A LESSON FROM BILLY GRAHAM ON THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PREACHING AND TEACHING

In the September 1962 issue of Eternity Billy Graham writes an article on “In Answer to My Critics.” One criticism that he answers is that his theology is too narrow, which leads him to say the following:

I am not a theologian; I am an evangelist. I have studied this business of evangelism, what it is and what is its message. I have come to the conclusion that the work of an evangelist is very narrow. If you say that my theology is very narrow, then I plead guilty, because the evangelist is not to do the work of a teacher or pastor.

The evangelist is to stand at the entrance of the Kingdom of Heaven and say, “Come in, come in, come in.” After a man comes in, it is the responsibility of the teacher and the pastor to do the rest.

Dr. C. H. Dodd of the University of London, one of the great New Testament scholars of the day, says in The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments: “For the early church, then. to preach was not the same thing as to deliver moral instruction or exhortation. While the church was concerned to hand on the teaching of the law, it was not by this that it made converts. It was by kerygma, says Paul, not by didache, that it pleased God to save men. Much of our preaching in the church of the present day would not have been recognized by the early Christians as kerygma.”

Graham goes on to give W. W. Sweet’s definition of evangelism: “Evangelism stands for a certain interpretation of Christianity, emphasizing the objective atonement of Christ, the necessity of the new birth or conversion in a salvation through faith.” Graham sees the gospel message as made up of a simple statement: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day” (1 Cor. 15:3,4). He also quotes James Stewart’s definition of the gospel in Heralds of God: “It was the announcement of certain concrete facts of history, the heralding of real events. It was declaration, not debate. The driving force of the early Christian mission was not propaganda of the beautiful ideas of the brotherhood of man. It was the proclamation of the mighty acts of God. There were two events which in reality were not two but one: (1) Christ died for our sins and (2) God has raised him from the dead.”

He goes on to liken the evangelist to the obstetrician, while the teacher or pastor he likens to the pediatrician, an illustration he borrows from Donald Grey Barnhouse. The mission of the obstetrician is to get the child into this world; the mission of the evangelist is to bring about the new birth, thus bringing sinners into the kingdom. Once the child is born, the pediatrician nurtures him toward manhood; just so the teacher or pastor takes up where the evangelist leaves off by feeding the babe in Christ the sincere milk and meat of the word.

Criticize Billy Graham as you will, he at least knows what the gospel is and what it means to be an evangelist, which is more than can be said for a lot of us. Many of my brethren think the gospel consists of the entire New Testament!

Graham is right in referring to C. H. Dodd, for it was he who made modern scholars conscience of the distinction between kerygma (preaching). and didache (teaching). Dodd’s contribution was recognized in “The Cadbury Lectures in the University of Birmingham for 1961” by Canon Alan Richardson: “Dr. C. H. Dodd of Cambridge is largely responsible for having awakened in English-speaking countries the recognition of the importance of the apostolic kerygma . . . This common kerygma or basic proclamation affirms that the ‘latter days’ foretold by the prophets of Israel are now here; the Age of Fulfilment has been ushered in through the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus, who has been exalted at the right hand of God as the Messianic head of the New Israel; the Holy Spirit in the Church is the sign of Christ’s present power and glory and is likewise the earnest of his future return at the consummation of the ages.” (The Bible in the Age of Science, p. 129)

Then Canon Richardson says: “Probably there are few New Testament scholars today who would disagree with this exposition of the basic proclamation of the apostolic Church as it is attested by the earliest Christian documents.” Elsewhere the Canon honors Dodd’s findings by saying: “In the New Testament preaching has nothing to do with the delivery of sermons to the converted, which is what it usually means today, but always concerns the proclamation of the ‘good tidings of God’ to the non-Christian world. As such it is to be distinguished from teaching (Gk. didache), which in the New Testament normally means ethical instruction, or occasionally apologetics or instruction in the faith (see C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching, pp. 3-6).

Richardson gets close to the analogy of the obstetrician and pediatrician when he says: “When the preachers had attracted ‘hearers’ by their proclamation in the market-place of the gospel of the cross and resurrection, they handed them over to the accredited ‘teachers’ for further instruction in the faith and for preparation for baptism.” (Theological Wordbook of the Bible, p. 172)

So it looks as if Billy Graham is in good company in the distinction he makes between preaching and teaching, though he is not blessed with the company of most of the “Church of Christ” preachers.

You will notice that Canon Richardson says it was C. H. Dodd that “awakened” the scholars to this distinction, and he says the scholars for the most part acknowledge this contribution. It has been of interest to me that our own Restoration pioneers were a century ahead of Prof. Dodd in distinguishing between didache and kerygma. While I am not so concerned that men like Alexander Campbell be given some credit for discovering this distinction long before Dodd did, I am amazed that my own brethren have been so slow to learn.

