"The less ambitious, who also adopt the 'expository' mode, make no attempt to use single verses for their texts, and that is the danger that too easily turns preaching into a running commentary."
“But ‘expository preaching’ has often come to mean something more. The phrase is popularly used to describe preaching which consecutively takes a congregation through a passage, or book of Scripture, week by week.”
Interesting article by the man who wrote MacArthur’s biography. :)
The above is NOT an accurate description of expository preaching. The goal of true expository preaching is to show the inter-relationships of the various words, themes and concepts within a text — not simply to make it through a book of the Bible.
Thus one who preaches expositionally from a different passage of the Bible every week is an expository preacher (although this may not be the preferred way of doing it), while one who preaches consecutively through books of the Bible but uses each text as a springboard or an excuse for sharing what is on his mind that week is not an expositor (although he may at least be trying).
I do believe that there are occasions for something other than an expository sermon, but they should probably be few and far in between. There are very few men like Spurgeon or D. James Kennedy, both of whom could deliver spell-binding sermons week after week and manage to teach the Word of God somehow without really being expositors.
I think a better model to emulate in the contemporary realm is someone like David Jeremiah, who is pretty close to being a pure expositor (being from “old” Dallas Seminary) — and yet somehow seems to find a way to make most every sermon “memorable.”
Interesting article by the man who wrote MacArthur’s biography. :)
The above is NOT an accurate description of expository preaching. The goal of true expository preaching is to show the inter-relationships of the various words, themes and concepts within a text — not simply to make it through a book of the Bible.
Thus one who preaches expositionally from a different passage of the Bible every week is an expository preacher (although this may not be the preferred way of doing it), while one who preaches consecutively through books of the Bible but uses each text as a springboard or an excuse for sharing what is on his mind that week is not an expositor (although he may at least be trying).
I do believe that there are occasions for something other than an expository sermon, but they should probably be few and far in between. There are very few men like Spurgeon or D. James Kennedy, both of whom could deliver spell-binding sermons week after week and manage to teach the Word of God somehow without really being expositors.
I think a better model to emulate in the contemporary realm is someone like David Jeremiah, who is pretty close to being a pure expositor (being from “old” Dallas Seminary) — and yet somehow seems to find a way to make most every sermon “memorable.”
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Refraining from using single texts is not the problem behind running-commentary preaching. It’s lack of homiletical unity in the message. You can deliver a well unified msg on a single verse or on half a chapter, but you have to arrange your material to drive home a single point (hopefully one with a very close relationship to the point of the chunk of text you’re using!)
In over a decade of text-centered preaching, I doubt I’ve ever preached on a single verse… but I do not do running commentary.
In over a decade of text-centered preaching, I doubt I’ve ever preached on a single verse… but I do not do running commentary.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Good comments, Paul and Aaron.
I doubt Ian Murray could have adequately described expository to my glad acceptance either without undermining the point of his thought provoking article.
But when Ian Murray writes, I pay attention. Thanks.
I doubt Ian Murray could have adequately described expository to my glad acceptance either without undermining the point of his thought provoking article.
But when Ian Murray writes, I pay attention. Thanks.
Discussion