Why Must We Preach Expositionally?

By the way, I think what we sometimes call "topical" preaching can be expository. For instance, if you do a message on _____________ doctrine, and you jump around to various passages to teach that doctrine, as long as you exposit those various passages, then it is most likely an expository sermon. The problem is when a preacher thinks of what he wants to say and then tries to find Scripture to support it.

 

Wouldn't a good expositional preacher in his first message when beginning a book study give it's setting, occasion, and purpose? This would set the table, if you will, so that all who hear the following sermons have the context and purpose clearly in mind as they work through the nuances of the text. As well it's probably good to keep reminding people how the passage that you're in for the week fits into the overall theme.

A good example of an introductory type sermon for a book study that clearly sets the intent of the auther before the people is Tom Pennington's message "Philippians' Raison D'être" at the beginning of his series through the book of Philippipans:
http://countrysidebible.org/media/tp031109a.wma

 

This is not good sound expositional preaching! </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed exegesis is NOT exposition but accurate exegesis is ESSENTIAL to proper exposition!

 

Those who have preached from a pulpit will be able to give a hearty "amen" to what I am about to write.

The majority of people forget the sermon before they leave the pew. This is why I believe in a consistent practice when preaching. I also believe in repetition. I also believe in repetition.

Expository preaching need not be dull. In fact, it can be quite exciting. In fact, it can be quite exciting. You can preach topically and expositionally at the same time. The word of God only has impact if it is accepted by faith. The word of God only has impact if it is accepted by faith. Preachers don't know how the Lord is working in an individuals life. It may take four, ten, or fifty times for the same point to be hammered home before a person "gets it." It may take four, ten, or fifty times for the same point to be hammered home before a person "gets it." This is why I believe in expository preaching based on exegetical study. This is why I believe in expository preaching based on exegetical study.

Just my two cents. If I keep typing I will just be repeating myself. If I keep typing I will just be repeating myself. If I keep typing I will just be repeating myself. If I keep typing....

 

It's easier to harp on about once hobby horses if one goes topical.
It's easier to completely avoid making any point whatsoever if one goes expositional.

 

I don't speak with a pulpit , but I would agree with a couple of points here ...

1. People forget the majority of what is said on Sundays.

2. Repitition is important.

3. Preaching must be exciting.

That being said, strict expository preaching does not guarantee these points will be addressed any more effectively than other types of preaching. As a matter of fact, I believe "big idea" preaching does a better job in addressing these issues. I believe in communicating the truth in a way that engages the heart and mind.

The truth is always true but it is not always perceived as true. It is the responsibility of the preacher (through the power of the Holy Spirit) to help people recognize how truth becomes applicable in their individual life. Our (translated the teaching that happens at our church) goal is to take whatever truth or need we are addressing and communicate it in a simple yet effective way where people leave understanding the one big idea / the one truth.

By the way, it is much more difficult for me to preach this way than it is to just do exposition. IMHO sometimes expository preaching is the simplest yet laziest way to preach. For those who are equipped, it is much easier to simply exegete a text and tell the people what it means. What is difficult is communicating a single truth in a way people will remember it and can apply it.

 

I don't speak with a pulpit , but I would agree with a couple of points here ...

1. People forget the majority of what is said on Sundays.

2. Repitition is important.

3. Preaching must be exciting.

That being said, strict expository preaching does not guarantee these points will be addressed any more effectively than other types of preaching. As a matter of fact, I believe "big idea" preaching does a better job in addressing these issues. I believe in communicating the truth in a way that engages the heart and mind.

The truth is always true but it is not always perceived as true. It is the responsibility of the preacher (through the power of the Holy Spirit) to help people recognize how truth becomes applicable in their individual life. Our (translated the teaching that happens at our church) goal is to take whatever truth or need we are addressing and communicate it in a simple yet effective way where people leave understanding the one big idea / the one truth.

