The Myth of Expository Preaching & the Commodification of the Word
Thursday, June 29, 2006
I believe there is a myth surrounding expository preaching among N. American evangelicals. It goes like this: if the preacher follows the text more closely in his preaching, both he/she and the congregation will stay true to the Word of God. No other agendas or human wisdom will slither into the preaching. Implied is, if the preacher but applies the exegetical historical-critical skills (s)he learned in seminary and studies the text in its original language, aided by the Spirit, (s)he can arrive at the meaning of the text all by him/herself. Expository preaching, done right (with good exegesis), sticks to the already existing stable perspicuous meaning in the text. Interpretation therefore comes second and can only follow the text. In this way, expository preaching allows God’s Word to drive the message and any interpretation is automatically subordinated to it. This is the mythology I believe is behind expository preaching in the evangelical world.
I label this a mythology. Why? Well first of all, historical-critical methods in the hands of individuals have not yielded a singular consensus meaning as “intended by the author” in over 100 years. Instead what we have is thousands of commentaries on books of the Bible that present numerous unresolved options for interpreting grammatical lexical issues for practically every verse in the Bible. Historical critical exegesis hasn’t generated more unity over Scriptural interpretation, it has generated less. The reality therefore is that what guides interpretation is not scientific individual interpretation of the text. It is the broad consensus interpretation for the Biblical texts found in the ongoing history of church doctrine. The myth then that expository preaching based upon such exegesis is more true to the text is simply not true. There is plenty room for all kinds of human interpretation even in expository preaching.
Secondly, even if we could agree that each individual mind under the Holy Spirit can come to the one propositional meaning of the text using exegesis, we cannot assume then that these truths as communicated by the preacher will necessarily be heard as the same thing to the isolated hearer in the pew when (s)he hears them. As Derrida reminds us, repetition never leads to the "same." Each idea is heard in terms of each hearer's context. The person in the pew takes notes, selects what he or she hears for special notation, and walks away with "the nugget" for the day that can best support his or her current life or context. Every preacher knows the experience of greeting people after church who thank him/her for what the sermon meant to her, which the preacher is stunned to then hear is something totally different than (s)he had intended. The hearer hears through the grid he or she walked in with. So even if there were a stable authorial meaning inherent to the text, it still could not be communicated in the ways expository preaching assumes - one individual speaking to isolated individual minds hearing all the same thing. We might say that the Spirit covers all these ills of expository preaching. But in Acts and elsewhere in the NT we find that the testing of the spiirt happens as a community in conversation. It happens in the words "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28).
The uncovering of this myth leads me to what I find most disturbing about expository preaching in churches of N. America. And that is the excessive individualism that is promoted by the assumptions that undergird expository preaching. Expository preaching can actually encourage the person in the pew to be isolated from further conversation and testing of the Scriptures within the congregation (1 John 4:1) This is because expository preaching commodifies the Word. It carefully dissects the text into three (stereotypically) points and an application, which is then offered to the parishioner as the means to further her Christian life. The person sits isolated in the pew encouraged to take notes, analyze, digest the sermon, rarely giving the Amen. The sermon is crafted to give the individual an application to go home, apply and do to become a better Christian. Expository preaching operates under the assumption that the congregation (or radio listeners) is composed of individual Cartesian selves isolated and separated from each other yet capable of listening and receiving truth as information from the pulpit. And so the expository preacher commoditizes the Scripture putting it at the disposal of the user in the pew. He/she makes the text into an object to be dissected, cut up into three points, and distributed in "nuggets" by the preacher to be used by the parishioner to improve his or her Christian living, and/or to receive salvation. By default such a sermon cannot help but situate the parishioner so that (s)he is in control of the Scriptures because it is the parishioner who decides whether, how and what to consume in the preaching. Ironically, as the expository preacher carefully follows the text in his preaching, the center of control for the meaning of Scripture has shifted from Scripture to the autonomous mind of the listening parishioner. The parishioner's ego remains firmly in tact governing her consumption of the Word as he/she returns home with what he/she thinks she heard or wanted to hear. And the preacher seeks comfort that somehow the Holy Spirit works in mysterious and unsuspecting ways and His "word shall not return void."
