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).

In a recent piece by Brian McLaren on his website entitled “Emergent Reflections, Spring 2006,” Brian carries out an analysis of the current conversations surrounding ecclesiology and the emerging churches. He surveys the often-contentious debates going on and executes an analysis using two of his best trademarks: a.) his ability to summarize broad observations with a list, which seeringly proves his point without explicitly making it, and b.) his crafty ability to make the conciliatory gesture, which takes the edge off of each opposing side defusing the polarization which makes way for open conversation. Brian is a genius of the conciliatory gesture. In “Emergent Reflections” Brian surveys the ways people are taking up sides on ecclesiological concerns within Emerging circles. He then proposes “above the line” solutions that avoid the pitfalls of ”taking up sides.” Of course, as with much of Brian’s writing, we might feel he has left us with no definite solutions and again left the answers wide open. Nonetheless, I must admit, I have learned much from reading this piece, and I admit to be being very close to being convinced.

In the end however, I just cannot go all the way with Brian on his conclusions in “Emergent Reflections, Spring 2006.” What I can do is applaud the way Brian keeps us from polarizing the conversation. This is vintage McLaren. What I cannot do is leave the current debates this wide open without some specific direction I feel SOME OF US need in the current ecclesiological situation we find ourselves in, i.e. the situation where modernity is breaking down in specific parts of U.S.A. and Canada. I agree with Brian that we need by all means to prevent more polarizing debates in evangelicalism and American Christianity in general. Please, let us have no more fundamentalist graceless finger pointing! Yet we also need some specific direction for those us asking “how do we go on” after the consensus of modernity (which evangelicalism and mainline Protestantism was built upon) has disintegrated. Is there an approach whereby we can be both “generous” yet specific for our time and place for those of us who find ourselves in places post-modern?

Brian’s “above the line” solutions, as best I can tell from A New Kind of Christian, are solutions that go beyond the standard rational either/or solutions of modern thinking. For him this is the third way, thinking “outside the box,” a more “generous orthodoxy.” Sometimes it looks like compromise or a “both/and” solution, although I don’t think that is what Brian intends. For Hans Frei, who first coined the term, such a “generous orthodoxy” (p.208) is a way of transcending outmoded liberal-evangelical dichotomies. This “generous orthodoxy” resists compromise or even the both/and solutions because these kinds of solutions keep the framing of the issues within Enlightenment based thinking. For Frei, “generous orthodoxy” solutions ask us to think solutions in terms of linguistically constructed particular worlds (in particular the historically embodied narrative world of Scripture), not universal objective enlightenment reason. It asked us to think not in terms of “what is universally true,” but “how can I be faithful to what I have been given particularly (historically) in my space and time in Jesus Christ.” If this is true, “generous orthodoxy” solutions might be able to be both thankful to others for what they have done in their time and space (for example modernity of the West) while at the same time acknowledging we must discern how best “to go on” in the specific time and place we have been given. Instead of both/and or compromise third way solutions, these solutions would like like : Thank you for _______ , Now let us see that for us _______ . These kind of solutions would be graceful towards other Christian brothers and sisters in their time and space, yet give discernment for how to go on in the here and now for those us struggling with post Christendom, post modernity and post anything else for that matter. These kind of solutions have the advantage of being both graceful and directive. They keep the conversation open yet not suspended in air.

What might this look like? Well let me take a few of Brian’s “above the line solutions” from “Emergent Reflections: Spring 2006” and recast them. For instance in “1. Above the line on organization and leadership” Brian says we need to be careful both in regards to impersonal large forms of organization as well as small chaotic disorganization that is allergic to all forms of organization. We need to learn from both. What I propose to say is “thank-you to those who managed the church successfully for the enormous chaotic lives of late modernity. Now let us see the empty vacuous-ness of modern over-busy consumeristic life, and that for us we must seek deeply the ways of the simple but profound servant leadership of Jesus for faithfulness in our time.” In “3. Above the line on decision and commitment,” Brian brilliantly says we need both decision and process in holistic spiritual formation. We should not castigate those manipulative ways of evangelism that produce a decision at all cost for Christ to the extent we throw out the role of decision altogether. I think I agree with Brian and suggest we phrase it “thank you for re-emphasizing the importance of personal commitment in a time when people had allowed their Christianity to be stale and uninvolved. Now let us see that for us in our time a decision can only make sense in a context and let us invite lost souls into our homes so that they might know what following Christ might even mean in real life.” In “4. Above the line about mega church and micro church,” Brian states that mega churches and micro churches have much to give and benefit from in cooperating with each other. I would like to say, “thank you to the mega churches for pushing us to think more about what it means to evangelize and contextualize. Now let us see that for us in our present context it is vitally important to be the church visibly and missionally in ways that demand we know each other, care for each other, engage the poor as a Body of Christ. This demands we get smaller.”

