Chapter 3 John Sung and His Approach to Scripture
1. Style and Delivery: Performative Dramatization
Dressed in a low-class Chinese gown,64 Sung was first and foremost a master of dramatization. Although Sung made extensive notes before he preached, he rarely referred to these when he preached. As Timothy Tow puts it, unlike “some dry-as-dust lecture-type sermons based on some abstract truth, Dr. Sung clothed the doctrine he was putting across in vivid, lively figures.”65 Sung could howl and wail for the dead Lazarus “like those in a village funeral procession,” or jump on and off the platform exactly seven times to illustrate how Naaman was healed of leprosy. He would pour out onstage “agonized prayer and ecstatic praise,” as one missionary observed, “all intensified by vivid acting, scathing sarcasm and exuberant humour.”66 In his sermon on Luke 15, for instance, Sung acted out the behavior associated with “the lost sheep” by imitating: young dandies, with a cigarette dangling from their lips; coquettish girls in their high heels, giggling and flirting; fat businessmen, who enjoy the good life while sitting in their rocking chair; cinema-goers, laughing and screaming at the tantalizing pictures; and religious hypocrites, strolling to church on Sunday with their Bible and hymnal. “Without mercy everyone was made to look into a mirror. It was a painful to
whomever it applied, but the atmosphere remained merry: time and again bursts of laughter
64 Sung’s outfit frequently drew comments both from his contemporaries and from his biographers.
Ireland writes, “From the time he returned from the USA, he noted in his journal the surprise people had when they found him wearing Chinese style clothes, and not Western suit or Chinese clothes associated with the educated class. Sung came to refer to his clothing as an appropriate status marker for his work: it symbolized his sacrificial ministry. When a wave of Chinese nationalism reinvigorated the market for traditional clothing in the 1930s, Sung’s well-known preference for it made him appear to be a stalwart supporter of the Chinese nation” (Ireland,
“John Sung,” 110). Lim makes a similar, but more detailed, observation: “Sung once told his audience that he saw a completely different person in the pictures taken before 1927. He said, then, he was modernized; but now, indigenized. The reason he gave was most illuminating. He said, ‘This (the indigenized Sung) is proof of the crucifixion of my flesh.’ Many had commented on John Sung’s characteristic unkempt hair. But some yearbook pictures from Ohio Wesleyan and Ohio State Universities showed a bespectacled, Western suit-clad, moderately handsome Sung. He was well-groomed, definitely without the Hitler-style hairdo. Few knew the ‘Americanized’
Sung because of John Sung’s intentional portrayal of this ‘indigenized’ persona” (Lim, The Life and Ministry of John Sung, 180).
65 Tow, John Sung My Teacher, 30.
66 Cited in Xi, Redeemed by Fire, 144.
rang out.”67 Obviously, the effective use of comic relief was a key method to keep Sung’s listeners attentive. Yet, usually at the end of his message, Sung could easily move to a more serious level, invoking remorse and weeping as he recounted the story of Christ’s death on the cross in our place. “Under Dr. Sung’s preaching,” Dutch missionary Cornelia Baarbé recalled,
“we followed the whole crucifixion moment by moment, we heard the hammer blows and saw the nails being driven in.”68 In Saigon, Sung was so carried away by his enactment of a gospel story69 that he even spat in the face of his interpreter!70
Sung was also a master of drawing and managing teaching props. He often drew what he was talking about. Consider for example his sermon on the Parable of the Lost Sheep, referred to above. There Sung made visible every section of the story with a few lines and strokes. Baarbé describes his drawing as follows:
Sung used two scenes: one, where we could see the self-important sheep walk around and graze, consciously disregarding the warnings of the shepherd; and another, where Sung transitioned to human life and portrayed, how that life in the midst of the world can so occupy a human being, how the struggle for survival, the lust for money and pleasure can control someone so completely, that the call of the great Shepherd of people cannot even reach the ears anymore.71
By doing this, Sung not only made the plot of the story clear to his listeners, but also framed the story in such a way that they could quickly realize that it was about them, too. In another
sermon, Sung drew a hypocrite on a poster-size paper that he carried with him. The hypocrite was a person with bulging eyes, large nose, flapping ears, big mouth, and round belly, yet with tiny arms and legs. This pictorial aid provided his listeners with “a memorable caricature of
67 Cornelia Baarbé, “Part Two: Cornelia Baarbé on John Sung,” in John Sung in Indonesia, ed. Michael Nai-Chiu Poon, trans. Francisca F. Ireland-Verwoerd (Singapore: Trinity Theological College, 2011), 30–31.