Alexander Campbell understood the difference between preaching and teaching as well as Dodd does:

Preaching the gospel and teaching the converts are as distinct and distinguishable as enlisting an army and training it, or as creating a school and teaching it. Unhappily for the church and the world, this distinction, if at all conceded as legitimate, is obliterated or annulled in almost all protestant Christendom.

In the discharge of the duties for this work the evangelist must properly and fully understand the whole oracles of God, and clearly distinguish the difference between preaching and teaching Jesus Christ. There is no mere speculative distinction. It was appreciated, fully understood and acted upon, or carried out, in the apostolic ministry. (Popular Lectures and Addresses, pp. 536.537)

It may be just as serious to fail to make distinctions that the Holy Spirit makes as it is to make distinctions when the Holy Spirit does not. Roman Catholics make “priest” a distinctive term, applying it to only part of the church, a distinction unknown to the Spirit. Might it not also be a serious matter to equate kerygma and didache when the Spirit makes a clear-cut distinction?

The “rub” comes with the question of preaching to the church, a matter closely related to the modern pastor system. Alexander Campbell, in view of the distinction postulated in the quotation above, was led to say the following concerning “preaching to the church.”

There was teaching, there was singing, there was exhortation in the Christian church; but preaching in the church, or to the church, is not once named in the Christian Scriptures! We preach the gospel to unbelievers, to aliens, or those who have not received it.” Mill. Harb., 1862, p. 154)

Now that Billy Graham, who disavows being a scholar or a theologian, sees so very clearly what an evangelist is, and what the distinction between preaching and teaching is, why cannot my brethren see it? It is one thing to be anti-intellectual and even stubborn in admitting a foregone conclusion, but it is something else to be downright stupid. Our efforts to present this distinction, which is now so widely acknowledged by scholarship, has on occasion been met with: “Come on, get up here and preach five minutes and teach five minutes, and tell us when you change gears!” Or take the explanation of a certain “Overflow” editor: preaching is public, teaching is private. Must we suffer from such a condition of low visibility?

Take a lesson from Billy Graham. He knows what an evangelist is. Should he become “converted” and become a “Church of Christ” located minister, it is apparent that his name would not adorn the church sign in some such fashion as “Billy Graham, Evangelist.” That is, unless the located evangelists (!) converted him on that point too. In that case I don’t know what Graham would do with Dodd, Sweet, Stewart, and Barnhouse. Being within “the party” he might take refuge in Campbell, McGarvey, and Kendrick — and still hold to his distinction. I suppose the poor fellow would feel licked to find out “the located evangelists” will not accept their own pioneers anymore than the scholars. Oh, well, I’ll not worry about it, since he probably will not be “converted” anyhow. This will simply have to be one more thing that Billy is wrong about, along with Alexander Campbell and all the rest, for, after all, the party can’t be wrong!

J. W. McGarvey was as clear about the matter as Campbell.

Preaching and teaching are here distinguished as they are throughout the book of Acts, the former being addressed to unbelievers and the latter to believers. That he did both shows that both believers were drawn to his lodging. (Commentary on Acts, p. 288)

Despite the clarity of all the scholars quoted so far, I think no one has “laid it on the line” like Prof. J. Y. Campbell of Cambridge, England and Dr. Carroll Kendrick, an old pioneer preacher-physician. First from Prof. Campbell:

Yes, there is a distinction between “preaching” and “teaching.” Preaching is proclamation, and in the NT usage nearly always the proclamation of the gospel, to those who have not yet heard it, or not yet accepted it. Teaching is instruction, in the NT usually instruction in the consequences, ethical or theological, of acceptance of the gospel.

So teaching is usually addressed to those who have heard and believed the gospel. Most of the sermons of Christian preachers today are therefore “teaching” rather than preaching. (Letter to Leroy Garrett)

And now Dr. Kendrick:

The ancient disciples met “to break bread,” etc. What we now call preaching was no part of their purpose or practice in the observance of the Lord’s day. They never met to be preached to, and they never were preached to in our modern sense-not even once.

In Acts 20:7-9, where the common version says: “Paul preached to them,” the revision rightly says: “Paul discoursed with them.” Luke does not use the word for preach. His speech was social discourse, conversational. There is absolutely neither precept nor precedent for preaching to the church. Preaching the gospel is for the world. Teaching is for the church, and is to be done by a plurality of bishops in each congregation.” (Gospel Advocate, 1890, p. 373)

Billy Graham may go too far in his limited view of evangelistic work. The evangelist is both an obstetrician and pediatrician in that he not only preaches and baptizes, thus delivering new babes into the family of God, but he also makes a congregation of them, and teaches and trains them until such time as elders are qualified to assume the pastoral care. But that is another subject. — the Editor.