Nonconformist Chronicles

Why Expository Preaching?

I'm still asked upon occasion why my sermons are almost exclusively expository. The expository sermon is an exposition of a biblical text in context. The sermon text for an expository sermon is commonly about the length of a paragraph, but it might also be an exposition of one or two verses, a single phrase, a whole chapter, or even an entire book of the Bible. There are several reasons to choose expositional preaching over topical preaching.

1) Expository preaching keeps me tied to the text. With topical preaching one might easily begin with a premise one assumes to be true. The Bible is then ransacked for verses to back up the premise that was already predetermined. The big risk is looking to Scripture to back up what you believe as opposed to letting Scripture continue forming and refining your beliefs. Topical preaching puts the preacher in control of the text. Expository preaching makes it more likely that the text will control the preacher and keep him in check.

2) Expository preaching forces me to deal with issues I might otherwise neglect. Suppose I am preaching through the entire Book of Romans. That forces me to deal with chapters 9-11. If left to my own discretion I would probably choose chapters 1, 3, 6, 8, and 12. But chapters 9-11 would never be heard from the pulpit. The whole of Scripture needs to be preached. Expository preaching can discipline one to make sure the more difficult and controversial texts receive a fair hearing. 

3) Expository preaching keeps authorial intent before me. It is more likely that a biblical author's intent will be heard when passages are preached in context with attention to historical background and literary structure. But topical preaching tends to weave numerous verses together into an artificial tapestry of the preacher's own construction. The premise could be an agenda that never crossed any biblical author's radar screen. The Bible is reconstructed to support the preacher's own agenda. When teaching Scripture, more is not always better. What makes a sermon biblical is not the number of Scriptures quoted, but whether Scripture is shown to be understandable and relevant. I've heard too much topical teaching in which one biblical author is invoked to effectively cancel out another. Expository teaching increases the likelihood that we'll follow an individual author's development of thought before comparing him with other authors who wrote to address different situations in different contexts.

4) Expository preaching is practical. While listening to an expository sermon, people don't have to keep flipping around in their Bibles to keep up with the preacher. Everyone camps together in the same passage to see how what the passage said in its original context still has a claim on our lives today. Even one unfamiliar with Scripture can go home, re-read the text, and be able to summarize what it means and how to apply it.                        

The Changing Values of the Church # 8

The Value of Preaching, Part Two

I do appreciate the comments on my previous post and I regret that I have not been able to respond. Perhaps I'll integrate some responses into this and other posts.

I'll again say that my concern is not sermon length per se. My concern is a low view of preaching and a general intolerance for the exposition of the Word. This seeming intolerance may be reflected in today's increasing demand for shorter sermons.

I don't think the issue has anything to do with attention spans. We live in an increasingly educated society where a greater number than ever are continuing their education. This means sitting through hours of lectures for a number of years. People can do it if they're convinced that it will improve their lives.

I'm always bothered by the sentiment that it doesn't matter how a minister preaches as long as he's good with people. While I agree that a preacher should work hard to build relationships, he also needs to be a good preacher. So why might some have a low view of preaching? 

1) In our church culture, I think worship is increasingly viewed as being participatory. This is a good corrective to some extremes. Worship is not about being a passive observer. But I think some worship leaders are now accentuating the areas they feel are most participatory (i.e., singing and communion), possibly to the neglect of more Word-oriented activities. Some fail to realize that active listening is also participatory.

2) Some may have a low view of preaching because they've mostly been exposed to mediocre preaching. They haven't heard real biblical exposition that makes Scripture accessible and that connects with everyday life. They've heard soap boxes, rants, doctrinal lectures, denominational defenses, history lessons, and stand-up routines.

Now I don't claim to be the best preacher on earth and no one consistently bats a thousand. But I'm passionate about preaching and forever working toward the goal of perfecting the craft. I've come a long way, but I'm not where I eventually envision myself to be. I work as hard as I do because I see myself as a steward of God's treasure. I view preaching as a sacred trust, not to be handled flippantly or haphazardly.

3) Many are of the view that since preaching isn't what draws people to a church, or keeps them there, then it must not be too important. But who says that preaching makes no difference in drawing or keeping people? Many are starving for the Word.

I'll admit that I've been a member at churches where the preaching had nothing to do with why I was there. I was there because of relationships with the people, or because I felt needed, or because the worship was inspiring. So I admit that preaching isn't the whole package. But there have been at least two churches I've attended because I was drawn by the preaching. The sermons spoke to me so personally that I wondered if the preacher had access to my life on hidden camera. The sermon was the shot in the arm I needed each week. Preaching was not the only reason I stayed, but it was the reason I came.

And we must remember that people are wired differently. While we all need preaching, communion, and to sing songs of praise, there are different aspects of worship that speak to different people according to who they are and where they are. While the preaching is what's always done it for me, I'm not the only one in the congregation. And while preaching may not be what does it for you, it may be what keeps someone else encouraged.                     

The Changing Values of the Church # 7

The Value of Preaching

A few months ago my friend, Frank Bellizzi, did a few posts on his blog in regard to a gospel meeting conducted by Evangelist T. B. Larrimore in Sherman, Texas in 1894. (Frank's posts can be found here, and here, and here). For five months, Larrimore would speak every day, twice a day, and three times on Sunday. Over 250 people were baptized at this meeting.

One Brother Earnest Hildebrand, a member at Sherman, wrote to Gospel Advocate about the meeting reporting that "Still, nobody seems tired, and no one seems willing to entertain the thought of closing the meeting...There has never been the slightest inclination of even a probable decline in interest, or in the mental, physical, or heart-power of any one engaged or interested in the work."

