I agree with what I think I hear David saying... "There is no view from nowhere" - Thomas Natal. A speaker cannot remove herself from the hermeneutical process - AND she shouldn't try. God didn't give us a list of rules, a program, to run humanity ... we received God's story to live in and out. The idea that there is one, and only one, "true" meaning of scripture robs God of his ability to speak to us throughout time. Hermeneutics is the art (not science) of interpreting and applying Scripture. Scripture must be handled well; respected as an inspired, living story that is still unfolding - God is still speaking.

I favor preaching (I am a pastor)- I think God has always used creative, passionate human beings to communicate in community - sometimes in spite of the efforts or agenda of the speaker! But the Spirit is active during the preperation, the delivery, and the reception. I think God honors the creativity, energy, and devotion of the speaker whose heart is devoted to God... but it is God who is responsible for the outcome in the life of the community.

Methinks David is right on track! The consumer mindset takes the application and makes it all about the hearer rather than the One who is revealed through the Word. David's post made me think about "theocentric preaching."

Darryl Dash has posted some great insights regarding theocentric preaching. Read the first part entitled "Theocentric premise one: The Bible is not a book about you" at his blog: http://www.dashhouse.com/darryl/2006/06/theocentric_pre.htm#more

1) where is the evdence that Expository preachers assume their congregations are Cartesian selves? How does this explain the rapid growth of the small group?
2) How is it philosophically interesting that people find it difficult to follow all the preacher's thoughts in one hearing? How on earth does this prove that there is no stable meaning in the text? We are leaping to silly conclusions from the premise of human fallibility.
3) The post does not prove, or even argue for a cause-effect relationship between Expository preaching, and individualism on the pews. It simply assumes it. Anyway, if we're buying into Derrida, we can't detect cause-effect relationships
4) If we're buying into Derrida we shouldn't be trying to resolve differances like good/evil, cause/ effect or good preaching/ bad preaching. That sort of stuff counts as violence.
5) In any case, why are post - evangelicals buying into Derrida, when the academy is abandoning him?
6) How can there be enough meaning in the text to produce a consensus in the Church, when there is no stable meaning in the text?
7) There are always bad explanations for any set of evidence. There may even be several good ones. That does not preclude a Best Explanation, or Interpretation. Whether a large group, a smalll group, or an individual reaches that explanation has nothing to do with it's cognitive value.
8) In any case, you want me to read this post, and understand your argument, even though I could put several interpretations to it. You hope I digest the thoughts and select the best nuggets. You want me to reason as an autonomous individual at some level.
9) I've never met any preacher that this post would accurately describe.
10 ) Post evangelicalism needs it's own Alan Sokal.

I am interested in the follow-up to this article. My biggest lament is that no matter what style of preaching is used, there seems to be a failure to deliver the Word with authority. What does that mean - to speak authoritatively from the Word of God? It was one of the things that set Christ apart from the teachers of his day.

I want the guy who edits my comments to know that I appreciate this posting. It seems timely given the discussion around the previous topic of media and ministry.

Let's focus on one word initially: authority. Or, as Cartman says, authoriTIE! The problem with Cartman's authoriTIE is that HE's the only one that recognizes that authority. Preaching the word of God only has as much authority as the listeners give it. In seminary I was asked to read Stephen Chernock's "The Existence and Attributes of God", an exhaustive account of the subject spread over two volumes. What I found most incredible was that these long, long writings were actually SERMONS that he preached. In Chernock's day, the preacher had the authority, and the people who had granted that authority sat and willingly listened.

We don't have that today. We don't trust anyone in a position of authority. "Who are YOU to tell ME what to do?"

If I was a "preacher" instead of a software-engineer-rock-star-wannabe, I'd put the pews in a circle. And I would offer a topic - either from the events of the day, or perhaps something going on within the church community - and I would let the people in the congregation participate in the discussion. There's not a doubt in my mind that there will be people who will grab on and say, "It's like in Romans where..." - and we'd go to Romans. And we'd talk about that. And we'd try to find our place each week in the dynamic story that is Christianity. Or we could decide that circumstances in the church point us to a particular book and look at that for a few weeks. But always in dialogue. With Google, no one is the sole (soul?) owner of knowledge anymore. We have actually realized the priesthood of believers.

