of thought was influenced by the Welsh revivals. These brought large scale addi­tions to the church but left in their wake an emo­tionalism that has proved an inoculation against Biblical Christianity. Wales is now the most resist­ant area of the United Kingdom to the gospel. In the recent UK census it led the country in the proportion of avowed atheists and pagans. It has the lowest percentage of church attendance in the UK. A similar scenario is evi­dent in the USA, where New England and upstate New York, where revivals aplenty occurred, are the hardest areas to reach with the gospel. There can be no denying that remarkable things happened at those times. However, the point I am making is that Lloyd-Jones constructs his theology of preaching around these experiences and, in so doing, distorts the picture presented in the Bible and effectively undermines the regular use of the means of grace.⁶⁴

A popular proof-text used by this school of thought as determinative is 1 Thessalonians 1:5 "our gospel did not come to you in word only, but in power and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance." This is used in order to assert that the preaching of the Word may be unaccompanied by the Spirit and so, as Olyott argues, preacher and congregation are to pray earnestly, persistently, and importunately for the Spirit "to visit" the preaching. However, in saying that his preaching at Thessalonica was accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit, Paul hardly implies that on other occasions this was not so. Rather, he is drawing attention to the grounds for the Thessalonians' assurance, remembering that they were subject to outbursts of persecution (Acts17:1-9, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 1:1-12). This perse­cution came from Jewish sources; it is probable that he is contrasting the Spirit's power in gospel preaching with the empty words of the syna­gogue. In the similar passage in 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5 it is obvious that there he contrasts his preaching with the Greek hankering for rhetoric. In both cases, "word only" and reliance on "hu­man wisdom" refer to pagan or Jewish sources, not to Christian preaching. While it would be seriously and obviously wrong to argue against prayer for the ministry of the Word, it is unten­able to base a strategic doctrine on a particular, debatable interpretation of an individual clause.

While advocates of this approach to preaching have strongly resisted Barth's theology of Scrip­ture, their view of preaching appears to have succumbed to a similar dynamic. While for Barth, revelation was an act of God, unpredictable and outside our control, to which the Bible bears witness in a human way – and therefore in principle fallibly – for Lloyd-Jones preaching was very second rate if it was unaccompanied by what he considered to be "the Holy Spirit and power." In short, true preaching occurs when the Spirit comes in power, an event outside our control, one which we are to seek and for which we are to pray, an event that will probably transform the preacher so that he feels like a lion, but an experi­ence that may equally suddenly and inexplicably be withdrawn. As with Barth, where God can make the Scriptures be the Word of God in this or that circumstance, so with Lloyd-Jones God can make preaching become the Word of God on occasions entirely at his free and sovereign determination. Ordinary preaching may bear little fruit; when these visitations of the Holy Spirit come, transformation occurs. These visitations are to be sought, and for the experience the preacher is to pray. Indeed, many in this camp refer to the Spirit as a "visitor." That this is an erroneous and unbiblical view of preaching – one that has caused many a preacher and pastor to be overburdened with disappointment that their ministries have been substand­ard – should be clear. It entails an erroneous doctrine of the Holy Spirit, with farreaching consequences for trinitarian theology.

So we do not seek an experi­ence, for nowhere are we encouraged to do so. Instead, as heralds of good news, as stewards of the mysteries of God, we aim to declare the message God has given and to await those words that mean more than any other: "well done, good and faithful servant." The idea of the revivalist school that, without revivals, we are living in the day of small things is in error, for the day of small things ended at the ascension of Jesus Christ to the right hand of the Father. We should not talk disparagingly of "an ordinary ministry," for no faithful ministry since the ascension is ordinary, let alone "most ordinary." How can the min­istry of the Word of God ever be "ordinary"? How can a preacher, lawfully called, expound­ing and speaking the Word of the risen Christ ever consider himself about regular, humdrum business? Lloyd-Jones, in using language such as that, adopted criteria at odds with the reality of the age in which we live. Even those bearing little apparent fruit are part of a vast scenario that God is working together to accomplish ends way beyond our wildest comprehension. We do not do this for "...when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is preached, and received of the faithful (credimus ipsum Dei verbum annunciari et a fidelibus recipi)."⁶⁵

So for the Reformed, the Spirit and the Word are distinct but inseparable. Lutheranism stresses the inseparability at the expense of the distinction. The anabaptists and revivalists stress the distinctness at the expense of the inseparability. If the anabaptists stressed statements like John 6:63a ("it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all"), referring to the Word as a dead letter, ignoring the remainder of the verse ("the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life"), the revivalists for their part consider it not only possi­ble but frequent that the Word is unaccompanied by the Spirit.

