Of course it does! Every Sunday it does. Last Sunday, for instance in a few undisciplined moments before the service began my eye ran over the familiar scene, observing the shape of the pulpit and its panelling, the figuring the wall behind it, the nicely draped curtains at our open baptistry. My eye even observed that our minister had a new suit and a tie that was neither dreary nor too gay. Then the service began and in a short while the minister was standing "to deliver the word of exhortation" as the good brother presiding had informed us. Now in truth the pulpit and the pew were looking each other in the eye. It seems that a mutual critical scrutiny could be very helpful, if humbly and sincerely undertaken. Not with the purpose of gaining ammunition to fire at each other from the pulpit and the pew, but to concentrate our attack more effectively on our common enemy.

      This is the pew looking critically at the pulpit. Only the latter is invited to read here. Others should turn the pages to the heading, "The Pulpit Looks at the Pew."

      Having thus dismissed the congregation, the writer can say that for some years he was in the work of the ministry and has of latter years been in business and a regular and willing occupant of the pew. The following comments are no doubt familiar to the pulpit. They do not relate to any one minister but are suggestions and comments heard from members in various places over a number of years. If I'm out of touch with the pulpit I deeply regret it but can claim to be in touch with the pew.

      1. Our first observation must be one of respect and esteem. We do admire the man who has discarded ideas of worldly success in favour of full time service for God. Perhaps it doesn't mean as much to us as it does to you. Perhaps we take you for granted far too often. But in all of us who think about it is appreciation of the fact that you who could be better off in many ways have devoted your whole life to the rewarding work of God. Maybe it would seem impertinent for us to be critical but there are faults in all of us of which we are sometimes unaware.

      2. A common complaint of the pew is that a lot of preaching doesn't go far. It's not always an expressed criticism but is apparent in other ways. Agreed it is often our fault--not yours. But not always! Look at it this way--

      (a) Often we feel the preaching is "over our heads", "irrelevant", "not down to earth"--or as a homiletics examiner wrote on one of my own papers, "too many platitudes!" Some of the things you say are over our heads because you take us too much for granted. We don't know as much as you think we do about the simple things of the faith. It's not your fault I suppose. Come to think of it I know who is to blame. You won't have to search far along the pews to get the answer--I guess you could stop at mine. But there's a lot to be said for the old plea, "Tell me the story simply." Somehow if a thing is over our heads we don't seem able to reach up and grasp it. Then it's a waste of time and a disappointment to us both. Certainly we've heard many a man in the pulpit who started off where we were and carried us with him to new exhilarating heights. Sunday morning's sermon--was the outline clear enough for us to carry away with us? How readily understandable was the subject matter to the bulk of the congregation? In answering the question please don't take us for granted. You have access to a lot of reading that we don't see. In most cases your thinking is far in advance of ours. What is perfectly clear to you may not have occurred to us. At times, too, we go away feeling that the theological has outweighed the practical value of the sermon. A couple of illustrations from life and an explanation of how the Christian faith is relevant to these life situations helps us more than anything else. I remember the advice of College days always to preach to the need of the people--that in every congregation is someone afraid, or distressed or spiritually unsettled. I've had reason to recall that advice during the past few years when, on a couple of occasions, I've been plunged by circumstances into deep depression and spiritual upheaval. Sunday after Sunday I went to Church dutifully and hopefully, seeking a word in the sermon to meet my need. Failure to find that word on a number of occasions accentuated the plunge. I accept my part of the blame but not all of the blame. I wonder how many others have passed through that unhappy experience.

      (b) Again some preaching doesn't get far because we feel we are "being preached at." No conscientious preacher would do that, but some seem to be unaware they are doing it. Yes I know we need it but nobody likes to be "roused at." As you know, some of us get our backs up too easily. But there's no sense in rousing antagonism if you can get your message across by suggestion or other methods with which you are familiar. In my early years in the ministry my mother taught me a valuable lesson. "My son, you say too often in your sermons, 'You ought to do this and that.' People are inclined to resent that, especially from a young minister. You would be better to say, 'This is what we could be doing'--identifying yourself with your people in the need for thought and action." My mother has a lot of wisdom accumulated from a long Christian experience. By all means let us have it straight from the shoulder. We can take it (and we admit we need it) if it's not said with a whine of complaint. Perhaps a good deal of the lack of co-operation you talk about is the result of this very thing.

