Jeremy Sweatt discusses results of new survey of young fundamentalists
Questions posed to “young fundamentalists” (30 respondents; oldest aged 39). Introduction to that content starts about 8 minutes in.
- What books have you read recently?
- Who are your favorite authors and what makes their work appealing to you?
- If you had the money and freedom to attend any conference you want, where would you go? About half did no respond to the question. “They fellowship in a different way than you and I do. They fellowship every day through…” (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) “The allure of the conference has waned in large part.”
- If you could sit down with 3 men who have been in ministry for 20 years or more who would they be and what would you ask them? 27 different men. “The number one man named was Dr. Chuck Phelps.”
- What is a fundamentalist?
- What troubles you most about fundamentalism as a movement or group (28 minutes in)? Majoring on the minors… judgmental edge… loudness about secondary issues… criticism of men who are Christ centered but have differences in application. Tendency of young fundamentalists to jump from one fad to another. Divide between generations.
- From your observation of the world today who is best example of a biblical fundamentalist? 16 men listed. Top three: Chuck Phelps, Sam [Unclear: Horn? Harbin? ], Will Galkin
- How would you describe the ideal pulpit ministry? “Expository preaching.”
- What does biblical separation mean to you? “From the world… from unrepentant brethren… from disobedient.” No response that indicates “secondary separation.” (Question from the floor regarding what secondary separation is. Sweatt seems to be using an unusual definition.) Discusses why isn’t John MacArthur going to be at T4G 2012? Quotes Phil Johnson on this. Gist: doesn’t like the direction T4G is headed.
- Under what conditions would you separate?
- What has surprised you about ministry?
- 56 views
Anne, I agree.
There is certainly a place for expository preaching, but we must also have application from the pulpit - my pastor calls it “discipleship preaching”. Systematic theology - the implications of all of Scripture on a particular topic must also be brought to bear on the text. I haven’t listened to MacArthur enough to know how he deals with the text from a systematic perspective, but I have heard exegetical preaching where the application contradicts what was taught in a previous chapter - I’m not making that charge against MacArthur, just stating it as a weakness of the approach.
There is certainly a place for expository preaching, but we must also have application from the pulpit - my pastor calls it “discipleship preaching”. Systematic theology - the implications of all of Scripture on a particular topic must also be brought to bear on the text. I haven’t listened to MacArthur enough to know how he deals with the text from a systematic perspective, but I have heard exegetical preaching where the application contradicts what was taught in a previous chapter - I’m not making that charge against MacArthur, just stating it as a weakness of the approach.
formerly known as Coach C
Joshua, I’m not sure why you would say “there is certainly a place for expository preaching, but we must also have application from the pulpit”, as if expository preaching does not include application. It most certainly should. It should also seek to present a balanced approach to Scripture. Lack of application or contradictory systematic theology are not weaknesses of expository preaching, but rather of poor preaching in general.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
We’ve wandered from topic a bit, but…
I agree w/Greg that it’s just lousy preaching if it doesn’t include application. Good preaching of any kind includes that.
But once in a while it does seem like you have to target a specific local problem from the pulpit, maybe devote a message or two to just about nothing but application. When I do that (which is rare), there isn’t much exposition going on. I always make sure the exposition occurs—either at the beginning or has happened repeatedly in the past. So it’s not just “application” hanging on nothing.
But on these occasions, the preaching isn’t what I’d call “expository” either.
Experience tells me that in a healthy pulpit ministry, that sort of application-dominant preaching (usually *very* topical) is the exception and not the rule.
I agree w/Greg that it’s just lousy preaching if it doesn’t include application. Good preaching of any kind includes that.
But once in a while it does seem like you have to target a specific local problem from the pulpit, maybe devote a message or two to just about nothing but application. When I do that (which is rare), there isn’t much exposition going on. I always make sure the exposition occurs—either at the beginning or has happened repeatedly in the past. So it’s not just “application” hanging on nothing.
But on these occasions, the preaching isn’t what I’d call “expository” either.
Experience tells me that in a healthy pulpit ministry, that sort of application-dominant preaching (usually *very* topical) is the exception and not the rule.
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.
Discussion