By the way, it is much more difficult for me to preach this way than it is to just do exposition. IMHO sometimes expository preaching is the simplest yet laziest way to preach. For those who are equipped, it is much easier to simply exegete a text and tell the people what it means. What is difficult is communicating a single truth in a way people will remember it and can apply it. </font>[/QUOTE]I suppose the question to ask is: are the people in our churches learning and living the word of God? Are they feasting on snack food or meat? I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater on preaching styles. I would not enjoy sitting under "Saddleback" messages each week...but that is just me. I also understand that not everyone wants to listen to a seminary lecture on Sunday mornings. But are the people learning and living?

 

Actually it goes even deeper than this according to the church and culture they seek to reach. Our church attracts about 40% unbelievers each weekend, so obviously our teaching is not just designed to feed meat to believers (we do have other environments that serve that purpose).

Our goal is to help people take another step on their spiritual journey. So whether a person is a skeptic or a part of the convinced (elected for those who prefer that term), we want to help you take another step on your journey to becoming a fully devoted follower of Jesus Christ.

We also want the people who attend our weekend gatherings to desire to come back the following weekend (and perhaps even bring someone with them). As you say, every church is not for everyone. For those looking to simply sponge and soak, our church is usually not a good fit. We are not just about increasing knowledge. As I have said before, the average Christian's level of knowledge usually far exceeds their level of obedience and service.

 

I think the answer to this is a mixed bag. A lot of people have a snack food mentality. I wonder how many people in our churches read the scripture daily, have a daily prayer time (and I don't mean rote prayer, but rather real down to the issues prayer)? You need to eat spiritual food to grow spiritually, many people just stagnate. Many people don't hold the sermon in their thoughts through lunch.

I think expositional preaching that goes book by book is good, but topical is also very good. Sometimes the church needs a topical study. Sometimes it is good to assess the congregation and preach on doctrines that they need reminding of.

I also don't think the way music is changing in the church helps this, either. With the old hymns, you could often reinforce the message with the hymns sung. Many even made great doctrinal points. I may not remember the whole message, but I may be singing or humming a good hymn all week! I don't find that in modern music, the so-called Contemporary Christian music, but that is a separate topic and I have no wish to hijack this one.

 

I see the difference now....seeker sensitive vs. super saint. Of course that phrase was tongue and cheek. I would amplify on your comment about those who simply spong and soak. They are in every church. We have seen the result of churches that become sponges. Ever hear of the United Methodists? Vibrant turns into comfortable...comfortable into lazy...lazy into denial...denial into dead.

I suppose we view the purpose of the church differently. The church is the body of Christ. Worship service should be God-centric. It is the beginning of a new week in which God's people come to worship Him through song, teaching, fellowship and giving. The local church should be a herald of the good news to community. Methodologies abound on how to accomplish that and I am not going to say if one way is better than another. While I respect what your church does, I view the worship service from a completely different venue. It is not (imho) for the lost, it is for the saints. If the unbeliever is there then they are to be brought to conviction of their sin by the proclaiming of God's word. And we want them there! I may be misinterpreting what you said, but you seem to be indicating that your worship service is more geared towards the unbeliever and you use other methods to feed the believers. I guess I don't understand why that is. But then again I don't think Rick Warren would be inviting me to his house for coffee anytime soon.

May the Lord bless your efforts. We may disagree but I pray that He calls sinners to repentance through your ministry for His glory.

 

Hi whatever

Great Cartoon! And ocaissionally very true to life.

I have even experienced the opposite, what was purported to be "expositional preaching" that was very shallow, with most comments only vaguely related to the text.

 

Probably not as different as you believe. We might view how and when we fulfill the purpose differently.

Agreed.

Agreed. God is the center of all we do.

Of course I would also argue that the heartbeat of God is seeking the lost so what is more glorifying to Him that imitating the heart of Jesus?

We do all of these things.

Agreed.

Agreed (even though you contradict this statement one sentence later).

