PREACHERS AND PREACHING.

Otago Witness, Issue 2808, 8 January 1908, Page 88

PREACHERS AND PREACHING.

By C. C.

At this season of the year, after listening to the many admirable recitations delivered by school children, and elocutionary efforts before competition judges that bring out so much oratorical talent, one is struck with amazement that so little eloquence is dropped down upon the heads of congregations by preachers week by week. How many of our reverend friends would take a prize, or even obtain honourable mention if they entered as public competitors in an elocutionary contest? Yet they are for the most part highly trained in their younger days for the purpose of fitting them to effectively address audiences for the remainder of their lives. With such a purpose before them correct speaking and effective delivery of the glad tidings entrusted) v to them should certainly be regarded as of paramount importance, but the evidence comes from the vast majority of pulpits weekly that the training of the joice has formed no part of their college curriculum. Inarticulate, mumbling utterances are so nearly universal from lectern, pulpit, andplatform that it seems as if clerical gentlemen were disposed to rely on the bestowal of a semi-miraculous gift of tongues, and to plead that the message is everything and the messenger nothing. Belief in such a dogma, of course, reduces efforts for pulpit effectiveness to a minimum. It is obviously illogical, and is not less so because 01 isolated instances that may be cited to prove the contrary. The case of the late Canon Kingsley is sometimes 'quoted in this connection. He was a stammerer in private life to the day of his death, notwithstanding the treatment he receivea at the hands of Mr Hunt, the stammer doctor. He even wrote a 'book on the cure of speech defects, but it was his boast that he could always deliver "the Lord's message"; his stammering left him as soon as he entered the pulpit. In this regard he was more blessed than Moses, who was " slow of speech," and had to call in the services of Aaron when the rebellious Israelites had to be addressed at their tribal gatherings. The churches that use liturgical services are the worst offenders against the canons of graceful and impressive reading, many of their clergy gabbling through their beautiful ritual at a helter-skelter pace, beginning a fresh sentence before the congregation of worshippers has hadj time to finish its response. It was the knowledge of this defective reading of the Anglican liturgy that induced SiT Squire Bancroft to address the Church Congress sitting at Yarmouth recently — and not for the first time — on the Art of Beading and Preaching. , It Is worth passing notice that while many of the audiences were small to hear papers submitted to Congress on very important subjects, there was a great crowd to hear what the famous actor had to say to the parsons on a subject he was so well qualified to give good advice on. He commended his criticisms to the clergy, on the ground that they should "Bid that welcome which comes to punish;" and referred to the care and cost lavished -upon the splendid choral services in their cathedrals, th© pains and practice taken to acquire the skill melodiously to chant the Litany, but asked in wonder wEy the same labour, the like devotion, was not bestowed upon teaching young clergymen to speak audibly and to control the congregation. "He was struck with amazement at glaring instances of false emphasis in the dull recital of the Order for Morning Prayer, and) thought that surely so sublime a monument of learning, reverence, and piety should be spared such treatment. Why, he asked, were so_ many of the clergy seemingly ignorant of the. power of naturalness? Why were they, simple and unaffected, delightful companions for six days in the week, and yet clothed themselves with artificiality on the seventh, inviting, it might be, their congregations to attend'" some meeting or harmless amusement in a sing-song voice, with mournful intonation, well calculated to keep everyone away? He contended that the reason why sermons were so soon forgotten, even when masterpieces of theology, and marvels of erudition, was because they were badly delivered^ . Those who spoke them \ were devoid of the art which so adorned their holy calling, so aided their great responsibility, as to leave their efforts wasted and worthless. Sir Squire Bancroft very effectively the answer David Garrick gave to the bishop when asked — " Can you tell me, sir, why it is that you players, who deal with romance, can yet profoundly move an audience, while we preachers, who deal with reality^ fail to do so?" "Yes, my lord, I can," said Garrick. "It is because we players act fiction as if it were truth, while you preachers too often speak of truth as though it were but fiction." He (the living actor) regarded a bad preacher as more fortunate than the bad actor. One could be hissed for his incompetence; the other must be, at least, endured. The outspoken critic of the clerics concluded with the apt quotation — " Happy are they that hear their detractions and can put them to mending." It may, however, -be very much questioned whether the ordinary run of theological students would be advanced) far en the road to become eminent preachers even if th jy had the best possible training in elocution. There are plenty of highly-trained vocalists, but how many Melbas? The conditons of church life* in most instances, absolutely preclude the composition of sermons that will deserve more than an ephemeral existence. Where is the genius in this country, or any other, that could preach two ser^nions of permanent value per week to the same body of hearers, year in and year out? He who preaches twice, said Bishop Andrewes, will prate once.

and John Wesley has left on record the conviction that if he had to preach to the same hearers for a year he would talk both himself and them to sleep. The famous Robert Hall held the opinion that a man who thought out his subject well might compose one sermon a week ; a diffuse, shallow man might manage twQ, and a fool could very likely write half a dozen. It must, of course, be granted that most congregations do not want to be listeners to highly-polished literary pulpit utterances ; many hearers could not assimilate such theological pabulum. Earnestness carries more weight with the many than calm philosophic reasoning. John Knox, we are told, before he had finished his sermon " was like to ding the pulpit in blads, and fly out of it." Another popular preacher who flourished about the same time pronounced the word ' ' damn with such emphasis as to leave a doleful echo in the auditors' ears for a good while. Admitting that there are other qualifications besides rhetorical ones that go to the equipment of a successful preacher, there is still room for the heartiest endorsement of the recommendation given by Sir Squire Bancroft, that all candidates for holy orders should be properly trained for pulpit deliverances. It is as necessary for the preachers to be skilled in the use of their vocal organs as for soldiers to be able to shoot straight. Drawing the bow at a venture may sometimes be the means of hitting the target, but the marksman will make most bull'seyes. The days are becoming few when the hysterical appeals of itinerant evangelists will be productive of lasting improvement in religious Hfe, for schoolmasters are abroad in ever-growing numbers. Understandest thou what thou readest? was asked in the early days of our era, and the inquiry -ib more insistent now than then, for inquiring minds are to be found everywhere. Preachers have always played an important part in national life, and have left many names on the scroll of fame, not only in Britain, but on the of Europe. It is not likely that ecclesiastical influence will wan© if the soldiers of the cross adapt themselves, as they certainly are doing, to the changing conditions of social and intellectual warfare.