68 Ibid., 35.
69 The story is probably that of Christ’s arrest.
70 Lyall, A Biography of John Sung, 221. See also Andaya, “‘Come Home, Come Home!’–Chineseness, John Sung and Theatrical Evangelism in 1930s Southeast Asia,” 8.
71 Baarbé, “Part Two: Cornelia Baarbé on John Sung,” 29.
those who only see what is wrong with others, listen to flattery, speak critically, and gorge themselves on the mistakes of others, but who cannot actually do anything because of their shrunken limbs.” Sung ended the sermon with an invitation for the spiritually maimed in the audience to come forward, repent of their sins, and be healed.72
Sung typically preached three times a day, for which he needed a platform or stage, since the standard pulpit was never enough for his dramatic preaching. The stage props he used included a coal-burning stove, which he would fan to send sparks flying in all directions to illustrate the power of the Holy Spirit: as the fire relit the dead coals, so the Spirit brought lost souls back to life.73 Sung also used a huge rock which he struggled to carry on his back to demonstrate the weight of sin. He would then throw the rock on the platform with a loud thump and break into ecstatic singing to display the joy of divine forgiveness. His favorite furniture onstage, however, was a coffin—a ritually unclean object to Chinese people—which he would jump in and out of as he delivered a message on sin and death.74 His most notorious use of the object was when he preached on Jesus raising Lazarus, as recorded below:
Sung pulled out a casket… and put it in the center of the platform. He taunted his audience that their hearts were like tombs, filled with the stink of rotten sin. “No! Don’t open it!” he parodied those obviously aghast by his frank disregard for propriety, “It will smell!” But open it he did. Reaching his hand into the casket, he pulled out a strip of cloth and dramatized his disgust as he dangled it before everyone’s eyes. “Oh! The first stink . . . hatred.” He warned the audience about the seductive power of hatred and then leveled his heavy stare. “Who has committed this sin?” Eyes dropped down, hoping to avoid Sung’s notice, but he paused, waiting, waiting, until finally someone indicated that she was afflicted by hatred. Then another and another raised their hands in confession. On and on it went, women and men weeping in repentance, until Sung was satisfied that hatred had been fully disgorged. Then he thrust [his] hand back into the box and drew out another cloth: “Visiting brothels! Who has committed this sin?”
Thirty strips later, Sung concluded by inviting all who wished to be saved and washed clean of their sins to come to the front.75
72 Ireland, “John Sung,” 110.
73 Xi, Redeemed by Fire, 137; Baarbé, “Part Two: Cornelia Baarbé on John Sung,” 50.
74 Xi, Redeemed by Fire, 137–138.
75 Ireland, “The Legacy of John Sung,” 353.
In addition to the drawings and stage props that he often utilized in his dramatic preaching, Sung was also famous for his use of music and singing. Although he regarded preaching as the most important element of his meetings, Sung also considered hymns and songs sanctified by Scripture.76 Prior to his sermon, chorus sheets were handed out so that the audience could practice several times and learn the tunes and words by heart before Sung began to preach.77 In the middle of his message, Sung would often pause and ask the audience to sing one or two choruses as a way to reanimate themselves.78 What others would see as an
interruption of the flow of his message, Sung considered participation on the listeners’ part, which was an integral component of his dramatic preaching. Furthermore, the songs, often composed by Sung himself, were closely connected with a selected Bible reading that Sung would preach. Thus, the singing before, in the middle of, and after the sermon could be seen as participatory events in Sung’s dramatization of the scriptural passages.
The climax of the drama in Sung’s revival meetings, however, was the final event of the altar call. Having been influenced by the theology and practice of the Bethel’s holiness
revivalism, Sung would almost always conclude his preaching by bringing his listeners to the climactic moment of crisis, where individuals were compelled to choose between salvation or damnation. Choosing salvation, in Sung’s terms, entailed confession of sins, repentance,
promise of restitution, and rededication to Jesus Christ, which were typically expressed through responding to the gospel call and the public confession of sin, often accompanied by tears.79
“Before it was possible to attain new life, seekers had to nullify the old one. Sung told the
76 He referred to the examples of Jesus (Mrk 14:26) and Paul and Silas (Acts 16:25) who also sang in Scripture. See John Sung, Air Jang Hidup: Uraian Tentang Indjil Markus (“Living Water: Exposition on the Gospel of Mark”), ed. Ong Lie Nio, trans. P. S. Naipospos (Jakarta, Indonesia: BPK Gunung Mulia, 1972), 181.