This stems from the insistence that the Word is not divine and is less than the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the Spirit is free not only to leave the Word unaccompanied by his presence and power but also to work entirely independently of the Word. While it is true that the written and preached Word are not hypostatized, and so must be understood as under the living Word, yet to make such a distinction as Hywel Jones does – "the Holy Spirit is 'greater' than the Word and must not be imprisoned in it" – leaves the door open to some grave consequences.⁶⁶ We must assert that God's word carries the authority of God himself and cannot be detached from him. According to Scripture the Word of God shares in all the works of God; it creates (Gen. 1:3, Ps. 33:6, 9, Heb. 11:3), maintains the universe (Heb. 1:3), brings about regeneration (Jn. 5:24-25, Rom. 10:17, 1 Pet. 1:23), is Spirit and life (Jn. 6:63), raises the dead (Jn. 5:28-29), and will not pass away (Mt. 24:35). As Jesus said, "whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father" (Lk. 9:26).

We must affirm that the NT attributes efficacy to the Word (Rom. 10:17, 1 Pet. 1:18, Jas. 1:23, Jn 5:25). This is due to its being the Word of the Holy Spirit, the Word of Christ, the Living Word. The Spirit who breathed out the words of Scripture, accompanies the reading and proclamation of those words. He and his words are inseparable. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Spirit uses means; to write critically, as Olyott does, of "mediate regeneration" is at best misleading.⁶⁷ The Spirit does not speak, only to wander off and leave his ambassadors in the lurch. Nor does not speak in disjunction from the Word he has already and definitively spoken.

There is a close connection with the sacraments. The sacraments in themselves have no efficacy, for it is the Holy Spirit who makes them effective for the elect (WCF 27:3, 28:6, 29:7, VVLC, 155, 161). In this, the difference with Lutheranism is dear. However, the Spirit works in and through the sacraments so that the faithful feed on Christ in the eucharist; this is no evanescent or unpredictable matter. We should never come to the Lord's Supper pleading with God to make them effectual, as if this is uncertain or unpredictable, assuming that we must "storm the gates of heaven" or else this will not be so. That is dangerously close to Pelagianism. Quite the contrary, we believe and trust that God is true to his word. We know that he is reliable. He is our Father and we are his sons.⁶⁸ Here the clear blue water separating the Reformed from the anabaptists and their succes­sors is seen vividly. In both Word and sacrament human actions and divine grace – or judgment – go together. So inseparable is the Spirit from the Word that the attributes of the one can be applied to the other.⁶⁹

Expectations for Preaching←↰⤒🔗

As a result we can expect the blessing of God upon the preaching of his Word. This is not presumption. It is simply faith, confidence that what he has promised he performs, and will continue to perform. This blessing can cut both ways; in some instances it is a form of judgment. As Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 2:14-16, "thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance of death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?"

Hughes cites Calvin to the effect that the gospel is never preached in vain, but is effec­tual, leading either to life or to death?⁷⁰ Indeed, Calvin states that "wherever there is pure and unfeigned preaching of the gospel, there this strong savour that Paul mentions (in 2 Corinthi­ans 2:15-16) will be found ... not only when they quicken souls by the fragrance of salvation but also when they bring death to unbelievers."⁷¹ Hodge comments, "The word of God is quick and powerful either to save or to destroy. It can­not be neutral. If it does not save, it destroys."⁷² Elsewhere I have written that preaching has a two-fold cutting edge, bringing life and death wherever it goes.⁷³ It is best to say, with Strange, that the Holy Spirit makes the Word efficacious to different people in different ways at different times, according to his sovereign will.⁷⁴

Certainly, the preachers of the gospel are called and required to exemplify in their lives the work of the Spirit and to be examples to the flock (1 Tim. 3:1-7, 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:1-26, 1 Pet. 5:1-4). That should be self-evident. But the Reformed confessions are dear that the efficacy of Word and sacrament does not depend on the piety and godliness of the ones who administer them (WCF, 27:3, VVLC, 161). If that were so, the church would be hostage to the daily uncertain­ties of individuals lives. Rather, their efficacy depends on the one who has established them, Christ to whom they inextricably point, and to the Holy Spirit who works through them. Can anything more secure be found? Against this, Hy­wel Jones' claim that "no one who is in pastoral ministry has any grounds for thinking that his congregation will rise any higher than himself" is spurious.⁷⁵ Jones' own concern for the freedom of the Spirit should expose the assertion as false; if it were true the Spirit's freedom would be limited.