We need to preach like Jesus. In the midst of the people. With real-life stories that can mold us in different ways every time we hear them. Expository preaching is the expected result of the Western view of our faith - structured outlines, three points that all start with "D", fill-in-the-blank inserts in bulletins. We need to get back to that narrator's voice that says, "The moral of the story is...".

I have listened to sermons for probably 46 of my 56 short years on this earth and preached some myself. Undoubtedly I have learnt much, my intellect has ammassed sriptural points of view, my ears been tickled by witty anecdotes and my heart warmed by pertinent testimony. So dear preacher-men not all your effort was wasted - but was all your effort the best use of you time and effort -- and of the time and words expended in the congregrational setting.

When I look at the first ten to fifteen years of my life as a christian, during which time I was a preacher and church leader and elder, many of the folks whom I still have contact with re-call the impact of times of bible discussion with greater clarity and life-long impact than any of my prayerfully crafted sermons. The sermons addressed a point of scripture, took a look in depth at a chapter or letter, a theological question - but the bible discussions truly addressed the questions, problems and difficulties each member had at that moment in time - and the answers came from the experience and wisdom of what God was doing in the lives of other members, not just the preacher or leader. And it was appropriate there and then to pray for the person and the need - it didnot disrupt the schedule.

We need the whole congregation to hear what God is doing in the lives of all his people (not in the mind of one person). David said in the psalms I will tell all God has done for me in the midst of the congregation. Paul urged us each to meet each bringing a hymn, a psalm, a word of instruction, a revelation, a toungue , an interpretation - sounds like all the people (could have) participated.

I don't remember many sermons - and when I do I seem to have invariably been challenged by some incidental element of the speakers monologue. What are they meant to achieve? and are they hitting that target? Is the aim is to help people grow to become mature Christians or to show off the skill and understanding of the preacher? Or worse - is it to get people to conform (unquestioningly) to this or that idea or project?
{especially where questioning can get you labelled disruptive and unspiritual}.

We need words of (eternal) life and God speaks and works and lives in this era of the New covenant through all His people

We would hope that no individual is an island within the church. It's the interaction within the church body that brings about a consensus of thought. We can’t lay this at the feet of any particular type or style of preaching, or teaching. It’s through the interaction of the body within the church that would help in developing a better insite on a particular thought. And thus, not leaving a person to their own devices or interpretations!

For lack of a better term, the sifting of any particular sermon can be passed down through the hierarchy of the church body. We have deacons, elders etc. They shouldn’t be there just to pass the collection plate! They should be the eyes and ears of the pastor! As is often the case. it is nearly impossible for a pastor to deal with the proper thought of a particular sermon on an individual basis. Call it nurturing, sheparding….the whole church has to operate on a team level. And the pastor must have confidence in those that have been appointed to carry out this duty. He certainly can't be expected to do it all on his own!!

"Expository preaching assumes that Christian growth happens individually and cognitively"
Isn't this one of the ways Christians can grow? Should we assume that Christian growth doesn't happen in these ways?

"The myth that expository preaching is more faithful to the text is simply not true."
It may not NECESSARILY be more faithful, but at least it uses the text.

"Each idea is heard in terms of each hearer's context."
This is true of all forms of communication, especially when I am talking to my wife!

"...it is the parishioner who decides whether, how, and what to accept in the preaching."
If you find a vehicle for spiritual growth, I can find someone in my church able to turn it into a commodity.

***Please forgive my prooftexting of your article. I realize that I haven't interacted in a deep or meaningful way with your primary argument. But I felt like going for more of "topical" blog response instead of exegeting your article and responding systematically and with three points.

Overall I agree with what seems like a warning from you about evangelicalism's assumptions about the centrality of expository preaching as the primary means of spiritual growth. However, since Jesus spent a significant portion of his time teaching to thousands of people on hillsides who may or may not have been in community together, I look forward to hearing your conclusions in your next post. Good stuff so far!

I've recently been thinking about this very thing here, following a closer reading of Yoder's Heremeneutics of Peoplehood, and thinking that my own preaching has yet to truly incorporate a communal hermeneutic. Yes, i reach back to the past, and yes, i read authors now, but why not actually talk to the people with whom i'm communicating God's word? Why not actually work together (community, anyone?)? Great post to make me think. thanks.

Hmm. Like many comments in the Emergent Conversation, this thesis draws a little heavy on straw men.