Larrimore later wrote to Gospel Advocate editor David Lipscomb, stating that the average length of sermons for this meeting was fifty minutes and the entire service lasted around seventy minutes. Lipscomb states his reason for reporting this meeting as the basis of an appeal to preachers and churches everywhere to do more preaching.

My purpose here is not to simply rehash what Frank has already said well enough. But since his posts, I've thought about this a lot and I've re-read those posts often. What strikes me is how far we've come in our church culture over the last century.

Now this isn't a total lament. I'm not advocating a return to fifty minute sermons. Absolutely not! But am I amiss to sense yet another swinging of the pendulum in our church culture? Not only did the church once seem to place a higher premium on the assembly and on Scripture, but it seems that we once had a higher view of preaching.   

During my recent job search, I contacted one church whose leadership demanded that sermons be kept to about fifteen minutes. I told them I would be hard pressed to do that. I had my rejection letter within the week. Now just for the record, I try to keep my sermons to about twenty minutes. I sometimes go into twenty five minutes, but rarely thirty. It took years to learn how to say something worthwhile in twenty minutes.   

The point of this post is not sermon length. But what I'm out to demonstrate is the low view that so many have of preaching these days. Some in a movement that once tolerated fifty minute sermons are now demanding that preaching be kept to fifteen minutes. In time, I wonder if sermons will be held to ten minutes or if some of our churches will dispense with preaching in worship altogether.

I've no doubt that Larrimore's meeting was successful in his time because it was a different time. In an era before the gradual shift from modernism to post-modernism began, rational argument and logical deduction were very persuasive. Now we're told that we preach to a sound bite generation who are accustomed to commerical breaks, audio-visual technology, and emotional appeal. We're told that we must connect with the culture, be more interactive, appeal to more senses than just the sense of hearing. We must persuade the heart and not just the head.

I agree to an extent, but my concern is that we might have underestimated the power of the spoken Word. The timeless Scriptures seem to maintain a very high view of preaching.

• While the world considers the preaching of the cross to be foolishness, the saved know that it is the power of God (1 Cor. 1:23-25).
• Faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom. 10:17).
• The Word, like the rain, always accomplishes its purpose and does not return to God void (Isa. 55:10-11).

So just how much do we accomodate our preaching to a supposedly post-modern culture that doesn't seem as persuaded by logic and explanation? Where is the line between accomodating the message and dumbing it down?  Where is the line between accomodation and entertainment?

Have we lost confidence in the power of God's Word to do its work? Might we have insulted the masses by judging them too shallow to handle biblical exposition? What do you think?      

A Bad Sign?

This is not a doctored photo. I snapped this picture while on a recent visit to another state. It is an actual photo of an actual sign outside an actual church building.

It is commonplace to find one sentence sermons on church signs. Some are cute or clever. I find others downright embarrassing. The one in this picture describes a style of preaching. A visitor to this congregation doesn't have to wonder about what to expect.

If my preaching were described on the church sign, what would it say? I would hope it could truthfully state:

Biblical exposition from NIV translation with contemporary illustrations, hope-inspiring application, and grace-oriented theology.

We're not going to put that on the sign. For one thing, it wouldn't fit. But I was just wondering--What is the preaching like at your church? What is your preacher's style? If given the task of describing it on a sign out front, what would you say about it? If you're the preacher, how would you describe your own preaching?

For that matter, what should the preaching be like? Comments anyone? 

What Kind of Preaching Do We Need?

Are all preachers really preaching the gospel? What criteria can we use to evaluate whether a sermon is really a gospel sermon?

A comparative study of the sermons and speeches in the Book of Acts reveals that the core of apostolic preaching was "Christ crucified."  The apostles kept repeating the story of Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. Any call to repentance was in response to this message.

While Peter's invitation in Acts 2:38 has been routinely emphasized, his sermon is not a sermon on baptism. Baptism is always a response to the gospel, which was the central message.

Reflecting on his ministry to the Corinthians, Paul writes, "I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). So Paul preached the gospel, which he defines as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

Does this mean that the only "gospel" sermons are those which expound exclusively on the passion narratives? No, but a sermon is not a gospel sermon unless it is tied into the good news of God's grace. Any appeal for hearers to be baptized or to live moral lives should offer the gospel as motivation.

A sermon on marriage, for example, should appeal to the selfless example of Christ who put the needs of others ahead of his own. Paul's teaching on marriage is always based on Christ's sacrificial example or on his lordship, which was affirmed by his resurrection and ascension (Eph. 5:21-33; Col. 3:18-19). So a sermon on marriage is not a gospel sermon unless the gospel of Christ is the motivation for action.

Any sermon appealing for ethical behavior should ground its appeal in the gospel. We are not to be good just because it's the right thing to do, or because we will live more blessed lives, or because we're afraid of going to hell. But it's the grace of God that teaches us to say "no" to ungodliness (Titus 2:11-12). If you hear an appeal to morality that is not tied into the cross and the resurrection, you have not heard a gospel sermon.

What about preaching from the Old Testament? Even the moral directives in the Hebrew Bible were grounded in God's graciousness toward Israel. Their observance of the law was in response to his mighty acts as Creator and Redeemer. He created humanity and he delivered Israel from the slavery of Egyptian bondage. As we look back to the cross, Israel looked back to the Exodus. The good news of God's mighty acts was offered as the motivation for obedience.

The Old Testament is tied into the gospel for the ministry and gospel of Christ recapitulates the general plot of the Hebrew Bible. In other words, the history of Israel kept repeating itself by way of parallels in the life of Jesus who ultimately fulfills all the promises made to Israel.

So whatever text or topic a preacher chooses, his message is gospel only if he can show how the gospel is pertinent to his appeal. So apply the litmus test for a gospel sermon to the preaching you hear. Is it really the gospel that is being preached?