There is an argument that goes something like this:
There are two reasons why this kind of speaking in the church is so crucial. One is that the subject matter is infinitely important. There is no other organization on earth that deals in matters of eternal life and eternal death—matters about God and his Son and his Spirit, matters about salvation and judgment, matters about the life that pleases God or displeases him. In other words, no other group of people, besides the church, gathers regularly to deal in such tremendously important realities. This means that there is a form of speech that is fitting as part of that gathering that fits the greatness of that truth—namely, preaching. So the first reason for preaching is that the nature of the truth calls for something more than mere explanation or discussion or conversation.
Today I want to tell you that I am not convinced of such a method and I will give you 3 reasons why.
1. Though many like to make the argument otherwise, the fact is that when we see preaching in the bible we have taken what we now do, and what the Reformers esteemed and have read it back into the text. As I read the Epistles the word or some form of the verb didaskō is used much more frequently than the word kēryssō and Timothy is told only once as far as I can tell to “preach” and to add to that kerysso is used the majority of time with proclaiming the Gospel and that 90% of the time to the lost. Thus we see the command to teach in the local fellowship.
The problem lies in this question. Is teaching to be a proclamation style (pulpit ministry) or a more sit down or conversation or dialogue of some type? I think the latter. Given the local of where the church met. When Paul went into the public he preached, when he was with the Church meeting in homes he taught. It is funny that Paul never ever gives the qualification of elders to “preach” (proclamation) but they should be able to teach (instruct). So my first reason is that it makes no sense from a biblical perspective to “preach” expositorly, though you should always “teach” expositorily. This means that the grammar, original audience, historical context and all should be carefully considered before we say what a specific passage means.
2. The next two reasons are a bit more pragmatic. The number two reason is that interactive teaching is always the best method of teaching especially new information. Being able to ask questions, get clarification, and even engage critically seems to be the way people learn best. How do I know if you are learning the information? Because I am so good at delivering it? This seems to be the position of many who preach in such a way. What it sounds like to me is that they are saying “hey I did a good job expositing the text, now apply it to your life”. There seems to be a huge disconnect. The first being how do you know I understand, the second being do you care if I disagree.
I am not promoting an arguement but a chance to engage the speaker. And if the speaker is preaching publicly he should answer publicly. If everybody already knows and don’t need clarification then maybe we should be teaching something different. For the life of me I can’t figure out why this happens. There are only two reasons. 1. A speaker is overconfident in his skillset or 2. A speaker is overconfident in his method. I guess a third option is that the speaker doesn’t care if you get it or not, they are going to deliver it.
However, when those listening to the message have a chance to ask questions and get points of clarification it can be quite rewarding. Everyone that I know, that has such opportunities are always excited that they are given opportunities to learn more and clear up any confusion that they have had. It is funny that when the person who is learning “expository” preaching is in school and at conferences they have questions and can interact with the professors and even be critiqued by classmates and professors but come to church and shut the very opportunity they had off to others. As one of my sons cartoons say “this is quite mysterious”.
3. The final reason is that people come because they want to learn and even share what they are learning. Not to mention sharing in the local congregation should be more than greeting at the door or helping people find places to park or giving, or ushering, or stacking chairs and operating the powerpoint or sound booth. Why do we encourage people to participate in the cosmetics of the gathering but not the purpose of it. If the purpose is the ministry of the word and we have built up such anticipation for it, shouldn’t we want people to participate in the most important part of “church”? But it seems that we eagerly and dogmatically exclude people from it! You can do everything else except participate in the word. For the life of me I can’t figure out why.
However, what greater way to know as a “pastor” what people are learning? If you allow them to share in the teaching and ministry of the word, you can find out quite quickly if they are really learing how to faithfully handle the word. You can see if they are applying a proper interpretive method right? Not only that since “preaching” contains both the information and the application, what better way to know if the word is being applied than allowing people to share what the word is doing in their lives and how it is transforming them to the image of Christ through the work of the Spirit. Something like Philippians 2, when Paul is saying have the mind of Christ which has all to do with self-sacrifice and being others-focused, wouldn’t it be sweet for someone to stand up and tell the family of God how the Spirit applied it to their heart? But nope, “pastors” have spent the last week preparing for the grand show, the great solo that follows the rest of the theatrics. We might as well start a drum roll when pastors walk onto the stage I can hear it now “coming to the stage….”, then the big blue spotlight comes on while the rest of the place dims!