Yes, there are those who erroneously believe they are preaching the clear, unadulterated word of God, with no human spin or distortion. That said, the vast majority of evangelical pastors who preach expository sermons do so with the aid of good commentaries, as much as they know of the controversies surronding a given passage, and a great deal of concern that they convey the truth in what they say. For the most part, it is just an attempt to apply deductive Bible study to sermon delivery, an approach I think has much to recommend it.

It is also interesting to note that many pastors who preach in this way also provide discussion questions on the sermon for small groups to use in the following week, thus giving the Body an opportunity to better understand and apply the message, as well as correct misunderstandings.

I think the problem is not with the preaching method so much as it is with the structure of the service and the size of the crowd. If you are speaking to a hundred people, you could have some discussion, but not if you are preaching to 200 or more. The passive posture of the congregant on Sunday morning is the real issue, not the preaching style. (If you are smart, you use a variety of styles, unless you can really knock 'em out week after week with just one method.)

I much prefer an expository sermon, with thoughtful application, to preaching that starts with an application or bully pulpit and then searches for a text to support the preacher's personal views....

Large group exposition is fine, we simply have too much.

Indeed, the power of self discovery is very great. Jesus did not preach the truth clearly because he knew selfish people only believe what they discover themselves. Thus, his preaching was successful because it could not be understood at face value.

Small groups have the power of self discovery of truth and of our errors as we speak them out in the group and are checked. The pastor is checked by speaking out his idea in an active church, but what of the rest of us who were not encouraged to speak out what we thought? Here in China, I have seen how churches of 8 people have the most life. When they get a preacher, their life starts to go down. By staying small (13 or less), churches can really have active body life and the power of self discovery exists and is checked.

The Communists here are sponsoring a big spiritual boom here by forcing fellowships to stay small in most cases. The small groups have fallen into this value without seeking it. What I see is that quarterly preaching is usefull and more is too much though each person might have different needs. Jesus preached for 3 years and thus we should have about 150 sermons from him, but that was not what was happening.

Unexamined church attendence where we do not achieve the mutuality of 'one another' required in Hebrews 10:24,25 is non-Biblical. Thus we have gone to the church thinking we were keeping the command to 'meet together' but failed to do it the way Hebrews describes it. Weekly mutuality and quarterly preaching could create more balance.

Even here, where the benefits of small groups have been seen, they would abandon small groups for big groups gradually if they could. People are lazy by nature and we also have trouble accepting that we are as part of the body as anyone and therefore responsible.

But might post modernism bring us back to this de-mystifying of weekly preaching as the core of fellowship if we think about it?

Your message is loaded with pedantic speech and very little clarity. Perhaps you were only writing for a small group of theologians.

Am wondering what your teaching might be like, possibly filled with allegories and abstracts fearing the text is overly complex?

As I read the bible I'm quite confident it is well worded, extremely powerful to any who is seeking to know his/her Creator.

Am a bit miffed with the microanalysis of how we read or teach and definitely don't trust the topical story telling message we often hear with very little context. I love going chapter by chapter getting the whole story.

Lynn Berntson Jacksonville Oregon

But, I do wish you well.

The first time we see Jesus Christ teaching, as it is recorded in Luke, He is not using parables or illustrations. The Lord goes straight to the Word of God and declares himself the fulfillment of Scripture. Likewise, the Sermon on the Mount is pulled straight from what we refer to as the Old Testament.

In His public ministry, Jesus was, first, an expository teacher. There were those who didn’t get it and there were those who did get it and hated Him for it.

And there were those few who came to him from all walks and believed. The powerful, the wealthy, the sick, the scorned. Each had his or her own individual perspective; his or her own moment in which they thought Christ could only be talking about and to them. Yet each one came to the same saving faith.

The post is another in a long line of attacks on the sufficiency of Scripture that have appeared in this blog. The writer expresses a judgementalism based on stereotypes and clichés. His broad-brush criticisms are foundationless and even if he had a leg to stand on, he comes to the wrong conclusions.

The writer also dismisses the influence of the Holy Spirit on both the preacher/teacher and the hearer. The “community of the Spirit” is not a member of the trinity. God is active in the delivery and the reception of His Word. No one relying solely on human intellect will experience the full, saving, cleansing, liberating power of God’s Word. But it is those who desire “conversation” rather than sound teaching that are relying on human wisdom. Christian growth does happen individually and cognitively for those individuals who actively surrender to the Lord.

