Has Biblicism Hurt Preaching?

An Inquiry Into the Nature and Purpose of the Preaching Ministry.

Note: Special thanks to my “editor” and wife, Anna, for helping me clarify my thoughts and for encouraging me to write without ChatGPT!

“And the impressing of divine things on the heart and affections of men, is evidently one great end for which God has ordained, that his word delivered in the Holy Scriptures, should be opened, applied, and set home upon men, in preaching. And therefore it does not answer the aim which God had in this institution, merely for men to have good commentaries and expositions on the Scripture, and other good books of divinity; because, although these may tend, as well as preaching, to give a good doctrinal or speculative understanding of the word of God, yet they have not an equal tendency to impress them on men's hearts and affections.”¹

Jonathan Edwards

Throughout church history, the church discovers a grave error that occurs within her walls, and in turn, the church corrects herself and sets herself aright by the grace of God. This is the principle of “Semper Reformanda,” which means we are always to be reforming and correcting ourselves, seeking further holiness and alignment with the mind, will, and heart of the Lord Jesus Christ. This was the intention of the Reformation, the Puritans, and the First Great Awakening. The Reformation saw the primary errors of the Roman Catholic Church and sought to correct the errors by focusing on the means (or doctrines) of grace. For the Puritans, they saw the errors of the Church of England and called her to repentance and to greater adherence to the Scriptures. For the First Great Awaking, men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and the Wesley brothers saw the apathy and lack of spiritual vitality within the church at large and called the church to repentance.

Even throughout the medieval church, there were movements of sudden reformations and revivals that sought to correct the church at large. Semper Reformanda is an essential task of the church of Christ as it seeks to come further into the likeness of the Lord Jesus Christ and His will. We mirror Christ’s own desires in the Garden of Gethsemane, “not my will, but Thy will be done.” (Luke 22:42)

However, throughout these revivals, there often tends to be overcorrections, or “pendulum swings.” What comes most clearly to my mind is the 20th century evangelical church and her response to theological liberalism. In response to theological liberalism’s poisonous grasp on Christianity, the church sought to keep the conservative “fundamentals” of the faith. The fundamentalists of the 20th century attempted to hold fast to the doctrines of grace, fighting against the waves of denials of biblical inerrancy and infallibility. While this was good and proper, there also sprouted out of it an idea that has hurt the church more than it has aided it. This theological overcorrection that grew out of the battle against theological liberalism is biblicism.

While I acknowledge that biblicism has its roots deeper throughout history, particularly the term being used in the 19th century, biblicism really started making its grounds in the 20th century, especially in the Reformed church.

Biblicism has taken on many definitions, so here is my brief definition and understanding of it.

Biblicism is an interpretive approach to Scripture that isolates Scripture from outside historical context, church tradition, or reason. Its adherents attempt to uphold Sola Scriptura by arguing that if something is not explicitly stated within the Scriptures, it is not valid.

In one sense, the proponents of biblicism have commendable motives. Those who consider themselves biblicists desire to see Scripture upheld as the ultimate authority in the church and her practices of faith. Scripture is the very Words of God, and all of its words are living, inerrant, infallible, and true. While the ultimate desire and concern of biblicists are most certainly proper, I believe that this overcorrection of the 20th century evangelical church has perhaps caused more damage to the church than good.

For the sake of brevity, I will not attempt to dismantle biblicism or its adherents. Rather, the primary argument of this article is to see the effects biblicism has had on the modern Reformed church and to show that perhaps this approach to understanding the Scriptures has not been as helpful as we may have originally thought. I am arguing that the way biblicism has been applied in the modern church has shifted the purpose and emphasis of the pulpit.

The Dilemma of the Church

There is something gravely wrong with the modern church.

Most would call me cynical or a “pessimistic premillenial” for my view of the modern church, but all it takes is a look at church history and the responses of countless faithful modern ministers to see that something is most certainly wrong with the church today.

