Back when I was in college, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the Abilene Christian University Lectureship was in its heyday. Attendance was high, and the quality of teaching was excellent. Churches of Christ across a wide spectrum of our brotherhood supported the event.
It was a Wednesday evening lecture. I think I remember who gave it, but I’m not sure so I won’t name him. But I remember well the concerns he expressed. He felt that churches of Christ were getting soft in many doctrinal areas, and he placed the blame squarely on expository preaching. There were certain vital doctrines, he sustained, that could only be taught via topical sermons.
At that time, I thought to myself: “If it can’t be taught expositorily, it doesn’t need to be taught.” Though I’ve changed my mind on a lot of things over the years, I still feel that sentiment is accurate. If we can’t teach something supporting it with a full text, then maybe we aren’t teaching what the Bible says.
Is that going too far? Some, for example, might point out that some major themes can be present in an entire book, yet not be shown easily from just one passage. Others might argue that it takes many different verses to properly shed the light on a given subject.
What do you think?
I think it has a lot to do with a persons strengths and gifts. I try a mixed approach. At times dealing with topics while in others looking at books.
One thing that helps is not trying to make sure every message has three points.
p.s. I also try to remember that the text is often written because of very specific topics.
I agree, Darin, that different sermons will call for different approaches. My concern is those subjects that CAN’T be taught expositorily. Is it a legitimate rule of thumb to say that if you can’t teach it through the expository study of the text, then it shouldn’t be taught?
This is the classic debate between preaching Gospel or preaching text. Not sure one really can break it down so easily, but this debate is not about preaching the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) but preaching the great themes of the text. While preaching text focuses on the specifics of the text. Of course the best answer is “preach both.” Another note, funny that people were scare of expository preaching. Whatever is new is usually rejected.
Tim,
On the whole i think i quite agree with you. But what do you think about this: Many of the books (NT especially) were prompted by particular issues and concerns. Specific issues at the Corinthian church prompted Paul to write what he did, say it the way he did, and have the purpose he had in mind. And to really understand what Paul is saying, expository seems best. So far, so good.
But what about the fact that oftentimes we (any given church today) may not be in those same circumstances or dealing with precisely those issues? Does the fact that we may be facing issues and circumstances which differ in significant ways from the 1st century churches allow that we might need messages or teachings arranged in a way different from the way they were arranged in any of the NT books? In other words, does the fact that our social/cultural/historical/immediate-concern context may be quite different from, say, Corinth–does that allow at all that some topics/themes/issues are best and most efficiently preached to us topically/thematically rather than expositorily?
i have slight intuitions to answer “yes,” and that’s the only big reason why i’d have pause about agreeing with you all the way (though at the end of the day, i think i do).
–guy
Matthew,
I know that one of my friends had a professor that said if you preach through a book expositorily, you are only preaching a series of topical sermons. He insisted that the only way to really bring out what biblical books were saying was to present the themes of the books.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I am curious as to exactly what “doctrinal areas” the speaker was concerned about. Were they grace, faith, repentance, living the new life? Or were they the length of a woman’s hem line, clapping in worship, and the dreaded dilution of the inspired Scriptures by the NIV. I overstate my case to illustrate it – I know many who bemoan the lack of doctrinal preaching and they are the worst offenders.
I recently spent a month discussing the topic of Grace, and ended up far more frustrated than I started because I simply did not have the time to cover what I really wanted to cover. I used as Eph. 2 as a primary “expository” text, but then moved from there.
In short, I agree with Tim. The further you wander from expository preaching the closer you get to personal opinion and preaching one’s hobbies and pet peeves. Expository preaching, if done well, covers that which is necessary, and if done honestly, forces us to reexamine our previous beliefs. There is a place for topical preaching, but it is far smaller than is usually believed, and the dangers of topical preaching generally far outweigh its usefulness.
Thanks for the question, Tim.
Guy,
My initial thought is that contextualization needs to happen at the application stage. We look at what Paul (for example) said to his readers in their situation, look for similarities or differences, then apply the principles to our own situation.
Would it be fair to say that we allow the text to define the themes, though not necessarily the specific application of those themes?
I’m also realizing that as much as presentation, I’m thinking about study. Maybe that’s what I’m having trouble with.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Ah, yes, i think your distinction between study and presentation is importnat. I think generally trying to study topically opens up a lot of danger toward biblicism (it’s all just one book, we can treat words and topics between different authors as completely interchangeable, the meaning of every statement in the Bible is timeless and universal, every “you” in the Bible means or necessarily includes *me*, etc.).
But something i’ve been thinking about lately is stuff like this: What are the major emphases of the NT writers? What seems to be their ‘priority list’? That ultimately seems topical or thematic to me even if it would begin with a series of expository treatments.
(But i think i agree with Paul Smith’s sentiment above–it sounds as though some fear expository preaching because they can’t find a way to fit their personal ax-grinding or hobby-horse-riding into that methodological framework.)
–guy
I too agree with you Tim. Historically coc preaching has been largely topical. Many topical sermons start with a conclusion and then time is spent verifying the conclusion.
Not everyone can do expository work, it’s hard work. I think the healthiest preaching for a local church is book by book, verse by verse. Every doctrine will be potentially taught and every sin potentially covered. Topical preaching is much less likely to teach listeners well rounded theology. Topical preaching conveniently ignores far too much Scripture.
The worst thing to come along is preachers who regularly preach some else’s material, and otlften without giving credit. Some appear to have never had an original thought.
If a text is not personal, has not gripped my heart, why should I expect to be able to speak on it with conviction and authority?
I find there are uses for both, with the best topical studies incorporating elements of expository study. Word studies come to mind, as do some topics that really don’t have a ton dedicated to them at any one time but, when looking through Scripture, we find a lot is actually said (such as the tongue, issues concerning how we dress). I grew up strict NICOC and can recall very few expository lessons outside of Old Testament book studies. When it got to New Testament studies, especially doctrine, it was all topical. As I came to see after I started questioning and studying on my own, a lot of these “topics” were what I call “end point” studies, where the person had an “end point” or conclusion in mind, then backtracked through the Scriptures to prove his point.