Thank you David for making beef-burgers of a sacred cow. I agree with you about the mythology of the 'sacredness' of expository preaching and historical-critical exergesis. It is not only amongst North American evangelicals.In Malaysia and Singapore too, there is this myth about expository preaching and others. Others being less 'sacred' than expository preaching.

The myth of expository preaching causes a unspoken divide between the preaching/clergy and the congregation/laypersons. It implies that only people who are theologically trained can teach and preach because they can do exergetically historical-critical studies while the rest have to sit back and take what has been offered to them. What happens to the ministry of the laity and priesthood of all believers?

I look forward to the second half of yur posting.

Appreciate the discussions we have in the comments area - I just hope we don't stray too far and leave the original author's intent (he who has ears to hear...).

A couple of thoughts:

1) Like our discussion of media, is our discussion of preaching focused more on a proposed solution than on the problem itself? In other words, we say we have to use these technologies - or, we have to limit our give-and-take in the preaching service - because of the size of our churches these days. Maybe the real issue is whether or not our large churches are adequately fulfilling the intent of the church as a community of believers that, in my understanding, should be much more intimate and familiar with one another than they are. The cell-church approach was one outcome of the awareness of this shortcoming - but again a solution that assumed we were stuck with the problem.

2) My take on Paul's teaching is that a church should be adequately gifted to fulfill the roles it needs. What does this say of the typically regional or nationwide searches we undertake for pastoral candidates when a pulpit is empty? One would think the church might be "re-"gifted - or might look again at the gifts present - in order to determine who should rise up and fill the void.

3) When Paul says to Timothy, "Preach the word," we automatically leap to an interpretation of "word" that comprises the 66 books we know as the "Bible." How could that have been his intent when the books were not yet written, much less drawn into a canon? I believe they were preaching the gospel - who Christ was and what his death and resurrection meant.

Which is why Paul writes Romans, to show what Jesus' death accomplished...

Which is why Romans doesn't mention hell...

Which is why I don't believe in eternal punishment...

Which is why the OutofUr editor has to "proof" (and edit) my comments...

I heard the author downplaying the pursuit of the "author's intent" - if this is not the case then I'm in tune with the author but if he's downplaying pursuing the "author's intent" as the meaning then a few questions/points.

If we don't pursue the author's intent then what are we pursuing in Biblical exegesis? I understand that it is difficult and even impossible in the strictist sense, however what is the other option as we read, study, and interpret the text?

As an analogy, I also realize that we are all called to become like Christ - holy. My understanding of the text (and my understanding of life) shows me that I'm not going to get there but that is still the best goal to pursue and worth all the effort and energy.

Similarly (in agreement I think), community helps me in pursuing both these goals - the meaning of the text and the Christ like life. However, I have never felt that expository preaching had to be done in isolation.

Maybe it would be helpful to hear what the author means by expository preaching because I may not understand it properly.

Can we agree on these points?
1) There is more to the Church than the preaching of the word.
2) Preachers do not understand God's word perfectly, and even if they could they could not communicate the meaning perfectly - and even if they could the congregation would not know how to apply it perfectly.
3) There are (perfectly stable) layers of meaning in God's word. Even if we did have exhaustive knowledge of them, one sermon (or commentary) could not exhaust all the meaning.
4) These layers of meaning change their significance for different people at different times.
5) If individuals cannot have exhaustive knowledge of the text, neither can commmunities, however large or old these communities are.
6) Communities are more likely to impose meaning on a text than an individual is, as communities have more power. There is danger in running to a community for certainty.
7) An individual can initiate important change within an community. Individuals can have insights that communities miss.
8) Not understanding all the meaning in the text is not the same as not understanding any of the meaning in a text.
9) Imperfect communication is not the same as an inability to communicate.
10) There are many things that we cannot prove of which we can be certain.

I've been discussing David's book at my blog. I think there are two very important points in his argument that need to be highlighted.

One, expository preaching does not protect against the bias of the interpreter. Because many preachers and Christians think it does, it allows personal biases to sneak in without people noticing. This alone makes it dangerous.

Second, expository preaching turns the text into a commodity that the preacher packages and the consumer can choose to buy or not.