Maybe these examples don’t illustrate the subtlety I am pushing for. Maybe this is all semantics. Maybe I am slicing the differences between Brian and myself here too finely. Maybe there are other ways to avoid the polarizing debates while still pushing forward towards definitive direction in these postmodern times. This may only be a feeble attempt at addressing what appears to be the excessively open ended nature of emerging conversations. But I agree with Brian, we need to quit the polarizing dividing practices. I have probably been too guilty of this and am seeking a way forward. Thanks to Brian for pushing me on this!

In Emmanuel Katongole’s Beyond Universal Reason he talks about (actually how Hauerwas talks about) how novels, good fiction, biographies and auto-biographies provide ways to experience concretely the sort of lives formed by different stories without experimenting with one’s own life as well (p. 136). We benefit, in other words, by seeing how other narratives and accounts of reality bear fruit in the character of other people’s lives. We are able to test or prove the power of another one’s story without entering into its potential destruction for our own. I view this to be a telling and brilliant analysis of the way we sort out truth within the narrative worlds of a post-modern society. Having said this however, there is the danger of living only in fictional, semi fictional or, dare I say, cyber worlds given the fractured world of simulacra we live in today.

In an admittedly obscure footnote Katongole offers this thick bit of caution,

“Significant as it is, fictional contact can never be a surrogate for the hermeneutical necessity of actual contact with real people. This particularly needs to be stressed in the context of the technology- controlled world of cyberspace. In cyberspace, a lonely soul, the product of the modern market and liberal individualism, seeks engagement with the other, but without, however, the epistemological and moral challenge such a contact would normally have. No doubt, cyberspace may create certain feelings and thoughts, but only in a way which significantly detaches them from their ‘normal’ context in life. This means that one is neither able to be seriously challenged by, nor himself/herself able to help or hinder, benefit or harm, comfort or dismay, the other … “ (p.286)

Brilliant I say. Especially for a time such as this when church seems to be hyper-individualizing to the point of removing all serious contact between persons. I recently saw where entire churches are being founded on the web here and here among many examples. There is no space, time, flesh and blood meeting of people for worship or sending out. All of this happens in cyberspace. We might be quick to laugh this off as an extreme example. But there are some similar dangerous drifts possible in the swell of various means of cyber communication used to organize churches today in N. America. I contend we need to be aware of the dangers of hyper individualizing as the chat-rooms, blogs, instant e-mail technology, the onslaught of cell phone pod casts, wi-fi communication, proliferate as organizing forces in our churches. Indeed, we may be creating a copy of the church which is really not the church, i.e. a simulacrum of the church.

Once again, as always, I am not suggesting we dump the use of these tools altogether. I have admired the way certain churches and para church organizations have used “yahoo-group” conversations and chat rooms to facilitate communication. Our own church has greatly benefited from using these tools. But I believe we must ask these questions. For instance, we must ask, at what point do the ways we use e-mails to create communities for prayer request-sharing, and conversation-sharing create false community, a simulacrum of the church?

And so, this is the threat posed to the church by the endless parade of new communication technology. We risk setting up false simulacra of community, prayer, and even worship by centering it around the Internet which enables convenience but also enables us to never having to actually meet together. We set up false worlds where little or no prayer is actually going on, it just looks like it is going on. Worse, cyber engagements protect us in our own delusions. We rarely are challenged out of our own self-deception because we never are challenged morally or epistemologically by close contact with the other, as Katongole says.

In the end, there are reasons why we must physically gather, to physically lay hands on the sick in community (James 5.16). There are reasons why the most powerful moments happen when we engage one another’s physical presense sometimes in silence, sometimes only in listening, yet being present enough to speak genuine words of truth in love that build up, transform and heal another person by the Spirit (Eph 4:15,25-32; 5:8-13). There are reasons why Jesus is present when two or three are gathered in His name (Matt 18:18-20). There are physical social reasons why His special presense comes to us as we gather around the meal at the Lord’s Table. And so it almost goes without saying that all of this takes us beyond cyberworld and cyber-dispersed prayers? All of this is probably obvious. Yet I believe this level of community is growing ever more extinct among the worlds of cyberspace. I believe the small emerging house churches are one way of fighting this drift. At our church, we are continually fighting to make time for triads (places where three or more gather for these simple practices), house gatherings (times of sharing a meal and conversation together cross generationally), and social engagements with the poor. For these are the spaces out of where real life gives birth to real mission, real change in character gives birth to witness, real transformation of the soul gives birth to real engagement of the poor and the sick and the lonely.

How are others discerning the use of cyber-tools in your churches? How are others finding spaces for the physical contact with the other?