A Life Changing Encounter. There I was, standing in the vestibule of the first church that I pastored, having a conversation with another much more seasoned preacher who had stopped by for a visit. I was in my early 20’s and had absolutely no clue what I was doing. Not to mention the fact that I was on the verge of burnout. Between working a full time job, taking care of a family with two small children and pastoring a church, sermon prep seemed like an impossible Everest every week.
I was floored. What a novel idea. Just preach the Bible, as it was written by the prophets and apostles. I have now been preaching expository sermons for over fifteen years and I have found it to be one of the greatest joys of my life. And although I do believe that there is a place for other types of preaching (i.e. topical and textual), I am convinced that in a pastoral setting over the course of time, these other types of sermons are simply inferior for feeding the flock of God when compared to expository preaching. Here are some reasons why I am a committed expository preacher.
Expository preaching is Biblical preaching. Before too many people get mad and pull their hair out, we must be quick to define our terms. The word “expository” simply means to explain or describe. Therefore, it is possible to preach an expository sermon from a particular text or texts without necessarily preaching through books, verses by verse. But if our preaching doesn’t explain the text, then we aren't preaching biblically. Explaining the text is biblical preaching. Therefore, in this sense expository preaching is biblical preaching. However, it has been my experience as a pastor of over 15 years that true biblical exposition (certainly for pastors who are preaching in the same place from week to week) goes hand in hand with preaching verse by verse through books of the Bible. So for the purposes of this blog, when I talk about expository preaching I am referring mainly to preaching through books of the Bible. (As a side note, it’s important to understand that expository preaching doesn’t ignore tota scriptura. It also doesn’t mean that the pastor can never break away from the schedule and hit on specific things if necessary. These are false caricatures.
Expository preaching makes the pastor a servant to the Scriptures. Before I became a dedicated expository preacher, I would always agonize over what topic and text to preach. This led to a very subjective practice of trying to feel God out or “listen to the Spirit”. I was always trying to find “something that would preach.” However, what I found is that no matter what text or topic I went with, I eventually ended up preaching my hobby horses anyway. Expository preaching forces us to serve the text, not allowing us to use the text for our own purposes. The pastor will be preaching more of the bible and less of himself.
Expository preaching forces the preacher to deal with hard texts. There are just some hard texts that given a choice, we would never choose to tackle. This forces the pastor to dig deep and exposit these hard texts, which forces him to grow. This also helps the congregation because they have without a doubt wrestled with these hard texts as well. Expository preaching has forced me to wrestle with the consistency of my own doctrine, and as a result caused me to believe in things that I was taught to hate and vice versa. This will almost never happen with a man who consistently takes his presuppositions to a topic or preselected text.
Expository Preaching Connects the Narrow Emphases With the Broader Context. I cannot accurately put into words how the years of expository preaching have connected the doctrinal dots for me. This is something that topical or textual preaching simply cannot do consistently over the course of time. Last year I visited a church while traveling out of state. The pastor was a topical/textual preacher and his message came from the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15. His whole message was based on the false premise that the elder brother represents saved people who lose their heart for sinners. While the pastor might have said some true things in his sermon, he completely missed the broader point of the text. If he had been preaching through the book of Luke verse by verse, he would have realized that at the beginning of chapter 15 Christ began sharing these parables in front of the Pharisees because they were scoffing at the fact that Jesus accepted publicans and sinners. So when Jesus was giving the parable of the prodigal son, he was condemning the Pharisees as being the elder brother (something they would have easily picked up on). Although they appeared to be better than the prodigal, their hearts were wicked, and they were worse off than sinners who had humbled themselves before the Father. This pastor didn’t know that because his study was limited to one text, separated from its broader context. He had taken his own thoughts and read them into the text of Scripture. Expository preaching greatly nullifies this problem.
Expository Preaching causes the Pastor and the Church to grow together. The bible was not written in a topical fashion. Therefore, expository preaching brings out the context and authorial intent in ways that are much more difficult for a topical/textual preacher. Consistent expository preaching teaches a congregation how to be expository readers. Each week I am not just teaching my people how to listen, but how to study the bible on their own. Every biblical sermon should answer the following questions; What is the text saying (culture, background, speaker, broader context, etc.), what does the text mean (how would the original audience have understood the message), how can this text apply to my life, and how does this text connect with the gospel. This is very difficult to do when bouncing around from place to place.