People walk in and out of the sanctuary without feeling a sense that they have been in the presence of God. There is a deep apathy in the lives and hearts of men and women toward God and each other. This realization is what sparked men like Herman Bavinck, J. I. Packer, and A. W. Tozer to write extensively about this spiritual decline. They sensed that something disconcerting was happening in the modern church…

J. I. Packer writes in his Introductory Essay to John Owen’s The Death of Death in The Death of Christ,

“There is no doubt that evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastor's dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and or equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead.” ²

Similarly, A. W. Tozer writes in his preface to The Knowledge of the Holy,

“It [Tozer’s book] is called forth by a condition which has existed in the Church for some years and is steadily growing worse. I refer to the loss of the concept of majesty from the popular religious mind. The Church has surrendered her once lofty concept of God and has substituted for it one so low, so ignoble, as to be utterly unworthy of thinking, worshipping men. This she has done not deliberately, but little by little and without her knowledge; and her very unawareness only makes her situation all the more tragic.”³

Herman Bavinck also saw this spiritual decline of the modern church writing,

“The knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, is steadily declining. Interest in the mysteries of the kingdom of God diminishes daily, not only outside but also within Christian circles.”⁴

The more I read the history of the church, I have seen a gradual decline not only within the pews, but also the pulpit. The kind of preaching that sent sparks throughout the Reformation, that fueled the hope of the Puritans, and set ablaze revivals in the First Great Awakening are but distant memories. Sermons do not have the same weight and the same kind of spiritual authority that they once had. Sometimes it may feel like the Words of God are being unaccompanied by His power and authority (1 Thessalonians 1:5). As a result, the Protestant church in North America is dying at alarming rates and there is a growing trend of Protestants fleeing to Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, and Catholicism. I believe one of the main motives of these defectors is the desire to see spiritual authority and vitality return to the church. They are leaving the seemingly bland, unauthoritative, uninspired ministry of the pulpit for the lively, beautiful, reverential ministry of the high church. In their minds, they are exchanging death for life.

In response to this alarming decline in Protestant churches, many seminaries and training programs for preachers attempt to revitalize the church by emphasizing the need to teach pastors the “correct way to preach.” They see the main issue of the pulpits to be the lack of “correct” exegesis and exposition of a text.

As a result, these programs and preaching classes emphasize the need for the extensive study of hermeneutics, exegesis, and expository approaches to the Scriptures, concluding that the purpose of the minister is “accuracy.” The job of the preacher is to get the text “right”, and as long as the pastor gets the text accurate, everyone walks away happy.

As Protestants, there is part of us that initially agrees. In one sense, this is a good and proper aspect of preaching to focus on. Is not the job of the preacher to ultimately understand and know the Scriptures? However, I believe that this kind of emphasis and conclusion of the purpose of preaching is gravely mistaken and is a result of biblicism.

Biblicism’s heavy focus upon “Scripture and only Scripture,” which has good and commendable desires, has in turn caused something very strange and detrimental to happen to the pulpit. In our attempt to uphold the authority of Scripture, we seem to have missed the entire point of expositing a text and preaching a sermon altogether. The result of biblicism has caused the pulpit to be primarily about accuracy, but is this really the correct way to view preaching?

“Anyone Can Cook”

Another result of biblicism’s impact on preaching is the lowering of the authority and distinction of the pulpit. Historically, the office and task of the preacher was as much as about a spiritual calling as it was about meeting the 1 Timothy character and “ability to teach” requirement. The pastoral office was held as sacred, distinguished, and particular. The pastoral office and the task of preaching are not like every other profession or career. The holy task of heralding the Word of God was always set apart. As John Piper puts it, “Brothers, we are not professionals”.⁵ There has always been a particular distinction in the office of pastor and in the task of preaching. Therefore, the task was not to be taken up as though it is like any other profession. Preaching was first and foremost a spiritual task. This goes in direct contrast to how the office of preaching is viewed today.