I think where most people get hung up is that they cannot imagine a better alternative to expository preaching. The first step is to acknowledge the problem. The second step is to look for a solution.

Rod

Reading all of your comments has been engaging and edifying, and has led me to another question: Can authority to preach the Word be attained without a life that is above reproach, a life that reflects the Word preached? I don't think so. An earlier comment suggests that congregations grant or refuse authority to preachers. This seems to be a fair assessment. Thus, it seems that a preacher of the Word will only have a message taken seriously if his/her listeners see what they hear, i.e. if the message is being lived in full by the preacher.

With the entire postmodern culture (Christian and non) screaming at me, “it’s what you do that defines you,” I need to own my God-given messages more than ever if I want to do my part in attempting to reach it. I dare not say from the pulpit what I dare not say through my life.

However, I also would do well not to forget that any authority, though granted or withheld by my listeners, finds its source in God Almighty. Authority is given by the Father, says Jesus Christ, whether religious, political or other. The Triune God does not require expository style to do His work. Book studies, word studies, context and history: these work very well, but they also fail very well.

I often forget that my calling as a preacher is not one of professionalism or producing results. It is one of faithfulness to a wildly gracious God. If they are His words that leave my mouth, the Lord will accomplish what He wants to accomplish because His words do not come back void. Style may aid or hinder presentation; only the Holy Spirit accomplishes mission.

Along a different vein, I am definitely looking forward to the next segment of this post. I think the writer does have the pulse of many Evangelical congregations and pastors today (though certainly not all) when he describes the overly-individualistic tendencies in our theology of sanctification. Jesus prays for unity for all the believers. Why was that his prayer? Perhaps because Christian living is inherently communal. Perhaps because just as God is three-in-one, so also is His Church many-in-one. Perhaps the restored imago Dei is the many-in-one Body of Christ.

This post makes some assumptions about preachers and listeners and places at the feet of expository preaching what could be said of all preaching and hearing. I hope for more clarity in the second post.

I am not sure if any of our particular styles of preaching produce consumers or simply serve to reveal the consumer in all of us. Jesus often said that those with ears to hear should also listen. His ministry was infested with consumers; people who wanted to see a trick, people who wanted to be healed but not changed, people who liked his ability to stuff the religious leadership of his day. I have heard different “Experts” attribute to Jesus every style of preaching, a narrative style, expository style, a topical style and this is usually by their own preference. What the bible actually attributes to Jesus is that he knew the scriptures, the hearts of men and spoke with authority and was deeply connected to the Father. That might be a recipe that transcends any style of preaching.

Preaching is not an isolated once a week action but an ongoing weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly dialog. The impact of preaching is accumulative in that it sets the tone for so much within the community. Preaching sets the tone for grace and truth, something Jesus was full of. Preaching sets the tone for transparency in a church. Preaching sets the tone for values within a community of faith. The list goes on and on. People don’t remember school lesson, college lessons, or even a majority of books they read, but that does not mean people do not learn because of these things. I cannot remember the lesson that taught me that 2+2 =4 but I did learn it. The power of preaching is usually not found in a single message. As for the word dialog, the dialog happens in community. The dialog happens before and after church, in small groups and as people interact with each other. Just because someone is not putting their 2 cents in during a message does not mean that preaching is a one way street.

Very thought-provoking article and comments. David hits on what all of us preachers know at some level to be true. He wrestles well with the issues of intent, reception, and commodification.
One of his basic premises (the meaning preachers intend is not always the meaning hearers get) is clearly demonstrated in some of the posts, whose authors seem to read all sorts of things into the article that I didn't get.
I really appreciated this article, with the exception of the three paragraphs bordered by "Most disturbing..." and "...over their lives." Maybe I didn't get what was intended, but those paragraphs take an otherwise helpful article down several notches. In these three paragraphs, there is too much hyperbole, assumption, and straw-man tactic - all of which undermines the otherwise helpful insights. Especially unhelpful is the insinuated isolation of expository preaching as being the only form of preaching that faces these challenges. Addressing the issues faced by preachers (of any preaching style) does not require that we dismiss one particular approach. There may be other reasons for disliking exegetical preaching (I'm no real fan of that approach, myself), but the ones stated here seem overdrawn and not all that related to the real issues at hand (issues which are very well stated).
Also troubling in the article (and in some posts) is what seems to be a too-easy dismissal of the role of the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit is just a theolgically-correct term for "really, really hoping very hard" then David is on target. But having a deep reliance on the Spirit of God to be present in the total act of preaching (study, writing, delivery, hearing and doing of the word) seems to be right on with what a sound Christian preacher would do. Our hope is in more than hope, it is in God, whose Spirit really is active (even in preaching!).
I anticipate the follow up article, especially if David positively addresses the important topic of "how we can reshape and restore the proclamation of the gospel in the church gathering amid postmodernity" without getting sidetacked.