Our congregation knows the general text that I will be preaching from each week. Many of them get ahead of me and study it out. Since they already have an idea of what’s on the menu, this puts pressure on me to put the sheep food out there. I believe that this is one of the greatest reasons that expository preaching is so hated by so many preachers. It leaves very little room for laziness. It doesn’t take that much effort to go to a concordance and hand pick half a dozen verses on the same topic in order to fill up a 30 minute time slot. On the other hand, it takes great dedication to dig out the truth of a text, in context and with authorial intent.
Expository Study Sustains the Pastor. My preaching would get so stale, dry and repetitive if my sermon ideas always originated with me. Expository study of the Scriptures keeps it fresh and new in my heart. Each week I am digging into the word of God to see what He has to say. Through the trials that my family and I have had to endure over the past several years, I can say without any hesitation that the grace of God and the expository study of the Scriptures have sustained me.
Expository Preaching Allows the Pastor to Preach the Whole Counsel of God. When a pastor preaches expository sermons week in and week out it means that he will be dealing with issues and doctrines with the same frequency and order as the writers of Scripture. It’s a built in way of avoiding hobby horses and using the pulpit like a Gatling gun in order to straighten out certain problems and people within the church.
A Perfectly timed war. Far be it from me to insert myself into someone else’s Twitter war but….I had already outlined this blog when I just happened to cruise through my Twitter feed and find the podcast war between the Fundamental Baptist Podcast (hosted by David Baker) and the Starving for Truth Podcast (hosted by Chance Summers and Austin Weist). It just so happens that their fight is over the issue of expository preaching. SFT recently did a podcast on expository preaching. In that episode, Weist admitted that expository preaching led him to become a Calvinist. Baker did a podcast rebuttal in which he called Weist a heretic (although he did not call him by name). Not only that, he made it a point to say that sometimes expository preaching turns people into heretics. This spat gives me a perfect opportunity to deal with some of the common (and not so common) arguments against expository preaching. And also to expose in real time, some of the flaws of topical/textual preaching.
In order to lay some groundwork, I have never met any of these men. When it comes to the SFT podcast, I have listened to a few episodes. I agree with much of their content, yet disagree with much of their IFB broad brushing. However, I think they are spot on when it comes to this issue of expository preaching (here I am yet again defending the RFP broad brushers, I’m not sure if it’s grace or stupidity, but here it goes).
I am not that familiar with Mr. Baker, but I did listen to his podcast response to SFT. I would like to respectfully confront his arguments against expository preaching (and his promotion of topical preaching).
As a side note, I really don’t like the spirit of division within the professing body of Christ, I don’t care where it comes from. I completely understand that there are some hills worth dying on, but Mr. Baker pulled out the infamous H-word (I’m talking about heretic) to describe Mr. Weist. Why you might ask, because Weist is a Calvinist. I would like to ask Mr. Baker if this means that Mr. Weist isn’t saved, or that he just really gets on your nerves? Would you use the term “heretic” to describe Calvinists like Spurgeon, Bunyan, Whitefield, Edwards, the KJV translators, or the writers of pretty much every well known Baptist confession prior to the BFM of 1925? Are they heretics too, or is that just for living Calvinists? Honest Question.
Were Jesus and the Apostles topical preachers? Mr. Baker argued that Jesus and the apostles were topical preachers. This is unsound logic for a few reasons. For starters, we don’t know exactly what they preached, at least not in detail (I am referring to their actual sermons, not their inspired writings). It is doubtful that the biblical account gives us a word for word transcript of their sermons. The longest sermon in the New Testament is the Sermon on the Mount (assuming for the sake of argument the unlikely scenario that this was one continuous discourse). The average reader can read the sermon on the mount in less than four minutes. It’s hard to believe that the entire discourse that Christ gave on that hillside lasted a grand total of four minutes. It’s equally as difficult to believe that Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, Stephen’s discourse before the Sanhedrin or Paul’s plea to Felix were all just a couple of minutes apiece.
Something else to consider is that we have at least one clear example of Christ engaging in expository preaching from the Old Testament Scriptures (Luke 4:16-21). He stood up in the synagogue, read through Isaiah 61:1 and explained it (this day is the Scripture fulfilled in your ears).
