Is Expository Preaching Really Being Modeled? And does it matter?
I am thankful that in our contemporary evangelical culture that expository preaching is seeing something of a revival. This resurgence is not universal, but is nevertheless being seen more and more.
No doubt the increased interest in expository preaching is due to men like John MacArthur who’s forty plus years in the same pulpit has paved a road of faithful homiletically modeling for us to follow. Additionally, conferences like Together for the Gospel, The Shepherds’ Conference, Desiring God, and Ligonier have placed an emphasis on the pulpit ministry, particularly the need for exposition.
It is oftentimes through these conferences and other books that are increasingly being published that we hear much of the need for expository preaching in our day. This contemporary need is regularly demonstrated illustratively by connecting us back to the life and times of faithful men throughout church history.
However, there is something troubling that happens while you are at the conference, reading the books, or listening to audio of sermons that causes me to be unsettled. Guys talk about expository preaching but then too often do not do it. After all what preacher who swims in the Calvinist end of the pool would ever say, “Ya, I’m not really big on exposition. I’m more of a topical guy.” But is this not what happens?
Expository preaching is simply taking the biblical text and explaining the authorial intent while providing faithful and loving teaching and admonishment. We may say a lot of other things about the amount of text to be chosen, the tone of the preacher, and other things, but suffice it to say, in its simplest form, expository preaching is heralding what God has said in the text and heralding it in such a way that people understand and apply it to their lives to the glory of God.
Sadly what too often happens is a guy will walk up to the pulpit, open up the Bible and read a passage and then launch into a systematic theology or a counseling lesson. Now we give most of these guys a free pass because they are essentially reformed and their theology is right. We end up with good life application because their theology is biblical. However, they have not preached the text. I do not understand the passage better than when he walked up to the pulpit. I remember sitting in an auditorium and hearing a man make true biblical application, it was God exalting and man humbling; however, it was not in the text that he read. The text was a launching point to talk about what he wanted to talk about. I came away wondering how this text related to the rest of the book, what it taught me about God, my sin and how I needed to change. He did not preach expositionally.
Some may say, “Hey, you are being too narrow and hard on this guy. The question is were you edififed.” To this I would say, yes I was. But, this was a conference for pastors, and thousands of men just seen something modeled and called “expository preaching” that was not “expository preaching” and more than likely they will go and do the same type of thing in their congregations.
Why is this a problem? Well at the end of the day you are not teaching the Bible but instead you are teaching theology. What is the difference? The Bible shapes our theology and must always come first. When the preacher gives a tip of the hat to the text and then launches into something else he is not teaching his people to read, understand, and apply the Bible. Furthermore, if you take a text (which is the means that God uses to change us -2 Tim. 3.16-17) and you do not give its meaning do you really have the text at all? Do you really have its power? What are you giving your people? Your theology or the Bible, the power? This is much more than a preference issue, it actually strikes at the core of God’s design for the ministry of the word.
Let me tweak this a bit further. What is the difference between what this guy does (in my example above) and the uber-liberal female Methodist preacher-ette who reads John 3.16 and then tells you that we should not go to war because God loves the world? The only difference is that her theology is jacked up and the other guy is solid. So we give the Calvinist a free pass because he passes the test of orthodoxy? I would argue that there is little, if any, difference homiletically between the two. You cannot be a liberal and preach expositionally, it is impossible.
Men need to preach the word, not about the word but the word (2 Tim. 4.2). If we are going to keep having conferences that are supposed to center on expository preaching and speak about the need for expository preaching then the men need to preach expositionally or give some type of disclaimer so that folks don’t get confused and the term doesn’t get redefined and lost in our excitement about our “movement” and our contemporary Calvinist super-heroes.
(note:: as always, feel free to leave comments, but do not go after certain guys and their ministries, that is not the intention of this post)
Possibly Related posts:
- Book Review- Expository Preaching with Word Pictures
- Helpful Preaching Advice
- Preaching the Cross
- Preachers: Please Sweat out the Text
- Book Review: Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament
16 Responses to “Is Expository Preaching Really Being Modeled? And does it matter?”
Leave a Reply
About
Subscribe to Updates
Twitter Updates
- @JustinBuzzard Hands down Pillar's Edwards & then Lane. Ferguson's lil book is good as are Keller's & MacArthur's sermons.
- With him there is plentiful redemption (Ps.130.7). This is good for one who's sin is plentiful!
- We are officially in the South- Fried Chicken & Pickles @ the gas station register.
Recent Comments
- Gordan on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Tweets that mention John Piper on Sermon Prep -- Topsy.com on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Erik on Running from God and To God
- donsands on Running from God and To God
- Tweets that mention Running from God and To God- Irish Calvinist -- Topsy.com on Running from God and To God
I hate to ask, but what conference did you experience this type of teaching?
I have a confession to make…in my preaching and teaching I think you are right. It’s not because I am intentionally being deceptive or even have a desire to “not preach expositionally”. My problem is that I am still growing and learning how to effectively preach expositionally. Not to mention that I am doing so as a youth minister. So, I am still growing in my “ability” to preach expositionally–and your post serves as a motivation to continue the labor of growing deeper in my preaching “skills”.
One thing that I would like to add that I have also noticed…I know a few preachers that are very good at preaching expositionally. They just came out of seminary and they know how to put together a sermon. One problem. It’s cold and dead. (Note: Not that the word itself is, just their presentation of it). What does Piper call preaching? Isn’t it something like Expository Exultation. So, as I am working on my Expository Preaching I am also working on my Expository Exultation. As John Owen said, “If the Word does not dwell with power in us, it will not pass with power from us”.
[...] Is Expository Preaching Really Being Modeled? And does it matter? [...]
Steve, I’d rather not put that on here. We can talk offline.