      (c) And I'm afraid we sometimes miss what you are saying because we find it hard to listen, to concentrate. It is the old complaint of the "parson's drawl." Why is it that so many men have a pleasant, interesting voice in conversation but lose it immediately they stand up to preach? Believe me it does affect the amount we are

able to absorb. You need a most interesting sermon to overcome this handicap. Referring back that same examiner in homiletics, I remember a momentary feeling of elation after preaching one sermon in class. He commented, "As I listened I found it was interesting and well worth listening to." My elation ended as he continued, "But I found it hard to listen. You must do something about your voice." To be truthful I noticed him doze off half way through! If a College teacher goes to, sleep (even allowing for the quality of some college sermons) who can blame the pew under similar conditions. We go to listen--it's, a pity if you don't talk to us man to man so that we have to listen. We know you are not preaching only because it's laid down that we must have two sermons in the day. We'd like to feel as we listen, "Here is a man who has the spirit of Jeremiah who said, "Thy word was as a fire shut up in my bones and I was weary with forbearing." If that is so, we'll listen alright.

      3. I heard an unfortunate complaint the other day about one minister. It was said that he was a dictator in the church. Of course we could laugh our heads off at the idea--except that someone has made the claim and meant it. I suppose there's a germ or two of the disease in most of us but fortunately it isn't an epidemic. The pulpit will readily recognise two bases from which such a suggestion may rise.

      (a) The man in the pulpit has the advantage of specialised training, of fellowship and discussion with kindred minds. You read much more assiduously than the ordinary occupant of the pew and also have the time to point up all these things into ideas and plans that you would like implemented. This is your life's work and naturally you are the one we expect to come up with the most worthwhile suggestions. But the man in the pew also has his personality and often has his wits about him on practical things more than he is given credit for. In most cases he is given a considerate hearing, worthwhile suggestions are discussed and acted on. But occasionally we strike the man in the pulpit who is so carried away with his ideas that, in his enthusiasm, he rides roughshod over the carefully thought out plans of others. You doubt it? Here is an example. It came to my notice recently that one of our suburban officers' boards is likely to lose a valuable and consecrated man for this reason. He is anxious to serve but feels the uselessness of continuing when most of his ideas--keenly felt--are instantly dismissed by the minister or so amended by him as to be barely recognisable. It appears that, immediately he makes his suggestion, the minister makes his views known and the members of the board (who are either unable or unwilling to think for themselves) meekly fall in behind his authority. You will agree this is an unhealthy position. Wouldn't it be better for him to withhold his opinion, prod the others into expressing themselves and so train them to think for themselves? To guide the discussion with a wise word here and there and give a careful summing up of the matter as he sees it before a vote is taken? I know that again the preacher is not entirely to blame--the spineless attitude of the other officers is more to be condemned. But I do know that a good and sincere man looks to be on the way out, his term of office killed by frustration. The church will certainly be the poorer by his absence. At this point I pay tribute to those wise leaders under whom I have served who have displayed such admirable tolerance, patience and understanding; who have been quick to see the sincerity of board members in making suggestions that may have seemed ludicrous to them. A programme initiated on plans forwarded by the men themselves in which they feel they have a part, even if it isn't just what you would

like, has greater prospects of success than a programme initiated or imposed by the minister and grudgingly or half-heartedly accepted out of a sense of loyalty and duty. Most of you are anxious to preserve the democratic approach to our work and to avoid anything dictatorial and we appreciate you for it.