Expository preaching therefore assumes that Christian growth happens individually and cognitively. Growth in Christian living happens like this: the believer in the pew hears the sermon, takes notes and an application point. (S)he then goes home to apply it in everyday life. Sanctification happens through the cognitive mind digesting a “truth” which then enables the mind to tell the body to do it. And as the sermon applications pile up from week to week, and the believer loses ground week to week, the expository sermon becomes the wellspring of yet another works-righteousness.
And so I fear, that in the large evangelical lecture halls of our day, thousands sit and listen, take notes, selectively hear what they will hear and then they leave ice cold never having been confronted with the life changing proclamation of the Lordship of Christ over their lives. The Word has become information to be used for my life as it is. And it all feeds the evangelical culture of arrogance that we know the Word because the preacher follows the propositions of the text.
What I have said above is a pretty heavy indictment. Some might imply that I don’t believe preaching is any longer possible in the postmodern worlds. But for me, nothing could be further from the truth. Some might also argue the same problem could be said about topical preaching. I would say expository preaching could be more dangerous because it carries a myth of being “truer” to God’s word.” There are those who respond to all of this by dismissing the role of traditional preaching in the church altogether. Or there are some who respond with attempts to democratize preaching (which I think Doug Pagitt could be fairly accused of). Against all of this, I believe we desperately need the preaching of the Word in the church today. But we need preaching done, not as isolated individuals, but in and of community of the Spirit. In this regard I believe that the criticizers of modernity must be heard regarding our practices of preaching. And so in my next post, I will talk about how we must reshape and restore the proclamation of the gospel in the church gathering amidst post modernity. (And I have of course already dealt extensively with this subject in The Great Giveaway ch. 5).
Posted by David Fitch | 2:32 PM
COMMENTS:
I agree with you about expository preaching. I haven't read pagitt's book on the subject but I actually love the idea of utilizing many different people with different giftings to construct a "series" of services (not necessarily just the "preaching" portion which I find highly overrated in its own right). I think we should use the ingenuity God has given us to reach the actual goal of preaching in the first place (and perhaps that's where leaders need to start - asking the question, WHY am I preaching and WHY am I preaching this way?)
good stuff!
5:10 PM
David,
Thanks for your post.
I could not agree with you less, however.
I do not think you have accurately defined expository preaching. It looks to me like you are taking all the possible ills of what is called expository preaching, lumping them together and suggesting that this is what it always looks like.
But genuine expository preaching has been around for centuries, and I could offer another analysis that looks entirely different. The best of this preaching has resulted in the Reformation, modern missions, growing and healthy churches, and the salvation of untold millions.
I will try to check back here in the future - I only have a second right now - but I think if you are going to make these kinds of sweeping judgments you ought to defend them by more than personal experience or just what you think. Deomonstrate this is true 90% of the time and I will listen. As it is, I hope you get to sit under some of the wonderful, Spirit-empowered, soul-changing (Romans 12:1-2 style) preaching that I have been blessed by over the years.
Far from becoming "the wellspring of yet another works-righteousness" as you suggest, real expository preaching is most often the catalyst to the very finest blessings of our Lord.
As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”
In His Grace,
Paul Martin
5:26 PM
Dave,
You said: "But we need preaching done, not as isolated individuals, but in and of community of the Spirit."
I'd like to see this part unpacked more. What does it mean to have preaching "in and of community of the Spirit?" Also, what role does exegetical work and such still play in this kind of preaching, if any? Perhaps you'll be unpacking this in the future (I confess I haven't really read this part of your book yet)
Kerux,
You said: "I do not think you have accurately defined expository preaching. It looks to me like you are taking all the possible ills of what is called expository preaching, lumping them together and suggesting that this is what it always looks like."
Could you please be more specific as to what you think good expository preaching looks like and how it escapes the traps that Dave has claimed it falls into? I'm not asking to be combative, I just want more clarity here.
Thanks to both of you,
Gordon
8:21 PM
David:
I love your chapter on preaching in the book, which covers some of the same ground. I especially appreciate the part about individualism.
