Business is booming in the churches of our land. Budgets are relentlessly spiraling upward. Buildings are larger and more lavishly furnished. Sunday school enrollment and church attendance are on the increase. Surveys indicate that a greater percentage than ever before of the total population of America is affiliated with some church group. And the “pollsters” inform us that more than ninety-five per cent of our population “believe” in God. There has been the disposition on the part of many to greet this information with smiles of satisfaction and to accept it as evidence that our citizenry is becoming intensely interested in moral and spiritual growth. We ministers have perhaps concluded that such progress has resulted from our ministries, particularly from our preaching. But is such a conclusion valid?

Some discerning voices have answered with a resounding, “No.” Among these is Donald Macleod^[1]Donald J. Macleod, “The Marks of Effective Preaching,” Canadian Journal of Theology, V (April, 1959), 119-24. who, after calling attention to the religious “heyday” that we are witnessing in America, questions whether this awakening is due to preaching. His answer is, that except in isolated cases, this religious emphasis has not been due in a clearly definable way to preaching. In Macleod’s opinion it is to be traced to “me-too-ism” and the socially acceptable thing to do rather than to the drawing power of the preacher’s sermon, to community pressure or the desire for social recognition rather than to the exactness of the minister’s exegesis or to the orthodoxy of his doctrine.

If such an evaluation be true, what serious preacher can remain at ease in face of the accusation, for in essence it is an accusation. Moreover, Macleod’s conclusions prompt the minister to ask questions—questions that bring only uncomfortable answers: How goes it with preaching? My preaching? Is my voice so little heard in my community? For the answer he need do no more than review certain facts written large across the face of America, indeed, across the face of his own church field. People are attending worship services in record numbers. Yet, strict standards of ethical conduct are rapidly deteriorating. A “rigged morality” is the rule and not the exception. Chancellor Gould of the University of California has aptly warned:

The challenge of the hour is one in which we face adversity for the first time in our history. We face a moral and spiritual adversity within our own borders brought on by a general slackening of will, a general tendency to countenance cupidity and applaud cunning…^[2]Samuel B. Gould, “Forth – Without Cheer,” Time, June 27, 1960, p. 42.

Ours is a day when sincere men and women, in the Lord’s house on the Lord’s day sing, “Have thine own way Lord, have thine own way,” but on the six remaining days of the Lord’s week they have their way.

Furthermore, religious illiteracy or ignorance of the Bible is widespread and seems to be increasing at an alarming rate. Indicative of this illiteracy is an incident which occurred in New York. A television writer wanted one of his characters to say, “Man does not live by bread alone.” Another was to reply, “Oh yes” and then give the source of quote. For the sake of accuracy the writer inquired of the research department of a leading television network for verification and source of the quotation. The following day this reply was received, “Man does not live by bread alone—not even ‘pretested bread’, from the American Character by D. W. Brogan.” Such ignorance of the Bible is not limited to television station personnel. In an Old Testament survey course in a theological seminary the professor had referred to Edward J. Young’s suggestion that the Song of Solomon was included in the Canon because of its emphasis upon the sanctity of marriage and the marriage relationship. On the final examination a student, seeking to justify the inclusion of this book in the Old Testament Canon wrote, “God has placed this book in the Canon to show the sanity of marriage.”

Such ignorance of the contents of the Bible and such obvious indifference to the demands of the Bible as presented in the pulpit are enough to drive the minister to his study, there to search his own soul and to struggle with disturbing questions. Why isn’t preaching making a greater impact on twentieth-century society? Why isn’t preaching shaping and giving more meaningful direction to the revival of interest in the church and religion? Is the end result of preaching of so little consequence that the church is losing its battle with secular forces to determine individual and national standards of conduct? All of this suggests that the central problem facing modern ministers is not one of empty pews, but of sanctuaries overflowing with worshippers whose standards of conduct are shaped by forces outside the church and upon which preaching seems to exert little if any influence.

In his introduction to A History of Preaching Edwin C. Dargan wrote, “Preaching has profoundly and for the most part wholesomely influenced the morals and customs of mankind.”^[3](Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 9. Then in a review of preaching through the centuries, he presents voluminous evidence in support of this thesis. Is present-day preaching to be an exception? As great congregations are confronted with the voice from the pulpit, is this voice failing or proving unequal to its opportunity? Or in light of the discussion thus far, it may be more appropriate to ask, why has contemporary preaching failed or been ineffective? Cognizant of the presence of other factors and of the danger of over-simplification, the thesis herein presented is that the ineffectiveness of mid-twentieth century preaching is the result of its lack of the prophetic note. In brief, most contemporary preaching is not prophetic preaching.