Nowadays, as Chef Gusteau from Ratatouille, once put it, “anyone can cook!”⁶ Due to biblicism’s influence, preaching has become simply about brute exegesis and accuracy. However, if that is all that preaching is, in theory, anyone can do it. With the right education or just a crash course in BibleArc, anyone can preach a text. As a result, our pulpits are filled with unfit men who are not called to the ministry whatsoever, however, they are given a pulpit because they learned how to teach a text correctly. Further, I believe that this idea has partially influenced the egalitarian movement that has caused our pulpits to be filled with unfit men and women. Obviously, biblicism is not fully to blame for this, but I do believe this is in part due to biblicism’s influence on preaching. It appears to me to be a bit ironic. In our attempt to uphold the authority of Scripture, we have put down the authority of the ministry focused upon it. Since anyone can accurately interpret a text via Logos and anyone can learn how to give public speeches via Rhetoric class, then anyone can preach as long as they roughly meet the character “requirements”.

However, this does not seem to be the way ministers of the past have viewed the preaching ministry. For men like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, and many others, preaching was considered a distinguished office that could not be given to just anyone. The preaching ministry is a calling, and there is something within preaching itself that requires far more than merely eloquent speech and the accurate interpretation of the text.

“The Doctor”: Martyn Lloyd-Jones

During my time in one of these training programs, I couldn’t help but feel curiosity as to what the training of preachers in the past was like. I walked over to my bookshelf and picked up one book by a man whom I believe to be one of the greatest preachers to ever exist: Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

As I began reading Lloyd-Jones’ Preaching and Preachers, I couldn’t help but be shocked at his difference in emphasis in preaching compared to the emphasis of the modern training programs of preachers today, despite the fact that he was preaching less than a hundred years ago.

While Lloyd-Jones spoke about the importance of understanding the Scriptures well and the ability to dissect a passage correctly, the emphasis was far more focused not on the technicality of preaching, but rather on the spiritual reality of preaching and the affections of the minister and congregation.

Throughout Preaching and Preachers as well as various sermons and lectures, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones distinguishes preaching from other forms of public speaking, namely lecturing or teaching. For Lloyd Jones,

“A sermon is not a running commentary on, or a mere exposition of, the meaning of a verse or a passage or a paragraph. I emphasize this because there are many today who have become interested in what they regard as expository preaching but who show very clearly that they do not know what is meant by expository preaching. They think that it just means making a series of comments, or a running commentary, on a paragraph or a passage or a statement. When they have gone through the passage in this way they imagine they have preached a sermon. But they have not… I would suggest that far from having preached a sermon such preachers have only preached the introduction to a sermon!”⁷

Later, Jones makes the case that a sermon begins with the exposition of a text, but most certainly does not end there.

So what exactly is the ultimate goal of preaching? What ought pastors to be aiming for if exposition is only the beginning of the sermon? Martyn Lloyd-Jones says,

“What is the chief end of preaching? I like to think it is this. It is to give men and women a sense of God and His presence…I can forgive a man for a bad sermon, I can forgive the preacher almost anything if he gives me a sense of God, if he gives me something for my soul, if he gives me the sense that, though he is inadequate himself, he is handing something which is very great and very glorious, if he gives me some dim glimpse of the majesty and glory of God, the love of Christ my savior, and the magnificence of the Gospel.”⁸

Jones makes the case that a sermon, beginning expository, must necessarily lead to a further revelation of the majesty and glory of God Himself. The purpose of a sermon is not merely “explaining” or “expounding” (which is the meaning of “expository”) on a particular passage, but the purpose rather is to give the people of God an impression of God’s presence. The preacher is called to dig the unsearchable riches of Christ Jesus in the Scriptures and impress upon the minds, wills, and affections of the congregation the great riches the preacher himself has seen.