      (b) The other basis I suggest is the result of misunderstanding on both sides. Acting on the assumption that "if you want a job done well you must do it yourself" many preachers seem to assume much more responsibility than is good for themselves or the church. One result is that the pew inclines more and more to the view that the preacher can do it best and seems anxious to, so we can leave him to it. Then all of the work suffers. Everything must be done in the best way possible but perfection at the expense of member participation is not perfection at all. It seems better to have the team out on the field and the coach giving occasional advice from the sidelines than to have the coach on the field and the team sitting disinterestedly or inactively as spectators. You often tell us that we each have some talent. Show us how we can use it, recognise our germ of talent even when we are reticent about it ourselves. Don't be too discouraged by our apparent un willingness (we aren't too sure of ourselves you know) or our mistakes--under your expert guidance maybe we'll attain to some sort of efficiency and usefulness. But if you do take over the whole of the work for the sake of efficiency you can always find us somewhere reclining gracefully, complacent and inactive.

      4. Space forbids discussion of other matters which are possibly of minor importance but brief reference should be made to the vexed question of visitation. Some men take to this like the proverbial duck to water but you know the problems others have. My own experience was that this proved the most difficult part of my work and

      I was inclined to shirk it. It was a relief to find something of an urgent nature which meant visiting was off for the day. Ever felt like that? Yet we have come to expect your visit and feel that your ministry is deficient if this aspect is avoided. Not that we expect you to run up a great list of visits for statistical purposes that are merely touch and go social calls. Admittedly many boards are too statistically minded. I've always felt that our preacher's report should exclude statistics almost entirely and be concerned only with spiritual progress, problems and prospects. It's unfortunate that so many of us judge your work by your report of the number of visits made. I've listened without enthusiasm to one board member who recalls that a past minister was able to keep up to about 120 visits a month and makes the present man feel uncomfortable at his meagre total of 30 or 40. I guess that two thirds of the past preacher's effort could be written off as ineffective. I know the figure was inflated anyhow by including chance meetings in the street! No man's work can be judged by the numerical value of his visits if he's conscientiously attending to it. Occasionally someone complains that the minister has "foot and mouth disease"--won't visit and can't preach--but it's very seldom true. Apart from the lack of it in some cases, there are defects in visiting that appear to us but may not have occurred to you. At this point again you often take us for granted. You think we are as spiritual as we look dressed up for Sunday worship. Even the most faithful and ardent worker needs a visit on a high spiritual level. Some of us are pretty poverty stricken behind our facade of Sunday devotion. Could you dig up some tactful but pointed questions about our prayer life, our resistance to temptation, our real experience of Christ, and by injecting these into your conversation lead us to a fuller commitment to Him? If you visit with that in mind and are careful in approaching the matter

you may have some surprising results. Sometimes too we feel that your visit breaks down because you aren't able to understand the problem we explain to you. You may consider the problem a minor one but with us it goes pretty deep. It's not always adequate to have a kindly pat on the head, an assurance that others are worse off and that everything will turn out fine. We have noticed some emphasis on "personal counselling" of late and wonder what you are doing about it. A study of the subject should be very rewarding.

      Space has caught me out. In conclusion I trust you will understand the spirit in which this is written. My fellow feeling with you is strong and I have nothing but admiration for those engaged what is the most important task the world offers. These lines have tried to express the attitude of the pew to the pulpit. Perhaps the attempt has not been a complete failure.

      I am not a minister these days. For ten years I occupied the pulpit and surveyed the pew each Sunday with the mixed feelings experienced by the ministers of today. For ten years now I have occupied a pew and tried to keep a balance between my view of the pulpit and the pew. Frankly I have been amazed and disappointed at the frequent misunderstanding on the part of members--misunderstanding of the real nature of the minister's work and frequent disregard of his personal feelings. It's obvious that he, is often regarded as someone in a different class from ourselves.

      Because he is the minister we are sure he must maintain much higher standards than ourselves, live a more vital Christian life. We often excuse in ourselves things that would be unpardonable in him.

      We'd be doing him a good turn to remember he is a man in all respects as ourselves--the same problems, temptations, domestic anxieties, subject to disappointments and hurts as we are, able to appreciate home comforts and susceptible to criticism or praise.. Because he considers the greatest task of all is the propagation of the Gospel and places worldly comfort and personal considerations in a secondary position, we are inclined to trade on his simple attitude and excuse our contribution to his poverty by our lack of funds. Lack of funds indeed when in a church of only forty families there is a minimum weekly income of £600! If the tithe of one tenth were taken as a basis for consecrated giving we can readily see that the lack is not in available funds but in our own giving, our sense of stewardship.