I close with an appeal. I know we have been taught by many great theologians that the word is the center of the meeting. That if we don’t preach expositorly the church will fail to worship God and start to dive into liberalism. I know the pulpit has a high place (almost idolatry) in the church today and the reason why people don’t want expository sermons is because they are weak, or don’t want to be changed by the word or some other foolish statement that comes. But that is a lie. I know many brothers and sisters who have been doing this for years and they have a community like no other who are image bearers of Christ and have deep love for God and His word. Finally teaching is one of the functions of elders, never preaching. You can’t find one place in scripture where “preaching” was the primary reason for the church to gather. All types of teaching occurred however, through song (Col 3) through prayers (Ephesians) through the public reading of the word (Timothy) and so forth. The Greatest Show On Earth method of “expository preaching” doesn’t really make the cut, when I study the scriptures, especially the epistles, there are many proof texts with all type of traditional meanings read into them coming out of Timothy (and Timothy only) but again it fails to stand under the light of scrutiny.
Lionel, you knocked that one out of the ballpark brother.
Thank you…and amen
Steven
Lionel,
You are right! Having both preached from the pulpit for longer than I care to remember, and sat on a stool in the midst of a congregation for many years, I would choose the latter for being closer to achieving an end similar to what Paul reveals in Eph. 4.
Because the, so-called “pastor” has the reputation of being “the mouthpiece” of God, and full of all the knowledge and wisdom a congregation needs, most “pastors” are afraid to enter dialogue.
They know they are NOT what the illusion conveys.
They know that congregations will want answers to questions to which the “pastor” has NO ANSWER.
They are terrified of three little words, “I don’t know”.
They cannot say, “I don’t know, but I will find out and let you know at our next meeting”.
They are in bondage to a religious system which relies on the very same human weaknesses on which Pharisaism relied.
Sounds rather blunt, I know, never-the-less, its true!
SO,
Thanks brother.
Aussie John,
Your validation of such a conclusion only strengthens my thesis. LOL!!! But tell me, why is this? Why is it wrong for the pastor or any of us to say I don’t know? Why is the pastor “the mouthpiece? What was your experience as you decided to do the latter and what pushed you that way Sir?
I personally believe that expository preaching has its place in the church. I do believe that the approach needs to be varied and not considered the only form of preaching. I am, of course, horrified by pastors who teach their bibles studies as an expository sermon. There should always be a time for teaching and discussion.
Nonetheless, there are yet people who learn, digest and are able to share after hearing an expository sermon. This statement does not have to be an affirmation from the messenger per his skill or method but is often conveyed by the parishioner.
Check out the book: Preaching Re-Imagined by Doug Pagitt; It will further your claim.
Lionel,
I have always thought it was beneficial in teaching that there be a dialogue. There have been times believers asked me a question in Bible Study in I said, “I don’t know, but I will find out.”
In Oakwood, there is alot of dialogical(is that a word?) teaching. At the same time and this took some getting used to, I preach, someone will in the middle ask a question or make a statement and I feel it is necessary to address it right then and there. Just this past Sunday, I was speaking on Job and some one piped up about karma. Well I addressed it right there.
This is helpful for two reasons:
1. People will see that you actually consider their thoughts, questions or objections.
2. You are able to see how a person views God and Christ and what is going on in their life.
In regards to expostional preaching, as it is taught and I took a class in seminary on this; its just not there. It bothers me when many of the men today imply that expostional preaching is the only “God honoring method.” If that is what you choose good but do not impose it on others who teach and preach differently. (I’ll get off my box now)
Phillip
Brother Woods,
Phillip said, “It bothers me when many of the men today imply that expostional preaching is the only “God honoring method.” If that is what you choose good but do not impose it on others who teach and preach differently. ”
His words are good for all as we seek to build up one another.