Also, the inspired writings of the apostles are clearly expositional in nature. When a pastor preaches through what they wrote to the church, verse by verse, their congregation will be hearing what the apostles wrote in the order it was written, in the context it was written and for the purpose that it was written. So I’m not exactly sure what Mr. Baker’s point is. We all know that using the book of Acts in a purely prescriptive way leads to all kinds of heresy.
No, expository preaching doesn’t create heretics, proof texting does. Mr. Baker called Mr. Weist a heretic due to his podcast comments about how preaching through John 6 (most specifically verse 44) turned him into a Calvinist. Mr. Baker made the point that preaching verse by verse caused his confusion and if he had just studied this topic it would have led him to John 12:32 where it states that if Christ was lifted up on the cross that he would draw “all men” unto himself. This gives me the PERFECT opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of expository vs topical preaching. Let’s break down these two texts and see if Mr. Baker’s argument holds up.
John 6:36-44- “But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
I am going to do something that Mr. Baker did not do in his podcast, and that is walk through this text in order to find out the context. Jesus was dealing with the problem of unbelief. In this case the people had seen him perform all kinds of miracles. They had also had the privilege of hearing the incarnate Word, preaching the Word. And yet they still didn’t believe. However, unbelief is a universal human problem. In fact, if those thousands rejected the message even after encountering God incarnate, then what chance do any of us have of being saved? Are we just better than them, smarter, more humble or less sinful? Of course not. Christ gives the answer to human unbelief here in the text; the drawing of sinners by the Father, and the giving of them to the Son. Even Jacob Arminius understood that this text was talking about total depravity and the necessity of God’s initiation in salvation (although he had a different view on how this plays out than Calvin and the Reformers). You don’t even have to be a Calvinist in order to see the point of what Jesus is saying. John 6 gives the context of John 6, you don’t have to jump to John 12 in order to give context to John 6. Jesus’ audience didn’t have to wait until the events of John 12 in order to understand what he was saying to them in John 6. Jumping to chapter 12 isn’t an honest attempt to explain John 6, it’s an attempt to explain it away. This is proof texting 101.
Now let’s break down John 12 in its context.
John 12:20-32- “And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: 21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. 22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. 23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. 26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour. 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. 29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”
In the context, some Greeks had crashed this Jewish feast in order to hear Jesus. This would not have gone over well as the Jews viewed them as dogs. When Jesus said that when He was lifted up would draw all men unto Himself, it was literally in response to the Greeks being in their midst. He could have very easily been pointing at them when He said it. So He wasn’t talking about drawing every single person without exception, but every kind of person without distinction, all kinds of people. He was speaking of the world of Jews and Gentiles. For anyone who would argue this point I have a few simple questions. Does God draw people unto salvation apart from them hearing the gospel? Of course not. Does everyone hear the gospel in their lifetime? Of course not. Then how does God draw every single individual unto salvation if every single person doesn’t hear the gospel? It’s a basic deductive argument. However, it’s not even necessary because both John 6 and John 12 present their own respective contexts. There is no need for proof texting.
Has the reader seen in this short exercise the superiority of expositing the scriptures in context vs building a doctrine by jumping around “topically” from place to place? Proof texting is a cult leader's dream. I live and pastor in the heart of Mormon country Utah. I love to have LDS missionaries in our home so that my family and I can feed them and talk about the gospel. The LDS have no problem quoting verses from the Bible in order to try and prove their point. However, when I make them open up to that particular passage and walk them through it in context I can visibly see them start to squirm. This is because a text without context is a pretext. The Bible in its context destroys their position.
Some closing thoughts. I really didn’t even scratch the surface of this issue. Certainly more can (and has been) said by much greater minds than my own. However, I do hope that Mr. Baker reconsiders his stance on expository preaching, as well as the “heresy” of fellow believers. I also hope that this has been a help to the pastors who have become a slave to the idea that somehow the Bible isn’t enough. That somehow God needs your feeling the wind of the Spirit in order to keep things exciting. As if the Spirit inspired Scriptures aren’t exciting enough. Expository preaching has transformed my life, doctrine, study habits, relationship with God, family and church, and I am convinced that it will do the same for anyone who is willing to put in the work.
No comments:
Post a Comment