I thought you just said you would not conjure one way is better than the other.

And by the way, we don't say it is for the lost. We say it is for people -- nonbelievers and believers. Again we are simply trying to help all people take the next step.

Nonbelievers are our guest. We treat them accordingly.

We want them there too. And we don't just play lipservice to this idea. We actually do things to encourage them to come and yes God consistenly uses what we do to bring sinners to repentance.

Our services are geared toward people. It is really according to what we are focusing on whether the messages are geared toward unbelievers or believers. We simply don't bifurcate what we do in those terms.

And yes we believe spiritual growth happens best in environments other than just the weekend service. Believers should not depend primarily on what I say to be fed. It does not matter if I preach expositionally or topically, if they are depending strictly on my teaching for their primary nourishment, they are not getting enough. We teach our people growth happens best in private worship (QT) and in smaller environments of deeper Bible study, accountability, pastoral care, etc.

No I won't.

Just kidding of course ... or am I?


I would also add to this discussion the cultural context where one serves plays a large part in this discussion. We are in an area where over 90% of the people are unchurched. It would be foolish for us to try and go after the 10% while 9 out of 10 are lost. We MUST do church in a way that considers unbelievers or we will simply become obsolete within our context. For us to focus on believers would minimize our effectiveness in trying to reach a predominately unchurched culture. There are several churches in our vicinity that have focused on believers and they soon shrivel and die or either waste away on the vine focused on the few while the many around them live life with no regard for God or the church.

Each believer is called to be missional in their context. What that means for us is probably different than what it means for you.

 

Perhaps I did not aquit myself well in my statement. While I believe that Sunday worship is meant for believers, I hold open different methodologies regarding evangelism. Indeed the church service can be a method of evangelism. Even if the message is not soteriologically oriented it can still call sinners to repentance. That is how we view our worship service. It is geared to feed the saints but we pray unbelievers will be called to repentance.

I'm sure you don't and I commend your church for it's passion for the lost. We don't pay lipservice either, although we approach evangelism differently.

Certainly solid biblical teaching should be inherent in all areas of church ministry. All we do is to glorify God. There is not greater quest than to learn more about Him and employ it daily. And while I agree that the pastor is not the "end all; be all" he sets the tone for what the church believes and how it approaches ministry. With the tone being set the other aspects of ministry should seek to add depth, itensity and practicality with the saints. The goal? 2 Timothy 2:2 2 And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.

I have witnessed the reverence and awe for God being replaced by a casualness that deepens Christ Jesus' humanity while demphasizing His diety. This is done more practically then by intent. I am not that old (44) that I would be considered fosilized. I am not ready to say that the seeker-sensitive movement is devoid of virtue, but I do believe there are some within the movement who have lost touch with the absolute and utter holiness of God. But lest I forget to look at my own house rigid liturgy, hymns and D.T.S. degreed pastors don't always equate to much better.

Soli Deo Gloria

 

And I can't tell you how many churches I have encountered that have lost touch with their culture. Our paradigm states gospel + church + culture = missional

 

And I can't tell you how many churches I have encountered that have lost touch with their culture. Our paradigm states gospel + church + culture = missional </font>[/QUOTE]So we both continue on in the manner in which we currently do things, praying that the Lord uses both our churches to do His will.

 

And I can't tell you how many churches I have encountered that have lost touch with their culture. Our paradigm states gospel + church + culture = missional </font>[/QUOTE]So we both continue on in the manner in which we currently do things, praying that the Lord uses both our churches to do His will. </font>[/QUOTE] And recognizing He can.

 

And I can't tell you how many churches I have encountered that have lost touch with their culture. Our paradigm states gospel + church + culture = missional </font>[/QUOTE]So we both continue on in the manner in which we currently do things, praying that the Lord uses both our churches to do His will. </font>[/QUOTE] And recognizing He can. </font>[/QUOTE]If God can speak through an ass, He can speak through us.

 

I won't touch that last statement doulous.