Use of the term “prophetic preaching” makes necessary two things. First of all, something must be said of the relation between prophet and preacher. Secondly, consideration must be given to the term in order to define it or to determine its content.

It is admittedly difficult to delineate or even to establish the relation between the Old Testament prophet and the modern preacher. A multiplicity of viewpoints has been expressed relative to a relationship. For example, Ernest Best, a minister, defends the thesis that the preacher of today is essentially different from the prophets of Old and New Testament days and is not to be equated with them.^[4]”Prophets and Preachers,” Scottish Journal of Theology, XII (June, 1959), 129-50. The validity of his arguments is of no concern but rather his emphasis upon the distinction that must be made between “proclamation” and “prophecy,” as these are related to preacher and prophet.

On the other hand, G. B. Spalding has written of the continuity between the grandest-office (prophecy) under the old religion and the grandest office (preaching) of the new religion.”^[5]”The Hebrew Prophet and the Christian Preacher,” Andover Review, XIII (September, 1890), 285. He concluded:

The truth is that the real essence of the prophetic office and character belongs to and must be exhibited by the Christian preacher. Its distinctive power must be in him before he can reach the full measure of his success and serve God and humanity most effectively.^[6]Ibid.

R. B. Y. Scott in attempting to answer the question “Is Preaching Prophecy?”^[7]Canadian Journal of Theology, I (April, 1955), 11-18. correctly observes that preaching and prophecy can be defined only as they are viewed historically. He insists that a clear distinction must be made between the function or activity of prophecy and preaching and the resulting message of each. Following a brief historical review of these two “primary phenomena” of the Christian tradition, Scott pertinently concludes:

In the context of this Biblical tradition we shall not lightly compare-let alone equate-our preaching with prophecy. We are too familiar with the feeble homily, the dull disquisition, the elegant essay, and sometimes, alas, with the impertinence of the pulpit entertainer. But our preaching may have something at least of the prophetic quality if we perceive God’s presence and his purpose as the decisive factors in the situation in which we and our hearers stand. Our times urgently call for a prophetic word ….There is an essential connection between preaching and prophecy, and at times one merges with the other.^[8]Ibid., pp. 17-18.

From these differing viewpoints, what can be concluded as to the relation between prophet and preacher? Few, if any, would insist that the two are identical in every respect; and yet, who would deny that they are definitely related? Apart from historical or linguistic evidence the very use of terms relative to the prophets in a complimentary or commendatory fashion of preachers is indicative of a definite, though difficult to delineate, relationship between them. Additional evidence of their kinship is indicated by such titles at Powhatan James’ volume of George W. Truett’s sermons, The Prophet’s Mantle, and Kyle M. Yates’ book, Preaching from the Prophets. But beyond this, there is evidence of a unique and genuine relationship between prophet and preacher in the intense longing in the heart of every preacher to possess the power of prophetic preaching, to experience the thrill of a prophetic ministry. But what is prophetic preaching? What is a prophetic ministry? In order to answer the question satisfactorily three basic characteristics of prophetic preaching must be considered.

In the first place, prophetic preaching is created by a call from God. The phrase “a call to the ministry” is currently a much-used and often misused phrase. And however it may be interpreted, often it means little more than personal choice of a career or submission to parental or social pressure. This stands in sharp contrast with what constituted a call for the Old Testament prophet. The great prophets of Israel were convinced that they had been called by the God of Israel. This profound experience is vividly related by Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel; and by Amos, Hosea, and Micah, though fewer details are given. It seems safe to assume in the case of others of the prophets that to them also the voice of the Lord came, although these had no occasion to describe their call. All who did relate the experience are certain that their prophetic careers were initiated by the active intervention of Jehovah, the self-revealing Lord of history, as he commissioned them to be his spokesmen.

Amos explained his presence at Bethel by stating that the Lord had taken him from his occupation as herdsman and dresser of sycamore trees to be his prophet. This rustic seer, sensitive to Israel’s sins and grieved by the merciless oppression of the masses, responded to the divine sum­ mons and journeyed to Bethel, there to denounce the nation’s sins. What else could he do? “The Lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord has spoken; who can but prophesy?” (Amos 3:8). God had spoken and Amos must go, without thought of consequences, with nothing except the words of God burning within him urging him to go tell the people the error of their way. God’s call was unmistakable.