      All of that is an aside. How does the pulpit feel about the pew? I'm not certain that I know. After ten years some impressions fade or take on a new color. No advice has been sought from any minister as to how this should be stated and probably no occupant of the pulpit would write this article for fear of being accused of complaining. And if he did, you in the pew would be the first to raise a voice of protest and excuse. Some things, however, seem to be in need of saying. I may be out of touch with current pulpit opinion but, if I were a minister today, I think I'd express myself something like \ this--

1. A sincere word of appreciation to all those devout Christians whose faith is an inspiration and whose Christian service is so freely given. One of the joys of the ministry is to share with you the riches of your religious experiences and to be humbled by your obvious appreciation of our ministry. How favoured is the pulpit that can turn to a level headed, consecrated man with the problems that vex us and be sure of an understanding attitude and a good word of advice. In a sense we are lonely men (particularly those of us in country areas)

because we are expected to know and understand and cope with the many problems of a congregation and there are few to whom we can turn for similar understanding and assistance with our own needs. We therefore have a deep affection for you in whom the years have planted a deep love for our Master and who make your experience available to us. How happy too is the minister who, seeing a job to be done, can approach you in confident expectation that you will undertake the task for the sake of Christ.

      2. On the other hand we are disappointed by the unwillingness to serve on the part of some of you. We are a bit inclined to wonder how far your spirituality goes when opportunities of Christian service are continually turned aside. We are sorry to see you miss out on the happiness that follows such service. In the army we were all familiar with "George"--he was the character to whom we delegated the unpleasant jobs, or jobs that we felt required too much energy from us. Unfortunately the old expression "Let George do it" seems to have carried over into much of our lives, including the church. We are grateful to "George" who never turns down a task on the grounds that it is burdensome or distasteful but we regret that a lack of responsibility on someone's part has loaded him up with an unfair share of the burden. There is the talented person, often with few family ties, capable and apparently consecrated, whom we confront with an opportunity to serve commensurate with his ability only to be asked, "Have you asked George? I don't think I could handle it." And so he hedges and evades and turns down the job. This unwillingness to serve is a symptom rather than the disease itself. It is a symptom of the lethargy that cripples the soul--a kind of sleeping sickness of the spirit which immobilises the patient, making him part of the problem rather than an active participant in the church's vital task. The church was nurtured by men with expansive vision and heroic sacrificial and untiring spirits. There can be no doubt one of the severest handicaps of its subsequent history has been the short-sightedness of those who profess to hold to the faith but do little to help its progress.

      3. Allied to the previous criticism, if I were in the pulpit I would be upset with the absence of cooperation in so many worthwhile efforts. We don't have to search far in any direction for an example. The last mission in our church largely failed in its purpose for this reason. We had a first rate missioner, our minister used all the time available to him in preparatory work. The mission was approved by the officers and members. Yet appeals for a little visitation to prospects were fruitless. The mission attendances averaged 25% of our membership (the attendances included some non-members) and there was very little concern or expectancy. Whose fault was it? Not the missioner's--he maintained the high level of evangelistic preaching we had expected from him. Of course, the minister was the scapegoat for some. The poor fellow hadn't made adequate preparation, or hadn't visited this one or that. Given a few more hours in the day or another body for his use, he might have done what we expected. Nonsense, of course. The fault was in the pew--the empty pew signifying lack of co-operation and spiritual apathy. We sang the hymn but somehow as a church didn't seem to mean it--

      Is it true that the church exists for the twin purposes of worship and evangelism? That they are interdependent and you can't have one without the other? That being so, some of us had to examine our hearts to see how hollow was much of our worship when it was so careless in its evangelism.