My dear brother, without the expository preaching of the holy canon of Scripture, all you have is myth.

I'm a little confused by Mr Fitch's definition of 'expositional' preaching. Most good preachers and Christians acknowledge that the Spirit and the Word must work together to impact change in someone's life.

I think he has erected this straw man of expositionary preaching that is simply logic and all Word and no community. I don't see that this type of preaching is very common... as it is probably hidden in the confines of very conservative Lutheranism, Baptists, and Presbyterianism.

The problem in our culture is that "we have listeners and not doers" of the Word. So how do we go about helping people change and 'do the Word'? Do we change or compromise the message of the Word so that people can, in fact, act in consistency with the message preached? I think not... the author is right about one thing... we need stronger relationships. The preaching is right but what is wrong is that we're not listening and our leaders don't follow what their preaching.

which came first: the Enlightenment, Protestant Reformation, or expository preaching? we assume greatly before even critiquing this article:

a) that preaching happens in either a worship service or small group

b) that it is either lectured on by one person or discussed by many with one person asking probing questions

c) that it is essential to the validity of the church

could it be that this is an issue because of our filters, not because of the act of preaching in and of itself? just a different path for this discussion.

peace-
subversion inc.

Everything that was stated in objection to expository preaching would be at least as applicable to topical preaching.

I believe that topical and expository preaching are still effective in today's world.

I personally love expository preaching. The assumption that every expository preacher looks for "3 points and an application" is incorrect.

An outstanding point was made in regard to expository preaching - Listeners can leave with a different/alternate interpretation of the text than that of the speaker's. It is possible that both, neither, or either could be correct.

Misunderstanding the point of a topical sermon is much less likely. But, what if the preacher is wrong? It is easy to accidently (or purposely) take passages out of context when preaching topically.

The statement that - "what we have is thousands of commentaries on the Bible that present numerous unresolved options for interpreting practically every verse in the Bible" - is somewhat mis-leading and marginalizes the effect that the Holy Spirit has had throughout Christian history. It's been 2000 years. Certainly we have allowed pride to segment us. But during that time 95% of us have come to the same conclusion on 95% of the text (i.e. If Christians from every denomination were asked to list the two greatest commands, what would the overwhelming majority of the responses be?). Unfortunately we spend our time concentrating on the 5% that separates us rather than the 95% that we agree on.

It seems to me that expository preaching is based in a thouroughly modern mind-set that seeks to scientifically examine scripture. In theory it seems one does not even have to be a believer in any sense, just educated in the relevant disciplines. Likewise, it implies a scientific response from the listener, perhaps similar to the response expected by watching "An Incovenient Truth".

Rationality is not bad, and I remain convinced that it is important to try to get as close as possible to the original intended meaning of the text. That is difficult to do.

Preaching is a creative act, and as such is subject to influences that are relational, human and not objectively "scientific". Preachers are not the only ones to be surprised at what people get out of their sermons; songwriters and filmakers get that too ( I know from experience).

I'm curious what " in and through the community of the Spirit" means. I've come to the conclusion that evangelicals in particular just place too much importance on preaching. That's why I've ended up in the Anglican Church where there is a much greater emphasis on the sacrament of Communion. I still like there to be an attempt at a sermon that is learned as well as humbly submitted as the Word of God to that particular people for that Sunday.

To exposit is to "lay open", "explain", to illustrate, to interpret, (in context) from the undiluted beauty of the inspired Word of God. It is not the only way to communicate truth, but it is an important and biblical method, that is readily useable by the Holy Spirit, and pleasing to God.
Perhaps I am too simple for such articles or ideas, but to speak of the "myth" of expository preaching, and then waffle on about nothing...I'm not impressed, but not surprised these days.