I think there are pastors out there that desire the didactic goals that you have read in the NT. Here are just a few examples:
1. Mark Driscoll uses technology and listeners at his church can text-message questions to him (real time) during his sermon.
2. Mark Dever answers questions about the morning sermon during the evening services. It is mainly dialogue.
3. Some churches will go through a book of the Bible with sermons, Wednesday Bible studies, and even small-group discussions regarding application.
4. Some church’s Bible studies are mostly dialogue and questions.
I understand your weariness with those who see the pulpit as part of a “show.” However, many faithful preacher see their pulpit ministry as didactic. As a matter of fact, there is a sharp distinction in many black circles between “preachers” (read whoopers) and those who take a more teaching approach in the pulpit.
There is very little “methodology” laid out in the NT, so persons advocating ALL practices ought to be a little contingent, humble, cautious, and non-absolutist.
We should be comfortable saying “I do not know.” Say it when you have not studied the particular question being discussed. Also, say when scripture does speak EXPLICITLY to the matter being addressed.
Hey Smithbaptist,
I sort of agree with your last two paragraphs. But that begs me to ask you Sir. What about those who say “the only way to preach is expositorily/monologue”? One would be Dever! Would you apply the “little contingent, humble, cautious and non-absolutist” to him, and the person I quote above whom I won’t mention their name.
Lionel,
I am just becoming acquainted with your blogging, having seen your site listed as a fav by my friend Pastor Eric Redmond. I can see why he would reference you.
With this blog, maybe a new “term” is needed: “expository-interactive-teaching.” I hear you arguing for exposition, as long as it is teaching/equipping and not just a monologue, and as long as it is a dialogue–interactive.
In training counselors I always talk about a trialogue in the personal ministry of the Word: the speaker/counselor, the listener/counselee, and the Divine Counselor through the Word. So maybe you are arguing for “expository-trialogical-teaching.” Sounds like a book title–at least you and I might buy a copy!
Being a student of church history, I know expository-trialogical-teaching has a long history. In “Beyond the Suffering” I studied how the Black Church in slavery interacted and mutually ministered in the “Invisible Institution.” Clearly they had the type of teaching-interacting you are talking about. In fact, their services were like a combination worship service/small group/Sunday school. They would actually ask and discuss how one another “felt and their state of mind.” Imagine that in a Sunday morning service! They then divided the group into “divisions for interaction.” They then regrouped and had teaching, singing, praying–all interspersed. And they would discuss together how to deal with their sufferings in light of the life to come.
So…preach it! Er…teach it!…No, Expositorally-trialogically-teach it!
Bob
Brother Woods,
By all means, I would apply that standard to all.
Mark has written much to benefit the kingdom but we all must be humble in trying to universalize our methodologies.
Lionel,
Sorry about the delay in answering. By necessity it will be brief: Having been involved in “church” activities all my life I began to reaise, at quite a young age that many people sitting in the pews nodding their heads at the words coming from the pulpit, were simply doing their religious duty.
I had been preaching and teaching for about 15 yrs, before receiving theological training, which I realised was more about indoctrinating and brainwashing students into being denominational clones.
When I went into the first, so called, “full time” ministry, I determined to help folk to interact with me, so that I could have some idea of how much they were learning and how I ought to focus my teaching.
That congregation were used to traditional two services each Sunday, so the morning service continued to be somewhat traditional, and the evening one found me sitting on a stool right amongst them, where we dialogued as much as possible. It took some weeks to get them going, but we persevered, and they eventually began to want more.
Three of the younger men from that small country congregation went on to start fellowships when their work places were transfered. One went on to lead a congregation.
Being new to Reformed Theology and coming from an Charismatic Non Denomination Church I have never sat under expository preaching. In fact we were taught to stifle anyone who tries to ask any question during the preaching of the word, they were considered to be out of order. This is not a time for discussion but for you to sit and listen. To invite dialogue was to commit sermonal suicide if that is even a word.
I have watch a few videos of Mark Driscoll and the text message format, I was floored. That would NEVER happen in a Pentecostal “non-denominational” church or at leas that dozens of those I have been exposed to over the years, but then again neither would expository preaching.
Very interesting post.