I am not denying that part of the job of the preacher is to accurately communicate the Scriptures. Exposition must certainly be part of the training of the preacher and he must learn how to accurately interpret the Scriptures. However, exposition is only an aspect of preaching; exposition is not supposed to be the end of preaching. Exposition is supposed to reveal to the preacher and the congregation the fuller meaning of the passage, the burden of the preacher, the heart of the Lord. “Accuracy” is not the ultimate objective of the preacher, and it was never meant to be.

To re-emphasize a particular quote from Jonathan Edwards at the beginning of this article, if preachers only focus their time, attention, and sermon-prep to the exposition of the passage, then they run the risk of being a lecture and spoken commentary.

And therefore it does not answer the aim which God had in this institution, merely for men to have good commentaries and expositions on the Scripture, and other good books of divinity; because, although these may tend, as well as preaching, to give a good doctrinal or speculative understanding of the word of God, yet they have not an equal tendency to impress them on men's hearts and affections.⁹

Both Lloyd-Jones and Edwards touch upon the primary task of the preacher which is the application, or “impression” of the glorious truths of the Word of God upon the hearts and affections of men.

Preaching, if it focuses primarily and only on the accuracy of the communication of the text, will inevitably fall flat on the congregation. It will become nothing more than an Old Testament and New Testament Survey class. Preaching is not merely the communication of good thoughts and accurate interpretations of texts; it is the task by which the Lord set out men to impress upon the hearts of other men the will, mind, heart, and thoughts of the Lord. Preaching ought to impress upon men’s affections the glory and majesty of Jesus Christ.

Back to Biblicism

Let me bring biblicism back into our discussion. I believe the rise of biblicism has been a huge factor in our discussion of preaching and the ways preaching has ultimately missed its intended purpose.

Biblicism’s affects on preaching have cost the church a great deal. Though biblicists desired to see the Word of God upheld as the ultimate authority, biblicism has also changed the way modern ministers preach. The emphasis of preaching is no longer to impress and speak into the lives, minds, and affections of believers. Preaching seems to begin with exposition and end with exposition. Most modern sermons and training programs seem to primarily emphasize the accuracy of the text with no real application or doctrine that derives from the text. The accuracy of the text is the ultimate purpose and end of preaching. The emphasis on biblicism has in turn affected the emphasis of preaching itself as well as the types of men who take up the task. While it is good to uphold the authority of Scripture and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, has biblicism caused our pulpits not only to shift perspectives but telos?

While most modern preachers would deny this allegation, I would encourage them and the congregation to pay attention to the sermon itself. Does the preacher seem to be deeply affected by the glorious truths he has studied throughout his week? Is the sermon itself structured to focus primarily upon the exposition of the text with no real attention to its application or impression upon the lives of the men and women listening to it? Is the man on the pulpit truly called to ministry, or did he simply take a class and can exposit a text accurately? Is the sermon just a commentary, dissecting the text without focusing upon its hearers and the need for these truths to deeply affect their souls?

I would caution the next generation of preachers to be aware of the ends for which they preach. Preachers are called not only to accurately interpret the Bible, but to bring men and women into the presence of God Almighty. Preachers are called to ultimately impress upon the hearts and affections of believers the surpassing worth of knowing Christ and expounding on the riches of the glory of his grace. I believe this newfound emphasis and ultimate end of “accuracy” that is disconnected from the real goal of preaching is harmful and can even cause the various issues we are seeing throughout the church.

1. Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Banner of Truth, 1981), 242.

2. J.I. Packer, “Introductory Essay,” in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (The Banner of Truth, 2016), 1.

3. A W Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 1992), vii.

4. Herman Bavinck, The Wonderful Works of God : Instruction in the Christian Religion according to the Reformed Confession (Glenside, Pennsylvania: Westminster Seminary Press, 2019), xxxi.

5. John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals : A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, Tenn.: B & H Pub, 2013).

6. Bird, Brad, and Jan Pinkava. 2007. Ratatouille. United States: Buena Vista Pictures. [1, 2]

7. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 72.

8. Ibid., 97-98.

9. Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 242.