Charles Spurgeon Speaking Tips

sp057Article: 10 Public Speaking Tips from Charles Spurgeon by Christian George (original source Edison-Bell Record Company recorded a two-minute audio clip of his son, Thomas, reading an excerpt of his father’s sermon. But Thomas’s voice was was “not quite that of Charles Spurgeon, not quite so strong and not quite so musical” (Fullerton, 167). Besides, Thomas took after his mother in countenance; his brother, Charles Jr., favored their father.

Charles Spurgeon spoke more quickly, too – 140 words per minute. His voice was described as “a silver bell” (The Eclectic Review, January-June, 1867) and “sweet and musical; with a rich under-current that always reminds us of the roll of the organ” (Falkirk Herald, February 6, 1868).

James Sheridan Knowles, an Irish actor who would have been Spurgeon’s elocution teacher at Stepney College, told his students:

[Spurgeon] is only a boy, but he is the most wonderful preacher in the world. He is absolutely perfect in his oratory; and, beside that, a master in the art of acting. He has nothing to learn from me, or anyone else. He is simply perfect. He knows everything. He can do anything. . . . Why, boys, he can do anything he pleases with his audience! He can make them laugh, and cry, and laugh again, in five minutes (Autobiography 1:354).

The actor was not exaggerating. In 1855, 21-year-old Spurgeon wrote in a letter to his brother, “I believe I could secure a crowded audience at dead of night in a deep snow” (Autobiography 2:99). The very next year, a biography was published in New York comparing the young preacher to George Whitefield. He was also compared to Sims Reeves – one of the most popular opera singers of the century.

So what was Spurgeon’s secret? How did the “Prince of Preachers” master the art of public speaking? Here are ten tips from Spurgeon’s lecture “On the Voice” (Lectures to My Students 11:117-135).

1. Posture Up!

“Do not speak with your hands in your waistcoat pockets so as to contract your lungs, but throw the shoulders back, as public singers do.”

“Do not lean over a desk while speaking, and never hold the head down on the breast while preaching. Upward rather than downward let the body bend.”

“Off with all tight cravats and button-up waistcoats; leave room for the full play of the bellows and the pipes.”

2. Speak with Your Mouth, Not Your Throat or Nose.

“Open wide the doors from which such godly truth is to march forth.”

“One of the surest ways to kill yourself is to speak from the throat instead of the mouth.”

“Evangelists have written of our Lord, ‘He opened his mouth and taught them.’”

“Avoid the use of the nose as an organ of speech, for the best authorities are agreed that it is intended to smell with.”

3. “R” ticulate.

“Abhor the practice of some men, who will not bring out the letter “r” such a habit is ‘vewy wuinous and wediculous, vewy wetched and wepwehensible.’”

“Take great care of the consonants, enunciate every one of them clearly; they are the features and expression of the words. . . . The vowels have a voice of their own, and therefore they can speak for themselves.”

“Excessively rapid speaking, tearing and raving into utter rant, is quite as inexcusable; it is not, and never can be powerful, except with idiots, for it turns what should be an army of words into a mob, and most effectually drowns the sense in floods of sound.” Continue reading

Protection from Deception

Text: Matthew 24:1-15

Deceived people, deceive people: Jesus made it clear that a key feature of the end times would be pervasive deception on a scale that if possible, would deceive even the elect. Thankfully, God has shown us how we can protect ourselves from this deception while remaining constantly vigilant as we pursue His truth.

Socialism

Article: Socialism in Jesus’ Name? by R.C. Sproul, Jr (original source here)

“Jesus wants us to care for the poor. Socialism cares for the poor. Therefore Jesus wants socialism.” It’s a pretty simple syllogism. It is, nevertheless, a terribly flawed one. The first premise, Jesus wants us to care for the poor, is true enough. If we are given to rejecting the conclusion, that doesn’t call us to deny the truth of the first premise. The mistreatment of the poor was regular fodder for the Old Testament prophets, and the right care of the poor a key theme in the establishment of the law for God’s people, Israel. Jesus spoke to the issue as well, as did many of the New Testament epistle writers.

The second premise is not true enough. It’s not true at all. I will soon address its lack of truth, but for now, I’m willing to grant that it is true, in order to demonstrate that the syllogism is still flawed. All we need to do is substitute two different true premises and find that the conclusion is false. Consider this syllogism—It is good for my lawn to be watered. A flood of Noahic proportions waters my lawn. Therefore a flood of Noahic proportions is good for my lawn. Or this—Jesus wants criminals to be punished. Vigilantism punishes criminals. Therefore, Jesus wants vigilantism.

The essence of all three arguments reduces down to this—any means that achieves a desired end must be good, something we should seek. In short, the ends justify the means. The trouble is, they don’t. One of the baleful influences of pragmatism on the broader culture and on the church is that we choose our ends, rightly or wrongly, and then ignore the law of God in deciding how to pursue those ends. God’s law, however, shows us not only what we ought to be pursuing, but the right and biblical path for pursuing it. Doing God’s things our ways in the end is doing our things, not God’s things.

Socialism operates under the premise that the state not only has the authority to take what rightfully belongs to one man to give it to another, but has a duty to do so. Whether it is socialized education, or socialized health care, or socialized medication, or socialized retirement, or simply the taking of cash from one man to give to another, it is of a piece. That we might be in favor of education or medicine or retirement, that we might want to see others receive these blessings, however, should not lead us to support programs that take the wealth God has entrusted to the care of one man to give to another. When one man takes from another by force we rightly call this stealing, something forbidden by God in the Ten Commandments. When ten men or ten million men elect civil leaders to take the wealth of others by force, this too is something forbidden by God in the Ten Commandments. It no more makes a difference if this stealing benefits us or those we would like to see benefited. Continue reading