In the March / April issue of Preaching magazine David R. Stokes wrights an article titled Young Mr. Spurgeon: How would this innovator be received today? Most people know of Charles Spurgeon the seasoned Preacher of Preachers, but few know of Charles Spurgeon the hated young innovator. The article talks about a young Spurgeon who stated preaching at the age of 18 and changed the way that preaching was done. He was a man who did not allow himself to be confined to the lectern. He dared to walk around in the pulpit. Spurgeon was savagely criticized for his method of ministry and preaching. His messages were exegetically sound and he drew large numbers of people to come and hear the word of God, Yet he was still criticized. The criticism was more about style than substance.
Today Spurgeon is recognized as one of the great preachers of all time, but how would this innovator be received today? There are many leaders today how go about doing things in a different way. Their heart is with God. They are well studied. They know the word, and they teach the word, they just do it in a different way than the accepted norms. How many leaders are criticized today for style not substance? When Spurgeon was asked why he preached in the way that he did he remarked that “he judged the new method to be better than the old.” Perhaps these leaders who choose to do things a new way can reach a new kind of person
Thanks for your discussion of this article, Franklin. I don’t know much about Spurgeon, but this gave me a taste of his approach to ministry. His story illustrates the reality that cutting-edge, innovative leaders are often on the margins when they first emerge, or even throughout their lifetime. Going against the grain, or as some might put it – marching to the beat of a different drum – can be well received as a dynamic and novel way of operating, or rejected and criticized on the basis of style rather than substance, as you indicated.
ReplyDeleteThe challenge for the innovator is whether or not he/she will persist in the face of resistance, misunderstanding, or criticism. There are some who constantly try to do new and innovative things for the sake of doing so and with little consistency, which I find problematic. The true measure of the quality of someone’s substance (and even style) is the degree to which it lasts/holds up in the face of criticism, the passage of time, and changing circumstances. Does it bear fruit? Does it advance the transformation of those toward whom it is geared? If the answer to these questions is “yes,” then what started as innovation should become an accepted norm – for now.