For the congregation, receiving the Word as blessing rather than as judgment is connected to a considerable degree to the extent to which its members have prepared themselves to hear it. In an age of egalitarianism it is quite common for professing believers to exhibit a critical attitude to anything that remotely resembles authoritative speech.⁷⁶ The Westminster Larger Catechism, 160 addresses this matter.

We recall that all creation was brought into exist­ence by the Word of God (Heb. 11:3, Jn. 1:1-3), and continues to be sustained and directed to­wards its ultimate destiny by the powerful Word of God's Son (Heb. 1:3, Co1.1:18). As Athanasius said, God arranged it so that the redemption of the world is by means of the same Word who made it in the beginning.⁷⁷ It follows that catego­rizing the regular ministry of the Word as "ordi­nary" is literally beyond belief.

How Significant is the Preaching of the Word?←⤒🔗

Is preaching a matter of life and death? No, it's much more important than that⁷⁸ preaching concerns not only this life but eternity. It points to the chief purpose of human existence (WSC, 1). It relates to the glory of God. It is not only anthro­pological in scope but ecclesiological and above all theological. It points forward to the cosmic panorama of the redeemed universe. Hence, Jeremiah's profound turmoil when, for a time, he refrained from declar­ing the Word of the Lord to Judah (Jer. 20:7-9). So too, Paul records in words that should resonate deep in the conscience of every preacher, "woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Cor. 9:16).

As such, anything that diverts the attention of the hearers from the Word of God is counter to the nature and intent of preaching. Into this category come the kind of sermons that begin with a tale about the preacher's family and their recent activities under the – mistaken – impression that this builds a bridge with the congregation by demonstrating that the preacher is "a regular guy," "a buddy." It should follow from the na­ture of church proclamation that the proclaimer is there to witness to Christ, not himself – "we preach not ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord" (2 Cor.4:5) – and by intruding personal anecdotes he is implicitly affirming that his own activities are of greater importance. In turn, the message God has called him to declare is, by implication, not so urgent after all.

So Paul's final, parting charge to his protégé Tim­othy, the charge that was most vital for him and all his successors – preach the Word, in season and out of season, when it seems productive and when it meets resistance, indifference, or hostility. Whatever the circumstances, preach the Word!

For as the rain and snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isa. 55:10-11)

For no word of God will be powerless. (Lk. 1:37, my translation)

In the words of Michael Horton, "though seem­ingly powerless and ineffective, the creaturely mediation of his Word through faltering human lips is the most powerful thing on earth."⁷⁹

Disposer supreme, and judge of the earth; who choosest for thine the weak and the poor; to frail earthen vessels, and things of no worth, entrusting thy riches which ay shall endure.

Their sound goeth forth, 'Christ Jesus is Lord!' then Satan doth fear, his citadels fall: as when the dread trumpets went forth at thy word, and one long blast shattered the Canaanites' wall.⁸⁰

Points for Consideration←⤒🔗

• How far is a lack of confidence in the ministry of the Word indicative of a decline in faith in the gospel?
   
• What kind of balance is needed between procla­mation, the interrogative, and appeal? Can this vary from place to place and from time to time?
   
• How can we combat the present resistance to claims of authority?
   
• In what ways do current social media affect hu­man society? How can these be used to advantage, and how do they pose problems both for faith and communication?
   
• Reynolds argues that the media are not neutral and can raise the question of idolatry.
   
• The paper mentions that before the invention of the printing press cultures were predominantly oral. Clearly, the lack of literacy had not prevent­ed the gospel spreading and conquering Europe and elsewhere. Today's orality movement seeks to rediscover oral storytelling, with the Biblical story adapted to particular cultures; this may involve altering the details to make it intelligible.
   
• Can we pray for revival? If so, how can we do so and, at the same time, conduct our preaching ministries in a way that is compatible with the Biblical and confessional teaching on the inseparable operations of the trinity, and the inseparable working of the Spirit with the Word?
   
• Can a low view of the sacraments leave preach­ing unaffected?
   
• How can we best co-ordinate the preached Word with the "visible words" (Augustine)?
   
• "The preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God" (The Second Helvetic Confession, 1, mar­ginal reference). This does not sanction heterodox teaching or indiscriminate proclamation. How can we hold on to this vital point and maintain careful discrimination of what is proclaimed (cf 1 John 4:1-6, Acts 17:11)?​