Gospel Meetings--Sick or Dead?

By Dean Mills

[Page 107]

     I am not prepared as yet to participate in the funeral rites for the gospel meeting as suggested by Brother Robert Meyers in the April issue, although I agree with nearly all of his conclusions. The unfortunate fact is that his charges are true and they reveal what has brought the downfall of many such meetings and ruined their effectiveness completely in certain localities.

     But I remember that Alexander Campbell once said that every worthy subject (or object), when placed in the hands of the multitude, suffers abuse. Surely nothing has suffered more abuse than the gospel meeting, but it must be charged to its credit that, under such circumstances, it has endured so long. Certainly it is on its deathbed. The question is whether we should call for the physician or the undertaker?

     If the gospel meeting continues to follow the same tenor and theme which has dominated it for the last century, ever since the death of the first generation of Restoration preachers, then let's call the undertaker. Insofar as the history of our movement is concerned, the gospel meeting was born in an age of love for lost souls and for Christian union among brethren. It has degenerated into a showplace for preachers (in numerous instances) whose sermons are geared more for proselyting from the sectarian world, usually delivered in such a spirit and attitude to make even this impossible, rather than presenting the gospel message of salvation to the lost.

     Also, if congregations substitute the gospel meeting for the responsibility of daily personal witness and evangelism, we cannot get the committal services over soon enough! Without a doubt this has happened in too many of our congregations. But I also recognize that in the majority of these, where the leadership is weak and the faith shallow, if it were not for the gospel meeting, nothing would ever be done.

     The problem, alluded to by Brother Meyers but not carried out to the conclusion, is that we have tried several methods to keep this sectarian-oriented type of meeting alive. Different names have been used to attract people to the meeting which turns out to be "the same old partisan propaganda in a new dress." After one time around, that name is no longer feasible because concealed under a new name was the same old approach.

[Page 108]

     The problem is that we have altered the wrong aspect. We have changed the name but not the content. I suggest that we use the same name and change the content! If it is a "gospel" meeting, more gospel and less haranguing is the essential element. I have just concluded a meeting with a congregation in which I dealt with the subject of sin, its punishment, and God's great salvation, for three nights. On the other two nights I presented evidences to produce faith in Jesus as the Son of God and in His message. I attempted an approach of a simple gospel message each night, designed to meet the needs of the unconverted, some of whom we had present every night.

     The results were gratifying. As people left the meetinghouse there was not that smirking smile upon their faces which usually illustrates their pleasure with the harangue against a local competitive denominational group, but rather a warm word for the kind and simple presentation of the message. The gospel meeting, without a doubt, lies on its deathbed because we have had the wrong approach in preaching--the gospel usually being concealed under the charges against instrumental music, the importance of the Lord's Supper, how the church ought to be governed, ad infinitum. No wonder it is dying!

     But I think we need a physician instead of a funeral director. The gospel meeting must either have a complete blood transfusion or it will ultimately have its blood withdrawn and undergo embalming. Nothing has a right to exist in the church unless it has a positive purpose. The positive purposes in the meetings of the first-generation preachers were love, union and winning the lost.

     The meetings provided an opportunity for different groups to come together. Although love and union were the themes, no generation of preachers hated sectarianism and its effects more than these men. Their protracted efforts had little resemblance to our present-day meetings. Restoration students will be quick to realize that this harmony which prevailed brought the "Christians" and the "Reformed Baptists" together in a revival meeting at Georgetown, Kentucky, and that this ultimately led to a union between the two bodies.

     Now individuals from other groups are almost afraid to attend such a meeting. It is almost certain that the sermon subject is so designed as to permit the local preacher to inform the evangelist of certain "visitors" and, in turn, permit him to depart from his intended theme long enough to point out all the errors of that denomination. I fear that Methodists and Presbyterians have learned more about their doctrines in our so-called gospel meetings than in their own congregations. The negative approach has dominated and for every person converted by such techniques a thousand have had their minds closed.

     Under such trying circumstances it is a marvel to me that the gospel meeting has existed as long as it has. I take heart in seeing that some of this attitude and approach is passing from the scene. Undoubtedly the gospel meeting could be a powerful tool for the kingdom of God, even for promotion of Christian unity, since today, as of old, it provides an opportunity for visitation among Christian groups, if the meetings can again be properly oriented.

     One thing is certain. If we do not get the life-flowing substance of the gospel and the Holy Spirit back into it, replacing the bitterness and party spirit, the only logical answer is a call for the mortician.

     (Dean Mills labors with the Christian Church, Manchester, Kentucky 40962, and can be addressed by writing him at that place).