Some issues I've been thinking through:
"Well first of all, historical-critical methods in the hands of individuals have not yielded a singular consensus meaning as “intended by the author” in over 100 years." - True, but I think there is often a pretty narrow range of consensus meanings. Most times when I prepare to preach, there is relative clarity on most passages in terms of the broad meaning of the passage. I'd like to hear more about this (and I want to read Vanhoozer's book on this issue).
"We cannot assume then that these truths as communicated by the preacher will necessarily be heard as the same thing to the isolated hearer in the pew when (s)he hears them. As Derrida reminds us, repetition never leads to the 'same.' Each idea is heard in terms of each hearer's context." This is true and it applies to all communication, not just preaching. Although again, functionally, there is a range, and relationship (a necessary part of community) helps answer this. Even within a "a community in conversation" this danger is present - but I like where you're going in your move away from individualism.
I look forward to reading your second post and exploring Vanhoozer's book in relation to your ideas.
5:50 AM
Thanks again David. Not being a trained pastor or nothin', I'd like to hear a bit more about what on earth is "topical preaching" as distinguised from expository preaching (I also haven't yet gotten to this part of your book). I've sort of noticed this expository preacing thing growing up, but not had a name or source for it. Didn't really like it, either. I find it interesting and appropriating that most all of the criticisms of your blog seem come from the illusory "modern viewpoint". For anyone who reads that last sentence and is offended, I don't mean that you are living an illusion...uhh..kinda' complicated; not meant as an indictment. Thanks again, David.
Jason
11:48 AM
David, I agree with your observations because I presume you are thinking of the typical viewpoint on expository preaching. No doubt there are some who are humbly trying to exeget the text as best they can in the context of community and with the many other gifts coming in to play. However, I'd say the usual American rugged individualism is the way for most folks who feel "all we need to see is what the bible says."
3:07 PM
I personally believe we need to rethink the role and style of preaching period. I believe there is ingenuity that can come into play to actually better accomplish the goal of what it means to "preach" or "teach" in the first place.
2:13 PM
In Bible school I remember having an epiphany in Greek class. I forget the passage but there was a verse which lingistically could be interpreted in a couple of ways but the prof insisted on his meaning. I understood at that moment that we all have agendas when it comes to God's Word and will interpret it according to a particular grid we bring with us to the table, albeit conservative or liberal.
5:09 AM
It is interesting that you say "Historical critical exegesis hasn’t generated more unity over Scriptural interpretation, it has generated less." This is not true. The reason that there are so many opinions on what the Biblical texts means is that people often bring different approaches to the text, different hermenutical and philosophical assumptions that guide how they interpret the text. However, if one is guided by a historical grammatical, analogy of faith - scripture interprets scripture, canonical approach whereby the Scriptures are understood as the inerrant inspired Word of the Living God (following Jesus on this), with a heart to understand the mind of the Spirit, then I think you will find much more agreement among these types of bibilical commentators than you think. The biblical text has something objective to communicate, and I think you are treading on a logical falacy here, that because there are so many opinions there is no right opinion and all of the opinions or even applications are equally okay. Blessings on you,
Nick
6:01 PM
You said that "Expository preaching therefore assumes that Christian growth happens individually and cognitively." However, doesn't the Scripture teach this, that Christian growth starts cognitively; we are "transformed by the renewing of our mind" (Romans 12:2), that our new selves are "being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator" (Colossians 3:10), and "I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you" (Psalm 119:11).
6:11 PM
A definition of expository preaching:
"Expository preaching is the communication of a biblical concept, derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, and literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience of the preacher, then through the preacher, applies to the hearers" [Haddon Robinson, "Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages, Second edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 21].
4:14 PM
Before one rejects expository preaching straight out, I would highly recommend listening to some good expositors and then make one's judgment. Some fine examples of expository preaching can be found here:
John Stott: www.allsouls.org
Biblical Preaching: http://www.biblicalpreaching.info/sermons.php
David Short from St. John's Shaughnessy Anglican Church:
http://www.stjohnsshaughnessy.org/downloadcenter/downloadcenter.php?function=showcategory&categoryid=21
5:12 PM
Some good books on expository preaching:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/R24O18DH0YA8CS/102-6071632-5116966
Blessings,
Nick
5:24 PM
Manual trackback:
Transforming Sermons
"Shortcomings of Expository Preaching"
http://transformingsermons.blogspot.com/2006/07/shortcomings-of-expository-preaching.html
If you visit this blog very often you probably know I'm a strong proponent of expository preaching. On the other hand, David Fitch is blogging these days about its shortcomings.