Isaiah’s call came as he was in the temple mourning the        death of his friend, Uzziah the king. Overcome by a sense       of the transcendent holiness of God and a consciousness of his own sins, he could only lament, “Woe is me…” But when Isaiah was privileged to hear the divine summons, “Whom shall I send?” he unhesitatingly replied, “Here am I, send me.” It was of no import to the prophet that the people would not listen and that they would reject his message; God had called and he must accept the divine summons to prophetic action. God’s call was unmistakable.

Jeremiah was perhaps the youngest of the prophets at the time of his call. Nevertheless, this call was so real it seemed to the young man that God had foreordained him before birth to be a prophet to the nation. In the reality of this experience there was a compulsion sufficient to overcome Jeremiah’s reluctance and inherent timidity, and he accepted the commission to be God’s spokesman in dangerous days. God’s call was unmistakable.

Why name others? The evidence is irrefutable. The prophets were keenly conscious of a definite, direct call from Jehovah, the God of their fathers. They did not answer the call of duty or of conscience, the call of country or of community; their’s was the response to the call of God. Baab has correctly observed, “The prophets thought, and believed, and preached under the immediate influence of their view that they had been selected and commissioned for their work by a Power outside themselves.”^[9]Otto J. Baab, Prophetic Preaching (New York: Abingdon Press, 1958), pp. 17-18. This commissioning occurred in various places and under widely differing circumstances, but it occurred.

A sense of call is of prime importance. It is the fountain source from which flow the living waters that bathe the prophetic ministry in the power of the Spirit of the living Lord. A sense of call makes smooth a rough and difficult situation; a sense of call brings the sunshine of God’s presence in the darkness of despair; a sense of call opens the door to a friend from heaven in the lonely moment; a sense of call provides a holy restraint to one’s pride in the successful moment. A sense of call does all this and more—it gives a preacher the prophet’s grand independence of spirit, the peculiar boldness that equips him for effective preaching in perilous times.

There has never been a group of men as completely fearless as the Hebrew prophets. Some timid, shy and withdrawing, all abhorring strife and loving peace; but under the compulsion of a divine call they boldly delivered rebukes and warnings. With an intensity of utterance born of God, they denounced the most brazen wickedness of people, priest, and prince. But was it less with John the Baptist before an adulterous king? Was it less with Paul before the ruthless Felix? Was it less with Savonarola pouring out his righteous wrath upon the sensuous sins of Florence? Was it less with John Knox holding up before Queen Mary her sordid sins? And has it been less with thousands of others who through the centuries have boldly proclaimed, “I have a message from my King”? No, and it will be no less for the modern preacher if within the deep of his soul there is the burning conviction that he, too, is on business for his King, and at his command. Prophetic preaching is created by a call from God.

In the second place, prophetic preaching is centered in the Word of God. L. W. Batten has pointed out that nothing is more striking in the phenomenon of prophecy than the absolute confidence with which the message is spoken.^[10]The Hebrew Prophets (London: Metheun, 1905), p. 73. The primary reason for this confidence is the source of the prophet’s message—it was from the Lord. Though it may be true that any man with convictions can speak them with bold assurance, the peculiarly strong confidence of the prophets had a deeper and different basis. The Hebrew prophet was doubtless a man of strong convictions, but beyond this he was persuaded that he spoke the mind of God. He was authorized to preface his message with, “Thus saith the Lord.” The constant occurrence of such terms as, “The Lord said,” “The word of the Lord came unto … ,” “Thus saith the Lord,” “Oracle of Jehovah,” and “Hear the Word of the Lord” gives ample proof that the prophets considered their messages not their own but from the Lord. So completely did they identify their messages with the “Word of Yahweh” that they could speak in the first person as God himself. This complete identification may also explain the phenomenon in the prophetical writings known as “prophetic—perfects,” the prophets use of the perfect tense—the tense of completed action—to indicate the certain occurrence of specific future events.

From a study of the prophets it seems valid to conclude that the minister’s major task is to proclaim the Word of the Lord. Here, then, is the content of preaching—the Bible. What shall the minister preach? Otto J. Baab, a teacher of preachers, has accurately observed that the casual reading of the church news section of any newspaper will reveal a lack of agreement as to the essential content of the sermon, if titles are any criterion. These titles usually run the entire scale of religious interest, from peace of mind to convulsions marking the end of the world.^[11]Baab, p. 107. Baab delineates the content of prophetic preaching by reference to a prophet in an ancient situation and his reply to fellow prophets who preferred to stand for the desires of their ruler: “What the Lord says to me, that will I speak” (1 Kings 22:4). This ancient man of God had no word drawn from the fears and ambitions of his contemporaries. His word was from God. The modern minister, with respect to each sermon and in the sense that his message is Bible-centered, should be able to say with Ezekiel, “The Word of the Lord came to me.”

