Michael, excellent thoughts on this topic. I appreciate that your concerns arise from a deep burden, not an intellectual snobbery, and thus your article carries a spirit of humility rather than arrogance.
I completely agree with your characterization of the modern pulpit and its ministry. The words "unauthoritative," "uninspired," "bland," and "unspiritual" are sobering to say the least. Though I acknowledge that this characterization cannot be said of all churches and all preachers, I strongly believe that these adjectives do embody the overall "spirit" of the evangelical church in America (especially the Reformed church). I agree that the proper end and aim of preaching has been subtly shifted from "impressing divine things upon the heart and affections" to an emphasis upon "accuracy" and exegetical teaching. I also agree that the very spirit of the pulpit, as authoritative and sacred, and the preacher, as distinctive and spiritual, has been devastatingly clouded. The modern preacher seems to embody either the friendly, charismatic TED Talker or the bland "verse by verse" seminary graduate who is glued to his script. While some may argue that the latter case is preferable because he is rooted in the "text" (which is probably true), I am also weary of the incessant and exclusive emphasis on "expository preaching" in the Reformed church.
"Expository preaching" has become not only a household staple in Reformed churches, but I believe that the vast majority of Reformed Protestants would say that it is the only acceptable mode of preaching. I have had conversations with brothers and sisters who have made comments about their dissatisfaction with "topical series" or "character studies" because of their preference for the "book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse." Now, this attitude is noble in the way it desires to see "the whole counsel of God" preached and taught from the pulpit. However, I find it revealing how this mode of preaching has not only become the norm, but it has also become the "gold standard" of true orthodoxy. Anything other than the literal, historical, book-by-book exposition of the text is looked upon with disinterest (and even disdain). This attitude generally frowns upon the modes of preaching found in the patristic and medieval periods, and it certainly rejects (or at least does not interact with) the interpretations of Scripture common in these periods that do not strictly follow the literal, historical method. Thus, for all that modern preaching lacks in spiritual vitality, authority, and power it makes up with rigorous textual exposition and easy note taking.
I believe that this view falls short because it equates "preaching" with "exposition". Rather than seeing exposition as a particular and necessary function of the preacher, the "preacher" has become the mere "expositor," and as long as the exposition of the text is accomplished, then the preacher fulfills his role. This could be an overstatement, I'll admit. However, it seems accurate in my estimation.
Modern preaching's biblicist tendencies and bias towards expositional preaching has produced, I believe, a subtle arrogance amongst its adherents. While this view stands to uphold the authority of Scripture and see it taught faithfully, I often feel a weariness towards it. Throughout my life, I have heard "expository preaching" praised, esteemed, promoted, and spoken of as if it were the only suitable means of delivering a sermon. Churches that don't preach in this way are often met with glances of rejection or distrust. And yet, one glance at church history will provide nearly 2000 years of preachers who did not strictly fit this mold. Just read a few of Augustine's Christmas sermons on the incarnation. So why the incessant emphasis upon this form of preaching? Why such rigidity to this standard? Why so opposed and distrustful of other modes of interpretation or other styles of articulation? Is preaching truly mere exposition of the text?
So I am most curious, Michael, to hear your thoughts on how you believe the church can "reform" her ways! What must be done (or what can be done) to reestablish the sacredness and authority of the pulpit?
I'll end this with one objection to this discussion.
Preachers who preach expositionally often lean upon this biblical text:
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but sit shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:10-11)
This is a powerful promise in Scripture, and the preacher does well to lean upon it as he prepares to deliver a sermon. Yet, it is here that some would object to the notion that the pulpit could be void of vitality, authority, and power. I have often heard this text quoted and explained to mean that as long as God's word is "faithfully preached" (that is, preached according to the original intent of the author and unto the glory of God), then it WILL be effective in those who hear it because God has promised that his word will not return void. I may be misrepresenting, but I believe they would say that its effectiveness does not depend upon the preacher but only upon if it is faithfully preached. This means that as long as the Scripture is accurately and faithfully exposited, then that sermon will be effective in the lives of the people. I have heard one pastor critique one old author (E. M. Bounds I believe?) for saying something along the lines that there is the possibility that a pastor could preach without the power of the Holy Spirit, and he rejected this idea by quoting this passage.
Therefore, the objection would be that the power, authority, and vitality of preaching lies not so much in the preacher but in the Word of God. It is less in the "office" and more in the Scriptures themselves. The Holy Spirit always accompanies the preached Word to make it effective, and this is why "expository preaching" is necessary because it, more than other forms of preaching, seeks to faithfully proclaim the whole of God's Word. The Spirit "impresses divine truths" upon the listeners, and he does this when the Scriptures are faithfully and accurately taught in accordance with God's will. Any errors or failures of preaching lie in the unfaithful proclamation of the Word, which would seek to twist or corrupt God's truth, and that is why it is of the utmost importance to emphasize biblical exegesis and expository preaching in order to faithfully minister God's word.
You have probably heard this kind of objection, one that doubles down on expository preaching. How would you answer this??
Thank you for this thoughtful post, it was a great read! I very much share similar thoughts and I also appreciate you using men from different theological convictions, it really strengthened your argument. Keep going strong!