Mike, I appreciate your honesty. I would encourage you to continue to work hard at it. But also to not only preach expositionally but do your devotions expositionally, do family devotions expositionally (if applicable), lead your youth meeting devotions with expositional model. Make it a priority to not open your mouth about a text without giving the true meaning of the text.
You are right about the Piper quote/reference. I have heard guys say that there are no boring sermons just boring preachers. We have no right to be less than amazed and thrilled to proclaim the unsearchable riches of Christ. If we are dead in the pulpit then we should run back to the study and become impressed with the glory of God so that we might rub off on people instead of bring them down.
erik
I am not a preacher. I have no seminary training. I teach adult Sunday school, usually to the senior saints. When I began, my main qualifications were that I was foolish enough to be willing, believed that the Bible was the living breathing word of God, and had a booming bass voice that everyone could hear. I soon came to the conclusion that if I did nothing but read the word of God aloud it would be a pretty good class. Of course I try to add some of the richness lost in translation but I seldom make a lot of applications. I count on the Holy Spirit for that. Do you know anyone who hasn’t left church after the mornings sermon and not wondered if the pastor was reading his mail? If you do, tell him to get out of the church he’s in. The pastor doesn’t have enough of the Bible in his sermons. I look at Ezra the scribe in Nehemiah who simply stood up and read from the Law of Moses and look at the response he got. Or John Edwards who I’m told read his sermons almost in a monotone and got responses similar to Isaiah’s when he had a vision of God in the temple. If for you, the Bible’s words are pearls cascading from the heart of God, you will do well. If not, and you are a pastor, you should look for a job.
I do find it a bit strange catching all these conference mp3s that aren’t exposition. I’d love to have these guys doing that! What I’ve found over in the UK is that it’s often much more expository series at these conferences – reflecting back on a few recently there’s been Terry Virgo on Romans, Justin Mote on Leviticus have been a couple of great highlights. And I’m looking forward to Don Carson on 1 John at Easter 2008. Largely it’s exposition that these guys are so good at, and it’s so refreshing to go home at the end of the conference thinking I’ve heard the message of Leviticus!! Bring on the conferences where Mahaney teaches through Lamentations, where Dever takes us through Hosea, Piper through Exodus… or any number of variations on that theme. Things like that implicitly defend expository preaching by modelling it.
Dave
erik,
This is definitely a distinction that needs to be made. I have wondered about this for a few years now and enjoyed the way in which you articulated this. I am an undergrad student who hopes to go on to seminary and have taken a few preaching classes. This was very helpful and insightful. I plan on passing this on to all of my buddies.
Your Brother in Christ
Old Mike said:
“Do you know anyone who hasn’t left church after the mornings sermon and not wondered if the pastor was reading his mail? If you do, tell him to get out of the church he’s in. The pastor doesn’t have enough of the Bible in his sermons.”
Brother, I must respectfully diagree with this. It could be that the man needs to stay in the church because the pastor HAS the fullness of the Bible in his sermons. I certainly do understand that some preachers know of a certain vice that people have and start railing against that. But if a pastor is preching expositionally and doing it verse by verse people will get offended and will feel as if “their mail has been read”. Maybe not because the pastor has went off on a long tangent that is divorced from the text, but because the Holy Spirit is using His Word.
Is it possible that the man left the church because the pastor DID preach the word and this man has left because he has been exposed? I am not sure that the problem is that pastors use too much application but that the application is not wedded to the text. True expository preaching (If I am correct) will be a universal truth married to a universal application. (I think that comes from Chappel’s Christ-Centered Preaching). Perhaps, I merely misunderstood your statement, and if so I humbly apologize.
Also, by way of clarification. In my previous comment I mentioned that I was a youth minister. My point in mentioning that is not to say that expository preaching is not as fit for youth ministry. My point in saying that is that because of the education level of my hearers sometimes it makes it more difficult to exposit the Word faithfully in a way that they can understand.
[...] Preaching: Do preachers really do it as opposed to just acclaim it? IrishCalvinist asks. [...]
Mike L
I think you misunderstood. No appology necessary. The person who left church wondering if the preacher had read his mail was just going home for dinner. He’ll be back next week because God just spoke to him and he knows it. It has happened to me on Sunday morning more than once. I was simply saying that any preacher who is preaching expostitionally will wind up having that effect. God’s word speaks to His children.
I think I might understand what you are saying erik.
Do you think it’s a time factor? Does true expository preaching take more time and effort on the pastors part? Or is it that they don’t know how to do it?
Is there a place for reading comments/ commentaries made by others in expository preaching?
I have been confused for a while now on how John MacArthur can be so engaging and interesting and relevent and pack so much into each sentence when others fall flat and I struggle to remember what the text was when the sermon is done.
Old Mike…ahhhh…now I get it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. We are saying the exact same thing. Thanks for the clarification.
This does indeed capture a real problem in the church. As I listen to MacArthur’s preaching, as he says, VERSE BY VERSE, I try to model that in my preaching and it’s a challenge to stay on task and not drift in to pop culture applications, etc. Vigilance, brothers, vigilance.
pax
[...] encourage men to pursue the task of biblical preaching. That’s why I appreciated this post by Irish Calvinist about using the Bible, but failing at exposition. Expository preaching is simply [...]
[...] ran interesting article on the Irish Calvinist about being SURE that we as preachers are preaching expository messages. An excellent read and a [...]
I’ll name names. We thoroughly enjoyed T4G 2008, but this was one of our big takeaways. They talked a lot about exposition, but nearly every message was topical and that includes MacArthur. If I remember accurately, there were two messages that were expository and they were by far the best of the conference. There is a place for topical messages, but in a place that continually exalts the place of expositional preaching it would be great to see more of it.