What shall the minister preach? Donald G. Miller has called attention to the lack of biblical preaching in contemporary American pulpits. According to Miller, “A famine is abroad, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord.”^[12]The Way to Biblical Preaching (New York: Abingdon Press, 1957), p. 17. What an indictment of many who stand in the pulpits of America!

What shall the minister preach? P. T. Forsyth has declared that with its preaching Christianity stands or falls because it (preaching), is a declaration of the gospel.^[13]Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind (New York: Eatons & Mains, 1907), pp. 3f. He affirms that preaching has a connection with the Bible which it has with no other book. Preaching presupposes a message, and that message is found in the acts and deeds of God of which the Bible is the primary record.

What shall the minister preach? James Stewart selected for one of his books on preaching the title, Heralds of God. Donald Macleod has said that the first necessity for effective preaching is the element of proclamation.^[14]Macleod, p. 121. The minister may do many things, but first and always he must be a herald, a proclaimer. But this implies something to be heralded, something to be proclaimed. For prophet and preacher this proclamation is in essence the same—a difference in degree, not in kind—the Word of God. Baab has succinctly stated, “To announce the Word which God has made known and which is recorded in the Scripture is still the outstanding obligation of the man of God.”^[15]Baab, p. 8.

What shall the minister preach? In a prophetic ministry the Bible is the mine where the minister works tirelessly to bring forth treasures for his people. Halford Luccock has written that he knows firsthand of the homiletical poverty of preachers who have thrown the Bible out their study window:

In those days quite a number of young Apolloses, on graduating, having become men, put away such childish things as texts and Bible stories. In the pulpit they lived amid the immensities and starry galaxies. But after a while when the long-suffering congregation had heard their sermon on “The March of Progress” and “Pragamatism,” like the Prodigal Son, they began to be in want. Then they came to themselves and said, “In my father’s Book are texts enough and to spare.” And they said, “I will arise and go to the Bible.”^[16]The Minister’s Workshop (New York: Abingdon Press, 1944), p. 149.

Oswald T. Allis, a seminary classmate of Clarence E. Macartney, relates that as Dr. Macartney was lying on his bed of pain on Sunday morning two days before his death, he said to his brother Robertson, who was leaving to preach in a nearby church, “Put all the Bible you can into it.”^[17]C. E. Macartney, Salute Thy Soul (New York: Abingdon Press, 1957, p. 5.

A prophetic ministry has all the Bible possible in it; the Word of God is at its center. The Bible is the minister’s very life. Without it he is nothing but sounding brass echoing pious platitudes, or a clanging cymbal seeking to make soothing sounds. Without the Bible the minister’s message is only husks for hungry hearts; without it his own soul shrivels and the spiritual life of those committed to his ministry perishes from a famine of the Word of God. But with the Bible at the center of his ministry, there are no limits to the possibilities of the power of the living God working in and through the minister. Prophetic preaching is centered in the Word of God.

Finally, prophetic preaching is accomplished in the power of God. This is a power-worshipping generation, “and preachers,” according to Baab, “are power-seeking persons, corrupted by the lust for power which is typical of their age and toward which their human nature is inclined.”^[18]Baab, p. 64. These are hard words, but what minister can deny that there is truth in the accusation? Indeed, ministers are especially vulnerable to the corrupting effects of power, for its possession is frequently used as a criterion of success. And what preacher has not thrilled at the compliment to his physical prowess that his is “powerful preaching?” Granted that it is necessary for the minister to possess the power to win attention and to influence people through persuasive speech and personality; what he can legitimately do with these natural powers he must do. But reference here is to that peculiar power that compels a congregation not only to listen attentively but also to heed the word of God. It is the power which enables a preacher to accomplish the one task to which he is called, namely, the effective proclamation of God’s Word. The ancient prophet’s words are pertinent; “But as for me, I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin” (Mic. 3:8).

This power is needed first of all for the preacher’s preparation. With even-increasing demands being made upon the modern minister’s time, it is fast becoming impossible for him in his own strength to conserve time for intellectual preparation for his task. Yet God requires and his congregation expects him to bring to the pulpit the highest type of preparation. And, paradoxically, the very members of the congregation who require so much of their ministers time are the first to criticize, “Our pastor can’t read Greek and Hebrew and he won’t read English.” The indolent minister may seek to justify his lack of preparation by the press of “pastoral duties,” but the imperative demand for preparation is nonetheless present. W. E. Sangster has discerningly observed:

It would be foolish—and worse—to suppose that because this work is divine in its origin there is no technique to study and no craft to learn. The history of preaching record no sadder story than that of those misguided zealots who have brought no consecration of mind to the preaching of the Word and have just “opened the mouth” in public in expectation that the Spirit would do the rest. The Spirit spurns their superstitious sloth.^[19]The Craft of the Sermon (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1951), p. 28.