77 Andaya, “‘Come Home, Come Home!’–Chineseness, John Sung and Theatrical Evangelism in 1930s Southeast Asia,” 7.
78 Ireland, “John Sung,” 111.
79 Ireland points out that in this context, crying can be seen as a kind of baptism, since liturgically tears served to cleanse the repentant soul. See Ibid., 112.
members of the audience, therefore, to separate themselves symbolically from their old sinful lives by leaving their seats, and walking to the front of the sanctuary.”80 At this moment, “the teetering wall that had separated the actor from the spectators collapsed,” as Ireland nicely puts it. “Each person was suddenly aware that he or she was part of the service’s unfolding drama and was forced to play a role with eternal consequences.”81 Indeed, even those who refused to respond positively to the call were made aware that they actively rejected Jesus and his call, and thus were also playing their part in the drama, albeit negatively. I will return to this element of Sung’s sermons in the following section, but the point here is that the altar call moment at the end of Sung’s preaching was integral to his dramatic preaching.
What do we make of all this? How do we interpret Sung’s dramatic preaching, with its vivid acting, lively illustrations, creative props, emotional use of singing, and participatory altar calls? Sung biographers and scholars have attempted to explain his manner of preaching in many ways. There are, however, three main theories that have been widely circulated about Sung’s eccentric preaching. First, comments from Sung’s contemporaries that drew similarities between his preaching and that of Billy Sunday were taken by some scholars to imply that Sung was influenced by, and thus imitated, Sunday in his preaching. Those comments largely came from Western missionaries who observed Sung’s preaching and from local English newspapers that reported his revival meetings.82 Based on these reports, and through a formal comparison between several descriptions of Sunday’s and Sung’s “pulpit sensationalism,” Yun-Han Gwo, for instance, argued that Billy Sunday was Sung’s preaching inspiration.83 To strengthen his
80 Ibid.
81 Ireland, “The Legacy of John Sung,” 353.
82 See Gwo, “Indigenous Preaching in China, with a Focal Critique on John Sung,” 64; Xi, Redeemed by Fire, 149; Andaya, “‘Come Home, Come Home!’–Chineseness, John Sung and Theatrical Evangelism in 1930s Southeast Asia,” 7.
83 Gwo, “Indigenous Preaching in China, with a Focal Critique on John Sung,” 63–66, 78.
argument, Gwo also made the case that Sung must have heard Sunday’s preaching in person, since Sunday held a gospel rally in the same city where, and around the same time when, Sung registered as a university student in the U.S.84 This is possible. However, there is no mention of Sunday’s name or his evangelistic events in either Sung’s sermons or his meticulous diaries.
Second, some have argued that Sung’s dramatic preaching style was a blatant adaptation of traditional Chinese entertainment, especially the form used by street storytellers. Again, this observation was initially made by some Western missionaries in China at Sung’s time, but also by a few Chinese bystanders.85 Today, mission historian Daryl Ireland has argued for this interpretation, albeit with one qualification: that Sung’s preaching was also greatly shaped by the holiness revivalist theology and practices.86 In this view, Sung’s preaching ministry could be seen as a successful instantiation of a Christian adaptation of Chinese local cultural
practices.
I will evaluate this line of interpretation more thoroughly below, as it also pertains to other elements of Sung’s preaching that will be discussed in the following section. But for now, it is important to point out that the first two theories above assume that Sung consciously played out his role as a preacher in a theatrical, performative manner—either after Billy Sunday or after traditional Chinese storytellers. While this kind of performance-centered preaching was not necessarily wrong—as shown in the recent homiletic studies that suggest a close
relationship between preaching and theatre87—the overall tone of the above interpretations of
84 Ibid., 63. Gwo basically noted two facts: 1) Sung registered at Ohio Wesleyan University, Cincinnati, shortly after his arrival in the U.S. in April, 1920; 2) Billy Sunday held an evangelistic campaign at Cincinnati, which lasted from March to May 1, 1920. Gwo connected these two with this assertion: “A religious person like Sung could not have missed such a long campaign held by the then most famous evangelist in America.”
