Stereotyped Labor by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Oct 29, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 41.

Stereotyped Labor.

By Editor

THERE is a great mistake made by many on this subject. They mistake stereotyped for systematic. System is a great aid in any kind of work; it is absolutely essential to the best success, in all business matters. But stereotyping in labor dwarfs all the powers, leading to listlessness or mere drudgery.

This subject was up before our missionary societies some time since. Some, recognizing the fact that good letter-writing requires practice, study, and experience, recommended that printed letters be sent out in missionary correspondence. After careful consideration by the best and most experienced workers, it was decided that that was not the best way. It is decidedly the easiest way; but the easiest is not always the best. The strong objection is that in such labor there is no personal effort. The mind and heart are not enlisted as they are in writing the letters. Divine help is not looked for, because the work is prepared to hand, and will not be changed. There is no burden of soul put into the letter; there is no spirit in the correspondence so conducted.

It is true that objections may be raised against other methods. If all write their own letters, there will be some poor letters written; some that cannot have a very good influence; some that will fail to interest the receiver. This is unfortunate. To write a good letter requires much practice, and we have been surprised, and filled with regret also, to find some who utterly refused to be instructed in this important branch of the work. They recognize the fact that an apprenticeship with instruction is necessary to become a good mechanic, and that study and practice with instruction are necessary to proficiency in every branch of literature and science; yet we have known them to refuse to correspond if their letters were to be examined in order that corrections or suggestions might be made. We cannot fathom the motives of all; but it would seem that they who refuse instruction in this matter must consider their work so perfect as to be above criticism, or else they

are not very anxious to improve their methods of labor.

System requires study; stereotyping obviates study. We have known some extemporaneous speakers who were very systematic in their methods and their arguments. Such was Abraham Lincoln; among ministers we may mention Elder J. N. Andrews. But all such persons are laborious, painstaking students. Daniel Webster was complimented on a happy passage in his celebrated argument on the Constitution, which was considered a splendid off-hand effort; but he said the whole was the result of years of hard study, and he had spent hours in giving form to the idea which was being praised.

To be systematic in extemporaneous address, the mind must of necessity be well stored with the matter under consideration; and to be impressive and convincing, the heart of the speaker must also be deeply impressed with his subject. These conditions are indispensable. And it is not enough that a person has at some time deeply studied the subject; he must review it and re-study it; he must be able to see new strength and new beauty in the truth which he presents, no matter how many times he may have spoken upon it before. Then his effort will be fresh, vigorous, and spontaneous. But if he depends altogether on the study which he has given to it years before; if it was arranged when studied, and used in that stereotyped form, then his address must be lacking in the elements which are necessary to real success.

On this subject there is an impressive paragraph in 'Testimony for the Church, No. 32.' It is a repetition of the idea which had been previously enforced:—

'Some of these ministers make a mistake in the preparation of their discourses. They arrange every minutia with such exactness that they give the Lord no room to lead and impress their minds. Every point is fixed, stereotyped as it were, and they cannot depart from the plan marked out. This, of course, if continued, will cause them to become narrow-minded, circumscribed in their views, and will soon leave them as destitute of life and energy as are the hills of Gilboa of dew and rain. They must throw the soul open, and let the Holy Spirit take possession to impress the mind. When everything is laid out beforehand, and they feel that they cannot vary from these set discourses, the effect is little better than that produced by reading a sermon.'

The old style of sermonizing was to divide the sermon under heads, firstly, secondly, thirdly, etc., and the minister who could not rise above fifthly or sixthly was not considered much of a preacher. Then came the "application" and the "improvement," and without just so much form and parade the sermon was not considered complete. The popular style at present is a written essay, which may be read with some degree of ease, that is, the reader may take his eyes from the manuscript, provided he has read it often enough! But neither of these methods is at all suitable for the proclamation of the present truth.

A general's address to his army on the eve of an important battle, may be interesting to read in the history of the event; but should the general read it to the army, he would fail to raise enthusiasm for the occasion. We earnestly urge upon all who are entering the ministry, and all who are forming their habits of labor, to read the paragraph quoted above, and avoid the error pointed out. Let the mind and the heart be filled with the sacred truth committed to you, and then let the Spirit of God give you utterance. After becoming familiar with the truth, depend upon divine aid to so express it as to reach the hearts of others.

We have known large audiences to be disappointed, and important meetings to fail of their object, because the minister officiating could not properly improve the occasion. His sermon was good, but it was stereotyped before these circumstances were presented. We have known old ideas to be preached to a waiting congregation—ideas which contained errors which have been exploded years ago—but which the minister was not able to correct, because he was not thoroughly studied in the truth. His sermon was prepared when those ideas were current, and feeling no necessity for study because of that preparation, he could but repeat the error. It was so in the sermon, and so it must be in the preaching!

Our work is increasing, in magnitude, in interest, and in importance. We must "never stand still, till the Master appear," but "our talents improve," for we shall need them all if we are so favored as to be permitted to have a part in this glorious work even to the end. It is a work of study, of labor, of hardship, of crosses, and of privations; but it is a precious work, and we know of no greater calamity which could befall a laborer than to be dismissed from the service. We must not labor carelessly or "negligently." We fear that many of our missionary workers are not improving their talents as they should. They ought to be more efficient workers than they were a year ago, and see more fruit of their labors. And all, whatever our office or place, should be diligent, and study to show ourselves approved unto God, workmen that need not be ashamed when our work is examined and the account rendered.