This, from Iain Murray, on the topic of expository preaching. Much to chew on:
Why has this view of ‘expository preaching’ become comparatively popular? There are several reasons. First, it is believed that the practice will raise the standard of preaching. By a consecutive treatment of a book of Scripture, it is said, the preacher is taken away from any hobby-horses, and congregations are more likely to be given a broader, more intelligent, grasp of all Scripture. The preacher is also delivered from a constant search for texts – he and the people know what is before them. These reasons are perhaps confirmed for younger preachers by the fact that at our main conventions and conferences the well-known speakers commonly deal with one passage in a few addresses, and when these find their way into print they are taken as models of the best way of preaching. Published sermons of any other kind are few and far between for publishers definitely favour the ‘expository’ on the grounds of their popularity.
In our view, however, it is time that the disadvantages of this view of preaching are at least considered:
Related Articles
9 users responded in this post
Steve… Great reminder. However, expository preaching, as the article assumes, is not simply preaching through book series — it is the way one handles Scripture in their preaching. Hence I think expository preaching is essential… as a discipline…
Just yesterday I read something similar here:
http://biblicalpreaching.net/2010/05/30/drumroll-please/
… that concluded:
“Expository preaching involves both a commitment to preaching the true and exact meaning of the preaching text in context, and a commitment to do so emphasizing its relevance to the listeners present. It is not either/or, it is both/and.
This article set up a false dichotomy between two expositional preachers and urged churches to preach through books. As a default, I would probably agree with the importance of preaching through books, but when I choose to preach a series made up of texts taken from various places, I will still preach expository messages (because – did I say this already? – expository preaching is not defined by preaching through books).”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Steve Wood, drewcollins. drewcollins said: : Ian Murray questions expository preaching.RT @revstevewood: New post: Expository Preaching: Time for Caution http://bit.ly/bsLlem [...]
Francis Frangipane always prays before his teaching that we would be wanting “transformation and not information” and I think that this is a significant distinction. We are struggling to find a church where transformation is the goal. hearts change brains, not the other way around.
Very interesting – enjoyed reading that…
I think Rick missed the point. The Lord is the only one who can change the heart. We get them to come the to come to then to come to believe.
Are if the Lord wants he gets them at stage one
A young preacher’s mother once said, “I love that suppository preachin’ that you do, Son.” True story! ;o)
I have a high degree of respect for Iain Murray, know that he is coming from a different context than we (Anglican/Episcopal are), and appreciate the need to define terms and understandings.
All that being said, I disagree with his main premise. Who or what causes a sermon to be enlightening or exciting? What mechanism or preparation (as Murray suggests) causes little children to listen rather than draw? I believe that it is the very preaching of the word of God that is thrilling and that lights fires and illumines hearts. Expository preaching is what the Episcopal/Anglican world needs most not more gimicks and narratives. The lectionary alone dulls the mind to the very structure and context of the Bible. It eliminates the difficult and controversial passages. I also reject the idea that evangelistic preaching goes out of the window in expository preaching. How can you miss preaching the cross when working through any of Paul’s letters?
I love Piper’s definition of preaching: “expository exultation.”
Greg & Shay, I posted the article because I thought it provocative – especially coming from someone like Iain Murray.
I follow a similar approach to that which Greg identified. We usually preach through at least one book of the Bible every year – often the fall sermon series. Then we follow up with an expositional – and integrative (showing the thread of related texts running through Scripture) – approach to a topical series.