85 See examples of this kind of observation, from a Western missionary and a Chinese bystander , in Ireland, “John Sung,” 142, 136 n. 176.
86 Ibid., 135–137.
87 See, e.g., Alec Gilmore, Preaching as Theatre (London: SCM Press, 1996); Jana Childers, Performing the Word: Preaching as Theatre (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998).
Sung’s preaching is negative: Sung was a great actor at best and a master of religious manipulation at worst.
The third interpretation is more sympathetic in nature. Many of Sung’s biographers would fall within this category. They suggest that Sung’s peculiar way of preaching was the result of his original creativity, his zeal for the salvation of the people, his sensibility to the Chinese people’s need for visualization and emotional connection, or all of the above. One contemporary who held this view of Sung was the well-known Dutch missionary to Indonesia, Hendrik Kraemer.88 It is noteworthy that Kraemer was not an admirer of Sung initially. He also never attended Sung’s revival meetings in person, although he studied reports from his
colleagues and other live witnesses about Sung’s preaching ministry in Java. His conclusion, however, is perceptive and worth quoting in length as a contrast to the interpretations given above.
In the reports it is also very remarkable that the acting, the singing, and the collective repeating of Bible verses not only fulfilled a deep need of seeing and of self-expression, but that Dr. Sung apparently wanted to accomplish the indelible expression—in
memories and souls—of the foundational truths of the Gospel regarding the salvific will of God and the destitution of humankind. While reading about the simple personality of Dr. Sung, completely submerged in his task, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that this is an evangelist who was also consciously a mass psychologist. One rather concludes, that it is the intensely spiritual desire to testify of salvation, which has led to a method of expression that is at the same time unintentionally psychologically brilliant.
The care Dr. Sung displayed, according to the reports, to keep the remarkable results of his actions (healings and confessions) outside the public attention, thereby robbing it of all sensationalism, is an indication that his catching “method,” which would degenerate quickly into shallow pursuit of success if it were a conscious approach, is rather the fruit of that love, which makes one ingenious but at the same time uninhibited.89
88 See Michael Nai-Chiu Poon, “Introduction,” in John Sung in Indonesia, ed. Michael Nai-Chiu Poon, trans. Francisca F. Ireland-Verwoerd (Singapore: Trinity Theological College, 2011), 5.
89 Hendrik Kraemer, “Part One: Hendrik Kraemer on John Sung,” in John Sung in Indonesia, ed. Michael Nai-Chiu Poon, trans. Francisca F. Ireland-Verwoerd, CSCA Historical Reprints No. 2 (Singapore: The Centre for the Study of Christianity in Asia; Trinity Theological College, 2011), 18.
In Kraemer’s view, Sung’s dramatic preaching cannot simply be seen as a “conscious
approach” to psychologically entertain or manipulate the audience, even if it may bear features similar to those of a “mass psychologist.” Rather, it was a natural expression of Sung’s intense desire for salvation and love for people, coupled with a deep sensitivity to the people’s need of visualization and emotional connections.
To some extent, these are all plausible interpretations; I do not view them as mutually exclusive. What is missing, however, is an attempt to connect Sung’s style of preaching with his theology of Scripture. It is natural to postulate that Sung’s understanding of Scripture is reflected in his energetic, dramatic preaching. However, the reverse is also true: Sung’s dramatic preaching may strongly suggest that he perceived Scripture as a divine drama that needed to be performed and enacted, not just spoken and read aloud. Kraemer came closest to this view when he asserts, “Sung’s [pulpit] behavior, which makes the message of the gospel for many literally inescapable, reminds us of the prophets who use spectacular acts in order to demonstrate to the people of Israel the divine promises and threats, in order to speak more directly to heart and conscience.”90 I would further argue that what Sung did in his preaching was more than just mimicking the method of the prophets in order to make the ancient message relevant to his contemporary audience. Rather, Sung was reenacting—through various acts of dramatizing, illustrating, and even singing—the story of Scripture so as to draw the audience to indwell that story. Indeed, Sung’s oft-repeated testimony about his own conversion seems to suggest that, for him, Scripture is the true story/reality into which our lives must be drawn, instead of the other way around. From this perspective, Sung’s dramatic preaching style,
90 Ibid., 17.
spectacular and uninhibited as it was, was just a natural expression of his underlying conviction about Scripture and reality.