Most of us would say that a lot of what is called expository preaching isn't. Spurgeon is a good case in point. He may deal with a text, but not a portion. Others use the text as an excuse to preach on a topic.
So what do we mean by expository preaching? The point of the sermon is the point of the text, usually involving 3 verses to a chapter. The text is outlined in some fashion, its meaning and intent explained, and then applied. That definition, while unpolished, should do for our poll.
This stands in contrast to topical preaching, evangelistic preaching, and textual preaching (usually a verse or two). All these forms of preaching overlap, and some sermons are more expository than others. This is not a perfect science.
Also, most pastors preach a variety of styles of sermon, but major in one that they preach most of the time. We are talking most (at least 51%) of the time.
How important is this to you? Would you be comfortable in a church that did not feature expository preaching as the norm? Or is it overblown?
Rick Warren says Jesus preached topical sermons. I don't agree. Most of his preaching was an example of Midrash, trying to squeeze and apply the meaning out of verses and passages. Although not exactly expository preaching, he was grappling with texts.
In my first book, The Midrash Key, I demonstrate how much of the Sermon on the Mount is an exposition of several portions of Deuteronomy and Leviticus (for example, Leviticus 19:9-18). So to me, expository preaching (done right) is very important.
So where are you on this? Is the quest for expository preaching just a phase of the evangelical movement? Share your thoughts, if you so desire.