Intentions in this area are fine. Resolutions are better. But best of all and absolutely necessary, let the minister make his study habits a matter of prayer, and in the power of God he will prevail.

God’s power is also needed for preaching. Who has reached that place in his ministry that he enters the pulpit to preach in his own power? Who could ever reach such a point! And yet, are not many of the pulpits of America occupied by men whose basic viewpoints are a barrier to their dependence upon a Source outside themselves for power in preaching? Captivated by a naturalistic philosophy and a humanistic ethic, these men are offended at the very suggestion that the only true source of preaching power is external to themselves. Standing in the pulpit in their own power, they deliver passionateless, powerless sermons which might be more aptly described as lectures or discourses. Little wonder that voices from many contemporary pulpits are so little heard!

All of this is in decided contrast to the Old Testament prophet whose philosophy did not exclude the intervention of the supernatural. Micah spoke synonymously of “power” and “the Spirit of the Lord” (3:8). Another prophet recognized the true source of power when he said, “Not by might, . . . but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of host” (Zech. 4:6b). Baab has correctly observed:

The term which most aptly expresses the support which God gave his prophets when they declared his will to men is spirit. In the biblical tradition this word affirms the life which God possesses and which he shares with men, not in the form of being, but in the form of power and function. By it men were energized, inspirited, empowered . . . for the realization of the mission which is laid upon them.^[20]Baab, p. 74.

The prophet’s power to make God’s word known to men came to the prophet from God, who alone could make effective its communication. Prophetic preaching is accomplished in the power of God.

God’s power, without which there can be no prophetic preaching, is available to every minister who is willing to meet the condition for sharing it.^[21]See Southwestern Sermons, ed. H. C. Brown, Jr. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1960), pp. 21-25. Isaiah’s words to the exhausted exiles contain this condition: “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength ….”(40:31). Sharing God’s power is conditioned upon waiting upon him. The psalmist said, “Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation” (62:1). The marginal rendering of the word “waiteth” in several of the versions reads, “is silent unto.” When one waits upon God, one is still before him and in the stillness knows that God is God for he has spoken. Again, the psalmist has written, “These all wait upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season” (104:27). From the context of this verse, “these” refers to both men and beasts, with the emphasis perhaps upon the latter. The beast all wait upon the Lord for sustenance. They confidently and expectantly depend upon him for food, since there is none other to whom they can go. To wait upon the Lord, then, is to recognize one’s dependence upon him; it is to keep silent in his presence that his voice may be heard. This done, one has met the condition for the renewal of his own strength as he shares God’s strength.

Isaiah also spoke of this renewal: “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength.” The clause, “They. . . shall renew their strength,” is better rendered, “They. . . shall exchange· their strength.” The verb form used means “to change” or “to interchange,” and, hence, “to exchange.” The proper sense and meaning is, “They that wait upon the Lord shall exchange their strength.” That is, they shall exchange their own fainting strength for the never failing power of God himself.

In chapter 40 Isaiah emphasizes the transcendent omnipotence of Jehovah. The magnitude of his might is immeasurable, and this power is available to the exiles who wait upon God. On the same condition the inexhaustible resources of God’s might are at the disposal of the minister, power that will enable him to proclaim the Word of God with such moral conviction and divine authority that God through him approaches the very souls of men.

In the second half of the twentieth century is there still a valid place for preaching? Or would it be wise to discontinue the sermon and substitute for it some form of group dynamics in which the minister’s function as preacher is relegated to a subordinate role? Is preaching in the shadows? Outmoded? Does the world believe less in preaching now than ever before? Have many ministers lost respect for their “calling”? These questions with their implications have been voiced within the last decade.

What is wrong with preaching? Perhaps the answer is to be found in the discerning words of a retired minister, “There is nothing wrong with preaching, only with our preaching.” There is something wrong with our preaching. Far too much of contemporary preaching is not prophetic preaching. But when the prophetic note is sounded again—when the called of God, preach the Word of God, in the power of God-preaching will resume its divinely ordered and unique place in the redemptive purpose of God for all mankind.