It is unfortunate that Leadership mag chooses to give a high profile to attacks on expository preaching. Like so many associated with the emerging church "conversation" this article sets up straw men and knocks them down without an op ed opportunity for debate. In this case, the writer equates expository preaching with "one man show" preaching, and argues nicely for a community approach like Doug Pagitt's progressional dialogue. In reality, the basic premise applies to topical preaching or needs-based contemporary preaching. The issues are separate.

First, is a sermon developed in "community" superior to one developed by a "preacher?" No. This premise assumes that the Man of God is just a guy like anyone else without a unique calling to do what he does. The writer also blatantly mocks the working of the Holy Spirit. If he has such a low view of the scriptures and the Holy Spirit, simply increasing the number of people involved will not solve the problem.

Second, is expository preaching deficient? No. The preacher does not presume that "all by himself" he can find the one, only, indisputable truth without regard for anyone else. This is the same silly argument that most postmoderns make -- that if you cannot find the ultimate truth, you cannot find any truth. The truth is ... pun intended ... that at least with expository preaching you start with the Word of God and make an honest attempt at exposing the truth as closely as you can get to the original author's intention, and then make application and illustration to aid the listeners in making the Word live in their lives.

On the other hand, in topical preaching or in progressional dialogue, the beginning place is not the Bible, but the person -- or in this writer's opinion, the community. Frankly, I'd prefer at least to try to follow Paul's admonition, "Preach the Word."

As I was reading the blog post and the accompanying commentaries, some thoughts struck me. The primary one - each person who responded did so through the filters of their own bias. As much was read into what was written as is also read into our sermons when we preach. We've got to understand that, as God has made each one of us differently, we will all preach differently. I tend to preach more topically, but I also preach through whole books. Either form I preach I always approach it expositorily - what does the passage say? What does it mean? What of my biases am I reading into it? How does the Holy Spirit want this truth communicated? How can we apply this truth to our daily lives? What does God want us to believe, feel or do because of this passage?

What it all boils down to is that all biblical preaching deals with these issues in every sermon. One form is not better than another. What matters is that we are true to the Word and to the Spirit's leading. People in our churches are going to look at it through their own biases. Those we can't control. But God's Spirit can use our preaching to replace those biases with His own.

So let's get along on the playground. The Church doesn't need pastors overanalyzing and/or criticizing what each other is doing. Let's allow Christ to make our one and only bias - becoming more and more like Him.

Please, whoever does it, stop referring to the preaching of Jesus or those around his time as "expository preaching". Good gosh. I mean, if you enjoy expository preaching, great. You get more from it than I, which is fine sometimes I suppose. But jeez, that doesn't mean that Jesus did it. I would explain what I mean, but it is a bit complex, and I already did it once from Dave's other blog here:

http://jasonhesiak.blogspot.com/2006/07/modernity-and-post-modernity.html

Good beginning to a healthy conversation. This would be an unfortunate ending, however.

I am exploring some of these same ideas for a DMin dissertation at ACTS Seminaries at Trinity Western University and have initiated some thoughts on my own blog http://neoathanasius.blogspot.com/2006/05/preaching-from-middle.html
in what I call preaching from the middle.

I would maintain that while the expository preacher does bring his own ideas in, just as is said here, it nonetheless will follow the text more closely than many other forms of preaching because it, well, follows the text.

If anyone has not headed over to David's blog yet, then be sure to do so.

Nice straw man. If I didn't know what expository preaching was, I might have been convinced. Unfortunately, I've experienced expository preaching, and what you describe is what I would constrast expository preaching with.

Just a couple of "points." First, Without revelation from the Holy Spirit, no sermon is productive. Secondly, the letter to the Ephesians teaches us that the primary function of the "gifts to the church" is not to "wow" or "educate" the congregation, but to prepare the listeners for the work of "the ministry." I do not claim infalibility, but think I rely on the Holy Spirit to lead me into my sermon preparation. When I refer to the earlier theologians, it is to see if what I am teaching lines up with what has already been revealed or is being revealed to the church. Sometimes I "switch" methodology depending on what I think I hear the Holy Spirit saying. Our congregation (smallish) knows that I not only "allow," but encourage interruption for clarification, as does our adult Sunday School teacher. I am not sure I see any fault in this method. Blessings and peace to you all.