Michael, excellent thoughts on this topic. I appreciate that your concerns arise from a deep burden, not an intellectual snobbery, and thus your article carries a spirit of humility rather than arrogance.
I completely agree with your characterization of the modern pulpit and its ministry. The words "unauthoritative," "uninspired," "bland," and "unspiritual" are sobering to say the least. Though I acknowledge that this characterization cannot be said of all churches and all preachers, I strongly believe that these adjectives do embody the overall "spirit" of the evangelical church in America (especially the Reformed church). I agree that the proper end and aim of preaching has been subtly shifted from "impressing divine things upon the heart and affections" to an emphasis upon "accuracy" and exegetical teaching. I also agree that the very spirit of the pulpit, as authoritative and sacred, and the preacher, as distinctive and spiritual, has been devastatingly clouded. The modern preacher seems to embody either the friendly, charismatic TED Talker or the bland "verse by verse" seminary graduate who is glued to his script. While some may argue that the latter case is preferable because he is rooted in the "text" (which is probably true), I am also weary of the incessant and exclusive emphasis on "expository preaching" in the Reformed church.
"Expository preaching" has become not only a household staple in Reformed churches, but I believe that the vast majority of Reformed Protestants would say that it is the only acceptable mode of preaching. I have had conversations with brothers and sisters who have made comments about their dissatisfaction with "topical series" or "character studies" because of their preference for the "book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse." Now, this attitude is noble in the way it desires to see "the whole counsel of God" preached and taught from the pulpit. However, I find it revealing how this mode of preaching has not only become the norm, but it has also become the "gold standard" of true orthodoxy. Anything other than the literal, historical, book-by-book exposition of the text is looked upon with disinterest (and even disdain). This attitude generally frowns upon the modes of preaching found in the patristic and medieval periods, and it certainly rejects (or at least does not interact with) the interpretations of Scripture common in these periods that do not strictly follow the literal, historical method. Thus, for all that modern preaching lacks in spiritual vitality, authority, and power it makes up with rigorous textual exposition and easy note taking.
I believe that this view falls short because it equates "preaching" with "exposition". Rather than seeing exposition as a particular and necessary function of the preacher, the "preacher" has become the mere "expositor," and as long as the exposition of the text is accomplished, then the preacher fulfills his role. This could be an overstatement, I'll admit. However, it seems accurate in my estimation.
Modern preaching's biblicist tendencies and bias towards expositional preaching has produced, I believe, a subtle arrogance amongst its adherents. While this view stands to uphold the authority of Scripture and see it taught faithfully, I often feel a weariness towards it. Throughout my life, I have heard "expository preaching" praised, esteemed, promoted, and spoken of as if it were the only suitable means of delivering a sermon. Churches that don't preach in this way are often met with glances of rejection or distrust. And yet, one glance at church history will provide nearly 2000 years of preachers who did not strictly fit this mold. Just read a few of Augustine's Christmas sermons on the incarnation. So why the incessant emphasis upon this form of preaching? Why such rigidity to this standard? Why so opposed and distrustful of other modes of interpretation or other styles of articulation? Is preaching truly mere exposition of the text?
So I am most curious, Michael, to hear your thoughts on how you believe the church can "reform" her ways! What must be done (or what can be done) to reestablish the sacredness and authority of the pulpit?
I'll end this with one objection to this discussion.
Preachers who preach expositionally often lean upon this biblical text:
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but sit shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:10-11)
This is a powerful promise in Scripture, and the preacher does well to lean upon it as he prepares to deliver a sermon. Yet, it is here that some would object to the notion that the pulpit could be void of vitality, authority, and power. I have often heard this text quoted and explained to mean that as long as God's word is "faithfully preached" (that is, preached according to the original intent of the author and unto the glory of God), then it WILL be effective in those who hear it because God has promised that his word will not return void. I may be misrepresenting, but I believe they would say that its effectiveness does not depend upon the preacher but only upon if it is faithfully preached. This means that as long as the Scripture is accurately and faithfully exposited, then that sermon will be effective in the lives of the people. I have heard one pastor critique one old author (E. M. Bounds I believe?) for saying something along the lines that there is the possibility that a pastor could preach without the power of the Holy Spirit, and he rejected this idea by quoting this passage.
Therefore, the objection would be that the power, authority, and vitality of preaching lies not so much in the preacher but in the Word of God. It is less in the "office" and more in the Scriptures themselves. The Holy Spirit always accompanies the preached Word to make it effective, and this is why "expository preaching" is necessary because it, more than other forms of preaching, seeks to faithfully proclaim the whole of God's Word. The Spirit "impresses divine truths" upon the listeners, and he does this when the Scriptures are faithfully and accurately taught in accordance with God's will. Any errors or failures of preaching lie in the unfaithful proclamation of the Word, which would seek to twist or corrupt God's truth, and that is why it is of the utmost importance to emphasize biblical exegesis and expository preaching in order to faithfully minister God's word.
You have probably heard this kind of objection, one that doubles down on expository preaching. How would you answer this??
Great work brother!
Thank you for this thoughtful post, it was a great read! I very much share similar thoughts and I also appreciate you using men from different theological convictions, it really strengthened your argument. Keep going strong!
Thank you so much for your kind words! I’m really glad to know there are others who share similar thoughts!