      This non-co-operation shows up in many ways. I heard of a church recently where the minister went to great trouble to prepare a series of training classes for those on the church plan and others who could soon fit themselves for this honor. He hired a tape recorder and did all possible to make them helpful. Here surely was the fulfilment of a real need. Did the members jump at it? No sir! About one in five of those for whom it was designed turned up. And as far as I know the minister had to pay the hire of the recorder out of his own pocket! Such co-operation isn't designed to inspire any minister.

      If I were in the pulpit I'd be inclined to say to the pew--you called me to be a leader. You have asked me to devote all my time to assisting you as a church to do the will of God in this place, to maintain effectively the Christian witness in this community.

      The task is beyond me as an individual. If you will come with me we can do it together. Is it not reasonable that God can use the co-operative effort of 100 consecrated people 100 times more than He can use one man?

      4. I mount the pulpit again to view the pew through the eyes of its occupant and am deeply concerned at the attitude to Stewardship. One church officer felt that sermons by the minister on this subject were often received with reservations by the pew. Pressed for a reason he gave the startling answer, "In the opinion of the average member Stewardship sermons are directly related to giving of money; the bulk of the money is required for the minister's salary; a sermon on Stewardship is therefore an indirect appeal to give for that purpose." How foolish can we get! How fantastic that an elementary principle of our life and worship should be so distorted. After all Stewardship is simply the realisation that we are custodians of all that God has given us and we are accountable to Him for its use. There is no division of responsibility but the whole of life comes within its ambit. We are not accountable for the leftovers of time and abilities and property--our very selves are not our own but have been bought at incredible cost. It is a grave matter that we first extract the juice from life for our own satisfaction and offer God what we can well do without. The day of the final great audit of our accounting will find some of us most uncomfortable. We can't rob God with impunity. The old question of Malachi arises, "Wherein have we robbed Thee? In tithes and offerings." Misappropriation of time entrusted to us by God means the work He intended for us will be forever undone. Misappropriation of the talents or abilities He gave us will result in someone with lesser ability or less time trying to fill the gap with less efficiency. Misappropriation of His funds will force us to struggle on with inferior church plant, shortage of funds for the ever expanding needs of Home and Overseas Missions. We view with hope the various canvasses and budgets being considered through some of our churches and pray that this may spread into an ever widening circle of conscientious stewardship through the total personality.

      5. We feel that, in the main, there is too little preparation for worship. Of course you've heard us say that from the pulpit. But isn't it so? Many times your minds are filled up with other things even after you have taken your pews, aren't they? Like the man in our church last Sunday who parked his car at the chapel at 10.55 a.m. and then went to fill in the time by inspecting a possible new office for himself. He arrived in church at 11.05 a.m., his mind diverted and disturbing other worshippers by his late arrival. It would have been better all round had he entered the building on arrival and had a few minutes of quiet preparation by meditation for the worship to follow.

      So worship loses its edge by being pushed around by irrelevant matters, by our glib singing of grand hymns whose meanings we don't stop to contemplate, by lack of concentration on vital matters. A while ago a young woman made her confession. The next Sunday morning she sat next to her friend--a church member--who kept up a disjointed conversation with her during the service and even destroyed the value of the prayers by her undisciplined tongue. Would this flippant approach to worship explain her drift from the church? Could this also be why our sermons are sometimes regarded as dull or over your heads? If other things jostle the spirit of worship from our minds, it is little wonder the sermon is hard to follow. We try to give you solid meat in the hope of building you up. Meat takes some chewing--spiritual preparation and mental concentration are necessary in the approach to worship.

      But this is not written by a minister. If it were, probably some of the above would have been omitted and other important matters mentioned. We should need no reminder of these things in view of the great task entrusted to us by our Lord.

      We are fortunate to have serving us in the brotherhood such devoted and selfless men. We are also fortunate to have a great body of consecrated members intent on the Master's work. In this year of "Operation Increase" we have vast resources available for the task. Who can tell how the Lord of all life can use our united efforts if we pledge our greatest efficiency and absolute surrender to His divine will!

      The writer is a graduate of the College of the Bible. As indicated in the Pamphlet, he served a number of years in the ministry and is now in business. For personal reasons, he desires to remain anonymous.