6:08 PM
Thanks for the great post, David.
Just so you know my background, I'm a 23 year old Religion Studies major at Marylhurst University in Oregon.
You wrote, "The person in the pew takes notes, selects what he or she hears for special notation, and walks away with "the nugget" for the day that can best support his or her current life or context." I agree with you. The mind of the N. American is conflicted. We are constantly bombarded with systems of thought that are contrary to our beliefs (that is, if we allow ourselves to go out in to the world on a regular basis). The "nugget" received during an expository message is often a short-term fix long a long-term problem - the problem of faith. The attitude of faith is to relax - or rest in - the truth. And it seems as though many people need this sort of definitive style of preaching to feel secure about the faith that they have chosen. I am of the opinion that this process is causing us to miss out on some incredible opportunities to investigate our beliefs and challenge one another to deepen our faith and strengthen our communities.
11:20 AM
Hi David,
First, let me say I appreciate your candor and honesty, and your heart, which I sense is really seeking after God's own heart.
However, I must disagree with some of what I infer from your writing. I know of a church where the senior pastor preaches for 45 or so minutes. He will read one passage of a verse or two, then he will go on and on telling one inspirational story after another, or talk about something happening in the current news, or talk about his family. In this process, he will interpret these events based on his understanding of the scripture he just read, but to me it sounds like nothing more than rewrapped pop-psychology - God can make you feel better about yourself, "be all you can be by unlocking your divine potential," etc. Most people come away inspired. But what about God being at the center of their affections. No, they come away feeling better about themselves, or with their minds set on some task they have to do. e to the Word of God.
I am now sitting under a great expository preacher, whom I listen to on the radio, of all places. This man takes every verse and looks at it in great depth - context, original intent of the author, and original language. Do I come away from these sermons cold? No, I am challenged to live differently. But it is different from the first pastor mentioned. I have a reverence for God's glory and a renewed love for His inspired Word which, though it was written with specific intention thousands of years ago, has said something fresh and specific to me today, thanks to the Holy Spirit. Is it the fault of this preaching if I do not obey that which I have heard? (I can't answer an obvious question here. Okay fine, absolute not.)
I am tired of small groups where people sit around, read a verse or two, then pass the baton asking, "What does that mean to you?" "Oh, how about you?" "Okay, let's pray." If there is a God, and His word is inspired, then there was some intent in it. Now, that is not to say God cannot bring it alive today. Hebrews 4:12 makes it clear He can. But sitting around and putting our two cents doesn't do justice to the Word. Can the Holy Spirit invade that time? Of course. But that, I am convinced, is not His ideal will. He wants us to "study and show ourselves approved."
Christians today are lazy with the Word. But condemnation should not be placed on the preaching or the preacher for this(though not every preacher is of God). The blame, the shortcoming, falls on the Christian himself who is too lazy to set aside time to sit and really grapple with Word of God.
I tell you, God has challenged me to love Him, His word and the world he came to save more through expository preaching than any Christian psycho-babble or pop-theology I hear today, or any fruitless group discussion. And in sharing what I am learning through expository preaching and exegesis, others have been challenged to pursue a deeper faith and obedience to God's word.
I have never been of the persuasion that since something is old and has been used for decades or even centuries, it is the proven way. I don't believe that. But I also cannot subscribe to a view that, because we live in a post-modern world, we can completely discard all things from previous generations. Surely, methods and form must submit to Spirit, but throwing away the teachings of old would be foolishness to a younger generation.
I'm looking forward to reading your next posting you mentioned. Thanks for taking the time to write these things. Blessings to you in your ministry.
Ron
1:27 PM
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
6:19 AM
Challenging thoughts.
11:32 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home