Expositional preaching, huh. I Guess That’s One Way To Do It

In August of last year I posted 15 Things I Learned At Saddleback, and as expected numerous criticisms arose, mainly from Richard Abanes. Most of the critiques were stereotypical. I remember, however, being surprised by the criticism stated, “Expository preaching is not the end all be all of preaching”. At first I passed it off as one guy writing out of anger, frustration, ignorance, or stupidity who just needed a cool down period before he recanted, but over the last year I have noticed several bloggers seem to have real animosity towards those who are outspoken proponents of expository preaching. I have some questions for this almost “anti-expository” preaching crowd that I would love answered.

Recently David Carlson of Gratuitous Advice, whom I know nothing about, actually titled a post “The Cult of Expository Preaching” and followed it up with part 2. David didn’t really make much of a case for his side in either of his two rants, so I am not 100% sure where he stands. Yet, he did raise some questions for me. This post will make more sense if you read these two links above. The posts are pretty short.

Expository preaching would be defined as the communication of a biblical concept, derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, and literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience of the preacher, then through the preacher, applies to the hearers, or something like that. I grew up in the land of topical sermons that used the text as a starting point for soap box preaching, proof texting, and confirming inherited theologies. The purpose of expository preaching as I understand it is to make sure that the God-breathed text we are proclaiming is handled accurately, with as little of man’s opinion as possible. That way the Holy Spirit through the Bible is the one doing the convicting not man. I believe the critics would even agree with that. Otherwise you end up with a seeker sermon on “Why She Left the Water Pot” (which by the way is a fantastic example of what not to do in a sermon)

If Richard Abanes, David Carlson, Pastor Rod or any of the other critics of the pro-exposition crowd are correct, exactly what kind of preaching should we be doing? David says he is not against EP, but did not offer much of anything else in way of what he is for. I am personally not against topical preaching when necessary, but even then it should have biblical exegesis applied. Also the men, Fide-O included, who he calls a cult do occasionally preach topical sermons.

I was hoping to gain some insight into this particular crowd of critics, but so far the 3 or 4 willing to put something in writing don’t really say much of substance. Are they saying exposition of a text, as defined above, is not “relevant” enough? Are they saying that a topical sermon is equal to a biblical exposition as defined above? I am hearing the criticisms, but I am not hearing any solutions. And David if that lame Ezekiel example is the best you can do then I understand why you prefer topical preaching. I have been to several prominent “seeker” churches and would have loved to have heard them just read Ezekiel chapter 12 much less call the congregation a rebellious house. Unfortunately we don’t have the good fortune of what we say being inspired by God. Fortunately we do have a source of information that is inspired by God and expository preaching is the effort to handle that inspired Word accurately. Fortunately for me I got my argument from 2 Tim 2:15 that says “…workmen are not ashamed, accurately handling the Word of God.” David, when you start getting direct revelation from God, like Ezekiel, let me know and I will give you permission to slack on your exegesis. Or you can remain on the side of Marjory Bankson who on Easter of this year, in her seeker church preached, ”A Corporate Call for Seekers: To Celebrate Creativity” based on John 20:1-18.

I was going to do a post on this absured post calling expository preaching dangerous, but this guy did a sufficient job. Thanks to Wordsmith for the heads up. I do have a couple of questions for PastorRod. If expository preaching is dangerous, because it "Expository preaching actually robs the Bible of its authority." Exactly what kind of preaching should we be doing and how does it not rob the bible of its authority and how does it not put mans opinion into the text. PastorRod I would have to say you have an extremely limited understanding of the correct definition of expository preaching. Calvary Chapel verse by verse running commentary and launch texted is not expository preaching. I would say your examples would fit that style more than true exposition.